Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:49:24 -0400
Subject: Fifth Third Bank

I have been a Fifth Third banking customer for several years.

Recently I went to our local drive-thru to cash a check for $1500. I was met
with a sign that stated that the cashback limit at the drive-thru was $1000 and
to "please visit our lobby for transactions greater than $1000 cashback."

When I parked and walked to the lobby door I was met with another sign that said
that I could not enter while armed for self-defense. I had a choice, to risk
leaving defenseless with $1500 cash in a Criminal Protection Zone or, do what I
did, make two visits to the drive-thru for $750 each...

Annoyed, I wrote to the Customer Service Department about this problem and below
is the form letter response I got from someone who wouldn't even give their last name to a bank customer.

Thank you for using Fifth Third Banking and for providing us the opportunity to service your needs. In response to your recent inquiry, the safety of our customers is important to Fifth Third Bank. To limit the anxiety and concerns
of the majority of our customers, we have chosen not to allow the carrying of
concealed weapons in our banking centers.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your business and look
forward to serving you in the future. If you require any further assistance,
please email us 24 hours a day or contact a Customer Service Professional at
1-800-972-3030, Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 12:00 AM, ET,
Saturday or Sunday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, ET. At Fifth Third Bank, We're
"Working Hard To Be The Only Bank You'll Ever Need. ®"

Kathy H. Fifth Third Internet Banking

Needless to say, with this doubletalk, I'm shopping for a new bank!

Sincerely,

Robert Maroldy
2003 Ohio 'Defense' Walk Organizer

Related Story:
VICTIM ZONES: Three Columbus Fifth Thirds robbed in same day

August 25, 2004
Associated Press

Cincinnati - A man opened fire at a suburban Kmart, killing an employee and injuring a customer before fatally shooting himself, authorities said.

The shootings occurred after an altercation broke out about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in a Kmart in Colerain Township. Hamilton County sheriff's spokesman Steve Barnett said the gunman shot the store employee, 22-year-old Paul Heid, of Colerain Township, twice, and fled the store. Heid died at the scene.

Several people chased the suspect, and he fired several shots at them, hitting a customer, James P. Daly, 46, of Mount Healthy, Barnett said. Daly was in critical condition at University Hospital late Tuesday, the release said.

Commentary:
Steve Barnett, Hamilton County Sheriff's spokesman, said today that the shooter had no permit to carry the 9 mm semiautomatic handgun that was used in
the shooting. Faith had been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in 1997, Hamilton County court records show.

It is not yet known whether this KMart had posted itself as a victim zone, rendering customers defenseless. What is known is that KMart bars employees - like the deceased, Paul Heid - from their right to self-defense while at work.

What is also known is that KMart and its spokesperson Rosie O'Donnel have long taken a position against law-abiding gun owners.

align="right">
As customer James Daly has learned the hard way, it isn't wise to show up to a gun fight unarmed, and since there is no way to control when or where you may be attacked, the safest course of action is to be prepared.

When people suggest that you must be paranoid to carry all the time, when they say things like "don't you feel safe in our neighborhood?", respond that "it is not a matter of being scared but being prepared."

If we took a poll at 7:00 PM yesterday at KMart in Colerain Township, most KMart employees and customers entering the store would have said they felt safe and were not thinking about protection or violence.

If we took the same poll at 8:00 PM, the answers would have been significantly different.

Related Stories:
UNsafe: OH Workers' Comp bureaucrats advise ''ban''

What Business Owners Need to Know About CCW

Organizers for Ohioans For Concealed Carry's 1st Annual Picnic in the Park have announced the schedule for the September 4 event, which will include messages from OFCC President Jeff Garvas and OFCC PAC Chairman Jim Irvine. The keynote speaker is Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. A door prize drawing will also be held.

The complete schedule can be viewed by click "Read More..." link below.

The name of the individual described below has been publicized in brief
blurbs about the incident in a Cleveland Sun newspaper, but we have chosen
not to repeat it here.

For several weeks, Ohioans For Concealed Carry has been following the case
of a young CHL-holder whose has been abused not only by the terrible vehicle
carry provisions in Ohio law, but by the system responsible for enforcing
it.

On Thursday, August 5, the CHL-holder was a passenger in a vehicle that was
stopped for a traffic violation by a Chagrin Falls police officer.
The CHL-holder identified himself as a such to the officer, and announced
that he was carrying.

Upon so doing, the officer moved to the passenger side of the car and
ordered the CHL-holder to place his hands on the dash. When he did so, the
CHL-holder's shirt came loose and lifted up over his gun, which was
contained in an inside-the-waist-band holster.

The officer the accused the individual of not having his firearm in plain
sight, and confiscated the firearm and license. He was not, however,
charged or arrested at the time. This fact alone is cause for concern,
since Ohio law specifically states that unless a person is charged or
arrested, their firearm should be returned at the conclusion of the traffic
stop:

ORC 2923.12.(H) If a law enforcement officer stops a person to question
the person regarding a possible violation of this section, for a traffic
stop, or for any other law enforcement purpose, if the person surrenders a
firearm to the officer, either voluntarily or pursuant to a request or
demand of the officer, and if the officer does not charge the person with a
violation of this section or arrest the person for any offense, the person
is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm, and the
firearm is not contraband, the officer shall return the firearm to the
person at the termination of the stop.

The defendant later voluntarily appeared at the police department, where he was booked on a fifth-degree felony "plain sight" violation, and released on bond.

The city prosecutor and defense counsel came to an agreement where the
prosecutor dismissed the felony charge for violating the open sight
provision. The prosecutor filed a new case of disorderly conduct (a minor
misdemeanor) as part of the deal for the dismissal, and the defendant
entered an Alford Guilty plea to the charge. A minor misdemeanor is like a
traffic ticket - the penality is a fine only, with no possible jail-time.
Pleading "Alford Guilty" means, essentially, that the defendant isn't
admitting guilt, but the deal is so good that it would be akin to commiting
legal suicide to pass it up.

On Monday, August 23, the case went before Bedford Municipal Court Judge
Peter Junkin. Rather than signing off on this deal, as he had done all
morning long in other cases, Judge Junkin immediately began grilling
defendant and his counsel about why would he want to carry a gun in the
municipality, since there is no violent crime. The judge peppered the
defendant with rhetorical questions such as "If you see something you are
going to jump out and start shooting?" The
judge's line of questioning sought to make the defendant out to be a
vigilante.

The judge then reviewed every police report, statement, etc.,
and was "visibly getting mad". He wrote one thing on the entry, then
scribbled it out. Eventually, Junkin fined the defendant $150, ordered he
pay court costs on the disorderly case and the dismissed felony case,
and ordered seizure of the gun.

The prosecution never requested seizure of the gun, which was illegally
seized in the first place (ORC 2923.12.(H)). The Judge has no authority to
order seizure of the gun until the prosecution makes a motion (ORC 2933.43
(C)). The prosecution made no such motion, because the prosecutor knew that
the gun should not have been seized by the officer at the traffic stop.
There is already a Cuyahoga County Appeals Court case directly on point -
State v. Cola 76 Ohio App.3d 840.

According to witnesses, defense counsel started to object, saying "Judge, I
don't think you can do that," but Junkin immediately cut him off and said
"Get the Court of Appeals to tell me I can't do that."

The defendant has decided that he will take Junkin's advice, and pursue the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals for relief from this illegal, activist ruling. It is believed the prosecutor will not contest the appeal.

A candidate needs to be identified to run against this judge, who lets his
personal bias lead him into blatantly illegal acts from the bench.

Judge Peter Junkin
Bedford Municipal Court
165 Center St.
Bedford, OH 44146