Acting on a tip from a supporter, Ohioans For Concealed Carry has uncovered a report of the robbery of a Fifth Third employee who was exiting the bank branch with a blue deposit bag in hand.

The following information is taken from the official columbuspolice.org website.

-----------------

Case # 040756058 Title Robbery
Report # 040756058.1 Subject 450 - Robbery
Location 1500 Morse Rd
City Columbus Zone 1
Precinct 18 District 180
Occurred 9/4/2004 9:33:00 AM Between N/A
Report Date 9/4/2004 10:20:56 AM
Reported By Officer Edbrooke Badge 417

Report Narrative WITNESS #1 (EMPLOYEE OF CHECK INTO CASH) STATED AS SHE CAME OUT OF THE 5/3 BANK AT 1500 MORSE RD SHE WAS APPROACHED BY SUSPECT #1 WHO SAID "GIVE ME THE MONEY" AND GRABBED FOR THE 5/3 BLUE DEPOSIT BAG. WITNESS #1 STRUGGLED WITHE SUSPECT OVER THE BAG SCREAMING FOR HELP. WITNESS #2 . REGIONAL MGR FOR CHECK INTO CASH WHO HAD WENT WITH WITNESS#1 OBSERVED THE SUSPECT GET THE BAG AND RUN E/B TOWARDS THE KROGERS PARKING LOT. WITNESS#3 SAW THE SUSPECT GET INTO A WHITE 4DR CAR(POSSIBLY A FORD TEMPO) DRIVEN BY ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL AND GO N/B KARL RD. TURNING E/B NORMA RD BEFORE SHE LOST SIGHT OF IT. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS SEEN.

-----------------

No arrests have been made.

Tragically, while they no longer have the luxury of assuming their victims are disarmed elsewhere in Ohio, there is one thing criminals can be certain of:

Thanks to a bank policy which denies the right to bear arms for self-defense, anyone exiting a Fifth Third bank branch is most certainly a defenseless victim.

Fifth Third accepts customer feedback on its website, or by phone at 1-800-972-3030.

Related Stories:
''No-guns'' Fifth Third bank earnings down 60%; competitors' up

Fifth Third: Signs not posted to keep criminals out; They want to keep YOU out

Chillicothe: Armed man robs ''no-guns'' Check Into Cash

The Mansfield News Journal is reporting that one of its ad sales people was carjacked by a 15 year-old boy who put a gun to his head in the News Journal parking lot at 70 W. Fourth St. in broad daylight.

The News Journal offers no explanation for why the employee, who was inside his truck with the engine running when confronted, didn't "just drive away", as Ohio State Highway Patrol Captain John Born once suggested as an sufficient self-defense alternative in the event of an attack.

Nor does the employer inform readers whether they feel at all responsible for a policy which disallows this man his right to choose to bear arms for self-defense.

Fortunately for the News Journal employee, the carjacker waited until police began their high-speed chase to start firing his gun.

The employee told the newspaper that when he returns to work, he is "going to try to be more aware of my surroundings. I'm sure I'll be a little bit more wary."

Not that he'll be able to do anything about it if he sees the criminal coming next time.

This man was extremely lucky. As the following stories prove, criminals don't always let you go:

Dayton: Apartment maintenance man wounded; shooting linked to other robberies

Toledo: Central-city man shot 3 times by masked men

Toledo: North Toledo man shot during robbery attempt

Related Story:
Newspaper carrier raped on the job; her employer bans self-defense

Bush Lawyers Target Gun Control's Legal Rationale

January 7, 2005
The Wall Street Journal

Readying for a constitutional showdown over gun control, the Bush administration has issued a 109-page memorandum aiming to prove that the Second Amendment grants individuals nearly unrestricted access to firearms.

The memorandum, requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was completed in August but made public only last month, when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel posted on its Web site several opinions setting forth positions on various legal issues. Reaching deep into English legal history and the practice of the British colonies prior to the American Revolution, the memorandum represents the administration's latest legal salvo to overturn judicial interpretations that have prevailed since the Supreme Court last spoke on the Second Amendment, in 1939. Although scholars long have noted the ambiguity of the 27-word amendment, courts generally have interpreted the right to "keep and bear arms" as applying not to individuals but rather to the "well-regulated militia" maintained by each state.

Reversing previous Justice Department policy, Mr. Ashcroft has declared that the Second Amendment confers a broad right of gun ownership, comparable with the First Amendment's grant of freedom of speech and religion.

Click here to read the entire story from The Wall Street Journal.

Click here to read the Justice Departments's 109-page memorandum on the the Second Amendment.

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves...

Ohio State Senator Jim Jordan
Ohio State Representative Derrick Seaver

Dear Sirs,

I'm one of your taxpaying voting citizens and a Shelby County CCW Licensee (yes, I'm one of the persons damaged by the Shelby County Sheriff, but that is not the issue of this letter).

I have serious problems with this part of the Ohio CCW law and how it is being used:

Sec. 2923.126. (C)(2)(a)

A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

Since this law is written under the heading title of "Ohio CCW". This law "could" be interpreted to only apply to "CCW licensees". Which means Ohio CCW licensees (or their estate) cannot bring legal actions against a property owner if a non-carrying licensee is injured or killed on said property by illegal firearms activity; but a non-CCW victim "could" bring legal actions against this property owner.

I do not deny or challenge the right of property owners to prohibit firearms from their property. But when a property owner posts anti-CCW signs on their property and then invites citizens onto said property to transact business or is an employee of an anti-CCW employer these property owners "should" be held responsible to provide protection to these patrons/employees. This law, as written, denies me the right of self-defense at the discretion of a property owner and then absolves the property owner of any and all responsibilities and liabilities.

The italicized highlighted portion of the above sentence should be removed. This italicized part of this sentence is the proverbial "having their cake and eating it too" for anti-CCW property owners, anti-gun legislators, and law-enforcement anti-gun activists (such as the Shelby County Sheriff)! Removal of this highlighted sentence will restore "common sense" balance to this law and send a message "that a property owners have the right to prohibit firearms from their property, but this action has consequences." The consequence of denying a CCW licensee the right of self-protection puts the burden of the CCW licensee's protection upon the property owner - legally and morally.

The CCW Law covering anti-CCW property postings should be modified to allow CCW licensees to keep and store, under lock and key, their firearm inside their private vehicle on any private property. Employers are not allowing CCW licensed employees from bringing a firearm onto the employer's "private property" parking lot. Consequently, we cannot protect ourselves to and from work due to this anti-CCW restriction. Parking off private property is not always available, within a reasonable distance from the work location, and may put the employee at an additional personal risk.

If you would like to discuss these issues further please call me at anytime. Thank you,

Respectfully,

Dale R. Kubichek

Ohio Shelby County CCW Licensee
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
USN Vietnam Veteran