A Federal district Court has ruled that a former Ohio UPS employee’s case alleging wrongful termination for a firearm at work may proceed.

The court found that the public policy of Ohio permitting citizens to bear arms, as stated in Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio constitution, is clear enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination claim.

From Volokh.com:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns.

Plona, an Ohio resident, was employed by UPS at a facility in Cleveland, Ohio.... Plona ... was terminated in April 2006, allegedly because UPS discovered that Plona had a handgun in his vehicle while at work. Plona alleges that he had the handgun, which was disassembled and unloaded, and locked in his car in a public-access parking lot used by both UPS employees like Plona and non-employees/customers of UPS. On the day of his termination, UPS announced that law enforcement would be conducting a routine search of all persons and property on UPS premises for contraband. When Plona informed law enforcement about the handgun locked in his car, and the handgun was then discovered, he was terminated....

Click on 'Read More' for the entire story.

By Larry S. Moore

Jim Robey’s recent Dayton Daily News article about an encounter with wild canines raised an interesting discussion about the need for allowing concealed carry during hunting. As I recall, Mr. Robey was grouse hunting and could not get to their firearms before being attacked by a pack of wild canines.

This article also drove home a similar experience for me with a coyote. Although in my case, it is not a concealed carry issue, it still drives home the need to be appropriately armed when venturing into the wild.

Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

By Captain Denny Breslin, National communications chairman; First officer Mike Karn, chairman, Committee for Armed Defense of the Cockpit; Allied Pilots Association - Fort Worth Texas.
A heavy, fuel-laden aircraft departing for an international destination is a ripe target for terrorists. But under current agreements, specially trained pilots have been prohibited from carrying weapons on international flights U.S. asks to arm pilots abroad.
Currently there is no surefire method of defending the cockpit from a team of terrorists on a plane over the North Atlantic, three hours from any airport. That is why it is imperative that the U.S. government expand agreements with foreign governments to allow armed pilots.
Critics, such as aviation security consultant Rich Roth, say pilots just "feel better" carrying guns. Roth says he doubts they could thwart a hijacker. He is dead wrong.
Click on “Read More” to continue reading.