CTOs on the Move

Franklin County, PA

www.franklincountypa.gov

 
Franklin County is located in south central Pennsylvania midway between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The southern boundary of the County is also the boundary between Pennsylvania and Maryland, also known as the Mason-Dixon Line. The County encompasses an area of 754 square miles and had an estimated population in 2000 of 129,318. Rolling hills, forests, mountains, valleys and clear springs create the beauty of Franklin County. With the diversity of Franklin County`s economic base, the residents enjoy the advantages of both urban and rural opportunities within the County. Due to this diversified makeup and the rich history of Franklin County, tourism is ...
  • Number of Employees: 25-100
  • Annual Revenue: $0-1 Million

Executives

Name Title Contact Details
Kurt Hoffeditz
Chief Information Officer Profile

Similar Companies

City of Ames, IA

City of Ames, IA is one of the leading companies in Government industry. City of Ames, IA is based in Ames, IA. You can find more information on City of Ames, IA at www.city.ames.ia.us

Deliverance Family Worship Ctr

Deliverance Family Worship Ctr is a Jonesboro, AR-based company in the Government sector.

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency`s jurisdiction. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. CPSC`s work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

American Suppressor Association

The American Suppressor Association was born out of the idea that all law-abiding citizens should be able to use suppressors to help protect their hearing. When ASA formed in 2011, there were 285,000 legally obtained suppressors in circulation in the 39 states where they were legal to own. A mere 22 of these states allowed their use while hunting. In our minds, that wasn`t good enough. Rather than accept the status quo, we formed our association with a singular mission: to fight for pro-suppressor reform nationwide. For the past ten years, ASA has actively lobbied in 30 states, fought to ease the archaic restrictions on suppressors in D.C., testified in front of dozens of legislative bodies, hosted countless suppressor demonstrations for legislators, policymakers, media, and the public, and funded research proving the efficacy of suppressors. We are the boots on the ground in the fight to legalize and deregulate suppressors and are the front line defense against the anti-suppressor factions that want them banned. At the state level, we set an aggressive agenda, called the No State Left Behind campaign, to pursue legislation in every state that does not currently allow for suppressor ownership or their use while hunting. We work hand in hand with national groups like the NRA and the Congressional Sportsmen`s Foundation, as well as in state groups throughout the country. As a direct result of ASA`s lobbying and educational efforts, Iowa, Minnesota, and Vermont legalized suppressor ownership. Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming all legalized the use of suppressors while hunting. Today, there are over 2,150,000 suppressors in circulation. Law-abiding citizens in 42 states can own suppressors and hunters in 40 states are now allowed to use suppressors to help protect their hearing in the field. While we are very proud of the progress, we won`t stop until suppressors are legal in all 50 states!

United States Court of Federal Claims

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a court of record with national jurisdiction. The United States Court of Federal Claims was recreated in October 1982 by the Federal Courts Improvement Act pursuant to Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The court consists of sixteen judges nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a term of fifteen years. After 1982, the court retained all the original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and continues, uninterrupted, a judicial tradition more than 140 years old. The court has since been given new equitable jurisdiction in the area of bid protests, as well as jurisdiction in vaccine compensation. The Court of Federal Claims is authorized to hear primarily money claims founded upon the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact, with the United States. Many cases before the court involve tax refund suits, an area in which the court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the United States district courts. The cases generally involve complex factual and statutory construction issues in tax law. Another aspect of the courts jurisdiction involves government contracts. It was within the public contracts jurisdiction that the court was given new equitable authority in late 1996. In recent years, the courts Fifth Amendment takings jurisdiction has included many cases raising environmental and natural resources issues. Another large category of cases involves civilian and military pay claims. In addition, the court hears intellectual property, Indian tribe, and various statutory claims against the United States by individuals, domestic and foreign corporations, states and localities, Indian tribes and nations, and foreign nationals and governments. While many cases pending before the court involve claims potentially worth millions or even billions of dollars, the court also efficiently handles numerous smaller claims. Its expertise, in recent years, has been seen as its ability to efficiently handle large, complex, and often technical litigation.