SB 199 issue at work

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by WhyNot »

If that type of email came out there would be a IOC right behind it pending a physical rules change i.e. policy manual updates, signage at the parking lot entrances etc. If in fact an IOC was attached to the email, could the OP post it please? I'm sure no state agency would issue such an email without clearing legal dept 1st and signed off by the agency director. Who is a cabinet member.
For the average joe this means, some yocal a little up the food chain didn't thunk it all up & ''hit send.'' I sure hope that is accurate though and good for you guys!
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
Mulegun
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:43 pm
Location: Beaver Ohio 45613

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by Mulegun »

From an outsiders point of view at the G.M. plant. If one who is employed there does not sign the permission form and does not have a hang gun in the Parked vehicle they own there is no violation even if G.M would run annual back ground checks to revel one has a permit does not mean they have the hand gun in the car. If one would reports to work on day and "Forgets" as long as it was unloaded and placed in the trunk or separate lockable container one would still be with in policy at G.M .
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

JustaShooter wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
1911's 4 life wrote:I work at a prison. The State sent out an email stating as long as we follow the law its all good. I've been carrying since Tuesday. And it feels good to carry everyday instead of just my days off.
I'm not sure how you can carry at all. 2921.36 Illegal conveyance of weapons, drugs or other prohibited items onto grounds of detention facility or institution. still comes into play which pretty much takes all jails and prisons off limits, including your vehicle.
But, the new law appears pretty clear in that it applies to any "public or private employer". So, when such apparent conflicts exist in the law, how does one decide which has precedence? In this case, the state has said the new law applies, and I suspect they've had their lawyers look things over. But I'm still curious, it seems there must be a mechanism to use to determine which applies.
The two overlap but it looks like it's possible to gain the benefits of 2923.1210 without violating 2921.36.

2921.36 has the following exception: "It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(1) of this section that the weapon or dangerous ordnance in question was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, that it was not on the actor's person, and, if the weapon or dangerous ordnance in question was a firearm, that it was unloaded and was being carried in a closed package, box, or case or in a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle."

Since the new law (2923.1210) requires the gun and ammunition be locked in the trunk, glove box, or other container, you can apparently comply with 2921.36 by unloading and storing the gun and ammunition in separate locked containers, and thereby also be in compliance with the new parking lot law.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by JediSkipdogg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:The two overlap but it looks like it's possible to gain the benefits of 2923.1210 without violating 2921.36.

2921.36 has the following exception: "It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(1) of this section that the weapon or dangerous ordnance in question was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, that it was not on the actor's person, and, if the weapon or dangerous ordnance in question was a firearm, that it was unloaded and was being carried in a closed package, box, or case or in a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle."

Since the new law (2923.1210) requires the gun and ammunition be locked in the trunk, glove box, or other container, you can apparently comply with 2921.36 by unloading and storing the gun and ammunition in separate locked containers, and thereby also be in compliance with the new parking lot law.
True, one just has to make sure it's that way before entering the "premises." So one can't have a "car gun" that is always loaded or pull in the lot, unload and safely secure.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by M-Quigley »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:
steves 50de wrote:I would not play this game with these people or any company. Don't ask don't tell, don't sign forms, store firearm in locked car. :wink:
Do these employees even have a choice to sign or not?
The choice is to get company permission to do so. If they don't want company permission, there's no need to complete the form.
I guess I didn't make my question clear. I was referring simply to the form itself, not whether you carry into the lot or not. For example, if my former employer were to use the same form mentioned, (do you have a CHL check yes or no and sign) and you didn't fill it out and sign it, you would possibly be terminated just for not signing the form. Signing the form would be a condition of employment, just like all the other forms they had. If you didn't sign because you disagreed with one of their new policies, there's the door.

The only way they wouldn't do this was if someone from their legal dept told them it wasn't legal or advisable to even ask the question or make that policy, whatever that was. For example, I had an employer once who (in her words) was a "good Christian woman" and didn't like gay people, and didn't want them working for her. Someone told her that private employers can legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Ohio The GM she had convinced her that it wasn't a good idea to ask prospective employees if they were homosexual or not. Also rather than have a rule strictly against homosexuals, have a general rule regarding behavior of a sexual nature at the workplace.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

M-Quigley wrote:I guess I didn't make my question clear. I was referring simply to the form itself, not whether you carry into the lot or not. For example, if my former employer were to use the same form mentioned, (do you have a CHL check yes or no and sign) and you didn't fill it out and sign it, you would possibly be terminated just for not signing the form. Signing the form would be a condition of employment, just like all the other forms they had. If you didn't sign because you disagreed with one of their new policies, there's the door.
Okay but to be clear that's not what's going on in the OP's case. It's a voluntary form for employees to complete if they want permission. In the case you state, I suppose you could be fired if you don't complete the form, so in that case why not just say 'no'? If they can fire you for not completing the form, they can't double-fire you for completing it falsely. And unless you run your yap, how would they know? They can't get that info from the sheriff directly.

If you want you can complete it truthfully, at the cost of $15. Before filling out the form drop your license in the trash and send off for a replacement. You do not have a CHL, so truthfully complete the form saying 'no'. In a few days or weeks when the replacement comes in, back to life as usual.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by M-Quigley »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:I guess I didn't make my question clear. I was referring simply to the form itself, not whether you carry into the lot or not. For example, if my former employer were to use the same form mentioned, (do you have a CHL check yes or no and sign) and you didn't fill it out and sign it, you would possibly be terminated just for not signing the form. Signing the form would be a condition of employment, just like all the other forms they had. If you didn't sign because you disagreed with one of their new policies, there's the door.
Okay but to be clear that's not what's going on in the OP's case. It's a voluntary form for employees to complete if they want permission. In the case you state, I suppose you could be fired if you don't complete the form, so in that case why not just say 'no'? If they can fire you for not completing the form, they can't double-fire you for completing it falsely. And unless you run your yap, how would they know? They can't get that info from the sheriff directly.

If you want you can complete it truthfully, at the cost of $15. Before filling out the form drop your license in the trash and send off for a replacement. You do not have a CHL, so truthfully complete the form saying 'no'. In a few days or weeks when the replacement comes in, back to life as usual.
Oh, okay, that's what I was wondering. It wasn't clear to me from the OP whether it was voluntary or not. If I was in that same situation and it was voluntary, I just wouldn't sign it one way or the other. I don't need their "permission" under the law, and they don't have a right to know whether I have a CHL or not, or whether I have a gun in my car or not if I did have one.
38smith
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Wellston, Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by 38smith »

It is voluntary but if you don't sign to their stipulations then you can't bring your firearm. Nothing new from our union. Idk if it came from corporate or Totino bigshots within the plant. Ufcw 1059 is about worthless so I'm sure they won't help.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by Chuck »

1911's 4 life wrote:I work at a prison. The State sent out an email stating as long as we follow the law its all good. I've been carrying since Tuesday. And it feels good to carry everyday instead of just my days off.
Good for you!
No one should be required to forfeit their rights to work for the state
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by schmieg »

JustaShooter wrote: But, the new law appears pretty clear in that it applies to any "public or private employer". So, when such apparent conflicts exist in the law, how does one decide which has precedence? In this case, the state has said the new law applies, and I suspect they've had their lawyers look things over. But I'm still curious, it seems there must be a mechanism to use to determine which applies.
There is. It's called court.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by M-Quigley »

38smith wrote:It is voluntary but if you don't sign to their stipulations then you can't bring your firearm. Nothing new from our union. Idk if it came from corporate or Totino bigshots within the plant. Ufcw 1059 is about worthless so I'm sure they won't help.
According to who? How would they find out? Car searches? Even if they discover someone legally has a gun in their car, then what? They are just going to ignore the new law?
1911's 4 life
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:54 pm
Location: Frankfort, Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by 1911's 4 life »

ODRC will review all applicable agency policies to determine


> if any changes are needed to conform with RC


> 2923.1210. In the meantime, all ODRC employees are


> expected to comply with this new law and all applicable DRC


> policies.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote:
38smith wrote:It is voluntary but if you don't sign to their stipulations then you can't bring your firearm. Nothing new from our union. Idk if it came from corporate or Totino bigshots within the plant. Ufcw 1059 is about worthless so I'm sure they won't help.
According to who? How would they find out? Car searches? Even if they discover someone legally has a gun in their car, then what? They are just going to ignore the new law?
No, they will fire you for not following the company policy that requires you to fill out & sign the form, not for having a gun in your car.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by JustaShooter »

schmieg wrote:
JustaShooter wrote: But, the new law appears pretty clear in that it applies to any "public or private employer". So, when such apparent conflicts exist in the law, how does one decide which has precedence? In this case, the state has said the new law applies, and I suspect they've had their lawyers look things over. But I'm still curious, it seems there must be a mechanism to use to determine which applies.
There is. It's called court.
You mean to tell me that there is no specified method to resolve conflicts in the law itself like this one outside of court? Like, the most recently enacted section wins, or the section that falls later in the law, or the least / most restrictive, etc.? Seems that would be a standard part of the body of law since conflicts like this are unfortunately inevitable.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
Stryker74
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Grove City, Ohio

Re: SB 199 issue at work

Post by Stryker74 »

schmieg wrote:
There is. It's called court.
JustaShooter wrote: You mean to tell me that there is no specified method to resolve conflicts in the law itself like this one outside of court? Like, the most recently enacted section wins, or the section that falls later in the law, or the least / most restrictive, etc.? Seems that would be a standard part of the body of law since conflicts like this are unfortunately inevitable.
There is, to some extent, in the ORC:
1.52 Irreconcilable statutes or amendments - harmonization.
(A) If statutes enacted at the same or different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date of enactment prevails.

(B) If amendments to the same statute are enacted at the same or different sessions of the legislature, one amendment without reference to another, the amendments are to be harmonized, if possible, so that effect may be given to each. If the amendments are substantively irreconcilable, the latest in date of enactment prevails. The fact that a later amendment restates language deleted by an earlier amendment, or fails to include language inserted by an earlier amendment, does not of itself make the amendments irreconcilable. Amendments are irreconcilable only when changes made by each cannot reasonably be put into simultaneous operation.

Effective Date: 01-03-1972 .
However, I think the course for clarification is usually through the courts.
Aaron

NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Instructor - Pistol, Refuse To Be A Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer
Kentucky CCDW Certified Instructor



Want to become more active with OFCC, and the fight for your rights? Click the link to find out how!
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=64852" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply