Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

In the letter posted here says not even off duty police officers are allow to carry if a sign is posted. I'm pretty sure off duty police officers does not have to obey them signs. But i could be wrong...

will74 wrote:In the letter posted here says not even off duty police officers are allow to carry if a sign is posted. I'm pretty sure off duty police officers does not have to obey them signs. But i could be wrong...

Your going to open a can of worms here. I believe this has been covered more then once but it's always a good discussion. Yes they are supposed to disarm but most will tell they do have to as it is there duty to act in a felony situation under oath.(which I have no problem with)Unless they are of duty in a bar and want to get drunk.

I wonder if we could get an editable fields version of this in PDF. It would make it a tad easier to add each persons contact info at the bottom in a much cleaner format than all of it hand written. I had to redo it in Word and the header and OFCC logo can't be reproduced exactly as in the PDF. Leave a space for a signature but allow typed closing contact info.

jamie9mm wrote:

will74 wrote:Yes they are supposed to disarm but most will tell they do have to as it is there duty to act in a felony situation under oath.(which I have no problem with)Unless they are of duty in a bar and want to get drunk.

Didn't the law get changed to permit off duty LEOs to carry while under the influence?

From what I understand, it did, but PLEASE don't take my interpretation of it for the gospel! I AM NOT A LAWYER!!!

Napoleon85 wrote:Didn't the law get changed to permit off duty LEOs to carry while under the influence?

No.

SB184 changed 2923.121 to allow for firearm carry in D-permitted facilities by off-duty officers serving as employees/agents of the principle owner of the establishment.

jabeatty wrote:

Napoleon85 wrote:Didn't the law get changed to permit off duty LEOs to carry while under the influence?

No.

SB184 changed 2923.121 to allow for firearm carry in D-permitted facilities by off-duty officers serving as employees/agents of the principle owner of the establishment.

Man, I hate to disagree with Jim, 'cause I'm just as likely to end up with egg on my face as not, but I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here...

2923.121 Possession of firearm in liquor permit premises - prohibition, exceptions.

(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which any person is consuming liquor in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for which a permit of that nature has been issued.

(B)(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) An officer, agent, or employee of this or any other state or the United States, or to a law enforcement officer, who is authorized to carry firearms and is acting within the scope of the officer’s, agent’s, or employee’s duties;

(b) Any person who is employed in this state, who is authorized to carry firearms, and who is subject to and in compliance with the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code, unless the appointing authority of the person has expressly specified that the exemption provided in division (B)(1)(b) of this section does not apply to the person;

...pretty much looks to me like they've got "blanket immunity."

NavyChief wrote:Man, I hate to disagree with Jim, 'cause I'm just as likely to end up with egg on my face as not, but I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here...

Limbs are good...

The language about off-duty LEOs being able to carry in D-permitted facilities if they were employees or agents of the owner was added by SB 184. The language about state employees that you quoted pre-dates that addition.

If that language constitutes a blanket immunity for LEOs, why was the SB 184 revision necessary?

My guess is that it doesn't constitute blanket immunity (we never used to think it did), but it does give immunity for those folks who are in compliance (at the time) with 109.801, and perhaps a crucial portion of that compliance is that they are actually on duty at the time.

I bet if we were to dredge up some of our old discussions from the SB 184 era, we might gain some insight into the matter.

A nit: I'm sure we've sent a bunch of these out already, but there seems to be a font change in the middle of the next-to-the-last paragraph. The first two lines "There is a lot of information available regarding this subject. We strongly urge you to do your own research before deciding whether or not to prohibit self-defense in your place of business." are in 9-point font. The rest of the graph is in 10-point.

Can that be fixed?

OCCI wrote:Great letter! I know one place so far thats getting one. Would be a good idea to keep a few of these in the glovebox. Thanks!

As a tip that I use, I always enclose receipts from their competitor with any sort of letter or email. Especially in this economy, business want every penny they can get. Seeing their dollars go elsewhere because they think somehow a possible trespass charge will prevent any sort of felony from happening at their establishment. I also try to make that point very clear.

Armed robbery is a felony with potentially years as a sentence. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor, maximum 30 days in jail, $250 fine. Someone already risking years in prison for using a gun for illegal purposes will not be bothered by another 30 days.

At one time we had a "no guns" sign on here that was intended to be passed out to these businesses. It stated that criminals were welcome as all armed law abiding citizens have been disarmed for their convenience.

OCCI wrote:

gmhiggins wrote:

OCCI wrote:Great letter! I know one place so far thats getting one. Would be a good idea to keep a few of these in the glovebox. Thanks!

As a tip that I use, I always enclose receipts from their competitor with any sort of letter or email. Especially in this economy, business want every penny they can get. Seeing their dollars go elsewhere because they think somehow a possible trespass charge will prevent any sort of felony from happening at their establishment. I also try to make that point very clear.

Armed robbery is a felony with potentially years as a sentence. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor, maximum 30 days in jail, $250 fine. Someone already risking years in prison for using a gun for illegal purposes will not be bothered by another 30 days.

Great tips, I'll try sending this letter with a receipt. The manager who was working there wasnt open for conversation on the issue .... I was thinking about putting together a little packet with a letter, information to links, and articles that could be sent to the executives/owners of these businesses that would sell the idea that law abiding citizens shouldnt be descriminated against. I am one that truly believes that we as concealed carry holders have most likely had a more thorough background check, including finger prints, than most CPZ employees have had.

If the manager isn't receptive, he will have a manager that will be, who will also care more than business is walking away.

Is there a version of this (or should there be) specifically for bars/restaurants that have posted after the recent update to the law?

The letter needs to be revised to change 48 states to 49 states.

Letter was revised soon after your initial email to us. Why its not showing is beyond me.