Is the Aronoff Center in Cincinnati a CPZ

[utvolben]

Before I walk all the way from a parking garage to the Aronoff Center and might have to hike all the way back to the car. Is the Aronoff Center in downtown Cincinnati a CPZ?

There is an old thread on this topic but it is based on outdated laws which is why I'm posting again.

Thanks!

[rainmaker]

Didn't see any signs last time we saw a show there (last September). IIRC, they may sell wine and "high roller" snacks in the lobby. Parking lots usually have their (old) NG signs.

[pleasantguywhopacks]

I can't remember. Last time I was there it was pre CHL for me. Wife drug me to a Harry Connik Jr concert...yawn....

[remark_m]

I was just there and they do have signs posted...they are clear so they are hard to see/read. I did not get to read them but I did see the red circle.

[147Doc]

A bit of thread necromancy, but this fits the thread exactly.

The Aronoff has signs next to each entrance that read:

"In accordance with the Ohio revised code 4301.637(B) Firearms are not permitted within this facility. a licensed liquor establishment."


That makes their posting the same as the grocery store "Liquor Control" signs, doesn't it?

[Brian D.]

That makes their posting the same as the grocery store "Liquor Control" signs, doesn't it?

The signs are indeed referring to the exact section of the law that our licenses exempt us from. They called the tune by citing 4301.637, it's too bad they don't understand its full meaning, or at least the fact that a cut-out was made for us a few years ago.

[FormerNavy]

That makes their posting the same as the grocery store "Liquor Control" signs, doesn't it?

The signs are indeed referring to the exact section of the law that our licenses exempt us from. They called the tune by citing 4301.637, it's too bad they don't understand its full meaning, or at least the fact that a cut-out was made for us a few years ago.

Not sure I'd want to try to convince CPD of that... I suspect you'll get the "let the courts sort it out" treatment, meaning you may beat the rap - but not the ride.

[Brian D.]

That makes their posting the same as the grocery store "Liquor Control" signs, doesn't it?

The signs are indeed referring to the exact section of the law that our licenses exempt us from. They called the tune by citing 4301.637, it's too bad they don't understand its full meaning, or at least the fact that a cut-out was made for us a few years ago.

Not sure I'd want to try to convince CPD of that... I suspect you'll get the "let the courts sort it out" treatment, meaning you may beat the rap - but not the ride.

Yeah, even if you carried the entire, up to date ORC around with you, with plain-English explanations of each section.

[pleasantguywhopacks]

I'll resurrect this thread..headed there this afternoon. I will be pleasantly packing since the signage reflects liquor establishments..

[BobK]

I will note that the standard liquor control sign uses the language "If you are carrying a firearm Under the statutes of Ohio,if you possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, you may be guilty of a felony", however, it does not say "firearms are not allowed here".

I'd argue the sign posted above clearly states "firearms are not permitted in this facility". Even if the rest of the gobbledygook makes no sense, the sign clearly states no firearms.

Personally, I wouldn't try to argue that one. Yo may not only not beat the ride, you may also not beat the rap.

[FormerNavy]

I will note that the standard liquor control sign uses the language "If you are carrying a firearm Under the statutes of Ohio,if you possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, you may be guilty of a felony", however, it does not say "firearms are not allowed here".

I'd argue the sign posted above clearly states "firearms are not permitted in this facility". Even if the rest of the gobbledygook makes no sense, the sign clearly states no firearms.

Personally, I wouldn't try to argue that one. Yo may not only not beat the ride, you may also not beat the rap.

Totally agree...

[mreising]

I will note that the standard liquor control sign uses the language "If you are carrying a firearm Under the statutes of Ohio,if you possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, you may be guilty of a felony", however, it does not say "firearms are not allowed here".

I'd argue the sign posted above clearly states "firearms are not permitted in this facility". Even if the rest of the gobbledygook makes no sense, the sign clearly states no firearms.

Personally, I wouldn't try to argue that one. Yo may not only not beat the ride, you may also not beat the rap.

I'll disagree. If they want to prohibit carry, then they should clearly state such. Using the Liquor Control provided sign does not say, clearly or otherwise, that "firearms are not permitted in this facility". For one to be guilty of the felony mentioned on the sign, one must be carrying and not possess a CHL. Now, does the facility believe they are prohibiting all firearm carry? Probably, but they did not state such. If the facility is a government facility where government employees are regularly present, then they should be posting the "gun buster" sign, although I would also comply with the "crayon on a napkin stating 'NO GUNZ' ", as that conveys their intent.

[FormerNavy]

I will note that the standard liquor control sign uses the language "If you are carrying a firearm Under the statutes of Ohio,if you possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, you may be guilty of a felony", however, it does not say "firearms are not allowed here".

I'd argue the sign posted above clearly states "firearms are not permitted in this facility". Even if the rest of the gobbledygook makes no sense, the sign clearly states no firearms.

Personally, I wouldn't try to argue that one. Yo may not only not beat the ride, you may also not beat the rap.

I'll disagree. If they want to prohibit carry, then they should clearly state such. Using the Liquor Control provided sign does not say, clearly or otherwise, that "firearms are not permitted in this facility". For one to be guilty of the felony mentioned on the sign, one must be carrying and not possess a CHL. Now, does the facility believe they are prohibiting all firearm carry? Probably, but they did not state such. If the facility is a government facility where government employees are regularly present, then they should be posting the "gun buster" sign, although I would also comply with the "crayon on a napkin stating 'NO GUNZ' ", as that conveys their intent.

I don't necessarily disagree in the legal analysis... but I think from a practical standpoint, the sign is close enough for the police who would in all likelihood "let the courts sort it out." You may beat the rap, but not the ride...

[pleasantguywhopacks]

I disagree. The comma clearly reflects that the basis of the signage refers to not carrying because of the liquor. I carried. I'd carry again.

[djthomas]

On a related note of signage, before my grandmother-in-law passed she lived in a retirement/nursing facility that was posted. However if one took the time to read the sign it said something to the effect that weapons were permitted on premises unless the person was exempt per ORC 2923.12.

Trouble (for them) is, licensees are exempt from 2923.12 under division (C)(1)(b). One could argue that they really only meant to exempt police officers, but the problem is the statutory exemptions from 2923.12 all live in (C). Law enforcement are exempt under (C)(1)(a). Without being more specific one can reasonably infer that any of the exemptions listed under (C) are sufficient. Words mean things and someone's sloppy wording on a sign is their problem.