Posting Locations at Movie Theater

[mreising]

Too lazy to look it up, but the law says something like "saw or should have seen"....

The law says "knowingly", nothing about "saw or should have seen". Here is the part of R.C. 2923.126 (C) (3) (a) where it is covered (highlights are mine):

(3)

(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.

As a previous posters noted (and copied the same portions of the code), the law says the location must be conspicuous. I am not a lawyer but I would think you could reasonably argue, in court, if it was a "micro-sign" even though the location was conspicuous, that you did not knowingly violate the premises. Of course once you are notified you should leave and the trespass charge would probably not happen.

Edited (strikeout and underline) multiple times to correct minor errors on my part.

[SMMAssociates]

Mark:

Somebody "called" me on that definition of "knowingly" as presuming that the actor "saw or should have seen" the sign....

Can't recall who....

I could be wrong, of course. I think I made a mistake in 1975....

I haven't looked lately (haven't been near the place), but one of our hospitals spent a mountain of money on a text-only gunbuster on just about every door, including some smaller facilities 'round the corner. However, it's sort of red-on-red (incised laminate), and unless you stand there and read the fool thing, you can't tell what it is. BIG signs, too, but being hard to read, and posted with other clutter, they'd be easy to miss.

This is the same hospital that fired their in-house Security folks and hired an unarmed contract agency. Really made my feelings of security happy, especially when one of the staff told me how the new guys helped somebody steal a car in the parking lot....

(The place has changed hands again - I think the signs are still there. Don't know about the guards.)

Regards,

[docachna]

I'm sure there is a thread on it here somewhere, and I just don't have time to look for it right now. However, I've never been convinced that the statute requiring that you "knowingly violate" (i.e., you were on actual notice of the GB sign and you entered anyway, knowing you had a firearm) refers to your having seen the GB sign. I have to wonder if "knowingly" won't be interpreted instead as referring to "knowingly" possessing the firearm (i.e., sure, I intentionally entered the mall, but I had no knowledge the firearm was in my briefcase; I didn't "knowingly" violate the GB sign, because I wasn't aware the firearm was even in there).

The first interpretation has just never made sense to me. In general, "ignorance of the law is no excuse". That argument also doesn't work for speed limits ("I didn't see the sign, officer" will get you a big, fat "Wonderful - sign here ! ").

Maybe someone who has researched it more can edumacate me as to the proper statutory interpretation of that phrase, or maybe there's even something in the legislative history that can shed some light on it - but, as I said, the first interpretation has just never "felt right" to me. Otherwise, anybody can just say "I didn't see it", and they get a pass. I just don't see a court bending over that far backwards to protect 2A rights.