Page 1 of 2

FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:00 pm
by OHIOSTEVE
My favorite place to eat. All of a sudden posted. stopped in and talked to the owner. she let me remove the sign. They are from China. She thought since it came in a packet she had to post it.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 4:13 pm
by OHIOSTEVE
Image
my trophy

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:11 pm
by Gramps
OHIOSTEVE wrote:My favorite place to eat. All of a sudden posted. stopped in and talked to the owner. she let me remove the sign. They are from China. She thought since it came in a packet she had to post it.
Cool! Now I will visit!

Wait a Chinese owned Japanese restaurant!

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:03 pm
by qmti
Nice going, OHIOSTEVE.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:14 pm
by JustaShooter
Way to go Steve! *That* is why I recommend not ignoring signs and carrying past them, or turning around and going elsewhere, but, if you have a moment, stop and talk with the owner or a manager and see if you might just be able to make a difference that helps us all! And if you need some assistance, consider using our No Guns = No Money Cards as a prop to break the ice and get the conversation started.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:32 pm
by Chuck
Good job!
Excellent!

Educating the public is going to be an ever lasting job for us
Thank you for carrying the torch in your corner of the world

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:33 pm
by STX440Case
Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:29 am
by JustaShooter
STX440Case wrote:Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.
In my opinion you are misreading it. Your CHL does not authorize you to carry past "no guns" signs - although there are those that will argue that phrase does do what you say, I disagree.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:33 am
by pirateguy191
STX440Case wrote:Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.
Think Popo.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:32 pm
by docachna
JustaShooter wrote:
STX440Case wrote:Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.
In my opinion you are misreading it. Your CHL does not authorize you to carry past "no guns" signs - although there are those that will argue that phrase does do what you say, I disagree.
I disagree, and happen to believe that those "weasel words" do, in fact, exempt concealed carry licensees from the restriction. Problem is, it's a very long bus ride to that destination, and I think it's unlikely a local cop would ever agree with me on-site. I don't really want to be a test case unless somebody else is paying my legal tab.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:34 pm
by JustaShooter
pirateguy191 wrote:
STX440Case wrote:Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.
Think Popo.
Exactly.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 12:36 pm
by JustaShooter
docachna wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
STX440Case wrote:Popping the cherry so to speak. . . but, the way I understand that phrase on those signs that state "Unless authorized by law" read to me that if you have your CHL you are not breaking the law regarding no guns, or am I misreading it. Thanks.
In my opinion you are misreading it. Your CHL does not authorize you to carry past "no guns" signs - although there are those that will argue that phrase does do what you say, I disagree.
I disagree, and happen to believe that those "weasel words" do, in fact, exempt concealed carry licensees from the restriction. Problem is, it's a very long bus ride to that destination, and I think it's unlikely a local cop would ever agree with me on-site. I don't really want to be a test case unless somebody else is paying my legal tab.
Considering that exact wording is required on signs posted on government facilities, it cannot mean that you are exempt by virtue of having a CHL since the law very specifically says your CHL does not authorize you to carry into those locations.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 1:51 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
JustaShooter wrote:Considering that exact wording is required on signs posted on government facilities, it cannot mean that you are exempt by virtue of having a CHL since the law very specifically says your CHL does not authorize you to carry into those locations.
Except those places are prohibited whether or not they're posted, the posting doesn't make them so. Therefore a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" into those places, regardless of signage.

ORC 2923.126(B) states "A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places: " and then lists the enumerated CPZs. Those are places a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" to carry. Privately posted property is mentioned separately.

It's not an argument I'd want to make, but there's a non-trivial argument that at least the language is confusing. As to the argument that it's clear by the graphic, then why include the "unless authorized by law" exception? It just confuses things.

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:04 pm
by JustaShooter
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:Considering that exact wording is required on signs posted on government facilities, it cannot mean that you are exempt by virtue of having a CHL since the law very specifically says your CHL does not authorize you to carry into those locations.
Except those places are prohibited whether or not they're posted, the posting doesn't make them so. Therefore a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" into those places, regardless of signage.

ORC 2923.126(B) states "A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places: " and then lists the enumerated CPZs. Those are places a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" to carry. Privately posted property is mentioned separately.

It's not an argument I'd want to make, but there's a non-trivial argument that at least the language is confusing. As to the argument that it's clear by the graphic, then why include the "unless authorized by law" exception? It just confuses things.
And until someone is willing to be the test case, and wins, I'll continue to teach my students and tell anyone else who asks that "you are not otherwise authorized by law".

Re: FUJI JAPANESE STEAK HOUSE IN SIDNEY

Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:11 pm
by Brian D.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: It's not an argument I'd want to make, but there's a non-trivial argument that at least the language is confusing. As to the argument that it's clear by the graphic, then why include the "unless authorized by law" exception? It just confuses things.
Historically, the (privately owned) sign making companies stole that "unless otherwise authorized" verbiage from suggested language used by Ohio as a suggestion of how signs on government buildings should be phrased. The intent there was to allow carry by law enforcement. It has created a murky situation ever since.