Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Are all BMV offices CPZs? I noticed a medium size GB sign on both doors when I went to renew my driver's license today. This was at the Gahanna License Agency at 415 Agler Road In Gahanna.

It's only since March of this year that Deputy Registrars were permitted by law to allow patrons to carry guns.
Believe it or not, even if they allow guns, they still must post the sign,
Such is the wisdom of our elected officials

See ORC 2923.1212(A)(9)

Someone in the BMV had that stipulation about posting no guns signs in the contract that deputy registrars sign back in about 2005 even though they aren't actually government offices.

AlanM wrote:Someone in the BMV had that stipulation about posting no guns signs in the contract that deputy registrars sign back in about 2005 even though they aren't actually government offices.

This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to throw the key in the well bucket and move to Kentucky. Their gun laws aren't perfect but a lot better (because they are so much less complex and convoluted) than ours.

I understand the Alum Creek Drive & Hiltop complexes being posted, because OSHP has a presence in both buildings. Maybe BMV needs to improve their customer service, then they wouldn't need to worry about armed persons....

What frosts me is that the original CPZ signage was a demand by the central authority that the franchises MUST post, or else, but it was at the "misdemeanor" level. A bit down the road, it became a FELONY CPZ, probably due to the "State Offices" influence, but codified in the ORC.

Since I'm only in there once or twice a year, if not less often, I more or less ignored it. (Leave the gun in the car.)

Of late, though, there's been more "action" out there. Wouldn't care, except that the folks hanging about the curb have gotten a little more intimidating. I stay away even more .... A little while back, the panhandler who needed $2.35 to get his wife and kids off the turnpike was there. Found another registrar....

In other news ( ), one of the local hospital systems got bought out again. This time the very expensive CPZ signs are gone. They always complained of a lack of funds, but blew a pile on the old signs. Film at 11....

Regards,

Chuck wrote:It's only since March of this year that Deputy Registrars were permitted by law to allow patrons to carry guns.
Believe it or not, even if they allow guns, they still must post the sign,
Such is the wisdom of our elected officials

See ORC 2923.1212(A)(9)

...but the presence of the sign still overrules the intent of the owner of the facility, right? Not that it makes a big difference in my life since I'm only in there every year or two.

They were required to post . I believe the language was in their contract with the state, since they were in essence, acting on behalf of the state.
Problem is now, many are owned by out-of-state corporations, most who are anti's.
Very few local owned independent license agencies left.

dustymedic wrote:I understand the Alum Creek Drive & Hiltop complexes being posted, because OSHP has a presence in both buildings. Maybe BMV needs to improve their customer service, then they wouldn't need to worry about armed persons....

No matter how bad customer service is, they still have no need to be concerned about legally armed persons. For all the others the signs wont mean anything anyhow!

Chuck wrote:It's only since March of this year that Deputy Registrars were permitted by law to allow patrons to carry guns.
Believe it or not, even if they allow guns, they still must post the sign,
Such is the wisdom of our elected officials

See ORC 2923.1212(A)(9)

Note, however, that there is no statutory penalty for not posting, nor can any civil liability be premised upon a failure to post.

Brian D. wrote:This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to throw the key in the well bucket and move to Kentucky. Their gun laws aren't perfect but a lot better (because they are so much less complex and convoluted) than ours.

Other than that whole bar versus restaurant thing. We did get that one right.

RichN wrote:

Brian D. wrote:This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to throw the key in the well bucket and move to Kentucky. Their gun laws aren't perfect but a lot better (because they are so much less complex and convoluted) than ours.

Other than that whole bar versus restaurant thing. We did get that one right.

Partly because Ohio doesn't categorize restaurants as making 51% of income from food like Kentucky and some other states do.

schmieg wrote:

RichN wrote:

Brian D. wrote:This is the sort of stuff that makes me want to throw the key in the well bucket and move to Kentucky. Their gun laws aren't perfect but a lot better (because they are so much less complex and convoluted) than ours.

Other than that whole bar versus restaurant thing. We did get that one right.

Partly because Ohio doesn't categorize restaurants as making 51% of income from food like Kentucky and some other states do.

At times, I wonder if that wasn't actually a semi-clever move from the Kentucky legislature. How could a casual patron be expected to know those financial particulars? If a non-imbibing customer has to defend himself, and the place in question has a food menu of any kind, it's going to be tough to prosecute, assuming a "clean shoot".

Also, only carry of a "loaded" firearm is completely forbidden in a Kentucky "bar". Per definition of "loaded" elsewhere in the Kentucky Revised Statutes, someone could have an empty handgun on one side of their person, and charged magazines/speedloaders/moon clips on the other.

In any event, stand alone charges of CCW don't get levied against otherwise law abiding carriers much in Kentucky.