Cleveland Gun "Buy Back" This Weekend - Details Here

ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

A sub-forum for the purpose of discussing ORC 9.68 compliance. This sub-forum is strictly for the discussion of progress in individual cities and their respective parks.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Forum rules
This sub-forum is strictly for the purpose of submitting of, and status updates related to, ORC 9.68 compliance. This could mean park bans, open carry bans, or anything that is a compliance issue. Note the format in which original threads were created. We'll track each individual case here and post updates if assistance is needed, etc. You may start a new thread here to notify us of a non-compliant scenario. Please try to research contact information for each city, village, etc, Email, fax, and postal addresses are great. Digital photos of infractions (Signs) are ideal. With limited exceptions this is NOT a discussion forum.

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING

ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby rickt » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:38 pm

I'm seeing some confusion here about what ORC 9.68 compliance means so here is my valiant attempt at clarifying. Please let me know if I made any errors (or if I actually muddied the waters).

First of all, it doesn't apply to the posting of signs in state facilities. Signs in state highway restrooms, parking garages or other facilities has nothing to do with ORC 9.68.

ORC 9.68 says that only the state can regulate firearms ownership, carrying, transportation, storage, possession and transfer. The only thing left to cities is zoning of commercial sales and zoning of retail establishments. Cities can still regulate the discharge of a firearm. That's about it.

The state authorizes political subdivisions to post "no guns" signs on certain types of buildings. Counties, cities, libraries, regional transit authorities and county agricultural societies are all political subdivisions. The only type of building they are authorized to post are "government facilities". The definition of "government facility" is not completely clear. If government employees show up for work at that building every weekday, you can be sure that building is legally posted.

What is clear is that the law specifically says that a "building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility" cannot be posted (unless they share the building with a courtroom). Those buildings used to be legally posted, so you may see signs still up where either they don't know the law has changed or they are just dragging their feet about removing the sign because they are anti-gun.

If a political subdivision of the state has posted anything other then a building, that posting is not authorized by law. City parks and parking lots, county fairgrounds, city or RTA buses are all examples of places that political subdivisions are not authorized to post.

Since only the state can regulate ownership, carrying, transportation, etc., any city ordinance regulating those things is no longer valid. City gun registration, assault weapons bans, open carry bans, Saturday night special bans, child safety lock requirements are all examples of defunct city ordinances.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby jgarvas » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Rick, this is a great post.

My only point would be that a city isn't authorized, its more of a "you shall post this sign". Also, not that its relevant, but if a building isn't posted and is still a government building it doesn't matter that it wasn't posted, its still prohibited. Would you agree with that conclusion?

Good separation of HB347 / SB184 aspects of the RC. We could put someone on these full time for a few months.
Jeff Garvas, President
Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Contrary to a popular belief when I brag about OFCC accomplishments I'm not looking for your thank you or personal recognition. I'd much prefer you send me an email telling me when you are going to get involved in doing what I've been doing since 1999. We are only as effective as we make ourselves. We need the next generation of OFCC to step to the plate.

Is that you?

To Contact Me: Use This Form and pick my name.
jgarvas
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Northern Summit County

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby cashman966 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:17 pm

I would add that IMO a municipalities can have ordinances on the books that mirror the ORC as to the regulating of ownership, carrying, transportation of firearms as they would not be in conflict with the general law. That said many local ordinances have not been updated to reflect the current wording in the ORC and therefore are in conflict.
Ignorant or Stupid, I'm not sure which is worse. If someone were stupid, at least they'd have an excuse for all the dumb things they say.

Pass the Peace Pipe I need another hit

IANAL and neither are most people on this board, its just shows more with some than others.
User avatar
cashman966
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Delaware, Ohio

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby rickt » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:46 am

jgarvas wrote:Rick, this is a great post.

My only point would be that a city isn't authorized, its more of a "you shall post this sign". Also, not that its relevant, but if a building isn't posted and is still a government building it doesn't matter that it wasn't posted, its still prohibited. Would you agree with that conclusion?.


I do agree with both points.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby rickt » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:46 am

cashman966 wrote:I would add that IMO a municipalities can have ordinances on the books that mirror the ORC as to the regulating of ownership, carrying, transportation of firearms as they would not be in conflict with the general law. That said many local ordinances have not been updated to reflect the current wording in the ORC and therefore are in conflict.


A good point which I didn't think about.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby AlanM » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:36 am

I'd like to add that inappropriate signs are a visible indication of non-compliance but there are non-visible non-compliance issues also.
For example:
Stow has a gun store licensing law on the books that requires record keeping AND REPORTING OF ALL SALES TO THE POLICE.
This is probably why there are no gun stores in Stow.

Silver Lake, a subdivision of Stow, has an open carry ban in their code.

Please dig into your local community's legal codes and ferret out as many of these 9.68 infractions before someone ends up in court because of superceeded law.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
AlanM
 
Posts: 7758
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby djthomas » Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:39 am

cashman966 wrote:I would add that IMO a municipalities can have ordinances on the books that mirror the ORC as to the regulating of ownership, carrying, transportation of firearms as they would not be in conflict with the general law. That said many local ordinances have not been updated to reflect the current wording in the ORC and therefore are in conflict.

A subtle point as well - some cities have taken the easy way out. For example, some cities have a concealed weapons statute that more or less is identical to state law (except they change a few things like say 'in the city'), but with respect to places that are off limits rather than enumerate all the places they're referred directly to ORC 2923.126. This means that when the legislature updates the off limits list for CHL people like it did with SB 184, the cities do not need to make any changes because they've already incorporated the correct ORC section by reference.

At this point I'm not super concerned if a city's weapons statutes substantially mirror state law - that is if they seem to be close copies of 347. To me that means that the city periodically updates their laws to be in concert with state law. Although they may not have the SB 184 changes in the law yet, I'm comfortable that they will probably make it in there in due time. On the other hand for cities like Cleveland where their CCW laws still reference the old affirmative defense for handguns, they are way out of compliance and need to be reminded of that fact well before we target cities that seems to have a regular process for conforming to state law, even if that update process isn't instantaneous.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 4509
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Lorain County

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby SteveOH » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:39 am

Just wanted to thank you for posting this information. My village had posted signs prohibiting firearms in our parks and marina. I sent an e-mail to the Mayor and city council containing the information in this post. The mayor ran it by the solicitor (attorney) and the attorney provided an opinion agreeing with your position. As a result, the signs will be changed and concealed carry will be allowed in the parks.

Much Obliged,
Steve
SteveOH
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:32 am

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby Cruiser » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:30 pm

Wow! Great job. Put a location in your Profile and we'll all know where this is.
Thanks and Welcome.
Abandon ye all HOPE!
User avatar
Cruiser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Mercer County, Ohio - what is yours?

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby gfrlaser » Mon May 05, 2014 6:55 am

AlanM, I did exactly as you suggested and started "digging in" to compliance.

Please dig into your local community's legal codes and ferret out as many of these 9.68 infractions before someone ends up in court because of superceeded law.


I found this while browsing Dayton's web site. I am confused as to what Oregon has to do with our discharge of weapons laws.

http://www.ci.dayton.or.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7BB999924A-986B-4469-8C34-AA0619207A56%7D


2.6 DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS
2.6.1 Discharge Prohibited
No person, other than a peace officer, may fire or discharge within the City any air gun, pellet gun, BB gun, bow and arrow, cross bow or any device defined as a weapon under Oregon Revised Statutes, except in defense of human life.
2.6.2 Penalty for Violation
A violation of any provision of section 2.6 of the Dayton Municipal Code is punishable as stated in the applicable Oregon Revised Statute.
2.7 FIREWORKS
2.7.1 Oregon Fireworks Law
Oregon Fireworks Law, ORS 480.110 to 480.165 and subsequent amendments, is incorporated into Dayton Code as though fully set forth.
2.7.2 Penalty for Violation
A violation of any provision of section 2.7 of the Dayton Municipal Code is a Class B violation.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Dalai Lama
User avatar
gfrlaser
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby JustaShooter » Mon May 05, 2014 6:58 am

gfrlaser wrote:AlanM, I did exactly as you suggested and started "digging in" to compliance.

Please dig into your local community's legal codes and ferret out as many of these 9.68 infractions before someone ends up in court because of superceeded law.


I found this while browsing Dayton's web site. I am confused as to what Oregon has to do with our discharge of weapons laws.

http://www.ci.dayton.or.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=%7BB999924A-986B-4469-8C34-AA0619207A56%7D

It would appear from the URL (dayton.or.us) that you've stumbled upon the ordinances for the city of Dayton, Oregon...
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby gfrlaser » Mon May 05, 2014 8:38 am

Ah, that would explain it. lol
Thanks for noticing that.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Dalai Lama
User avatar
gfrlaser
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby JustaShooter » Mon May 05, 2014 8:46 am

No worries - I have recent experience in making just such an error while researching some OH county CHL application information and procedures. After scratching my head about some of the stuff I was reading, it dawned on me that the URL showed I was reading about a Michigan county and their CHL application process. :idea: Kinda made me feel a bit silly that I didn't catch it sooner... :oops:
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area


Return to ORC 9.68 Compliance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron