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

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby gfrlaser » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:14 am

SteveOH wrote: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


Steve... hopefully not ONLY concealed. Open as well?
"The sins of the evil do not justify restricting the rights of the good"
User avatar
gfrlaser
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:10 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:36 pm

gfrlaser wrote:Steve... hopefully not ONLY concealed. Open as well?


I hope you're not waiting around for a reply from SteveOH:

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:32 pm
Last visited: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:12 am
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby Brian D. » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:59 pm

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
gfrlaser wrote:Steve... hopefully not ONLY concealed. Open as well?


I hope you're not waiting around for a reply from SteveOH:

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:32 pm
Last visited: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:12 am


D'oh! Oh well that happens to the best of us, gfrlaser.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14500
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby gaptrick » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:51 pm

Having a discussion with a cop friend regarding vehicle storage. My question goes like this...

Without a CHL, overnight in the driveway car storage... the gun is to be unloaded and in a container out of reach from the driver I believe while WITH CHL, its loaded, unloaded, and hanging off the rear view, correct?

And 9.68 takes away the local municipalities from changing, or beefing up this as it is a storage and or transporting issue covered in 9.68 correct?

A community CAN call their own shots with those not covered by a CHL right?
Unarmed people are vulnerable people, and criminal predators prey upon them.

AWRHawkin


"A story about a bird stealing a knife from a crime scene...and we're more interested in hearing about the Canadian with a gun.
Man, we need to get lives."
MWSY
User avatar
gaptrick
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:02 pm
Location: Cuyahoga/Lake Counties

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby BB62 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:54 pm

gaptrick wrote:Having a discussion with a cop friend regarding vehicle storage. My question goes like this...

Without a CHL, overnight in the driveway car storage... the gun is to be unloaded and in a container out of reach from the driver I believe while WITH CHL, its loaded, unloaded, and hanging off the rear view, correct?

And 9.68 takes away the local municipalities from changing, or beefing up this as it is a storage and or transporting issue covered in 9.68 correct?

A community CAN call their own shots with those not covered by a CHL right?

You know of, and presumably have read 9.68, right?

Where do you get the idea that 9.68 only applies to those who possess a CHL, and/or that communities can call their own shots for such non-CHL holders?

(OH! One more thing: don't ask cops about the law)

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

9.68 Right to bear arms - challenge to law.

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person's person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.

(2) "Firearm" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

(D) This section does not apply to either of the following:

(1) A zoning ordinance that regulates or prohibits the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses;

(2) A zoning ordinance that specifies the hours of operation or the geographic areas where the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms may occur, provided that the zoning ordinance is consistent with zoning ordinances for other retail establishments in the same geographic area and does not result in a de facto prohibition of the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for commercial, retail, or industrial uses.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
User avatar
BB62
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby gaptrick » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:38 pm

I don't know where Icame up with 9.68 having to do with CHL only... Sometimes my brain farts...

As there are no mandated storage laws on the books where it is required to lock and key it in a under seat vault or even bring it in the house with you, 9.68 protects the citizen from being charges with any city ord that might say one can't leave a loaded gun under the seat over night in a locked car
Unarmed people are vulnerable people, and criminal predators prey upon them.

AWRHawkin


"A story about a bird stealing a knife from a crime scene...and we're more interested in hearing about the Canadian with a gun.
Man, we need to get lives."
MWSY
User avatar
gaptrick
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:02 pm
Location: Cuyahoga/Lake Counties

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:59 pm

gaptrick wrote:I don't know where Icame up with 9.68 having to do with CHL only... Sometimes my brain farts...

As there are no mandated storage laws on the books where it is required to lock and key it in a under seat vault or even bring it in the house with you, 9.68 protects the citizen from being charges with any city ord that might say one can't leave a loaded gun under the seat over night in a locked car




9.68 doesn't protect anyone from charges...9.68 prevents the city from HAVING such an ordinance under which to charge someone in the first place.

The fact that such an ordinance is ILLEGAL is what would protect someone who is charged under the ordinance.

Yes, it may be splitting hairs, but attorneys have lost cases by pursuing the wrong defense.

A city can regulate the USE of firearms, but not storage, not transport, not sale, purchase or trade, etc.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5384
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Previous

Return to ORC 9.68 Compliance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest