Page 1 of 3

ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:38 pm
by rickt
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only the state can regulate ownership, carrying, transportation, etc., any city ordinance regulating those things is no longer valid.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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:04 pm
by jgarvas
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:17 pm
by cashman966
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:46 am
by rickt
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:46 am
by rickt
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:36 am
by AlanM
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:39 am
by djthomas
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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:39 am
by SteveOH
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

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:30 pm
by Cruiser
Wow! Great job. Put a location in your Profile and we'll all know where this is.
Thanks and Welcome.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 6:55 am
by gfrlaser
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?Ty ... 9207A56%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.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 6:58 am
by JustaShooter
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?Ty ... 9207A56%7D
It would appear from the URL (dayton.or.us) that you've stumbled upon the ordinances for the city of Dayton, Oregon...

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 8:38 am
by gfrlaser
Ah, that would explain it. lol
Thanks for noticing that.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 8:46 am
by JustaShooter
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:

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:12 am
by John1022
I will look for other forums on my question as well. I had encountered a no firearms sign on an apartment building that states "You are prohibited from carrying a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous ordinance or concealed firearm in or onto these premises even if you have a state permit!" yes it even has the exclamation point. Then it states "*pursuant to Ohio revised code and AMHA policy,...“. Then goes on to state "No person shall...." you know the rest of that part. I know that this is against the law, but I am not sure how to go about stopping them from posting this.

Re: ORC 9.68 compliance vs noncompliance

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:08 am
by JustJack
John1022 wrote:I will look for other forums on my question as well. I had encountered a no firearms sign on an apartment building that states "You are prohibited from carrying a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous ordinance or concealed firearm in or onto these premises even if you have a state permit!" yes it even has the exclamation point. Then it states "*pursuant to Ohio revised code and AMHA policy,...“. Then goes on to state "No person shall...." you know the rest of that part. I know that this is against the law, but I am not sure how to go about stopping them from posting this.
Unfortunately, it's not against the law. Apartment buildings are private property and they can post 'til their heart is content. Now, what they cannot do, is prevent a renter with CHL from having a firearm, as long as the lease was signed on or after September 9, 2008. ORC 2923.126(C)(3)(b)