Beavercreek Park Regulations

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

Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:04 am

It appears to me that the Beavercreek Park Rules prohibit possession of any firearms. According to their website their Codified Ordinances may be found here.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/beavercreek_oh/cityofbeavercreekohiocodeofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:beavercreek_oh

Looking under
+Title IX
+Chapter 95 : Parks and Recreations,
+General Provisions,
+95.02 Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan,
about 40% of the way down the page is 95.18 Personal Conduct.

(J) No person in a park except a police officer shall have in their possession any firearm, switchblade, hunting knife, dagger, metal knuckles, slingshot, or other dangerous weapons.


I am willing to help if you like or you guys could take the lead, which ever you think would be best.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:05 am

PM sent to Charben
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:39 am

Odd. I read a little further ( I know I should have before posting but that in it's self appears to be in violation anyway) and under 95.21 Weapons in Parks it says absolutely nothing about firearms but 95.18 Personal Conduct (J) defiantly does.

Looks like they may have tried to come into compliance but missed one.

I can go to some parks this weekend and see if I can find any postings or info to corroborate this, but the last times I was in some of them I never seen anything.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:44 pm

Just to keep this thread up to date I sent an email to address this.

from [Redacted]@gmail.com
to parks@ci.beavercreek.oh.us
date Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:17 PM
subject Park Ordinance 95.18 ( J )
mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Oct 7 (2 days ago)


To Whom it May Concern,
Hello, I am writing this email to inquire about the Beavercreek park ordinance 95.18. Specifically subsection J that states,

"No person in a park except a police officer shall have in their possession any firearm, switchblade, hunting knife, dagger, metal knuckles, slingshot, or other dangerous weapons."

My concern with this is that it appears to be in violation with Ohio law, specifically ORC 9.68.

" 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."

I would like to know if this ordinance (95.18 (j)) is still on the books as quoted above and if so if there is any intention to remove or modify it to be in compliance with state law.

Thank you for your time and quick response,

Sincerely,

[Redacted]


I did visit another park today this one was Shoup Park off of Dayton-Xenia Rd. across from the big new Kroger Marketplace and the only sign was one citing an ordinance to keep dogs on a leash and to pick up after them. So maybe this was just overlooked.

Also if anyone has any criticisms about my email let me know so the next one can be worded better.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:04 pm

I received a reply to my email to the park district. The reply came from the park director himself.
Mr. ******,

I will look into the existing language in 95.18 (J) a little further. I will work with legal council to make a determination if this section needs to be changed to match the recently changed language in 95.21 (attached).

Sincerely,


Superintendent

Parks, Recreation and Culture

City of Beavercreek

789 Orchard Lane

Beavercreek, Ohio 45434





http://www.ci.beavercreek.oh.us



He then attached a copy of the paperwork that was signed and submitted in late 2010 to remove firearms from 95.21, which I would post if I can figure out how. So I looks like it may have in fact been overlooked.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:35 am

I was getting ready to leave for the Beavercreek fireworks at Rotary Park and I decided to check their firearm ordinances again.

I pull up the website and see that 95.18 (j) is still there unchanged, and 95.21 is back to its old self and still prohibiting firearms.

I do still have a copy of the PDF showing the council passing legislation to amend 95.21 to be in compliance of 9.68.

I guess I will have to send off another email to see what's going on with the website and if 95.18(j) was ever removed.


ETA: ok I screwed this up slightly. What I did different this time is that I googled "Beavercreek Ohio Park Rules" and found this link http://ci.beavercreek.oh.us/old/ordinances/title-ix-chapter%2095.htm. What I failed to realize is that is the OLD city website and evidently has not need updated for a while. But it is still there and evidently very easily found and thus needs to be removed.

By googling for the Beavercreek City website you get this. http://ci.beavercreek.oh.us/ at the bottom of the page there is a link called City Ordinances. That gives you a page with a link to American Legal which is what I posted in the OP. That site reflects 95.21 being updated and in compliance but 95.15(j) is still NOT in compliance.

Another email is still warranted.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:53 am

I sent another email to the park director again a week or two ago. I have received no response except for the automated message saying the he was out of the office for the weekend as I sent it after hours on a Friday.

Any recommendation on who I should email next? City council maybe?
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:28 am

Please post the text of the letter that you sent to Beavercreek.

For cities and villages, you should contact all of the council members. They will forward your email to their law director.

Make sure you ask for a reply in your email.

If you have to contact them again, point out these two items:

137.04 is out of date. It is a recitation of ORC 2923.16. That state statute was recently updated.

95.18(j) is non-compliant. You already told them this, but here is what they should do to fix it. "Firearm" needs to be removed from the list of banned items and an exception FOR "firearms" needs to be added. If the word "firearm" is removed without also adding an exception, a law enforcement officer may interpret the phrase "...other dangerous weapons" to include firearms. I would suggest modifying that phrase to "...other dangerous weapons, except legally possessed firearms."
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:13 am

Here's is what was last emailed from me to the park director.
Hello. I have previously contacted your office in October 2011, emails are attached below. 

I was writing to find out what action or determination was reached in reference to Beavercreek Park Rules, as posted on the city website, stating that anyone other than a police officer is prohibited from possessing firearms of any description. 

These rules may be in violation of ORC 9.68. As you may know ORC 9.68 allows for costs to be awarded to a plaintiff in the event that a lawsuit is brought aginst the city for these violations.

As you may also be aware that the Ohio Supreme Court decided in favor of Ohioans for Concealed Carry Inc. in their lawsuit against the city of Clyde for a similar situation. This decision was made April 13, 2007. The Supreme Court of Ohio also awarded costs to Ohioans for Concealed Carry Inc.

Any effort to look into this matter and any correspondence to let me know the disposition of the issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ohiophotog

This email was sent Aug 9, 2013 @ 2130
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)

Re: Beavercreek Park Regulations

Postby ohiophotog » Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:52 pm

I just received an email in response to my email that was sent on the 9th of August.
Mr. Ohiophotog,

 

This is proposed to be amended by City council in October.  Thanks for your patience and bringing this to our attention.

 

Sincerely,

 Michael P. Thonnerieux, CPRP

Interim Public Administrative Services Director

City of Beavercreek

789 Orchard Lane

Beavercreek, Ohio 45434

The gears are turning especially slowly if it takes a month and a half to receive a response via email.
- OK. Jokes over. Bring back the Constitution.
- Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
- No trees were harmed during the transmission of this message, however a ton of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
ohiophotog
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 8:17 pm
Location: Riverside, Ohio (Dayton)


Return to ORC 9.68 Compliance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest