Hancock Park District

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: Chuck, Mustang380gal, 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
tbrew85
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:46 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by tbrew85 »

I live in Butler county so I thought I would check Butler county Metro Parks rules. It would appear they are not in compliance either. Here is a link to their rules and regs. It was approved on May 13,2008 and effective June 1, 2008.

http://www.butlercountymetroparks.org/c ... 6-1-08.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 8

1545.09 5b No person, except a Park Ranger, another law enforcement officer, a person within a designated hunting area, a person within a Board designated target range, or a person specifically authorized in writing by the Executive Director or his or her designee shall carry or possess a firearm of any description, air rifle, slingshot, bow, crossbow, rocket, missile throwing device, or hunting knife within a Park unless said devise is a handgun and said person possess a valid Ohio Concealed Carry Permit.
Proud father of a US Army Soldier

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert Heinlein
AndMetal
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:17 am
Location: Johnstown, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by AndMetal »

charben wrote:The new wording of the rule compared to the old:
Rules & Regulations #11 Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
Weapons Rule #11 (current):
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.

Weapons Rule #11 (recommended):
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Carry or possess a concealed deadly weapon, firearm, explosive or explosive device, incendiary device, or dangerous ordnance while in the park or on a trail that is not allowable per state law. (O.R.C. §2923.11 through §2923.1213)
They are making this way too complicated... Assuming they still want LEOs and authorized hunters to be exempt:
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons other than firearms, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, or hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.
The way they have it worded leaves some ambiguity imo. For example, Open Carry is mentioned in 9.68, but it's not explicitly "allowable per state law" (rather it is implicit because there is no law making it illegal). In the same token, it sounds like the change to "concealed deadly weapon" means open carrying of other deadly weapons would be okay now?
Ruger P95 9mm
More to come, I'm sure.
User avatar
Tourist
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2931
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Chesterland

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by Tourist »

Chris,

I may be reading too much into it, but I worry about the uninformed law enforcement reading it as written. :(

AndMetal,

I believe that they want to make it complicated. :wink: Note: your suggested wording would allow CHL holders to carry other things than handguns (which the CHL does not cover), and still infers (but does not explicitly say) no open carry by non-CHL holders.
charben
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10191
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Wauseon, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by charben »

Cruiser wrote:
charben wrote:I did suggest that they add a reference to ORC 9.68 (C) (1) since the cited code does not cover open carry.

Tourist, I think you are reading much too much into it.
Why not take the wording from the famous CPZ sign put out by the State that does not apply to us! :roll:
"unless authorized by law"
That is exactly what their first attempt at a re-write resulted in.
Chris

Crushing the First Amendment, one post at a time!

"If you walk out of your house carrying your gun (openly or otherwise) and you DO NOT fully understand the law, then you are NOT completely armed..."
charben
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10191
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Wauseon, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by charben »

Next time I'm just goingto post "it's fixed" and leave it at that. :roll:
Chris

Crushing the First Amendment, one post at a time!

"If you walk out of your house carrying your gun (openly or otherwise) and you DO NOT fully understand the law, then you are NOT completely armed..."
AndMetal
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:17 am
Location: Johnstown, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by AndMetal »

Tourist wrote:Note: your suggested wording would allow CHL holders to carry other things than handguns (which the CHL does not cover), and still infers (but does not explicitly say) no open carry by non-CHL holders.
Whoops, thought I got that part crossed out. Here's what I meant:
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons other than firearms, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, or hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.
So simple, a caveman could understand it! :twisted:
Ruger P95 9mm
More to come, I'm sure.
tbrew85
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:46 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by tbrew85 »

charben wrote:Next time I'm just goingto post "it's fixed" and leave it at that. :roll:

I hope not Chris. I appreciate the detailed info. I think its a great learning tool for most of us. Please keep up the great work, and the awesome communication to the readers of these forums.
Proud father of a US Army Soldier

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert Heinlein
charben
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10191
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Wauseon, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by charben »

AndMetal wrote:
Tourist wrote:Note: your suggested wording would allow CHL holders to carry other things than handguns (which the CHL does not cover), and still infers (but does not explicitly say) no open carry by non-CHL holders.
Whoops, thought I got that part crossed out. Here's what I meant:
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons other than firearms, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, or hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.
So simple, a caveman could understand it! :twisted:
That still comes out as excepting firearms, explosives, and harmful devices.

Ideally, the rule should just say that the park "adheres to state law regarding possession of firearms in the park." This way, they don't have to trip over themselves creating exclusion clauses. Of course, the will probably not satisfy Tourist because it is too vague and some LE who doesn't know state law will give someone grief! Lol!
Chris

Crushing the First Amendment, one post at a time!

"If you walk out of your house carrying your gun (openly or otherwise) and you DO NOT fully understand the law, then you are NOT completely armed..."
User avatar
Tourist
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2931
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Chesterland

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by Tourist »

Chris,

I was not trying to in any way minimize the work you put in. I know that you put in an enormous number of volunteer hours and I know just how hard it is to get government electees to make changes, even when it is in their best interest.

As you know we worked together to get Chesterland's rules changed.

My only point was to try to make it better. I guess I suffer from an engineer’s eye to detail, and I don't like to leave loopholes if they can be avoided. I know when you are deep in the swamp it is sometimes easier to say well I guess that is good enough, however I met you and always expect perfection. :lol:
AndMetal
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 7:17 am
Location: Johnstown, OH

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by AndMetal »

charben wrote:
AndMetal wrote:
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons other than firearms, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, or hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.
That still comes out as excepting firearms, explosives, and harmful devices.
You're right. I would think either of these two phrasings would make it more clear that "other than firearms" refers to weapons instead of "other than firearms, explosives, or harmful devices" referring to weapons:
  • any firearms, weapons (other than firearms), explosives, or harmful devices
  • any firearms, weapons, explosives, or harmful devices, or weapons other than firearms
charben wrote:Ideally, the rule should just say that the park "adheres to state law regarding possession of firearms in the park." This way, they don't have to trip over themselves creating exclusion clauses.
I wonder if this is just their way of being able to get the revenue for misdemeanor weapons violations ("It is unlawful to") like many of the local ordinances that match the ORC do?
Ruger P95 9mm
More to come, I'm sure.
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

The park commissioners were scheduled to have their monthly board meeting yesterday (5/8). The adoption of amended park rules regarding weapons was on their agenda.

Hopefully they will contact charben if they approved it.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

One polite inquiry later...
"MWSY",

Section 3.0 Weapons from the Hancock Park District's Rules & Regulations is attached. There is no language in our rules that prohibit the lawful open carry of a firearm in the park. Section 3.0 Weapons has been recently revised, and was approved last night by the Board of Park Commissioners.

Gary Pruitt
Director
Hancock Park District
Of course, their new list of rules needs "tweaked".
3.0 Weapons
  • 3.1 Carrying Concealed Weapons
    The carrying or possession of a concealed deadly weapon while in the park or on a trail is governed by
    state law (O.R.C. §2923.11 through 2923.1213)
  • 3.2 Individuals Licensed to Carry a Concealed Handgun
    A person with a permit to carry a concealed handgun is not permitted by law to carry a concealed
    handgun in any Hancock Park District building that is not used primarily as a shelter or restroom.
    (O.R.C. §2923.126)
  • 3.3 Using Weapons while Intoxicated
    No person, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous
    ordnance in the park or on a trail. (O.R.C. §2923.15)
  • 3.4 Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle
    No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully
    possess the firearm, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:
    A. In a closed package, box or case
    B. In a compartment which can be reached only by leaving the vehicle
    C. In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for that purpose
    D. In plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped if the firearm is at least twenty-four
    inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle
    and if the barrel is at least eighteen inches in length, or, in plain sight if the firearm is of a type on
    which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped. (O.R.C. §2923.16)
  • 3.5 Discharging of Firearms
    No person shall discharge a firearm in the park or on a trail, or upon or over a public road or highway.
    (O.R.C. §2923.162)
I'll send them a nice note about 3.4 not applying to CHL, but their wording doesn't mention such an exemption. ORC 2923.16(F)(5)(a)
MyWifeSaidYes
JSLACK7851
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:29 am
Location: Vermilion, open carry town

Re: Hancock Park District

Post by JSLACK7851 »

Sounds like some cookin is in order, hamburgers, hot dogs, pot luck picnic?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
Citizen of Ohio, United States of America
Post Reply