City park posted-Circleville

[xtractr]

Tonight I went to Circleville to attend my son's baseball game. The diamond they were playing at was in a local park. (Barthelmas park) I initially thought the game would be played at the high school, so I left my gun at home. I got to the school and was told it was at the park. As I am pulling in, I notice the "weapon free zone" gun buster sign among all their other signs. Is it legal for the park to be posted? There was not a school there. I know I have seen threads on here previously about OFCC getting signs taken down from parks, and was wondering if this might be another one to try and get removed.





Gun-buster sign in the middle.

[noname]

Im not one of the "professionals" on here...but i do know that if that park is just a park, either city or state park they CAN NOT make carrying illegal on there grounds. Im sure you will soon be getting replies from others with facts. Hopefully that sign will come down..soon

[noname]

Once you get some legal facts i would call the park director, or the chief of that park and ask them why that sign is up there when it can NOT lawfully be.

[djthomas]

Good grief. Someone could steal half those signs and I don't think anyone would notice.

On a serious note, what does the sign actually say? Based on the picture it doesn't look to be a standard CPZ sign. Does it claim to be a school safety zone or something? That would be a good place to start.

[xtractr]

Sorry the cell phone picture didn't turn out very clear.

The top in bolder letters said "weapons free zone"

Underneath it had the standard language you see on many of the signs. I know my wording is a summary, but essentially it talked about pursuant to ....code......It is unlawful to knowingly bring a firearm onto these premises.


I looked through other posts, and the wording on this sign seems to be very close, if not identical. I don't think the bottom section was on the sign I saw though.





If I am by there again, I will try and get a better picture.

Or if anyone lives in the Circleville area, you could stop by and take one.

I live about a half hour away, and don't know if my boy will be playing in that park again or not. I just wanted to bring it to attention here in case there are people that live there and may want to see some changes made.


Here is the contact information.

http://www.ci.circleville.oh.us/Page.asp?NavID=525" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

104 East Franklin Street
Circleville, OH 43113
Phone: (740) 474-9502
Fax: (740) 477-8247
Contact: Becky Staresina
Email: Becky.Staresina@ci.circleville.oh.us

[Tourist]

The real question is was it a school function? If it was a school function, no matter where, you can not carry. If it was just little league, I would expect it would be ok.

[xtractr]

His game was a high school game, but the park is mainly used for youth league soccer and other sports. I still doubt the legality of the sign for a city park, even if it is occasionally used by school teams.

Are you sure it would be illegal to carry there, even for a school game. Does the whole park suddenly become a weapon free zone because a game is being played and would someone carrying concealed, walking through the park be subject to arrest because he didn't know a school function was occurring there? I am curious what the law says. I didn't see anything in the AG book stating it would be illegal.

[schmieg]

His game was a high school game, but the park is mainly used for youth league soccer and other sports. I still doubt the legality of the sign for a city park, even if it is occasionally used by school teams.

Are you sure it would be illegal to carry there, even for a school game. Does the whole park suddenly become a weapon free zone because a game is being played and would someone carrying concealed, walking through the park be subject to arrest because he didn't know a school function was occurring there? I am curious what the law says. I didn't see anything in the AG book stating it would be illegal.

If it was a school game, it was a school function and it is illegal to carry at a school function. The entire park does not become a CPZ, but those attending the function cannot be legally armed.

[Tourist]

If it is a school function, you can not carry. I am sure somebody will chip in with the proper ORC section.

[MuzzleReport]

I'll look into this and get a call or a letter to the parks director next week.

[xtractr]

I'll look into this and get a call or a letter to the parks director next week.

Sounds good. Let me know what you hear. I was debating whether to call myself, but thought it might carry more weight if someone that lived near there called, instead of an "outsider".

[MuzzleReport]

I'll look into this and get a call or a letter to the parks director next week.

Sounds good. Let me know what you hear. I was debating whether to call myself, but thought it might carry more weight if someone that lived near there called, instead of an "outsider".

The good news is that the new park they are sinking their entire budget into is not posted. My guess is not removing the sign was an oversight.

[MuzzleReport]

Letter ready to go in the mail, any feedback would be appreciated. Largely stolen from gmhiggins...

Recently I noticed a sign at the entrance to Barthelmas Park stating that no firearms were allowed in the park. I also noticed a similar sign along Rt 188 at the North end of Mary Virginia Crites Hannan Park. Then in checking the Circleville Parks website ( http://www.ci.circleville.oh.us/Page.asp?NavID=524" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) Rule #9 simply states “No Firearms”.

I am licensed by the State of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun in manners consistent with ORC 2923. Do the above stated signs and rules imply that I cannot carry my legally owned firearm in our parks? As you may or may not be aware, ORC 9.68 states that:

(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."

After being established in 2008 with the ruling of OFCC v Clyde, ORC 9.68 has been upheld with Cleveland v Ohio.

Being that Circleville does not have the authority to make such a rule, I am requesting the rules and regulations would be updated to remove rule #9, as in accordance with State law, any person legally able to carry a firearm (in any manner) is legally able to carry a firearm in the city's parks. The signs mentioned above and any others should also be removed.

Please contact me at your convenience regarding this matter at xxx-xxx-xxxx I will follow up by phone by April 30th to ensure you have received this letter.




Respectfully,
Muzzlereport

[Cruiser]

I hope you are useing your real name in the actual letter.

[djthomas]

Looks pretty good! Here are my suggestions.

First, you actually ask two questions. I would omit the part that states "I am licensed by the State of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun in manners consistent with ORC 2923. Do the above stated signs and rules imply that I cannot carry my legally owned firearm in our parks?" Having a CHL is completely irrelevant in this issue (as you imply later on). You don't want a partial victory here - i.e. they tell you that you can carry with your license but the signs get to stay up implying that open carry is prohibited.

Second, "After being established in 2008 with the ruling of OFCC v Clyde, ORC 9.68 has been upheld with Cleveland v Ohio." doesn't really say anything useful. I suggest something along the lines of "ORC 9.68 was established in 2008 to ensure uniform firearms laws and regulations across the state. After being subject to several court challenges it was ultimately upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court as a general law (i.e. displacing home rule) in Cleveland vs. Ohio."

This then would lead into the next paragraph which is good. If it were my letter I'd probably add a statement to the effect of "If there are special circumstances that allow for the prohibition of lawfully carried firearms in the park please let me know." This gives them a chance to tell you that the park is actually owned by the school board and instructional activities take place on the property (doubtful but always possible).

Lastly I don't know what this looks like on paper but you may wish to omit the full text of 9.68 and just quote the pertinent parts or provide a reference to the official website (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). They're going to have to have their lawyers look it up anyhow and a single page, to the point letter is always better than one taking two or three pages. Alternatively you could print 9.68 on a separate page and then state something like "for your convenience I have attached a current copy of ORC 9.68 which stipulates that a person may carry or possess a firearm anywhere in the state, subject only to state and federal law. Furthermore the statute provides for the automatic awarding of legal fees should somebody successfully challenge an unlawful local ordnance or regulation."