North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

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
jabeatty
Posts: 14074
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:08 pm
Location: East of Cincinnati

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by jabeatty »

BobK wrote:They can't have a local ordinance period. That is the basis for removing the sign.
Bob, as much as I'd like that to be true, I just don't see that in 9.68. If the local ordnance is an exact copy of state law, then I really don't think it opposes 9.68 (in word or intent).
--
Someone edited my signature and deleted my posts, and all I got was... this edited signature.
User avatar
BobK
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Houston TX (formerly Franklin County)

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by BobK »

jabeatty wrote:
BobK wrote:They can't have a local ordinance period. That is the basis for removing the sign.
Bob, as much as I'd like that to be true, I just don't see that in 9.68. If the local ordnance is an exact copy of state law, then I really don't think it opposes 9.68 (in word or intent).
Well, I see your point. The counterpoint is 9.68 states "Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, . . .". Don't see "local ordinance" on that list or even a "local ordinance that copies state law". I'd argue any and all local ordinances are invalid by statute (except for the zoning exception, of course).

Of course, I'm not an attorney, so your guess is as good as mine.
I am a: NRA Life Member, Texas State Rifle Association Life Member, Texas Firearms Coalition Gold member, OFCC Patron Member, former JFPO member (pre-SAF).

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots. Can't we find an electable (R) for 2016?
pleasantguywhopacks
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 16747
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Whitehouse, OH

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by pleasantguywhopacks »

Kleem has a contract with many local jurisdictions to replace signage as it fades. I'm betting they have just replaced it as it weathered and used the old signage wording. I bet I know the guy that hung it..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxXpNBdrVE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Life Member NRA
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by djthomas »

BobK wrote:Well, I see your point. The counterpoint is 9.68 states "Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, . . .". Don't see "local ordinance" on that list or even a "local ordinance that copies state law". I'd argue any and all local ordinances are invalid by statute (except for the zoning exception, of course).
It's important to remember that 9.68 is only peremptory with respect to firearms. As a general matter 2923.12 and its many municipal mirrors deal more broadly with concealed weapons, many of which are properly within the purview of municipal authorities.

Furthermore as far as firearms are concerned so long as the municipal ordinance doesn't attempt to reach further than state law there is no conflict and thus no preemption.
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

The sign says, in bold type, "No firearms are permitted".

A prudent person would believe it's in violation of ORC 9.68.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
Shutterbug57
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:09 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by Shutterbug57 »

OK, y'all. I have drafted my letter to the NCH Law Director. Please feel free to pick it apart (constructively) so we can produce the best letter possible.


Mr. Basil:

Recently I noticed a sign at a park in North College Hill (“NCH”) at the intersection of Northridge Avenue and Cloverwood (picture attached). Among other things, this sign states “No Firearm are Permitted – Violators will be prosecuted under ORD 549.02.” This sign, while possibly legally accurate, is grossly misleading to the general public.

NCH ORD 549.02, is simply a recitation of ORC 2923.12 – the Ohio concealed carry law and it does not address the issue of legally openly carried firearms in the park. If one researches the sign's citation and follows it to its logical end, one comes to the understanding that NCH is simply stating that they will enforce Ohio’s concealed carry law. The verbiage on the sign, however, is clearly meant to convey a different message to the public.

Informed persons will understand that while this sign has inaccurate language on it – as even by the sign’s own citations not all firearms are prohibited in the park – but this will not keep uninformed people from taking certain actions based on the sign. After all, to the uninformed (which is most of the population), the sign clearly states that no firearms are allowed in the park. If they see somebody legally carrying, either concealed or openly, they may take actions that will waste NCH’s resources.

You may or may not be aware of ORC 9.68 ( http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; also attached) which was established in March of 2007 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.

It appears that NCH’s government’s desire is to restrict the use of firearms in a manner that is not consistent with ORC 9.68 while putting the legal smoke and mirrors in place to be able to say that is not what it is doing. The wording on the signs, when read without the benefit of knowing the law behind it, simply says “No Firearms are Permitted [in the park]” and this is how most people will interpret it. I believe that NCH's signage should reflect the actual allowable practices under the law, or be silent.

Misinforming the general public is likely to, sooner or later, result in calls to the police that are the result of law-abiding gun owners doing nothing illegal. As we have seen in several cases across Ohio, such calls do not always result in appropriate reactions by those in authority and this gets expensive for all concerned. I recommend that NCH replace the current sign with one that either explains that illegal firearms, that is those not carried by law-abiding persons of leagal age openly or licensed persons in a concealed fashion, are not allowed in the park. Alternatively, I would request the removal of firearms language from the signs altogether.

If there are special circumstances that allow for the prohibition of lawfully carried firearms in the parks please let me know.

I appreciate your input in this matter. Please feel free to contact me via phone at

Sincerely,
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot: All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then litterally soaking the earth with the blood of tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control. - Charlton Heston 11 Sept 97
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Good effort, but too wordy (IMHO).

I would have gone with:
Dear Mr, Basil-

The sign(s) in NCH city park that state "No firarms permitted" are in violation of ORC 9.68 and should be corrected.

Please let me know when this will be done.

Thanks!

That will open a dialog and should get you a response. If the response is positive, YAY!
If not, then get wordy.

Hopefully the law director already knows the law and you are just pointing out an oversight on the city's part. I wouldn't mention anything about laws other than violating 9.68. Don't send a copy. He knows where to find it (I hope) :P .

His local ordinances are just fine. It's his sign that is in violation. They can correct the signs or take them down...we just want them fixed.

HOWEVER if they reply that they do not want to change their signs, remind the law director that ORC 9.68 allows for court costs and attorney fees in lawsuits for violations of ORC 9.68.

Have fun!
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
Shutterbug57
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:09 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by Shutterbug57 »

OK, here is the current skinny. I sent the following letter
Mr. Deters:

Recently I noticed a sign at a park in North College Hill (“NCH”) at the intersection of Northridge Avenue and Cloverwood. Among other things, this sign states “No Firearm are Permitted – Violators will be prosecuted under ORD 549.02.” This sign not internally consistent and is grossly
misleading to the general public.

NCH ORD 549.02, is simply a recitation of ORC 2923.12 – the Ohio concealed carry law. This law allows for concealed carry by persons with a concealed handgun license and is silent on the issue of legally openly carried firearms in the park. Therefore, the sign, as posted, appears to
make certain provisions for weapons carried in a concealed fashion by licensed individuals, but it in no way attempts to make any provision for legally carried weapons by open carriers. This is a violation of ORC 9.68.

You may or may not be aware of ORC 9.68 (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), which was established in March of 2007 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.

It appears that NCH’s government’s desire is to restrict the use of firearms in a manner that is not consistent with ORC 9.68. I believe that NCH's signage should reflect the actual allowable practices under the law, or be silent. If there are special circumstances that allow for the
prohibition of lawfully carried firearms in the parks please let me know.

I appreciate your input in this matter. Please feel free to contact me via return e-mail or by phone at XXX.XXX.XXXX.

Sincerely,
I got the following response
Mr. XXXXXX. Thank you for your email. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. While it is true that the sign of which you wrote does not discuss the open carrying of firearms in the park, the City does not intend to prosecute otherwise lawful instances of any openly carried firearms. However, violations of the City’s concealed carry laws in addition to any State or Federal Laws regarding firearms will be prosecuted.
It does not appear that NCH is planning on doing anything about their signs, but taken literally, the sign is technically accurate as it simply refers one, albiet in a round about way, to the ORC on CCW. Since there is nothing in that statute that would allow prosecution of OC, the sign is techinically true, if intentionally misleading.

Can anyone make a air-tight case for a 9.68 violation in this signage? I appreciate any input.
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot: All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then litterally soaking the earth with the blood of tens of millions of their people. Ah, the joys of gun control. - Charlton Heston 11 Sept 97
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

As I said earlier:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote:The sign says, in bold type, "No firearms are permitted".

A prudent person would believe it's in violation of ORC 9.68.
The sign I read is not "technically accurate" or "technically true" because it states "NO FIREARMS ARE PERMITTED".

It doesn't matter what statute it will be prosecuted under. And someone saying they won't prosecute you won't hold any weight when you get to court.


Earlier, I suggested you keep your message brief, but I didn't really say why. The reason is that the first reply you get from one of these entities is just lip service. You sent 4 very nice paragraphs. And you got served in 3 sentences.


If you don't want to keep your message brief, try something like this:
Dear ???????????

Your sign at NCH Park states that "NO FIREARMS ARE PERMITTED".

This is a defacto ban on guns by your municipality and is in violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68. This law also allows for costs and attorney fees should your municipality be sued for posting this illegal sign.

Your municipality can make no rules prohibiting the ownership or possession of firearms, whether carried openly or concealed.

Lack of enforcement of an illegal law, rule or regulation is not the same as removing the illegal rule.

Please remove this sign immediately.
Also, if you PM me with their email address(es), I can start sending them emails also.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: North College Hill No Firearms in Parks Signage

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

This is what I sent through their 'Contact Us' web site:
To whom it may concern-

Can you please advise me on the rules regarding firearms at parks in North College Hill?

I prefer to openly carry my handgun in a hip holster. I was advised by an acquaintance that firearms are not allowed at the parks, whether openly carried or concealed.

Since this goes against state preemption (ORC 9.68), I was hoping you could confirm for me what the rules actually are.

Thanks!

-"MWSY"
June 6, 2012
A city employee forwarded that message to the police chief. Here is his response:
"MWSY", The No Firearms in the Park is prohibited unless authorized by law. There are provisions in the Ohio Revised Code which allow individuals to legally carry firearms by law and these individuals would be exempt from this notice.

Respectfully,

Chief Foust
And my reply to him (now I know his position on the issue, I get "wordy"):
Chief Foust-

Thanks for your quick response!

As you know, the open carry of firearms in Ohio is a legal activity, with certain restrictions, of course.

What many people do not know is that there is no law that ALLOWS open carry, only the absence of any laws against it. The signs that proclaim “No firearms unless authorized by law” is a defacto ban on openly carried firearms.

In 2007, Ohio Revised Code 9.68 went into effect. This law preempts any municipal law, rule or regulation within Ohio. That means only federal laws and state laws apply.

This law does two other things that are pertinent to my concern.

- First, this law DOES specifically mention and protect open carry by disallowing any local laws regulating it.

- Second, this law allows for costs and attorney fees to be awarded if North College Hill is sued for having a law, rule or regulation in violation of ORC 9.68.

Even if you choose not to enforce the park signs or rules, simply having these signs posted, or the rules listed, puts North College Hill out of compliance with ORC 9.68.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe any “No Firearms” signs in any park should be removed immediately.

If there are any official park rules or statutes regarding owning or possessing firearms, city council needs to add it to their agenda to revise those rules or statutes.

I understand that you will want your legal advisor to review this issue.

Please let me know if and when any action is taken regarding this issue.

Thanks for your time!

-"MWSY"
June 7, 2012

Shutterbug, please keep up your campaign! Having more than one concerned citizen inquiring about the same issue is much more likely to get some attention.
MyWifeSaidYes
Post Reply