Westerville Parks

[AndMetal]

I was at the Olde Town Park in Westerville a while back and happened to take a picture of their rules sign (which is also posted online):



It states "Abide by Concealed Carry state guidelines" and makes no mention of Open Carry, so I figured it's okay as is.

As a result of some of the other recent issues with other municipalities, I decided to check out Westerville's Codified Ordinances to see if there were any issues. It looks like they're up-to-date with the motor vehicle changes that went into effect with Restaurant Carry last year (see 523.05). However, when I did a search for the term "firearm", it looks like their Municipal Parks ordinances (chapter 965) may only allow LEOs and licensees to carry in the parks:

No person, other than law enforcement officers, or persons licensed pursuant to Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code, shall carry any firearm or dangerous ordnance as defined in Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code. No person, other than law enforcement officers and persons with permission of the Director, shall discharge any firearms, fireworks, explosive substances, dangerous ordnances, or gas-powered guns in, into or over a park.

(Ord. 05-13. Passed 4-19-05.)

If I'm reading this correctly, I believe that means someone who doesn't have a CHL and is Open Carrying in a Westerville park would be in violation of the ordinance (which appears to be an MM), which makes me think the ordinance would be in violation of 9.68.

Am I reading that right? If so, I'll probably shoot them MyWifeSaidYes-esque electronic correspondence here in the next few days.

[Werz]

No person, other than law enforcement officers, or persons licensed pursuant to Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code, shall carry any firearm or dangerous ordnance as defined in Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code. No person, other than law enforcement officers and persons with permission of the Director, shall discharge any firearms, fireworks, explosive substances, dangerous ordnances, or gas-powered guns in, into or over a park.

(Ord. 05-13. Passed 4-19-05.)

If I'm reading this correctly, I believe that means someone who doesn't have a CHL and is Open Carrying in a Westerville park would be in violation of the ordinance (which appears to be an MM), which makes me think the ordinance would be in violation of 9.68.

Am I reading that right? If so, I'll probably shoot them MyWifeSaysYes-esque electronic correspondence here in the next few days.

Technically, you are reading it wrong. It's worse than you thought. That section does not contain the qualifier "in a park" in the first sentence. However, I see no provision under Chapter 965 which limits the application of the ordinances therein to municipal parks. Therefore, it essentially prohibits open carry of a firearm by an unlicensed person anywhere in the city!

That could just be poor drafting. By the same token, it could be intentional and very, very slick.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

The sign looks great as is, but the ordinance should definitely be amended.

Post your emails and any replies you get. I grew up in WeeWeeVille and am interested to see how they respond.

[cashman966]

No person, other than law enforcement officers, or persons licensed pursuant to Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code, shall carry any firearm or dangerous ordnance as defined in Title 29 of the Ohio Revised Code. No person, other than law enforcement officers and persons with permission of the Director, shall discharge any firearms, fireworks, explosive substances, dangerous ordnances, or gas-powered guns in, into or over a park.

(Ord. 05-13. Passed 4-19-05.)

If I'm reading this correctly, I believe that means someone who doesn't have a CHL and is Open Carrying in a Westerville park would be in violation of the ordinance (which appears to be an MM), which makes me think the ordinance would be in violation of 9.68.

Am I reading that right? If so, I'll probably shoot them MyWifeSaysYes-esque electronic correspondence here in the next few days.

Technically, you are reading it wrong. It's worse than you thought. That section does not contain the qualifier "in a park" in the first sentence. However, I see no provision under Chapter 965 which limits the application of the ordinances therein to municipal parks. Therefore, it essentially prohibits open carry of a firearm by an unlicensed person anywhere in the city!

That could just be poor drafting. By the same token, it could be intentional and very, very slick.

Then I Guess you can't swim in a backyard pool either unless you get the Directer to designate it.

965.09 SWIMMING.

Swimming is prohibited except in areas designated for that purpose by the Director.

[Gaspode]

The sign looks great as is, but the ordinance should definitely be amended.

Post your emails and any replies you get. I grew up in WeeWeeVille and am interested to see how they respond.

Well, worse come to worse we could always try and get Dan Aumiller to goto a council meeting and talk to them...

[graham77]

Interpretations of the rules scared me a lot as Werz said. He rightly said you need to be technically sound, very sound if you really want to interpret the effects of the rules. Why they make such rules?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

This never went anywhere so I'm picking it back up.

Here is the the letter I sent through their web contact form:

Dear members of council-

Could you please advise me about the legality of someone carrying a loaded shotgun in a Westerville park?

A friend of mine says it is perfectly legal, but I read the park rule that said only police and people with concealed handgun licenses could have guns in the park.

I know this sounds like a silly question, but who is right? My friend, or the park rule?

Thanks!

Depending on the answer, I may be doing a shotgun walk in Westerville.

[evan price]

Depending on the answer, I may be doing a shotgun walk in Westerville.

Let me know when and where and I could possibly provide you video support and backup.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I used a Westerville address when I submitted my question.

With any luck, that will speed up the response.

With more luck, the response will be positive for us.

If not, the next council meeting is 9/3.

I'd like to do something prior to that, if we hear back in time. Business hours would be best, so it's easier for the police to get ahold of a law director while they are detaining/arresting me.

[TJW815]

There is the distinct possibility that they may send the response to the physical address provided... That is what Franklin did when I emailed them. Took them two weeks to send me a hand written response. (Was not firearm related though)

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Here is the reply I got today from Westerville Police Chief Morbitzer:

First, thanks for the e-mail and your questions of the legalities of weapons in our parks. Actually both you and your friend are right to some degree. Open carry of firearms is legal in Ohio if you meet all of the qualifications under the Ohio Revised Code. Likewise, concealed carry is legal if the person possessing the weapon meets the parameters outlined in the law. However, in Westerville we do have a local administrative ordinance that prohibits weapons in the City parks. In this case they possessor of the firearm could be asked to leave the park for violating park rules and then action could be taken for criminal trespass for non-compliance.

[pirateguy191]

Here is the reply I got today from Westerville Police Chief Morbitzer:

First, thanks for the e-mail and your questions of the legalities of weapons in our parks. Actually both you and your friend are right to some degree. Open carry of firearms is legal in Ohio if you meet all of the qualifications under the Ohio Revised Code. Likewise, concealed carry is legal if the person possessing the weapon meets the parameters outlined in the law. However, in Westerville we do have a local administrative ordinance that prohibits weapons in the City parks. In this case they possessor of the firearm could be asked to leave the park for violating park rules and then action could be taken for criminal trespass for non-compliance.

Get 'em.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

And what I sent back to them (there were a few people CC:'ed on the Chief's email to me):

Chief Morbitzer-

Thanks for your quick response!

After doing some more research, it appears to me that the city of Westerville is violating Ohio Revised Code 9.68 by maintaining an ordinance that attempts to regulate or restrict the possession of firearms.

This is no longer permitted and places the city at risk of a lawsuit. ORC 9.68 allows for costs and attorney fees to be recovered from the city should you be sued.

Please advise your city law director to review ORC 9.68 and the associated Ohio Supreme Court cases "Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605" and "Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135, 2010-Ohio-6318".

I recommend that you and all peace officers under your command IMMEDIATELY STOP ENFORCING THE INVALID PARK RULE AND ITS UNDERLYING CITY ORDINANCE. To stop, detain, eject, arrest, or otherwise harass someone legally open carrying a firearm would be a violation of their rights and may be actionable.

Please advise city council to IMMEDIATELY DIRECT THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE INVALID ORDINANCE AND BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. As it puts the city at risk, I would support city council considering the corrective ordinance as an emergency.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

While in no way required, I would greatly appreciate being kept up to date on the progress of the modifications of the illegal ordinance, the illegal park rules, wherever they may be published, and any and all signs in parks containing the illegal rule.

This email is to be considered a public record under Ohio Public Records law.

-"MWSY"
August 27, 2013

[BriKuz]

Janae and I were planning a trip to Cabelas... hmmmm.... lol

[Werz]

And what I sent back to them (there were a few people CC:'ed on the Chief's email to me)

Speaking of "cc's", have you considered copying Jonathan "The Gun Guy" Fulkerson at the Attorney General's Office to inquire why the AG's OPOTA hasn't bothered to instruct the chief of police of a prominent municipality just outside our state capitol regarding Ohio's preemption law?