Upper Arlington

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
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by WestonDon »

gfrlaser wrote:“If someone's carrying one around for their own safety, I can respect that, but I don't necessarily want them around my children in a public park with it,” said Chris Lloyd.


Huh? For our own safety is ok, for her children, it's not?
I wonder if these sheeple ever listen to themselves. :roll:
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by Werz »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
GWC wrote:
MyWifeSaidYes wrote: First, the modified park rule on firearms is STILL a rule on firearms:If I have no CHL and I conceal a handgun, I am subject to state law, not local law.

Even though their ordinance sounds good, it is a "further restriction" and violates 9.68.
This is not accurate. Municipal codes are allowed to prohibit matters already prohibited by state law. Unlicensed concealed carry IS prohibited by state law, so UA may also prohibit it.
GWC-

Maybe you can help. I'm not a lawyer but I really want to understand this stuff. R.C. 9.68 is not very long, but I can't figure out which part authorizes open carry.
That would be the part with the big words. But keep working on it, and you'll get it.

Here's a hint for a non-lawyer: the sacred legal principle of nulla poena sine lege. And R.C. 9.68 specifically "authorizes" open carry by specifically designating the circumstances under which that principle applies. That authorization under R.C. 9.68 may decrease if the Ohio General Assembly decides to further restrict open carry, a bleak prospect which becomes more real every time someone tries to make a political statement by engaging in an ill-advised act of open carry. There is no "Second Amendment magic" which will prevent the Ohio General Assembly from doing that.

And the prohibition on concealed carry is not a "further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, [to] own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm." It is quite specifically a prohibition co-extensive with state law.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by color of law »

Werz wrote:That would be the part with the big words. But keep working on it, and you'll get it.

Here's a hint for a non-lawyer: the sacred legal principle of nulla poena sine lege. And R.C. 9.68 specifically "authorizes" open carry by specifically designating the circumstances under which that principle applies. That authorization under R.C. 9.68 may decrease if the Ohio General Assembly decides to further restrict open carry, a bleak prospect which becomes more real every time someone tries to make a political statement by engaging in an ill-advised act of open carry. There is no "Second Amendment magic" which will prevent the Ohio General Assembly from doing that.

And the prohibition on concealed carry is not a "further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, [to] own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm." It is quite specifically a prohibition co-extensive with state law.
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali is the principle of legality and is a core value, a human right and a fundamental defense in criminal law prosecutions accordingly to which no crime or punishment can exist without legal grounds. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege is a guarantee of human liberty; it protects individuals from state abuse and unjust interference with persons fundamental rights.

Lets not forget R.C. 9.68 is based a fundamental right; “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,...”

I would think outlawing open carry in public areas would be a very difficult task to accomplish constitutionally.

Amending the Ohio Constitution to outlaw the right to keep and bear arms would be a battle of epic proportion.
User avatar
Klingon00
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by Klingon00 »

As I under stand it, the principle is "That which is not expressly forbidden is therefore legal". Unfortunately, I'm seeing arguments made, mostly on the left these days that show many believe it should be "That which is not expressly permitted is therefore illegal".

Didn't the Ohio Supreme Court rule that Open Carry is a right in Ohio?
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by techguy85 »

A "right" which is already restricted in class D establishments, and other locations. Make no mistake, they can make it more and more difficult, who is going to stop them?
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by color of law »

Klingon00 wrote:As I under stand it, the principle is "That which is not expressly forbidden is therefore legal". Unfortunately, I'm seeing arguments made, mostly on the left these days that show many believe it should be "That which is not expressly permitted is therefore illegal".

Didn't the Ohio Supreme Court rule that Open Carry is a right in Ohio?
That's what they had to do to carve out the privilege to conceal.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by color of law »

techguy85 wrote:A "right" which is already restricted in class D establishments, and other locations. Make no mistake, they can make it more and more difficult, who is going to stop them?
Class "D" permits/licensing is a privileged activity. Ohio owns all the liquor in Ohio.
Yes they can make it more difficult, but as I said above, outlawing open carry in public areas would be a very difficult task to accomplish constitutionally.
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by WestonDon »

It seems that amending the Ohio constitution requires little more than the 3M's. Media, Money and Machine. We have neither to combat such an effort.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
BobK
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Houston TX (formerly Franklin County)

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by BobK »

color of law wrote:I would think outlawing open carry in public areas would be a very difficult task to accomplish constitutionally.

Amending the Ohio Constitution to outlaw the right to keep and bear arms would be a battle of epic proportion.
WestonDon wrote:It seems that amending the Ohio constitution requires little more than the 3M's. Media, Money and Machine. We have neither to combat such an effort.
Ohio Issue 3 passed Casino Gambling in 2009, after previous failures in 2006 and 2008.

There are two warnings here. First, Ohio Constitutional Rights are safe only so long as a simple majority vote says so. If 50% plus one vote disagree with our side, sayonara to our right to bear arms in the Ohio Constitution.

Second, political proponents of a ballot issue can be persistent and patient. We need maintain our guard every election.

People who glibly say, "we are protected by 9.68" are blind to how little that protection actually means. Our only true protection comes from winning and maintaining the hearts and minds of a solid and overwhelming voting majority.
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?
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by Tweed Ring »

WE ARE BUT ONE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR, AND TWO LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MAJORITIES IN THE OGA, FROM LOSING A GREAT DEAL OF OUR HARD-WON RIGHTS.

THE PRICE OF OUR LIBERTY SEEMS TO BE ETERNAL VIGILANCE.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by Werz »

color of law wrote:
techguy85 wrote:A "right" which is already restricted in class D establishments, and other locations. Make no mistake, they can make it more and more difficult, who is going to stop them?
Class "D" permits/licensing is a privileged activity. Ohio owns all the liquor in Ohio.
Yes they can make it more difficult, but as I said above, outlawing open carry in public areas would be a very difficult task to accomplish constitutionally.
Let us not forget that the Ohio Supreme Court has also said that, under the Ohio Constitution, it is perfectly acceptable to ban possession of the exact type of firearms which have caused the uproar over open carry. Arnold v. Cleveland.

Relying on the purportedly "magical power" of a constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not a good strategy. Sound judgment, applied within a diverse a social social environment, is a much better one.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: Upper Arlington

Post by Tweed Ring »

IN ADDITION, I RECOMMEND STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE BUCKLEY RULE WHEN SUPPORTING CANDIDATES FOR OHIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES, AND SUPPORTING CANDIDATES FOR OUR OGA.
Post Reply