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.
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.
A friend of mine received the following letter regarding concealed carry at the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System offices and parking garage located at 277 East Town Street
Columbus, OH 43215:
It looks to me like ORC 2923.126 (B) (9) covers the parking garage portion of this letter:
(B) .... A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places:
(9) Any building that is a government facility of this state or a political subdivision of this state and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility ...
So ORC 9.68 should prevent them from enacting this rule - or am I missing something?
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
I really don't understand why OPERS finds it necessary to publish it's own rules specific to them instead of just following state law like any other state agency.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon wrote:I really don't understand why OPERS finds it necessary to publish it's own rules specific to them instead of just following state law like any other state agency.
Someone at a desk had to show that there position was needed.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
I am of the opinion that regulations like this are lawful. The most similar cases involve government restriction of speech, particularly on-duty but also off-duty, by government employees. The cases say that the government-as-employer gets significantly more leeway in controlling the acts of its employees than does the government-as-sovereign. Courts have affirmed dismissal of government employees for all kinds of "speech" that is otherwise protected, including an employee's membership in a hate group (constitutionally protected "speech"). Even recently, a few Montgomery County Deputies were dismissed from service after their private, off-duty, allegedly racist text messages were made public. I think the analysis is probably the same here: the government can't prohibit a private citizen from carrying in the garage, but it can prohibit its employees from doing so, and it can dismiss employees who fail to comply with the policies.
SeanC wrote:...The cases say that the government-as-employer gets significantly more leeway in controlling the acts of its employees than does the government-as-sovereign. ... I think the analysis is probably the same here: the government can't prohibit a private citizen from carrying in the garage, but it can prohibit its employees from doing so, and it can dismiss employees who fail to comply with the policies.
And this is why the OSU lawsuit is so important.
Even if those policies can be enforced against employees, how can they be enforced against students?
If you say it is because students 'enter into a contract', that would completely wipe out 'OFCC v. Clyde'.
If your fairgrounds or park charges admission, that entrance contract could restrict firearms.
WestonDon wrote:I really don't understand why OPERS finds it necessary to publish it's own rules specific to them instead of just following state law like any other state agency.
Well, IIRC, OPERS is not technically a government entity. It was created by the General Assembly, but it isn't really a state agency. I think all the retirement plans are this weird mix of public and private governance. I would bet a competent court would find 9.68 applies, but it's no slam dunk.
dsk wrote:Well, IIRC, OPERS is not technically a government entity. It was created by the General Assembly, but it isn't really a state agency...
If it's not an 'agency' then it's definitely an 'instrumentality'.
Unlike the 'instrumentality' that is OSU, OPERS actually has a section published in the OAC:
Ohio Revised Code » Title [1] I STATE GOVERNMENT » Chapter 145: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ohio Administrative Code » 145 Ohio Public Employees Retirement System » Chapter 145-1 Benefits http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/145-1-01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;