Dayton public transit (RTA) dislikes lawfully carried guns

[BB62]

Clearer image of one (of many) sign @ the Wright Transit Center:

[GlockMan27]

I don't understand the need to make such a big fuss. If they have a rule that is illegal, why don't you just ignore it and go on about your day?

When a vendor won't ship an item to your city because of an illegal ordinance or rule, I could probably ignore it...

But when the public bus driver prevents you from riding while armed, do you still just ignore it?

When the ticket agent at the public fairgrounds won't let you in while armed, do you still just ignore it?

When the park ranger arrests you for open carrying in the public park, do you still just ignore it?

When the police at the public college shoots you because you have a handgun openly holstered on your hip, do you still just ignore it?

I know better, SeanC, but it still sounds like you are saying, "I believe in the 2A and R.C. 9.68...BUT..."

Totally different. In those cases you've been affirmatively prohibited from doing something. This case is more like there's a specter of you being prohibited from doing something, but from what I know, there is no indication that someone has actually been denied carriage on the buses because he/she is armed. I work in Dayton, but have never used the public transit. From what I understand, RTA isn't actually enforcing the "rules of the road" or whatever they call it. It's kind of like those signs that used to be (maybe still are?) on the retaining wall around the statehouse. Everyone knew they were bogus, and the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board didn't try to enforce them. If RTA is enforcing this prohibition, such as by denying carriage to someone because he/she is armed, that's a totally different story.

Also, I don't have any sympathy for the argument that "some people don't know the law very well." If you're going to undertake a highly regulated activity like concealed carry, you should damn well know the law COLD. It's what differentiates lawful concealed carry from a felony. I'm not going to lose sleep over someone who doesn't bother to learn the law, and who is deterred from carrying on an RTA by an unenforceable sign.

More power to you guys who want to fight. I'm not opposed to it; to me, this isn't a big deal.

And I think you are missing, at least, my point. It isn't about those who "don't know the law very well" but it certainly is about my, or anyone else, being charged with this violation. They aren't allowed to deny carrying yet they are, and have that regulation backed up by at least some on the police department (I think as shown in OP). Regardless of whether any charges have yet been pressed they are clearly in violation of 9.68. That in of itself doesn't bother you? I don't want to be harassed by any LEO for doing something lawful. I certainly don't want to have to defend myself in court for doing something perfectly legal. Again, as asked, are you willing to go pro-bono? What about the time I may miss from work? Would I be better to go unarmed rather than risk it?

[pirateguy191]

So... if one of us carries (legally) onto an RTA bus and gets denied or (heaven forbid) arrested are you going to represent us pro bono?

From his signature line:

I am a lawyer; I am not your lawyer.

He is one of OFCC's lawyers, correct? OFCC is the premier guns rights group in Ohio, correct? Eh, nevermind.

[pirateguy191]

Go Tribe.

[BB62]

Another picture taken at the Transit Stop. (or whatever its name is)

[Brian D.]

So... if one of us carries (legally) onto an RTA bus and gets denied or (heaven forbid) arrested are you going to represent us pro bono?

From his signature line:

I am a lawyer; I am not your lawyer.

He is one of OFCC's lawyers, correct? OFCC is the premier guns rights group in Ohio, correct? Eh, nevermind.

I'm actually kind of glad that SeanC is NOT my lawyer, pirateguy191.

[Brian D.]

You know, this reminds me of something: Here in Cincinnati I've been meaning to eyeball the new streetcars downtown to make sure the city and SORTA haven't crawfished and posted the things with 'No guns' signs or posted rules to that effect at the outdoor platforms/stations. I'll only mention this again if there's an issue, and in a separate discussion so as not to bollix up this thread.

Good point. I've already addressed that - the two City of Cincinnati attorneys I referenced in my one note to the RTA were in on the handling of the matter.

However, if anyone hears/sees differently, let me know.

I took a close look at one of the Cincinnati streetcars and the signage at a station for same today. Absolutely no firearms-prohibiting verbiage in evidence. So, I won't have to pull a Sean Culley and ignore unlawful activity by a political subdivision in this instance.

[BB62]

You know, this reminds me of something: Here in Cincinnati I've been meaning to eyeball the new streetcars downtown to make sure the city and SORTA haven't crawfished and posted the things with 'No guns' signs or posted rules to that effect at the outdoor platforms/stations. I'll only mention this again if there's an issue, and in a separate discussion so as not to bollix up this thread.

Good point. I've already addressed that - the two City of Cincinnati attorneys I referenced in my one note to the RTA were in on the handling of the matter.

However, if anyone hears/sees differently, let me know.

I took a close look at one of the Cincinnati streetcars and the signage at a station for same today. Absolutely no firearms-prohibiting verbiage in evidence. So, I won't have to pull a Sean Culley and ignore unlawful activity by a political subdivision in this instance.

<wipes brow, glad to avoid throwing Brian D's bail>

[curmudgeon3]

So... if one of us carries (legally) onto an RTA bus and gets denied or (heaven forbid) arrested are you going to represent us pro bono?

From his signature line:

I am a lawyer; I am not your lawyer.

He is one of OFCC's lawyers, correct? OFCC is the premier guns rights group in Ohio, correct? Eh, nevermind.

IDK. Yes.

[curmudgeon3]

Go Tribe.

Wasn't there an unfounded rumor about Mexico recently; or was that about the Browns? No big deal.

[SeanC]

This is a subject that comes up every so often, and I have to point out that just because I am an OFCC Coordinator and a lawyer does not mean that I am OFCC's lawyer. OFCC is represented by Derek DeBrosse. I haven't done legal work for OFCC in a very, very long time. And a coordinator is just a volunteer. I don't have any authority to direct or control OFCC's decisions regarding 9.68 litigation or any other matter. That authority rests with the Board, and I am not on OFCC's board.

And yes, I do pro bono. I decide which clients deserve my pro bono time, and yes again, most of them involve firearms-related issues. That said, I would never ask you to come to my home and do gratis for me whatever it is that you do for a living. Don't be asinine.

I've been a member of these forums for a decade next week, and affiliated with OFCC for almost as long. The personal attacks aren't necessary. OFCC has a limited budget for lawsuits. I like when that money is used for things like challenging Cleveland's new gun ordinances, which would surely have been used to prosecute someone, and which would have been a model for other municipalities to follow. If RTA tried to enforce its ordinance by denying service to someone, or by attempting to have someone arrested for carrying on RTA property, I think OFCC's money would be well-spent assisting that person with legal fees associated with not only a defense of any criminal action, but also the prosecution of a civil suit against RTA and/or the officers who effected the arrest. I disagree that OFCC's money is well-spent filing a lawsuit against RTA for posting, but not necessarily enforcing, signs that may be in violation of 9.68. There are all kinds of signs that have no force of law; we don't have the resources to address them all. Spending money one area means there may not be funds available when they are really needed for something egregious down the road.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion if you disagree, but please try to articulate your opinion without being discourteous to others on the forums. We're all on the same team at the end of the day.

[Werz]

And yes, I do pro bono. I decide which clients deserve my pro bono time, and yes again, most of them involve firearms-related issues. That said, I would never ask you to come to my home and do gratis for me whatever it is that you do for a living. Don't be asinine.

Nor would you have a competent workman do work in your home and instruct them on every aspect of how it should be done. Many around here fancy themselves to be lawyers. To quote a movie line of Joan Cusack: "Sometimes, I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna ... never will."

[TJW815]

And yes, I do pro bono. I decide which clients deserve my pro bono time, and yes again, most of them involve firearms-related issues. That said, I would never ask you to come to my home and do gratis for me whatever it is that you do for a living. Don't be asinine.

Nor would you have a competent workman do work in your home and instruct them on every aspect of how it should be done. Many around here fancy themselves to be lawyers. To quote a movie line of Joan Cusack: "Sometimes, I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna ... never will."

I think what you are both trying to say is you don't drop a nuke on an anthill when a conventional bomb will get the job done.

The tall man in the hat and the guy with a gun duct taped to his head are both pretty good at getting the job done.

In comparison to some large scale issues in the state, such as the aforementioned Cleveland ordinances or the university carry lawsuits, I think OFCC is putting their legal fund to the best use.

[Chuck]

Also, I don't have any sympathy for the argument that "some people don't know the law very well." If you're going to undertake a highly regulated activity like concealed carry, you should damn well know the law COLD.

Likewise, if you're going to try to regulate a basic human right, you should damn well know if you are in violation of the law.

It's simply a matter of freedom if you ask me, and good citizens taking part in their own governance.
Why should free men put up with their tax dollars being spent on spreading false information to their fellow citizen?
We expect our government to be honest with the citizenry.
You seem to think it's ok.

Do you consider yourself an advocate for freedom, knowledge and honesty?
I think we down here in the grassroots are

[Werz]

Do you consider yourself an advocate for freedom, knowledge and honesty?
I think we down here in the grassroots are

And those at the grassroots level should stand up for their legal rights, rather than relying on the courts to enforce them. What happens when the courts begin to believe that, as a separate branch of government, they are not subject to R.C. 9.68, and that they can punish with their "inherent contempt powers" acts involving firearms which some judges find offensive or "scary," despite the fact that such acts are clearly lawful? What then?