City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

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
Post Reply
User avatar
fyrfytr310
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Hamilton, OH

City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by fyrfytr310 »

Is this legal? It appears to be an employee/contractor policy put out by the city.

Administrative Directive No. 407 – 3-20-17

Excerpt:
a. In the interest of maintaining a safe environment for all employees and other
visitors, the City of Hamilton, Ohio prohibits the possession, transport and
storage of all weapons on City property at any City worksite, and in any City
programs, (excluding parking areas) regardless of whether or not the person
responsible for the weapon is otherwise licensed to carry it during their working
hours (e.g., if an employee is not working, and is at a City park with family and is
licensed to carry a firearm, it does not violate this policy).

b. “City property” covered by this policy includes all City-owned or leased buildings
and surrounding areas, such as sidewalks, walkways, and driveways.
Furthermore, “City property” includes all City-owned or leased vehicles and all
locations at which employees conduct business as representatives of the City.
"City worksite” includes any place that City employees are performing work
(excluding parking areas). “City programs” include on and off-site meetings and
any other City sponsored or arranged events of any kind (excluding parking
areas).
-Mike

NRA Life Member

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by JustaShooter »

It looks like a violation of ORC 9.68 to me. I don't see where Ohio law allows them to make a rule prohibiting employees or contractors from possessing firearms in areas where a non-employee or contractor can legally carry.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by M-Quigley »

JustaShooter wrote:It looks like a violation of ORC 9.68 to me. I don't see where Ohio law allows them to make a rule prohibiting employees or contractors from possessing firearms in areas where a non-employee or contractor can legally carry.
You might be correct since it's a governmental agency (don't know am not a lawyer) but I know plenty of private employers do the exact same thing. Employees no carry, customers no restrictions.
Cruiser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Mercer County, Ohio - what is yours?

Re: City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by Cruiser »

I think Justashooter is correct. But who would question it? Most employees will not.
Abandon ye all HOPE!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by JustaShooter »

M-Quigley wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:It looks like a violation of ORC 9.68 to me. I don't see where Ohio law allows them to make a rule prohibiting employees or contractors from possessing firearms in areas where a non-employee or contractor can legally carry.
You might be correct since it's a governmental agency (don't know am not a lawyer) but I know plenty of private employers do the exact same thing. Employees no carry, customers no restrictions.
Private employers are not bound by Ohio's preemption statute, governments entities, however, are.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: City of Hamilton - Admin Directive 407

Post by djthomas »

Seems to me some time ago a government agency asked for an official ruling by either the county prosecutor or the AG. I think the response they got was somewhere along the lines of having a license and whatnot has to do with the criminality of carrying a concealed weapon. It did not displace employment law. I can't remember if this was before or after 9.68, but even at that all 9.68 case law has concerned private citizen actors. Cities might have a stronger home rule argument with respect to regulating the conduct of their employees while such employees are on duty where the ORC is unclear. There's just no case law on point.

Indirectly the new parking lot law seems to lend credence to the argument that cities retain some employer prerogative. Prior to the enactment of that statute it was not illegal to have a gun in your private vehicle on public property, even if you were an employee. Presumably the GA felt that employees needed to be protected from discipline or discharge for doing so, otherwise why pass the law? The GA did not extend that same reasoning to carrying outside of a personal vehicle while on city time. As such I could see a court saying the GA passed a law concerning on duty public employees possessing firearms on public property, but prescribed only a limited exception. They could have gone further, but the fact that they didn't means that they did not intend to displace all public personnel policies.

Although the language in the city policy is torturous I believe they've said that the policy does not apply to city employees who are off duty but on city property, e.g. at a park with their family, nor does it apply to firearms in a personal vehicle (an activity protected by state law). Seems pretty clear that they're limiting it to on duty time. I also note that the city seems more generous than state law requires - the city doesn't require any of that locked case or "parked where otherwise allowed to be" nonsense. It also seems to allow carrying in a parking lot, in a vehicle or not.

From a practical standpoint I'd like to know how an employee could regularly carry outside their vehicle. You can't carry in any city owned building and the city certainly doesn't have to give you time to go back to your vehicle other than lunch and scheduled breaks.
Post Reply