FormerNavy wrote:Regarding your Best Buy example, I would fully expect to be charged if I refused to leave. But right now, with a CPZ, I don't have to refuse to leave before I can be charged. Under normal trespass, being told to leave is a necessary element to the crime is it not? That's not an element for trespass as it applies to a CPZ.
Actually, I think the law for CHL's is more generous than the default criminal trespassing statute.
CHL's have to knowingly violate a posted premise, per R.C 2923.126(C)(3)(a):
(3)(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
However, the ordinary criminal trespass statute simply requires someone to negligently fail to leave when notified by signage:
2911.21 Criminal trespass.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following:
...
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.
So for everyone who is saying they want the gun ban signage to be treated like ordinary trespass, no, they do not want it treated like that.