NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Werz »

FormerNavy wrote:Werz or somebody can correct me on how "knowingly" would be construed by the courts if I am mistaken.
The statute:
A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist. R.C. 2901.11(B)
I would reprint the jury instruction, but the Ohio Judicial Conference gets a bit testy about copyright violations.
"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
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Chuck »

Mustang380gal wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:
<snip>I worked for an employer that did not permit tobacco, a legal product, on their property. <snip>

My employer will not hire a tobacco user, does not permit it on their property, and will fire anyone found to have used tobacco during employment, even if not on the property.

Their belief is that tobacco is dangerous to one's health, and it would be hypocritical to tell patients that they shouldn't use it, while employees are.

(Funny thing is, patients still want to smoke, so they put coats on over their hospital gowns, and wheel IV poles out with them to smoke across the street from the hospital. )
Would one of those nicotine inhalers be permissible?
Just curious,,,,
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
Mustang380gal
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Amish Country, Wayne County

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Mustang380gal »

Chuck wrote:
Mustang380gal wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:
<snip>I worked for an employer that did not permit tobacco, a legal product, on their property. <snip>

My employer will not hire a tobacco user, does not permit it on their property, and will fire anyone found to have used tobacco during employment, even if not on the property.

Their belief is that tobacco is dangerous to one's health, and it would be hypocritical to tell patients that they shouldn't use it, while employees are.

(Funny thing is, patients still want to smoke, so they put coats on over their hospital gowns, and wheel IV poles out with them to smoke across the street from the hospital. )
Would one of those nicotine inhalers be permissible?
Just curious,,,,
If one is trying to quit smoking, they use whatever method that will work. They have a really big program to help people quit.
RIFLEWOMAN, wife of a RIFLEMAN, mom of 9, NRA life member, OFCC Patron member!
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by FormerNavy »

Werz wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:Werz or somebody can correct me on how "knowingly" would be construed by the courts if I am mistaken.
The statute:
A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist. R.C. 2901.11(B)
I would reprint the jury instruction, but the Ohio Judicial Conference gets a bit testy about copyright violations.

So then if I'm wrong, and it's not a "reasonable person would/should have known" standard, then how could they ever, ever prove what *I* did or did not know upon entering a CPZ, especially when I don't have to testify against myself? Let's say I don't testify - how could anyone prove what I knew, absent the "reasonable person or could have/should have known" standard?

I'm fine with being wrong... I just don't see how you could ever successfully prosecute someone if you had to prove what they knew, versus the above standards.
User avatar
BobK
Posts: 15602
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Houston TX (formerly Franklin County)

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by BobK »

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.
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?
User avatar
MrKitty
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:41 am
Location: Youngstown, OH

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by MrKitty »

pleasantguywhopacks wrote:CHL becomes CWL
+1!!
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
-Thomas Paine
User avatar
whoownsyou
Account Deactivated
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:48 pm

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by whoownsyou »

"...shall not be infringed."

If you are not infringing upon the rights of another person, you are not doing anything illegal.

I just condensed all of our lawbooks into one sentence, true to our personal liberty roots 8) I figure it's time we let the criminals sweat a little instead of us dancing through hoops, having to wonder about variables and permutations, etc.
"If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody brings up the reality of their situation, then you don't have to spend nearly as much controlling them directly." -Stefan Molyneux

"Most of what I do can be summed up by: I go around telling people that they should be free and they tell me, 'No, I shouldn't.'" -Larken Rose
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Werz »

FormerNavy wrote:
Werz wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:Werz or somebody can correct me on how "knowingly" would be construed by the courts if I am mistaken.
The statute:
A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist. R.C. 2901.11(B)
I would reprint the jury instruction, but the Ohio Judicial Conference gets a bit testy about copyright violations.
So then if I'm wrong, and it's not a "reasonable person would/should have known" standard, then how could they ever, ever prove what *I* did or did not know upon entering a CPZ, especially when I don't have to testify against myself? Let's say I don't testify - how could anyone prove what I knew, absent the "reasonable person or could have/should have known" standard?

I'm fine with being wrong... I just don't see how you could ever successfully prosecute someone if you had to prove what they knew, versus the above standards.
OK. Here is a portion of the jury instruction: "Since you cannot look into the mind of another, knowledge is determined from all the facts and circumstances in evidence." OJI CR 417.11. And jurors are permitted to infer one fact from another.

Think it through. If knowingly could not be proved from the facts and circumstances in evidence, very few people would be in prison or jail.
"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: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Tweed Ring »

whoownsyou wrote:"...shall not be infringed."

If you are not infringing upon the rights of another person, you are not doing anything illegal.

I just condensed all of our lawbooks into one sentence, true to our personal liberty roots 8) I figure it's time we let the criminals sweat a little instead of us dancing through hoops, having to wonder about variables and permutations, etc.
I infringed upon the First Amendment Rights (Freedom of Speech) and Second Amendment Rights (Keep and Bear Arms) of my employees all the time. What I did was exercise of sound management practices. It was clearly not illegal.
jabeatty
Posts: 14074
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:08 pm
Location: East of Cincinnati

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by jabeatty »

Tweed Ring wrote:I infringed upon the First Amendment Rights (Freedom of Speech) and Second Amendment Rights (Keep and Bear Arms) of my employees all the time.
I'll emphatically argue that you did nothing of the sort!
--
Someone edited my signature and deleted my posts, and all I got was... this edited signature.
smoluse
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:17 am
Location: avon,oh

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by smoluse »

sodbuster95 wrote:
jabeatty wrote:
Sevens wrote:I'd love to see parking lot protection for employees.
Mostly because it would benefit everyone who carries legally in Ohio.
Also 'cause jabeatty would die inside a little bit! :twisted: Who doesn't want that?! :P :wink:
That's cold, man... just cold. :)
I've waivered back and forth on this topic, but I think Jim has convinced me of his point of view. Shocking, I know... :shock: :mrgreen:

Rather than "parking lot protection" I'd rather just see the force of law removed from the signage (minimal though it may be in some instances, particularly when it comes to parking lots). That way, it truly is an issue between the employee and employer and the state isn't involved one way or the other.
I do respect the rights of a property owner and his right to keep firearm out of his parking lot if he wishes, BUT I don't believe any employer should have the right to say what I can and can't have in my car. Can they restrict the books I keep in my car or the bumper sticker I choose to display? Perhaps we need to define the space inside of ones car as not being " in the parking lot". The space within MY car is owned by me and anything in it is mine to control. Just keep the firearm in the car and you should be good. Same rule should apply at schools (until we can get that restriction completely removed)
The Obama Nation in an "abomination"
User avatar
dsk
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:06 am
Location: central ohio

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by dsk »

Can they restrict the books I keep in my car or the bumper sticker I choose to display?
The answer is "yes", at least for a private sector employer. Nothing unlawful about that.
Pay your dues.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by JediSkipdogg »

smoluse wrote:I do respect the rights of a property owner and his right to keep firearm out of his parking lot if he wishes, BUT I don't believe any employer should have the right to say what I can and can't have in my car. Can they restrict the books I keep in my car or the bumper sticker I choose to display? Perhaps we need to define the space inside of ones car as not being " in the parking lot". The space within MY car is owned by me and anything in it is mine to control. Just keep the firearm in the car and you should be good. Same rule should apply at schools (until we can get that restriction completely removed)
They can restrict what they want and if car owners properly kept items in their car I would personally have no problem with them not being able to restrict it. Unfortunately tons of vehicle break ins happen during the day at businesses to employees and the vehicles are usually chose due to careless owners. I've seen trunks broken into with purses removed because the suspect saw the person put the purse in there. And with this day and age of media and reporting everything, it could affect a business when they make the news for a firearm being stolen from a vehicle.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Tweed Ring »

I set a trap so see if there were any fish, ignoramus types lurking about the forum...
User avatar
whoownsyou
Account Deactivated
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:48 pm

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by whoownsyou »

Tweed Ring wrote:I infringed upon the First Amendment Rights (Freedom of Speech) and Second Amendment Rights (Keep and Bear Arms) of my employees all the time. What I did was exercise of sound management practices. It was clearly not illegal.
Two people entering into a consensual agreement cannot be viewed as either infringing upon the other.
"If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody brings up the reality of their situation, then you don't have to spend nearly as much controlling them directly." -Stefan Molyneux

"Most of what I do can be summed up by: I go around telling people that they should be free and they tell me, 'No, I shouldn't.'" -Larken Rose
Post Reply