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

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by Tweed Ring »

Cynyster wrote:
Please, please understand that in Ohio, persons who possess a CHL ARE NOT considered members of any protected class (a Term of Art), by virtue of the fact that they have a CHL. Such persons may or may not be protected class members by virtue of other characteristics. We have danced this topic about at least once before.
Chuckles. it has been my understanding that a CHL holder is a member of a severely discriminated against class of people :mrgreen:
But, not in the eyes of the law, nor the courts, and those are the places where it counts...
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:So Best Buy shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out because they don't like guns? If we decriminalize CPZs then how can a business kick anyone out? They would essentially lose the ability if they don't want guns in their store. The store would call the police, the individual would say the ORC says it's a civil matter, you can't kick me out for my firearm, and the police would arrest and then we'd be battling lawsuits after lawsuits. If a business doesn't want someone on their property that fits a certain category (not counting discriminatory ones) then they should be allowed to kick that person off and have them arrested for trespass.

Now, if you say we should have a warning first before immediate arrest, I can agree. However, I can't think of a single case where police have arrested someone solely based on the sign without being told to leave first and failing to comply. Actually, Ohio appeals courts will return a not guilty finding if the person hasn't been verbally warned and/or documented or they are in violation of an obvious trespassing sign (such as a gated facility.)

If you decriminalize the sign, then that's where you are at - you have to be asked to leave, and if you don't it's ordinary trespassing. That's where we should be at - if you're asked to leave and refuse, it's a crime, just like any other form of trespassing. The sign would simply give you a good idea that you're going to be asked to leave if you choose to carry anyway.
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 »

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. )
RIFLEWOMAN, wife of a RIFLEMAN, mom of 9, NRA life member, OFCC Patron member!
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by OhioPaints »

FormerNavy wrote:If you decriminalize the sign, then that's where you are at - you have to be asked to leave, and if you don't it's ordinary trespassing. That's where we should be at - if you're asked to leave and refuse, it's a crime, just like any other form of trespassing. The sign would simply give you a good idea that you're going to be asked to leave if you choose to carry anyway.
^^^ And I believe that's the way it is in Kentucky.
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by OhioPaints »

Mustang380gal wrote: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.
What comes next, firing anyone who eats a Big Mac or drinks a Coke? Firing anyone who lives in a "high crime area"? Rides a horse or motorcycle? All of those are "dangerous to one's health".
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 »

Well, they did manage to get rid of the McDonald's that was on site. Subway's coming in April.

They won't interview a tobacco user. It's one of the first things they ask when they call to make an appointment, so it isn't a surprise that we are to remain tobacco free.
RIFLEWOMAN, wife of a RIFLEMAN, mom of 9, NRA life member, OFCC Patron member!
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 »

FormerNavy wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:So Best Buy shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out because they don't like guns? If we decriminalize CPZs then how can a business kick anyone out? They would essentially lose the ability if they don't want guns in their store. The store would call the police, the individual would say the ORC says it's a civil matter, you can't kick me out for my firearm, and the police would arrest and then we'd be battling lawsuits after lawsuits. If a business doesn't want someone on their property that fits a certain category (not counting discriminatory ones) then they should be allowed to kick that person off and have them arrested for trespass.

Now, if you say we should have a warning first before immediate arrest, I can agree. However, I can't think of a single case where police have arrested someone solely based on the sign without being told to leave first and failing to comply. Actually, Ohio appeals courts will return a not guilty finding if the person hasn't been verbally warned and/or documented or they are in violation of an obvious trespassing sign (such as a gated facility.)

If you decriminalize the sign, then that's where you are at - you have to be asked to leave, and if you don't it's ordinary trespassing. That's where we should be at - if you're asked to leave and refuse, it's a crime, just like any other form of trespassing. The sign would simply give you a good idea that you're going to be asked to leave if you choose to carry anyway.
But, it already is ordinary trespassing. You aren't charged with 2923.126. You are charged with 2911.21(A)(4) - Trespass. You could remove the entire 2923.126 and still be charged with 2911.21. In either case, you still have to meet the elements of 2911.21 and appeals courts have ruled unless it's blatantly obvious signage, you need to be warned and documented by law enforcement or certified copy of that warning to stay off the land.

I've always been confused when I here others say just treat it like ordinary trespassing. Well, we already do. We just have a section that refers you back to the trespass section. Remove it and nothing changes. You would have to change trespassing if you really want to change anything and add an exemption for gun signs that a warning must occur first.
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.
User avatar
OhioPaints
Posts: 5666
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Brown Co./ southern Ohio

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by OhioPaints »

JediSkipdogg wrote:But, it already is ordinary trespassing. You aren't charged with 2923.126. You are charged with 2911.21(A)(4) - Trespass. You could remove the entire 2923.126 and still be charged with 2911.21. In either case, you still have to meet the elements of 2911.21 and appeals courts have ruled unless it's blatantly obvious signage, you need to be warned and documented by law enforcement or certified copy of that warning to stay off the land.
I have heard it hinted at being this way ("warned and documented by LE" before being arrested) but this is the first time I've seen it more than a "hint". It sounds like you are saying that we are over concerned.

The ONLY situations I have heard of an arrest have been an open carrier who refused to leave when requested but instead insisted on arguing. Have there been any arrests or citations where someone was not given the opportunity to leave and was willing to do so?

Perhaps we are not that much different from Kentucky except for our own perceptions and the number of CPZ signs.

Ken
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 »

OhioPaints wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:But, it already is ordinary trespassing. You aren't charged with 2923.126. You are charged with 2911.21(A)(4) - Trespass. You could remove the entire 2923.126 and still be charged with 2911.21. In either case, you still have to meet the elements of 2911.21 and appeals courts have ruled unless it's blatantly obvious signage, you need to be warned and documented by law enforcement or certified copy of that warning to stay off the land.
I have heard it hinted at being this way ("warned and documented by LE" before being arrested) but this is the first time I've seen it more than a "hint". It sounds like you are saying that we are over concerned.
In regards to trespassing I can tell you the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals will automatically dismiss a trespassing case unless...
1) The signage and area is so blatantly obvious that one knows they are not allowed there. A gated facility/construction site is the best example of this.
2) The person has been previous warned by police
3) The person has been warned via certified letter by the owner to stay away from the premises.

This comes up quite often with "No Solicitation" signage and in most cases, the police can't do anything unless one of the above three has taken place. I wish I could find the ruling on where this came up recently. I'll see if I can find it.
OhioPaints wrote:The ONLY situations I have heard of an arrest have been an open carrier who refused to leave when requested but instead insisted on arguing. Have there been any arrests or citations where someone was not given the opportunity to leave and was willing to do so?

Perhaps we are not that much different from Kentucky except for our own perceptions and the number of CPZ signs.

Ken
That's all I can think of as well. I don't know of any concealed or open carriers being arrested without first being told to leave. My department even sent out an email a while back stating to not arrest immediately upon sight without proving they were refusing to leave.

The only way I think you could change this would be to add an actual exemption like a parking lot. Without that exemption, I think you still have criminal trespass as a whole. However, my guess is that would never pass. You would basically be giving a subject a pass where the police and/or the property owner can't tell them to leave. I can't think of any court cases that I've seen where a subject was arrested criminally for a civil only violation when he refused to comply.

Think if solicitation was civil only. So the police can't stop someone from going door to door in an apartment complex even after the property manager tells them not to and has it posted not to? There has to be teeth to a law or else the law won't be followed and I have no problem with property owners saying who and who can't be on their property and how the person has to act/behave/wear/etc on their property.

IMO....we have bigger fish to fry than this here where nobody can even think of a case where it's been a problem besides someone refusing to leave.
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.
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:In regards to trespassing I can tell you the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals will automatically dismiss a trespassing case unless...
1) The signage and area is so blatantly obvious that one knows they are not allowed there. A gated facility/construction site is the best example of this.
2) The person has been previous warned by police
3) The person has been warned via certified letter by the owner to stay away from the premises.

This comes up quite often with "No Solicitation" signage and in most cases, the police can't do anything unless one of the above three has taken place. I wish I could find the ruling on where this came up recently. I'll see if I can find it.
An important legal point: appellate courts don't dismiss cases. They reverse convictions. Once they have issued a ruling on a matter of law, trial courts will almost always follow it. But beware the right combination of anti-gun activists amongst police, prosecutors and judges who may try to distinguish a case on the facts* and pursue a conviction.



* For those who don't understand that reference, it means saying, "Yeah, but the facts are different in this case, so that case law doesn't apply."
"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.
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: NEW OHIO GUN LAWS 2013?

Post by techguy85 »

If I know a place is posted, why give them my money.
Plenty of other places.
Personally I would like to get rid of the government building and college campus enumerated cpzs.
That would get rid of all my can't carry places, besides the post office and I'm only in there once every 10 years to renew my passport.
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:So Best Buy shouldn't be allowed to kick someone out because they don't like guns? If we decriminalize CPZs then how can a business kick anyone out? They would essentially lose the ability if they don't want guns in their store. The store would call the police, the individual would say the ORC says it's a civil matter, you can't kick me out for my firearm, and the police would arrest and then we'd be battling lawsuits after lawsuits. If a business doesn't want someone on their property that fits a certain category (not counting discriminatory ones) then they should be allowed to kick that person off and have them arrested for trespass.

Now, if you say we should have a warning first before immediate arrest, I can agree. However, I can't think of a single case where police have arrested someone solely based on the sign without being told to leave first and failing to comply. Actually, Ohio appeals courts will return a not guilty finding if the person hasn't been verbally warned and/or documented or they are in violation of an obvious trespassing sign (such as a gated facility.)

If you decriminalize the sign, then that's where you are at - you have to be asked to leave, and if you don't it's ordinary trespassing. That's where we should be at - if you're asked to leave and refuse, it's a crime, just like any other form of trespassing. The sign would simply give you a good idea that you're going to be asked to leave if you choose to carry anyway.
But, it already is ordinary trespassing. You aren't charged with 2923.126. You are charged with 2911.21(A)(4) - Trespass. You could remove the entire 2923.126 and still be charged with 2911.21. In either case, you still have to meet the elements of 2911.21 and appeals courts have ruled unless it's blatantly obvious signage, you need to be warned and documented by law enforcement or certified copy of that warning to stay off the land.

I've always been confused when I here others say just treat it like ordinary trespassing. Well, we already do. We just have a section that refers you back to the trespass section. Remove it and nothing changes. You would have to change trespassing if you really want to change anything and add an exemption for gun signs that a warning must occur first.

It's not the same thing. Right now, I can only be charged with trespassing if I'm asked to leave and refuse. However, with a CPZ it's an automatic violation - I don't have to be asked to leave. Now, I understand you are talking practical application versus letter of the law. However, does that help the people in Cleveland who would probably be charged and convicted in a heartbeat? Does it help the guy who is printing in a CPZ when a police officer sees him? There are lots of ways this is different under the letter of the law. You do not have to be asked to leave before your guilty when it's a CPZ we're talking about. You are talking about how it is dealt with as a practical matter... but under the letter of the law, you're guilty the minute you walk in a CPZ if you have knowledge of the sign, not the minute you refuse to leave. There is a distinct difference, even if there's not a practical difference in Hamilton County.
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 »

FormerNavy wrote:It's not the same thing. Right now, I can only be charged with trespassing if I'm asked to leave and refuse. However, with a CPZ it's an automatic violation - I don't have to be asked to leave. Now, I understand you are talking practical application versus letter of the law. However, does that help the people in Cleveland who would probably be charged and convicted in a heartbeat? Does it help the guy who is printing in a CPZ when a police officer sees him? There are lots of ways this is different under the letter of the law. You do not have to be asked to leave before your guilty when it's a CPZ we're talking about. You are talking about how it is dealt with as a practical matter... but under the letter of the law, you're guilty the minute you walk in a CPZ if you have knowledge of the sign, not the minute you refuse to leave. There is a distinct difference, even if there's not a practical difference in Hamilton County.
They are the same in the ORC. You are talking how an officer and some of the courts will interpret it. Under the letter of the law you are guilty for soliciting past a no soliciting sign. Under the letter of the law you are guilty for going barefoot into many McDonalds. Under letter of law you are guilty of speed going 26 in a 25.

I understand letter of law and practical interpretation. However, say it's changed to civil. Are you saying if you go into Best Buy and the 20 year old manager says you can't have your gun in here and calls the police, and the police arrive, and you refuse to leave, that you won't be charged criminally for trespass? I guess I see no difference in changing the law. Now, an officer won't be able to immediately arrest you inside a store that is posted, however, I truely don't think he could now. He would still have to make sure the elements of the crime are met and conspicuous and knowingly are still in the law.

I guess I see bigger fish to fry than something I have not heard a single case of anyone being immediately arrested for. The only change I would agree to on this issue is adding "upon being informed to leave by police and failing to do so."
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.
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 »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:It's not the same thing. Right now, I can only be charged with trespassing if I'm asked to leave and refuse. However, with a CPZ it's an automatic violation - I don't have to be asked to leave. Now, I understand you are talking practical application versus letter of the law. However, does that help the people in Cleveland who would probably be charged and convicted in a heartbeat? Does it help the guy who is printing in a CPZ when a police officer sees him? There are lots of ways this is different under the letter of the law. You do not have to be asked to leave before your guilty when it's a CPZ we're talking about. You are talking about how it is dealt with as a practical matter... but under the letter of the law, you're guilty the minute you walk in a CPZ if you have knowledge of the sign, not the minute you refuse to leave. There is a distinct difference, even if there's not a practical difference in Hamilton County.
They are the same in the ORC. You are talking how an officer and some of the courts will interpret it. Under the letter of the law you are guilty for soliciting past a no soliciting sign. Under the letter of the law you are guilty for going barefoot into many McDonalds. Under letter of law you are guilty of speed going 26 in a 25.

I understand letter of law and practical interpretation. However, say it's changed to civil. Are you saying if you go into Best Buy and the 20 year old manager says you can't have your gun in here and calls the police, and the police arrive, and you refuse to leave, that you won't be charged criminally for trespass? I guess I see no difference in changing the law. Now, an officer won't be able to immediately arrest you inside a store that is posted, however, I truely don't think he could now. He would still have to make sure the elements of the crime are met and conspicuous and knowingly are still in the law.

I guess I see bigger fish to fry than something I have not heard a single case of anyone being immediately arrested for. The only change I would agree to on this issue is adding "upon being informed to leave by police and failing to do so."

I want to be able to carry in as many places as possible. Right now, that sign makes me unable to carry in a whole slew of places. As far as knowingly, I believe that under court interpretation the jury instruction would simply be that a reasonable person knew or should have known - not what your personal knowledge is. Werz or somebody can correct me on how "knowingly" would be construed by the courts if I am mistaken.

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.
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 »

FormerNavy wrote: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.
That's what I'm saying. It's not a normal element of the crime. You don't have to be told to leave. If you are arrested for violating a CPZ sign you are charged with the EXACT same ORC as if you are arrested for not wearing a shirt in a place that says shirts required.

If you violate a CPZ sign 2923.126 says...

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.

You are not charged with a violation of 2923.126. Nowhere on the complain should 2923.126 even be mentioned. 2923.126 is NOT a crime.

Division (A)(4) of 2911.21 is nothing special for gun owners. Nowhere is firearms mentioned in that...

2911.21(A)(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.

Notice no element of warning. That applies to ALL trespassings if there is signage. The only time a warning comes into play is if there is no signage. If a store posts no gang shirts and you wear gang shirts, you are guilty of criminal trespass. The notification comes only when no signage exists. You could delete the entire section from 2923.126 and still be instantly arrested for violating a CPZ sign.

The only way to eliminate it would to either
A) specify like a parking lot that it's civil only or
B) make it illegal for a business to post signage prohibiting it.

In my opinion, both of those basically take teeth away from a business prohibiting something. And I think businesses should have a choice on who and what they allow inside their business as long as they don't discriminate against a protected class.
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.
Post Reply