POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

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

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Vote for up to three items. Votes can be changed until 1-4-15

Poll ended at Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:11 pm

1- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.
52
20%
2- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(5) -- campus carry (unless private college decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))
10
4%
3- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(6) -- church carry (unless church decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))
13
5%
4- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(7) -- daycare carry (unless private day care decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))
1
0%
5- Either eliminate RC 2923.122 Schools, or redefine "school zone" to only mean inside actual buildings instead of property.
47
18%
6- Put teeth in 9.68 to fine both the body politic and its elected officials (personally) for statutes that violate preemption.
21
8%
Clarify 9.68 that preemption is reserved only to statutes enacted by the OGA, and state agencies do not have the right to impose additional restrictions by regulation.
9
3%
7- Repeal of RC 2923.16, allowing all Ohioans to carry in their vehicle for self defense. Allow loaded handguns and long guns.
14
5%
8- Repeal ORC 2923.12(B)(1), ORC 2923.12(F)(3), ORC 2923.16(E)(1) and (2), ORC 2923.16(I)... requiring notification and ORC 2923.126(A), relevant language.
55
21%
9- Constitutional Carry
7
3%
10- "Swatting" law
1
0%
11- Employee parking lot storage
33
13%
 
Total votes : 263

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby eye95 » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:28 am

The restriction in the Second Amendment is against the government. It does not restrict the People. Therefore, individuals are free to restrict your Right to carry on their property. If you are allowed to violated their property Rights without consequence in law, then the government is not doing the one most important thing it should: Protect the Rights of everyone (not the privileges of the few who manage to get the government to pass laws that that infringe in ways that that particular few like.)

Carry against the property owner's wishes should be a crime, specifically trespass, but not a gun crime.
Be a Madisonian.

It finally happened. I have now been accused on OFCC of both being a cop-hater and then a cop-lover! Therefore, anyone making either accusation must not be paying attention.
eye95
*** Banned ***
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby WY_Not » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:00 am

To paraphrase a certain someone...

When can me and my congregation show up at your house to worship? We have a Constitutional right to worship. Therefor you must allow us to do so.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.

Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:10 pm

NEOH212 wrote:We need to see a law made in Ohio that would take the force of law away from the gun buster signs. If property owners want to post, fine. However it's utter BS that the government (federal, state, or local) would allow a law that makes it a crime to enter posted private property while armed. Those are the wishes of the property owner only. I get that. However such policies are not aligned with the Second Amendment.


I agree. I'm not saying property owners shouldn't be allowed to post. I'm saying that doing so shouldn't automatically be an M4 criminal charge, unless like other trespass charges a person is first asked to leave, especially when we have no standardized signage requirements and the signs can be (and often are) either small or in locations that aren't very obvious (yes they supposedly have to be in a "prominent location" but that's a pretty vague standard).

Or, make it like violating the "no smoking" signs. First violation is a warning letter. Second and subsequent violations is a $100 fine.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby WayneB » Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:57 pm

If someone shows up to worship on my property and I ask them to leave - they should leave. If not, I will call the police and they will be forced to leave. If they refuse to leave, they are now trespassing and will be arrested. I still have control of my property --- and the .gov will help me control it.

The .gov does not have a law in place that I am aware of that will make worshiping on my property more of a crime if I have a sign posted.
WayneB
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:52 am
Location: Norton, Ohio (Summit County)

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby Bama.45 » Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:42 pm

I have said before and will say again.. Private property whether business or not should not have any laws restricting the owner's right to do with the property they OWN as they see fit... No one forces anyone CHL or not to patronize said business.
"Lord, make my hand fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
than those who would seek to destroy me.
Grant me victory over my foes and those who wish to do harm to me and mine.
Let not my last thought be 'If I only had my gun."
And Lord, if today is truly the day you call me home
Let me die in a pile of empty brass."
Amen




U.S. Marines 01-07



~The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.~ Thomas Jefferson
Bama.45
 
Posts: 3019
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:32 pm
Location: Warren county

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby WestonDon » Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:59 pm

WayneB wrote:
The .gov does not have a law in place that I am aware of that will make worshiping on my property more of a crime if I have a sign posted.


That right there is my beef on the subject. I don't see where a no guns sign should have any more wight than a no shoes, no shirt, no service sign.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:29 pm

Bama.45 wrote:I have said before and will say again.. Private property whether business or not should not have any laws restricting the owner's right to do with the property they OWN as they see fit...


No one seems to be saying that.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1617
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby JediSkipdogg » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:31 am

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
NEOH212 wrote:We need to see a law made in Ohio that would take the force of law away from the gun buster signs. If property owners want to post, fine. However it's utter BS that the government (federal, state, or local) would allow a law that makes it a crime to enter posted private property while armed. Those are the wishes of the property owner only. I get that. However such policies are not aligned with the Second Amendment.


I agree. I'm not saying property owners shouldn't be allowed to post. I'm saying that doing so shouldn't automatically be an M4 criminal charge, unless like other trespass charges a person is first asked to leave, especially when we have no standardized signage requirements and the signs can be (and often are) either small or in locations that aren't very obvious (yes they supposedly have to be in a "prominent location" but that's a pretty vague standard).

Or, make it like violating the "no smoking" signs. First violation is a warning letter. Second and subsequent violations is a $100 fine.


I'm not sure where the automatic arrest comes from? The standards must still meet the criteria of criminal trespass. Those criteria are pretty specific with case law in that it must be obvious that a normal everyday person would know the sign exists, the place must be posted in such a manner that one cannot miss the sign at any entrance, or you must give notice first. There is no "automatic arrest" just for violating it and I've NEVER seen a case that has resulted in arrest without first being asked/told to leave and the person refuses or doesn't automatically comply.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10114
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby eye95 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:58 am

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Bama.45 wrote:I have said before and will say again.. Private property whether business or not should not have any laws restricting the owner's right to do with the property they OWN as they see fit...


No one seems to be saying that.


Au contraire. We have folks here advocating for the government to force private property owners to be barred from disallowing carry on their property. That is every bit as anti-Liberty as restricting carry is.

When you advocate for the abridgment of even one specific Liberty of even just one person, you advocate for the abridgment of all Liberty.
Be a Madisonian.

It finally happened. I have now been accused on OFCC of both being a cop-hater and then a cop-lover! Therefore, anyone making either accusation must not be paying attention.
eye95
*** Banned ***
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby FormerNavy » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:30 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
NEOH212 wrote:We need to see a law made in Ohio that would take the force of law away from the gun buster signs. If property owners want to post, fine. However it's utter BS that the government (federal, state, or local) would allow a law that makes it a crime to enter posted private property while armed. Those are the wishes of the property owner only. I get that. However such policies are not aligned with the Second Amendment.


I agree. I'm not saying property owners shouldn't be allowed to post. I'm saying that doing so shouldn't automatically be an M4 criminal charge, unless like other trespass charges a person is first asked to leave, especially when we have no standardized signage requirements and the signs can be (and often are) either small or in locations that aren't very obvious (yes they supposedly have to be in a "prominent location" but that's a pretty vague standard).

Or, make it like violating the "no smoking" signs. First violation is a warning letter. Second and subsequent violations is a $100 fine.


I'm not sure where the automatic arrest comes from? The standards must still meet the criteria of criminal trespass. Those criteria are pretty specific with case law in that it must be obvious that a normal everyday person would know the sign exists, the place must be posted in such a manner that one cannot miss the sign at any entrance, or you must give notice first. There is no "automatic arrest" just for violating it and I've NEVER seen a case that has resulted in arrest without first being asked/told to leave and the person refuses or doesn't automatically comply.


Respectfully I disagree... under normal trespass you must first be asked to leave or otherwise informed you're not welcome. However, in the CPZ instance, knowingly violating a posted prohibition is criminal trespass.... there is no requirement that you be asked to leave first. This is a specific law, specific to concealed carry and posted prohibitions... passed after the general law of criminal trespass. A specific law passed after a general law takes precedence.

While I understand that we are not aware of any case where someone was arrested without being asked to leave first and not doing so, I still believe my reading is correct. I also realize you and others will disagree with me. It's ok... my wife disagrees with me all the time but we're not headed towards divorce. :D The bottom line is, I don't want to have to pay money to find out when that one officer decides it's enough just to see me there when I didn't actually notice the sign... I am all in favor of reducing the penalties or otherwise making it a specific part of the CPZ statute that you have to be asked to leave and refuse before you can be charged.
User avatar
FormerNavy
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby JediSkipdogg » Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:58 pm

FormerNavy wrote:Respectfully I disagree... under normal trespass you must first be asked to leave or otherwise informed you're not welcome.


Where are you required to be asked to leave under normal trespass? It's not in the ORC or case law. Now, what case law does require is you have knowledge of not being welcome or knowledge being inferred.

FormerNavy wrote: However, in the CPZ instance, knowingly violating a posted prohibition is criminal trespass.... there is no requirement that you be asked to leave first.


You are still cited for criminal trespass and the complaint must have the violation of criminal trespass on it. Therefore, one must meet the elements of criminal trespass to be guilty of criminal trespass. You are not cited, arrested, or charged with 2923.126(C)(3)(a). One is arrested for 2911.21(A)(4) as 2923.126(C)(3)(a) guides them to do so.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10114
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby Brian D. » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:25 am

Just thought I'd bump this. Interesting to see how our enthusiasm wanes as the House and Senate putter along and stall out during these two year legislative sessions.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14643
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby Brian D. » Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:16 pm

I'm pretty sure that substitute Senate Bill 199 was NOT what any of us in this thread were hoping for. Geez!
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14643
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby slidelock » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:22 pm

Since it seems to take two years to get one of our laws passed, I woulo like to suggest now is a good time to start. I believe it was Former Navy had a bill already written up? Might be a good place to start. Or perhaps I should start a new thread for 2017-18?
slidelock
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:13 am

Re: POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

Postby FormerNavy » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:57 pm

slidelock wrote:Since it seems to take two years to get one of our laws passed, I woulo like to suggest now is a good time to start. I believe it was Former Navy had a bill already written up? Might be a good place to start. Or perhaps I should start a new thread for 2017-18?


Wasn't me...
User avatar
FormerNavy
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest