Page 5 of 6

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:28 am
by eye95
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:00 am
by WY_Not
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:10 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:57 pm
by WayneB
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:42 pm
by Bama.45
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 8:59 pm
by WestonDon
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.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:29 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
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.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:31 am
by JediSkipdogg
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.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:58 am
by eye95
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.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:30 pm
by FormerNavy
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.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:58 pm
by JediSkipdogg
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.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:25 am
by Brian D.
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.

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

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:16 pm
by Brian D.
I'm pretty sure that substitute Senate Bill 199 was NOT what any of us in this thread were hoping for. Geez!

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

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:22 pm
by slidelock
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?

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

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:57 pm
by FormerNavy
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...