SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

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: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Tweed Ring »

If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.
Qfac
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:30 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Qfac »

Tweed Ring wrote:If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.
So, would you agree that with the law, (as passed, signed and in place), the default state is that an Employer has immunity?

Any challenge to that would have to be done thought the court system with the Employer as the defendant backed with the legal standing of the law?
NRA Endowment Life Member

"Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service." -- U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by JediSkipdogg »

Qfac wrote:Back in 2004 when the first version was signed into law there was verbiage at protected Employers already in there. Would this not be applicable for this as well?

"Private employers are immune from civil liability for any loss related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose, and for any loss related to the private employer’s decision to permit or prohibit licensees from bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer"
The problem with that is....

This bill is granting the employee the ability to carry in their vehicle ANYWHERE, even if they are on the clock.

That immunity only would apply if the employee is a LICENSEE and it does not apply when the employee is not on the employers property. So, the post office employee that uses his own vehicle for work. Or the social service worker that makes home visits with their own vehicle because the county thinks mileage reimbursement is cheaper.

Expand that immunity and you win me on that aspect but you still won't win me on the private property rights aspect.
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: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Tweed Ring »

Qfac wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.
So, would you agree that with the law, (as passed, signed and in place), the default state is that an Employer has immunity?

Any challenge to that would have to be done thought the court system with the Employer as the defendant backed with the legal standing of the law?
I'm afraid the employer has immunity right up until some court of competent jurisdiction decides they are not so immune.
Bama.45
Posts: 3025
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:32 pm
Location: Warren county

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Bama.45 »

As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.
"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
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by djthomas »

Bama.45 wrote:As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.
That's true if two critical tests can be met:
1) The property must be primarily a parking lot. We've debated long and hard here whether that means by square footage, percentage of revenue, etc. Never really came to a full agreement, perhaps because there is no case law beyond following Brian D's advice.

2) Notice has to come only from posted signage. Verbal notice, or written notice by means other than a sign (e.g. a trespass letter, or employee handbook) could bump it back up to criminal.
Bama.45
Posts: 3025
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:32 pm
Location: Warren county

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Bama.45 »

djthomas wrote:
Bama.45 wrote:As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.
That's true if two critical tests can be met:
1) The property must be primarily a parking lot. We've debated long and hard here whether that means by square footage, percentage of revenue, etc. Never really came to a full agreement, perhaps because there is no case law beyond following Brian D's advice.

2) Notice has to come only from posted signage. Verbal notice, or written notice by means other than a sign (e.g. a trespass letter, or employee handbook) could bump it back up to criminal.

Ah, I see... Well I still don't see how anyone would know someone has a gun in their car in a retail parking lot unless it is being flashed around... So my theory still stands, keep the gun out of sight and out of mind unless it is needed, at that point violating the no carry parking lot sign etc is the least of someone's problem.. But that's just my opinion.

I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?
"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
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by djthomas »

Concealed does mean concealed, except if you are forced to notify because you committed a traffic violation pulling out or are involved in a private property accident to which the police respond or if your vehicle is broken into/stolen.

Beyond that, no there's no real reason anybody should know, whether it's on your person or in your vehicle.
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

Bama.45 wrote:...I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?
The law says "...the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

Remember, this is the law we're talking about, so the word "primarily" is important...but what does that mean?

There is a business in Logan whose building sits on about 1/2 acre of land and has only 4 parking spots.

The building and surrounding land make up far more than 50% of the premises (premises includes buildings), so if "primarily" means "mostly" or "for the most part", the civil trespass exception wouldn't apply.

If the words "portion of" were added, it would be a huge help. Then the law could read "...the posted portion of land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by JediSkipdogg »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
Bama.45 wrote:...I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?
The law says "...the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

Remember, this is the law we're talking about, so the word "primarily" is important...but what does that mean?

There is a business in Logan whose building sits on about 1/2 acre of land and has only 4 parking spots.

The building and surrounding land make up far more than 50% of the premises (premises includes buildings), so if "primarily" means "mostly" or "for the most part", the civil trespass exception wouldn't apply.

If the words "portion of" were added, it would be a huge help. Then the law could read "...the posted portion of land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."
You also need to add in to the question of does posting the parking lot apply to the buildings?
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.
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by curmudgeon3 »

All for naught ..... SB 180 probably won't hit the Governor's desk until after the 2016 elections. "Can't govern if not elected, etc".
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

With all the anti-gun sentiment among the various candidates, Kasich might do himself some good by passing another pro-gun bill or two before the end of this year.

HB 48 passed the House committee and is ready for the floor.

SB 180 is in committee, had a Sponsor hearing and is awaiting a proponent hearing.

HB 152 (license-less concealed carry) seems stuck in committee and probably won't move. It's a bit too radical for Kasich, IMHO.

But THAT is one we can save until NEXT December. :wink:
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by JediSkipdogg »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:With all the anti-gun sentiment among the various candidates, Kasich might do himself some good by passing another pro-gun bill or two before the end of this year.

HB 48 passed the House committee and is ready for the floor.

SB 180 is in committee, had a Sponsor hearing and is awaiting a proponent hearing.

HB 152 (license-less concealed carry) seems stuck in committee and probably won't move. It's a bit too radical for Kasich, IMHO.

But THAT is one we can save until NEXT December. :wink:
It's really hard to say. Obviously Obama and Clinton were pretty much anti-gun. Bush was pro-gun but during his governor times did he pass any gun bills, especially the year before election? I would imagine if Kasich is thinking about a presidential nomination he's not going to want to get into the gun bill department until the last possible chance, maybe after the primaries.
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: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by Tweed Ring »

If this governor has aspirations for higher office, he should announce his candidacy within the next 20 days. Failure todo announce will place him far beyond the curve in terms of hiring pro's and raising money.
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: SB 180: Employer parking lot bill

Post by curmudgeon3 »

His actions while campaigning around the country make it appear to some prognosticators that he might be posturing for VP because of his lack of organized presidential fund raising.
Maybe he recognizes that Bush 3 (NRA rating A+) is the GOP annointed one for this cycle.
Post Reply