HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by WY_Not »

BS. They are respecting the rights of the local people of the land. Your right to carry do NOT trump another person's rights.
Kenosis wrote:
WY_Not wrote:Still a matter of choice. No one is forced to work in a particular place or park in a particular place.
No one is forced to operate a business in this country, either. Any given owner is more than welcome to take their business to Canada, Mexico, or overseas; and many do.

Wherever you choose to headquarter your business, you should respect the rights of the local people of that land.
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: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by WY_Not »

Again, BS. If YOU choose to disarm, that is YOUR choice. Cowboy up and take responsibility for YOUR choices.
Kenosis wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:
mreising wrote:It is a real stretch to hold a business responsible for the actions of another. I would rather see the signs be made to not have the force of law and that you would only be in jeopardy if you were asked to leave and refused. That is what some states have.
It has nothing to do with the actions of the criminal, it has to do with creating the conditions where a person is essentially defenseless against the criminal by proactively putting up a sign which has the force of law by itself. I agree with the bolded however.
I have to agree. I respect such signs even when they do not have force of law. If I choose to disarm and enter a posted establishment, that property owner has assumed all responsibility and liability for my safety. Should the owner fail and a crime incur, the owner will be paying my medical bills, loss of wages, and punitive damages. That's the rule they set when they posted their sign, that they will pay for my damages.
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
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by JediSkipdogg »

So now I keep seeing the force of law signs. So my question is, when has ANYONE been arrested in Ohio for carrying a firearm into a posted businesses? There are no criminal cases UNLESS the person has refused to leave. There have been termination of employments, but even removing the force of law would not prevent that.
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.
mreising
Posts: 6274
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:07 pm
Location: Warren County

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by mreising »

JediSkipdogg wrote:So now I keep seeing the force of law signs. So my question is, when has ANYONE been arrested in Ohio for carrying a firearm into a posted businesses? There are no criminal cases UNLESS the person has refused to leave. There have been termination of employments, but even removing the force of law would not prevent that.
As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for violating the signs unless they refused to leave, but why not remove the force of law issue anyway? One can still be prosecuted for trespass if the business asks them to leave and they don't, it just removes the legal hit to one's CHL. Personally, I try to avoid supporting businesses that prohibit carry, but for the sake of marital harmony I do occasionally have to go to BW3 and a couple of other locations. Besides, we claim to be law abiding and if we violate a sign that carries the force of law, then are we really law abiding? Just as with other Ohio concealed carry issues, other states, KY and MO that I know of, do not seem to have a problem with this; we haven't seen blood running in the bodegas in those states.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny

Mark
NRA Training Counselor-Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Reloading, Personal Protection in the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home, Home Firearms Safety, Chief RSO. NRA Endowment Life member.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by JediSkipdogg »

mreising wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:So now I keep seeing the force of law signs. So my question is, when has ANYONE been arrested in Ohio for carrying a firearm into a posted businesses? There are no criminal cases UNLESS the person has refused to leave. There have been termination of employments, but even removing the force of law would not prevent that.
As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for violating the signs unless they refused to leave, but why not remove the force of law issue anyway? One can still be prosecuted for trespass if the business asks them to leave and they don't, it just removes the legal hit to one's CHL. Personally, I try to avoid supporting businesses that prohibit carry, but for the sake of marital harmony I do occasionally have to go to BW3 and a couple of other locations. Besides, we claim to be law abiding and if we violate a sign that carries the force of law, then are we really law abiding? Just as with other Ohio concealed carry issues, other states, KY and MO that I know of, do not seem to have a problem with this; we haven't seen blood running in the bodegas in those states.
I just see it as is it worth possibly ruining a bill to include removing the language that refers to criminal trespass anyways? So the elements of criminal trespass are what one still must meet to be guilty of violating a sign. So if we throw language in there to remove it and just use the standards of criminal trespass (which technically we already do) how will that affect a bill that has a bunch of other stuff in it? Will the anti's throw more of a fit claiming we are removing business rights?

It's really hard to legislatively touch a law that really has no effect but was put in as a feel good measure and has more power in words than in court.
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.
mrbone
Posts: 2223
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:50 pm

Re: HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by mrbone »

About the liability... For commercial properties open to the public there is a longstanding tradition in tort suits and also codified in the ORC that property owners have a duty to make their premises safe for their customers. This is civil liability, not criminal court. When two people suffer the exact same injury but one on your driveway (someone uninvited like a Jehovah's Witness) and another in a grocery store due to some obstruction they tripped over, there's a good chance that the court will reward civil liability to the claimant in the grocery store but not for the same injury in your driveway. The legal theory is that the store is inviting the public in and so has a duty to ensure reasonable safety, whereas a random person tripping in your driveway was not invited so you have much less duty to provide safety. This is the argument for why if a store requires you to enter disarmed (making you less safe) that they should provide some other measure of safety to compensate.
Post Reply