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
Morne
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10631
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Wayne County

HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

Post by Morne »

HB 590 (Becker)
...and that a private property owner who chooses to prohibit firearms on the property is not immune from liability if a related injury occurs.
I kind of like this one... :idea: :mrgreen:
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.

Remember, only you can prevent big government!
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

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

Post by djthomas »

Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity. It completely decriminalizes every single CPZ including school zones and courthouses. Heck it looks like you could drink in a bar. One would, however, be subject to removal from the premises if discovered. Once that happens if you refuse to leave or come back armed in the next 30 days you'd be guilty of disorderly conduct persisting, but not criminal trespass or CCW.

I don't see this going anywhere in its current state as much as I'd love it to.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Long Title: To amend sections 2917.11, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.122, 2923.123, and 2923.126 of the Revised Code to provide that a concealed handgun licensee who carries a handgun concealed on or in property on which carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited is subject to removal but is not guilty of a violation of the prohibition unless the licensee fails to leave the premises upon request, that a licensee who fails to leave upon request or returns with a firearm within thirty days is guilty of disorderly conduct, and that a private property owner who chooses to prohibit firearms on the property is not immune from liability if a related injury occurs.
I like the first two provisions and hope they stick (I'm not opposed to the last part, just doubtful that "a related injury" will be provable in court).

I think the last part is going to be an incredibly heavy lift, as the text explicitly makes those who post such signs "assumes responsibility for the safety and defense of all persons lawfully on the posted land or premises. "
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

djthomas wrote:Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity. It completely decriminalizes every single CPZ including school zones and courthouses. Heck it looks like you could drink in a bar.
I don't read it that way. The change to 2923.121 (possession of firearm in place that serves alcohol) applies to " A person who has a valid concealed handgun license and who carries a concealed handgun on or onto premises in violation of this section is subject to removal from the land or premises but is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises".
It does not state it applies to a person who actually b]consumes [/b] alcohol.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

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

Post by djthomas »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:It does not state it applies to a person who actually consumes alcohol.
It doesn't need to. It says that a licensee who carries in violation of "this section" is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment and is only subject to removal, blah blah blah. "This section" refers to 2923.121 as a whole. The only way for a licensee to carry in violation of section 2923.121 is to be drinking.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

I still think the intent of the language is clear, but it would be easy to add " as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse" to remove any confusion.

As far as decriminalizing possession in CPZs, it only does so in regards to people who have a CHL. Similar to the way the Federal GFSZA excludes people with a state-issued carry license. It's a lift, but it's not without precedent.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

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

Post by djthomas »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:I still think the intent of the language is clear, but it would be easy to add " as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse" to remove any confusion.
Let me ask this. As it pertains to licensees, what other provisions of section 2923.121 apply? There's nothing in 121 about a business owner prohibiting weapons since that's covered in other sections. It's presumed that the General Assembly doesn't enact meaningless statutes. If there's no other provision within that section that applies to licensees then why is the proposed language included in the bill?
User avatar
Morne
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10631
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Wayne County

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

Post by Morne »

djthomas wrote:Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity.
Duh, but the title block for posting threads here is only so long.

I highlighted the immunity part because that is the portion of the bill that would get signs down the fastest from the most places. The average business owner does whatever minimizes liability, period.

The other stuff is also interesting but unless you are into flouting signs (which there should then be fewer of) it doesn't matter that much. I think most of us don't like to patronize places that post signs so why highlight that?
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.

Remember, only you can prevent big government!
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by Brian D. »

djthomas wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:It does not state it applies to a person who actually consumes alcohol.
It doesn't need to. It says that a licensee who carries in violation of "this section" is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment and is only subject to removal, blah blah blah. "This section" refers to 2923.121 as a whole. The only way for a licensee to carry in violation of section 2923.121 is to be drinking.
Regarding our law about this. I had something interesting happen yesterday. Went to a big cigar shindig held in Fairfield Ohio. Included with entry was a ticket for a few bourbon samples. I chose to be armed rather than drink so I gave my ticket to a pal from Indiana. He thanked me then asked why. Explained that in Ohio a carry license means you can't have all three of the letters in "ATF" at the same time. His expression changed and he put down the beer he was working on. He said something like "Well, that ship had already sailed, oops." Meaning that in Indiana they do not have a zero tolerance for alcohol stipulation as carry licensees, and he was indeed carrying.

At that point I just smiled and told him he needed to check other states' laws before traveling, and by the way I thought Indiana's law was much better than ours.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

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

Post by djthomas »

Morne wrote:The other stuff is also interesting but unless you are into flouting signs (which there should then be fewer of) it doesn't matter that much. I think most of us don't like to patronize places that post signs so why highlight that?
Private property, I agree. But just as important this bill also has the effect of decriminalizing every single enumerated CPZ while still requiring them to post. Those particular signs will not be coming down but it will no longer be unlawful for a licensee to carry there under most circumstances. That's huge.

For the average licensee it's not as simple as choosing who we do business with when it comes to enumerated CPZs. I can choose not to support Bob's Pizza because he posts. I can't choose to stay out of the BMV every four years nor can I choose to avoid City Hall if I need to pull a permit, etc.

If you think about it, the way this bill is worded it's kind of genius. If one can control their desire to open carry or otherwise make a spectacle of themselves while in an enumerated CPZ (thus keeping the sheeple calm) they can carry with no repercussions.
User avatar
Morne
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 10631
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: Wayne County

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

Post by Morne »

djthomas wrote:If you think about it, the way this bill is worded it's kind of genius. If one can control their desire to open carry or otherwise make a spectacle of themselves while in an enumerated CPZ (thus keeping the sheeple calm) they can carry with no repercussions.
I agree!!!

As with most things in life, if you don't go looking to make a spectacle of yourself no one much cares what you're doing. This bill just codifies that a bit, which is both unusual and really nice.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.

Remember, only you can prevent big government!
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

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

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

While this bill may not make it through on its own, it sure would make a nice addition to some other bill with more momentum. :wink:
MyWifeSaidYes
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by Brian D. »

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:While this bill may not make it through on its own, it sure would make a nice addition to some other bill with more momentum. :wink:
At the end of these legislative cycles we wind up with a sort of gumbo/stew that becomes law. I wish it was a smorgasbord of multiple new gun friendly laws though.

Figured you'd like the food analogy, MWSY.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

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

Post by NavyChief »

Had a WCPO-TV person call Friday wanting to talk about this - missed the call, but tried calling him back yesterday - no response.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
User avatar
fyrfytr310
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Hamilton, OH

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

Post by fyrfytr310 »

***Standing by childishly excited about this one***

I wonder if the liability language was put in there as an easy item to cut as a 'compromise?' The old hike the price then put it on sale trick?
-Mike

NRA Life Member

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe
Post Reply