Columbus - Easton Mall
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:38 pm
Columbus - Easton Mall
I am 3 hours from Columbus so I don't visit offen. While in Columbus we decide to go to Easton. Once I arrive I look for the dreaded sign, "No Sign." OK, then we proceed, shop for well over 2 hours. If you have ever been there you no that it is crouded. My son and I were waiting on my wife and daughters to come out of the store when my sone called my attention to the "Code of Conduct sign." On the botton within the body of the text of a sign that was 5 ft x 2 ft. includding every behavour possible was a statment that said " No wepons."
This was not at every enterence or in a clearly vissable area. So what does this really mean to us?
This was not at every enterence or in a clearly vissable area. So what does this really mean to us?
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:26 am
- Location: Dayton, OH
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:44 pm
- Location: Madison Co.
-
- Posts: 1891
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:12 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
HB12 is rather vague in regard to the sign itself. It simply states:
And yes, I don't see any specific language requirements, but the sign at Easton surely prohibits you from carrying a firearm.
So, pretty much any sign that you are able to read requires you to remove the firearm from the premises.[...] may post a sign in a
conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting
persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto
that land or those premises.[...]
And yes, I don't see any specific language requirements, but the sign at Easton surely prohibits you from carrying a firearm.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
-
- Deceased
- Posts: 9710
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
- Location: Toledo
Re: Columbus - Easton Mall
1) The law requires the "No Guns" sign to be posted in a "conspicuous location" (HB12 line 1844). Thus, if the sign is not "conspicuous" (which reasonable means easily noticeable), then it carrys no weight.Navy_Marksman wrote:On the botton within the body of the text of a sign that was 5 ft x 2 ft. includding every behavour possible was a statment that said " No wepons."
This was not at every enterence or in a clearly vissable area. So what does this really mean to us?
2) Further, there is indeed recommended language for such signs. The section is ORC 2923:1212. It is listed in HB12 at lines 2246 -- 2252. The mall sign in question does not reasonably approximate the required reading.
3) Most tellingly, of course, is the requirement of actual knowledge on the part of the bearer of the weapon. In lines 1846 -- 1849 of HB12 we are warned that it is a crime to "knowingly violate a posted prohibition of that nature".
TunnelRat
"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago
When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago
When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
-
- *** Banned ***
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:28 pm
I agree with haspelbein - it doesn't matter what form the sign takes, if it communicates clearly that concealed weapons are not permitted, then you must obey. IMHO, you were alright until you saw the sign - then you were obligated to follow it.
However, there is a gray area here (IMHO) what constitutes their definition of weapons and to hom does it apply? Surely they approve of police officers but do they flat out disapprove of CCW? You could "assume" that it inferred that illegal weapons were not permitted.
Again - that's quite a gray area and I don't know if I would be willing to test it. On the other hand, if you never saw the sign as it was appearantly not prominantly displayed, you have ignorance on your side. Anyway - if you're carrying properly and it is concealed how would anyone know to question you anyways?
However, there is a gray area here (IMHO) what constitutes their definition of weapons and to hom does it apply? Surely they approve of police officers but do they flat out disapprove of CCW? You could "assume" that it inferred that illegal weapons were not permitted.
Again - that's quite a gray area and I don't know if I would be willing to test it. On the other hand, if you never saw the sign as it was appearantly not prominantly displayed, you have ignorance on your side. Anyway - if you're carrying properly and it is concealed how would anyone know to question you anyways?
-
- Posts: 1891
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:12 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: Columbus - Easton Mall
I actually remember the signs, and they date back before 2004. In fact, I remember them from before I left Ohio in 2000. This is probably the reason why they do not follow the HB12 recommendations.tommcnaughton wrote: [...]
1) The law requires the "No Guns" sign to be posted in a "conspicuous location" (HB12 line 1844). Thus, if the sign is not "conspicuous" (which reasonable means easily noticeable), then it carrys no weight.
2) Further, there is indeed recommended language for such signs. The section is ORC 2923:1212. It is listed in HB12 at lines 2246 -- 2252. The mall sign in question does not reasonably approximate the required reading.
I agree that this is the telling point: The fact that the sign was noticed pretty much proves the point that it was conspicously displayed. (It would be a different story if he hadn't noticed.) Secondly, even though it does not follow the recommended design, it makes the property owner's intentions very clear. I really wouldn't want to split hairs over how "no weapons" may not apply to "concealed firearms" when standing in front of a judge.3) Most tellingly, of course, is the requirement of actual knowledge on the part of the bearer of the weapon. In lines 1846 -- 1849 of HB12 we are warned that it is a crime to "knowingly violate a posted prohibition of that nature".
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 8:38 pm
-
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:37 am
- Location: Columbus, OH
Years ago I was in a Tuesday Mornings store and noticed the "no weapons" sign in the window. Be aware that some places may have had these signs posted for many years from company policy.
I brought the sign to one of the employee's attention and mentioned I was carrying some OC spray, which is a "weapon." He said it only applied to guns. Whatever.
I never shopped at Tuesdays again.
Karl
I brought the sign to one of the employee's attention and mentioned I was carrying some OC spray, which is a "weapon." He said it only applied to guns. Whatever.
I never shopped at Tuesdays again.
Karl
I WANT VERMONT! (OR "ALASKA")
That's FIRST AMENDMENT CRUSADER PIGLET!
That's FIRST AMENDMENT CRUSADER PIGLET!
-
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:28 am
- Location: East Central Ohio
I'll second THE That's What Cocealed Is For.
Conceal well, loose the selfconsciousness of carrying, go about your business.
I think to many have the idea that all these pimple faced, pin pierced clerks are on the alert for anyone packing. I doubt it.
How many of us carried before CCW? I know I did.
Conceal well, loose the selfconsciousness of carrying, go about your business.
I think to many have the idea that all these pimple faced, pin pierced clerks are on the alert for anyone packing. I doubt it.
How many of us carried before CCW? I know I did.
The Tail Goes Along With The Hide.
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO"
What one generation tolerates, the next one embraces.
"REMEMBER THE ALAMO"
What one generation tolerates, the next one embraces.