This is exactly what we were saying. Trespassing charge does not in any way have to be based on anything inJediSkipdogg wrote:So are you saying there needs to be a 2923.126(c)(3)(b) that talks about the signs applying to open carry? What werz and I are saying is 2923.126 holds no force of the law and does nothing. 2911.21 is the law and that applies to whatever the signage says. 2923.1212 mentions all firearms. I guess if a government wants to change the wording and only say concealed carry, then open carry would be allowed. But if they copy the wording of 2923.1212 then it applies to both and creates a violation of 2911.21.MyWifeSaidYes wrote:But that's regarding concealed carry, not open carry.
R.C. 2923.126. The only purpose of making reference to it from that section is to make doubly clear to licensees that signs do carry the force of trespassing.
That does not in any way limit the application of the trespass statute itself.
And as we've already discussed, it could apply given the wording of the AG's suggested sign.
Listen I'd love for there to be some kind of creative way to make you right, but it doesn't really look like that's the case. You are reaching, and reaching pretty far.
You know that I think that it is BS that we can't carry on campus and in government buildings. And yes, I'd prefer if we had open carry as an option at a minimum. But wishing it so doesn't make it so.
I used to think that having the option to open carry in some of these locations might eventually give us a way to force a consideration of allowing concealed carry in these locations but given what's been explained to me since on the trespass law I'm starting to think that we're going to have to wait for a legislative fix.