JustaShooter wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:JustaShooter wrote:Considering that exact wording is required on signs posted on government facilities, it cannot mean that you are exempt by virtue of having a CHL since the law very specifically says your CHL does not authorize you to carry into those locations.
Except those places are prohibited whether or not they're posted, the posting doesn't make them so. Therefore a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" into those places, regardless of signage.
ORC 2923.126(B) states "A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places: " and then lists the enumerated CPZs. Those are places a CHL holder is not "authorized by law" to carry. Privately posted property is mentioned separately.
It's not an argument I'd want to make, but there's a non-trivial argument that at least the language is confusing. As to the argument that it's clear by the graphic, then why include the "unless authorized by law" exception? It just confuses things.
And until someone is willing to be the test case, and wins, I'll continue to teach my students and tell anyone else who asks that "you are not otherwise authorized by law".
Seems to me a there was a mall in the Cleveland area a few years ago that expressly said that language meant license holders were allowed to carry there.