Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

I stumbled on a county park in SW Ohio that has rules posted prohibiting firearms. Does this contradict state law?

Thanks for the help!

http://www.co.warren.oh.us/parks/Parks_ ... orial.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.co.warren.oh.us/parks/park_rules.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

6.0 WEAPONS, FIREARMS, FIREWORKS, EXPLOSIVES, AND BOWS AND ARROWS.
(updated July 18, 2012)
6.1 Weapons, firearms, fireworks, explosives. No person, except Rangers, Peace
Officers, Law Enforcement Officers, and authorized employees or agents of the Board
shall possess or discharge a firearm contrary to state law (Rev. Code 2923.11 through
2923.1213). No person, except Rangers, Peace Officers, Law Enforcement Officers, and
authorized employees or agents of the Board shall possess a deadly weapon, dangerous
ordnance, blowgun, air rifle, sling shot, or missile throwing device, within the
Parks or discharge any deadly weapon, dangerous ordnance, fireworks, explosives,
sling shot, or air rifle therein, without specific written permit from the Director.
6.2 Bows and arrows. No person shall have or possess on park property a bow, crossbow or blowgun
intended to shoot arrows or darts nor release an arrow or dart from a bow, blowgun, crossbow,
longbow, or other weapon, within or into the Park other than in areas designated by the Director.

Their rule 6.1 "...contrary to state law (Rev Code 2923.11 through 2913.1213)" is likely the weasel wording they'll state is clear and doesn't violate ORC 9.68.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost probably wouldn't agree, but could he be convinced to step in? I doubt it.

Brian D. wrote:Their rule 6.1 "...contrary to state law (Rev Code 2923.11 through 2913.1213)" is likely the weasel wording they'll state is clear and doesn't violate ORC 9.68.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost probably wouldn't agree, but could he be convinced to step in? I doubt it.

So what "IS" Yost good for ?

The common ordinarry Joe's like us can'r even contact him and he won't talk to us ordinary people unless we go through some "government" official !

Makes me wonder why I vote for him, really.

Last week I was in a Colerain Township park with a regulations sign that included the same "..shall not possess or discharge.." prohibition. On their website they had omitted "possess or" from the rule. Using my handy little bottle of White-Out, I brought the sign up to date. I should go to a Trustee meeting so they can thank me.

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:

Brian D. wrote:Their rule 6.1 "...contrary to state law (Rev Code 2923.11 through 2913.1213)" is likely the weasel wording they'll state is clear and doesn't violate ORC 9.68.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost probably wouldn't agree, but could he be convinced to step in? I doubt it.

So what "IS" Yost good for ?

The common ordinarry Joe's like us can'r even contact him and he won't talk to us ordinary people unless we go through some "government" official !

Makes me wonder why I vote for him, really.

He's not the only one. That's been the history of the AG. We elect the AG, but they work for other governments, not for the people it seems. I'm not sure if that's just "the way it's always been" or if that is actually in the Ohio Constitution/ORC.