BB62 wrote:The signage must be reflective of the law and its reach, not the law unto itself. As such, CC is disallowed in other portions of the ORC, whereas OC generally isn't.
I agree that it should be that way, but in this case we have a statute that prescribes what the sign should say, more or less. That's not the sign being the law unto itself, but rather the sign reflecting what state law says it must say.
Throughout the years the General Assembly has steadfastly refused to change the required signage to only pertain to CC. If they want to say they didn't know the difference when it comes to signs, well then how come under 2923.126 (C)(3)(a) private entities have the authority to post signs "prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms" ? Obviously there was a distinction to be made there.
When the Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (CSRAB) passed a rule stating that firearms are prohibited on capitol grounds and in the buildings, the General Assembly had the authority to review and disapprove of the rule, otherwise it has the force of law. Not a single General Assembly member spoke up to say hey wait, that's not what the law we passed actually says. Granted, CSRAB relented a bit when it came to the OFCC rally on capitol grounds but they did so under the guise of issuing authorization, somewhat tied to free speech, not conceding that the rule was improper. And the buildings remained off limits. Just for giggles I called the Capitol Security office a few years ago and asked what would happen if I tried to openly carry a pistol into the capitol with the new metal detectors and whatnot. I was told that it would not be a weapons violation but I would be arrested for trespass as signs are posted stating that no weapons are allowed.
What about when the Casino Control Commission passed a rule saying that no casino licensee can allow firearms, despite the law giving private entities discretion over their own properties? Did the legislators on JCARR say hey wait, that's contrary to the law? Nope, it was ratified. Obviously, the General Assembly is tickled pink with backdoor weapons prohibitions thanks to the ambiguous laws they have passed. Many opportunities to correct, but not a single one acted upon.
To be perfectly clear I don't disagree with your position. But I've also seen the legal process at work long enough to recognize that this particular area is absolutely a trap for the average guy who just wants to carry for the protection of himself and his family.