Shame on area Republicans in the Ohio House -- with the notable exception of Summit County's Anthony DeVitis -- for voting as a bloc to support this bill, which passed the House on a largely party line vote July 6.
By eliminating meaningful penalties for routine violations, HB 233 would effectively yank the right of private property owners to prohibit those with concealed-handgun licenses from carrying concealed weapons onto their premises.
Gun rights should not eclipse property rights.
Silly Rabbit, Guns don't have Rights. Nor does property.
However, let's discuss property rights. Here we have two sets: Property Rights of a property owner vs the self-ownership property rights of the individual.
For some people, being temporarily deprived of a firearm creates great anxiety. But for those with a strong aversion to guns, working at a company that allows weapons in cars has the same effect. In a free society, both sets of employees can solve the problem with a simple expedient: exercising their liberty to find a company whose policies suit their preferences.
Who can argue with that ideal? Who, pray tell, is the business owner asking to uphold said Rights over and above the RKBA rights of non-commercial property owners? The government,no?
What's the penalty for bringing food and drink into an establishment that permits no outside food and drink (the movie theater, or some restaurant). One is asked to trash the contraband or leave, yes? If not, trespassing charges may be appropriate. Same as the belligerent or obnoxiously loud customer, they can always be refused service based on behaviors or acts (and even then, there is often some deleterious effect on commerce that is demonstrated), not inanimate objects.
But for the government to make a law that possession of an inanimate object on commercial property is a crime, well, that diminishes the Rights of the individual, prioritizing the policies of the business owner and backing them with the force of law. While I agree that commercial property owners have rights, and that they should be upheld by the government, what other company policy carries the force of law? Isn't it the other way around, that the law constrains or forms the policies of the business (no business is going to make company policy that conflicts with law and expect the gov to uphold the policy based on property rights)?
As a thought exercise, can other rights be restrained at the door of a commercial property? Can a property owner remove you for your AARP membership card, your MAGA hat, your church membership, the camera on your phone, your previously stated thoughts on your website? What about your voting record, or the campaign sign you put in your yard the last election? Don't property owners need SOME reason to remove you? Would they ask people with service dogs to leave? Is their irrational fear of inanimate objects enough?
Back to the original Ohio article:
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes the bill as making it "significantly more difficult for our members to provide a safe work environment" and infringing on business owners' rights.
Safe work environments aren't soft targets. Is the Statehouse a safe work environment because it's a gun free zone? Ha! Tons of guns at the statehouse, that's what secures that safe work environment. Anti-gun pansies are deceiving themselves and anyone that will buy the lie that being "gun free" makes you safe. Property owners have a limited ability to set policies, but those policies should not be enforced by government if they infringe on the inseparable Rights of self-ownership. Company policies don't carry the force of law, and it's inappropriate to suggest that they should.