zeko wrote:I liked HB233 and would like to see it or something similar be re-submitted. If that's not feasible, requiring uniform CPZ notification (a la South Carolina) would be good to have. If signs are to have the force of law, it is not unreasonable to have stronger requirements for them.
Stand Your Ground would also be good . . . I'll leave it to the judgment of others as to how feasible it is.
Zeko
I can get on board the standard signage thing. Now, I don't agree with going with something large and obnoxious. I feel doing that will A) make the bill never pass and B) truly accomplish nothing as the trespass law still exists and I feel even with a signage requirement, a private business still has the right to tell anyone to leave, and failure to comply is criminal trespass. So at that rate, the sign is a moot point. However, a standard 8.5x11 size sign with standard wording to get the point across may be helpful.
A private business that is open to the public cannot tell anyone to leave for any reason. It cannot tell someone to leave because they are Irish or African or Republican or Democrat or Christian or Muslim, and they certainly cannot post a sign that says "No Africans" that has the force of law to compel law enforcement to arrest and imprison any African who dares to enter.
So why do we allow this treatment for anyone who decides that they are responsible to defend their families without having to wait for the government to do it? The second amendment is written stronger than the constitutional provisions relied upon for the courts to prohibit businesses from discriminating against Irish, Africans, Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Muslim etc... Justice Alito very clearly stated in the McDonald case in 2010 that the fundamental right protected by the second amendment cannot be relegated to a second class right and must be afforded at least equal protection compared to other constitutionally protected rights. I thought HB 233 was a good compromise.
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
JediSkippDogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
Property owners should have rights, but if you go against their wishes by violating their dress code or other restrictions, it is not automatically a misdemeanor or felony as is the case with no-guns signs. Why shouldn't the penalty be the same in all cases?
JN01 wrote:JediSkippDogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
Property owners should have rights, but if you go against their wishes by violating their dress code or other restrictions, it is not automatically a misdemeanor or felony as is the case with no-guns signs. Why shouldn't the penalty be the same in all cases?
I'm confused on what you are saying....it's a misdemeanor for refusing to leave cause I don't like your shirt or cause I don't like your gun. The only felony gun violations are statutory zones like government buildings, churches, daycares, jails, courthouses, schools, etc. And those locations are a totally different issue.
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
JediSkipdogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
That is because the Constitution does not say that the right to wear an AC/DC shirt shall not be infringed.
Maybe perhaps, fix SB228 & 1/2 1st? 1st things 1st, 2nd things 2nd, so forth on & on. A lot of goodies listed here. Like ending the 2,371 ways to secure yer firearm in 78 types of parking lots.
I will add, it jjjjust might be after 2 or 3 renewals, it is determined the permitee is an Ok guy, and if anyone becomes not-Ok the CHL is snatched anyways....
ISSUE LIFETIME CHL PERMIT.
Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
JN01 wrote:JediSkippDogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
Property owners should have rights, but if you go against their wishes by violating their dress code or other restrictions, it is not automatically a misdemeanor or felony as is the case with no-guns signs. Why shouldn't the penalty be the same in all cases?
I'm confused on what you are saying....it's a misdemeanor for refusing to leave cause I don't like your shirt or cause I don't like your gun. The only felony gun violations are statutory zones like government buildings, churches, daycares, jails, courthouses, schools, etc. And those locations are a totally different issue.
Unless the person had previously lost the right and had it restored under R.C. § 2923.14, which would make it also a felony violation of R.C. § 2923.13 for having weapons under disability, a felony violation of R.C. § 2923.12 for carrying a concealed weapon as well as a firearms specification--all to run concurrently. And no these are not allied offenses of similar import. I have seen cases of people doing several years in prison for these offenses--people who made a mistake many, many years prior and had their rights restored.
Also, I think the point he was trying to make is that trespassing with a firearm is an automatic violation whereas the t shirt situation is only a violation if the person refuses to leave once told to leave, and why is the second amendment relegated to a lower status than even an offensive t shirt--making wearing an offensive t shirt a more important right that a right that the Supreme Court has classified as an enumerated fundamental right.
Liberty wrote:
Unless the person had previously lost the right and had it restored under R.C. § 2923.14, which would make it also a felony violation of R.C. § 2923.13 for having weapons under disability, a felony violation of R.C. § 2923.12 for carrying a concealed weapon as well as a firearms specification--all to run concurrently. And no these are not allied offenses of similar import. I have seen cases of people doing several years in prison for these offenses--people who made a mistake many, many years prior and had their rights restored.
Oops, I meant to say that the sentences run consecutively, not concurrently.
JediSkipdogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
That is because the Constitution does not say that the right to wear an AC/DC shirt shall not be infringed.
1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law"....trespass is a law that says you can't wear an AC/DC shirt inside my store if I don't like it.
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
Liberty wrote:Also, I think the point he was trying to make is that trespassing with a firearm is an automatic violation whereas the t shirt situation is only a violation if the person refuses to leave once told to leave, and why is the second amendment relegated to a lower status than even an offensive t shirt--making wearing an offensive t shirt a more important right that a right that the Supreme Court has classified as an enumerated fundamental right.
Where is the firearm an automatic violation? And the t-shirt not? The firearm requires the officer to have evidence of your knowledge about the sign. No difference than being told to not wear an AC/DC shirt. Case law is pretty firm on trespass and having knowledge the person would be violating a sign.
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
JediSkipdogg wrote:
Didn't realize I needed to mention excluding protected class. But if they want to say "No heavy metal t-shirts" they can. If they don't want to post but see a black jew that is MRDD and 85 years old coming in to their business wearing an AC/DC shirt, they can tell the person to leave and change their shirt before coming back in. No discrimination factor there and that is their right.
I'm not going to argue if CHLs should be afforded a protected class status as that will get nowhere.
That is because the Constitution does not say that the right to wear an AC/DC shirt shall not be infringed.
1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law"....trespass is a law that says you can't wear an AC/DC shirt inside my store if I don't like it.
Apples and oranges. Congress did not make state trespass laws. Ohio did that. I am aware of the caselaw establishing an automatic offense of trespass for entering despite a "No Trespass" sign, but I have not seen one that upholds an automatic arrest and conviction for not conforming to a dress code.
I understand that the Supreme Court incorporated a free speech right of sorts as applicable to the states through the 14th amendment's due process clause, but and caselaw clearly establishes that the content of free speech is what is protected not the method. There are other more socially acceptable methods for a person to state that they like AC/DC. And your right to declare how you feel about a rock band pales in comparison to my right to prevent a dirt bag from murdering my grandchildren.
The prohibition in the second amendment was not limited to the federal government. It is applicable to anyone and any entity because it says the right "shall not be infringed." The framers of the constitution conspicuously declines to use its already used language of "Congress shall make no law..." The framers wrote about the right of self defense and defense of family and friends as a preexisting right given to us by God himself and that no one has the right to infringe upon that which God hath given.
This is why we don't get anywhere. People advocating for firearms rights do it selfishly. Government employees want to carve out special rights for themselves while they walk all over the rights of others. Business owners among us want to be able to carry in government buildings so they can protect their families while they undermine our efforts by trying to preserve a right created and imposed by the government for themselves to walk all over other peoples rights. How is it expected for government employees (legislators are our employees not our leaders) to allow us to carry in their buildings when many of us want the same government employees to give us the right to refuse to allow them and others to carry in our businesses?
Liberty wrote:
The prohibition in the second amendment was not limited to the federal government. It is applicable to anyone and any entity because it says the right "shall not be infringed." The framers of the constitution conspicuously declines to use its already used language of "Congress shall make no law..." The framers wrote about the right of self defense and defense of family and friends as a preexisting right given to us by God himself and that no one has the right to infringe upon that which God hath given.
This is why we don't get anywhere. People advocating for firearms rights do it selfishly. Government employees want to carve out special rights for themselves while they walk all over the rights of others. Business owners among us want to be able to carry in government buildings so they can protect their families while they undermine our efforts by trying to preserve a right created and imposed by the government for themselves to walk all over other peoples rights. How is it expected for government employees (legislators are our employees not our leaders) to allow us to carry in their buildings when many of us want the same government employees to give us the right to refuse to allow them and others to carry in our businesses?
Over the years, and the framers of the Constitution even understood the difference between private and public property. And private includes property open to the general public. Over the years we have slowly destroyed the right of what a private business may do and allow on their own property. Heck, we are forcing Christian ministers to marry gays and bakera to bake cakes with themes they do not support. While the framers did guarantee the right to allow then people to protect themselves, they held the right of a private business to decide what to do as much greater. We need to stop destroying that right.
And what caselaw do you have where a no trespassing sign held firm without the person being given some form of warning?
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
[quote="JediSkipdogg"]
Over the years, and the framers of the Constitution even understood the difference between private and public property. And private includes property open to the general public. Over the years we have slowly destroyed the right of what a private business may do and allow on their own property. Heck, we are forcing Christian ministers to marry gays and bakera to bake cakes with themes they do not support. While the framers did guarantee the right to allow then people to protect themselves, they held the right of a private business to decide what to do as much greater. We need to stop destroying that right./quote]
That is simply not true. If it were true, there would have been a constitutional provision that states the right of a person to control others' on the property of his business shall not be infringed.
JediSkipdogg wrote:
And what caselaw do you have where a no trespassing sign held firm without the person being given some form of warning?
There is a lot of caselaw on this. I don't have in front of me right now, but it is discussed in criminal law class. Our department does not have a text book for undergraduate criminal law. We stopped doing that a long time ago. We just go through the Ohio criminal law handbook that includes select portions of title 21, 29, 31 and 45. I have also supervised individuals with such convictions.
Fix the screw up in the dangerous ordinance definition
Notification on demand only
Stand Your Groud
Amend ORC 2923.11 (L) (6) as follows:
Any device that is expressly excepted from the definition of a destructive device or silencer pursuant to the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(4), as amended, and regulations issued under that act.
A silencer is not defined as a "destructive device" by GCA. It is defined only as a silencer. This change allows a silencer to be concealed carried.....mostly beneficial for transportation convenience.
JediSkipdogg wrote:
And what caselaw do you have where a no trespassing sign held firm without the person being given some form of warning?
There is a lot of caselaw on this. I don't have in front of me right now, but it is discussed in criminal law class. Our department does not have a text book for undergraduate criminal law. We stopped doing that a long time ago. We just go through the Ohio criminal law handbook that includes select portions of title 21, 29, 31 and 45. I have also supervised individuals with such convictions.
State v. McMechan (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 261 has stood firm for 30 years now and states some form of communication is necessary to guarantee a conviction of criminal trespass. It further states one is not required to go looking for signs. Nothing has overturned that decision. So not sure what case law you have seen on people being arrested for trespass without some form of warning.
Also, I don't look at "I have supervised individuals with such convictions" as a good cause. Heck, I've seen plea deals for crimes where if the defendant just fought it, they'd win on some technicality. But alas, they take a plea deal for a crime either they never committed or were charged incorrectly for. And if one looks at the federal level, the number of those is outstanding. I wrote numerous papers on that for my master's degree.
I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
