CINCINNATI Municipal Codes violating ORC 9.68...a lot!

[color of law]

Construction of the General Code, O.R.C.

Ref: R.C. § 2923.12.12

Title 29: CRIMES - PROCEDURE

Chapter 23: CONSPIRACY, ATTEMPT, AND COMPLICITY; WEAPONS CONTROL; CORRUPT ACTIVITY

Section .12: Carrying concealed weapons.

Supplemental section .12: Signage prohibiting concealed handguns.

Section---------29 23 .12 .12
-----------------(1) (2) (3) (4)

Revised Code Numbering
(1) = Title number. The 3rd or the 3rd and 4th digits to the left of the decimal point. If there is only one digit to the left of the decimal point, the reference is to the General Provisions, an unnumbered title.
(2) = Chapter number. The 1st and 2nd digits to the left of the decimal point.
(3) = Section number. The 1st and 2nd digits to the right of the decimal point.
(4) = Supplemental section number. One or more additional digits to the right of the section number.

Titles, the most general classification, are divided into chapters, each of which deals with a particular topic of the law within the general subject of the title. The chapters are further divided into sections. The sections contain the text of individual statutes pertaining to the chapter subject matter. Sections are numbered consecutively within a chapter. The Revised Code’s numbering system reflects the three level structure of its arrangement. Occasionally, it is necessary to add supplemental sections to the Revised Code between consecutively numbered sections. These sections are indicated by one or more additional digits to the right of the decimal point.

Now as to R.C. 2923.1212, it is procedural in nature and only applies to certain governmental entities. And a consequence of a governmental entities' failure to comply with the procedural requirement does not affect the citizen.

Section R.C. 2923.126 applies to the licensees. A valid concealed handgun license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into certain governmental entities. And those entities happen to be the same entities described in 2923.1212.

And as well, both R.C. 2923.126 and 2923.1212 are Supplemental sections of R.C. 2923.12 dealing with the concealed carrying of handguns per statutory construction.

Sub. H.B. 12
125th General Assembly
(As Reported by S. Judiciary on Criminal Justice)

Privileges and duties of a licensee
Places and circumstances not covered by license
A valid license to carry a concealed handgun does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun in any manner prohibited under the portion of the offense of "carrying concealed weapons" that applies regarding the carrying of handguns by a licensee (see "Carrying a concealed weapon," below), in any manner prohibited under the portion of the offense of "improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle" (see "Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle," below), or into any of the following places (R.C. 2923.126(B)):

Posting of signs in specified areas
The bill requires specified persons, boards, and entities or their designees to post a sign that contains a statement in substantially the following form: "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises." For each of the specified types of premises, the sign must be posted in a conspicuous location on the premises (the specified premises generally are within the list of premises in which a license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun, as described above in "Places and circumstances not covered by license"; however, not all of the premises within that list are specified under this provision as being places at which a sign must be posted).

http://lsc.state.oh.us/analyses/Analysi ... AD0048F2E7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above “Bill Analysis” bears this out that the sign ONLY applies to the carrying of concealed handguns.


As far as State v. Craft (May 14, 1998), Athens App. No. 97 CA 53, unreported, 1998 WL 255442 and Dayton v. Moore (Mar. 25, 1993), Montgomery App. No. 13368, unreported, 1993 WL 81966, neither disturb State v. Shelton, 63 Ohio App. 3d 137 - Ohio: Court of Appeals 1989.

[Werz]

[Legal interpretations deleted; see original]

The above “Bill Analysis” bears this out that the sign ONLY applies to the carrying of concealed handguns.

Golly! What marvelous interpretive gymnastics! Now, let's review the statute again:

The following persons, boards, and entities, or designees, shall post in the following locations a sign that contains a statement in substantially the following form: "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises." R.C. 2923.1212.

No reference whatsoever to concealment. No reference to handguns, but rather, to all deadly weapons and dangerous ordnances.

Now, let's review the statutory rules of construction:

Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. R.C. 1.42.

Now, let's see what the Ohio Supreme Court has to say about all this:

"In determining legislative intent, the court first looks to the language in the statute and the purpose to be accomplished. * * * Further, absent ambiguity, the court must give effect to the plain meaning of a statute." State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler, 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 173 1996-Ohio-161.

"[T]he intent of the law-makers is to be sought first of all in the language employed, and if the words be free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly, the sense of the law-making body, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. The question is not what did the general assembly intend to enact, but what is the meaning of that which it did enact." State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308, 309-310, 2004-Ohio-969, at ¶12.

"An unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted." Meeks v. Papadopulos, 62 Ohio St.2d 187, 190 (1980), quoting Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312, (1944), paragraph five of the syllabus.

Words have meanings, even when you don't like them.

[Splat!!]

Ironically the sign has the dual meaning......but they will err to side of caution until court then dismissed...A chl holder is not authorized by law to carry in police stations, but a chl holder is authorized by law to carry concealed anywhere weapons are allowed. Just like werz said....read the context not the intent.... A simple no weapons sign is the key for private business...ie rules of conduct ......carry on

[mizzoumike]

I wonder if those pesky signs will be down/changed on Fountain Square the next time some OCing desperadoes visit?

I was on the square today and the signs still have the firearm prohibition.

[Splat!!]

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises." R.C. 2923.1212.

Imo a sign bearing this language allows for legal CHL carry, but not open carry by a non CHL. If posted in a location that is listed as off limits for a CHL in the ORC like courthouse or police station then only authorized by law can carry there.....IE, police officer.

The sign posted by private business is meaning less to an officer , an officer always has the right.....The sign stops open carry by unlicensed individuals , open carry is not authorized by law, pursuant to the ORC but carry by a CHL is authorized by law, openly or concealed....

Sure the intent of the business may be to stop all carrying, but in court of law....words have meaning...Unless of course you are a prosecutor, trying to argue intent trying to get a conviction.

Of course I would not carry openly in a business posting that sign, I do not want those who have that sign to change it ......unless it is to take it down.

The choice is yours, I imagine there are prosecutors out there that would try to convict you based on intent after you had to use your weapon for self-defense in one those establishments ......

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises." R.C. 2923.1212.

Imo a sign bearing this language allows for legal CHL carry...

But the language suggests that there be an actual 'authorization' in law. Where is that 'authorization'?

... an officer always has the right...

That would be 'authorization', not a 'right'. And, if it's private property, then only during 'official business'.

You CAN ask a police officer to leave private property if they are not on 'official business'. I don't know who you can call to enforce that, though.

[Brian D.]

I wonder if those pesky signs will be down/changed on Fountain Square the next time some OCing desperadoes visit?

I was on the square today and the signs still have the firearm prohibition.

The signage is definitely in weasel-speak, but for those like us who know the law well, they don't really prohibit carry on the square. Lawful activity/purpose etc. etc. Certainly unclear enough to dissuade someone from another state.

[Splat!!]

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises." R.C. 2923.1212.

Imo a sign bearing this language allows for legal CHL carry...

But the language suggests that there be an actual 'authorization' in law. Where is that 'authorization'?

... an officer always has the right...

That would be 'authorization', not a 'right'. And, if it's private property, then only during 'official business'.

You CAN ask a police officer to leave private property if they are not on 'official business'. I don't know who you can call to enforce that, though.

The same place you get the authorization to carry your handgun concealed.....

You can carry concealed handguns anywhere with a CHL provided the ORC or an entity does not prevent it...A sign which does not expressly forbid weapons/firearms is allowing options.

Authorization and right is pretty much the same, once authorized by whatever document, form or amendment the right exist. Don't cloud the issues.....A right or an authorization can revoked or denied depending on the facts