Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.

Tweed Ring wrote:If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.

So, would you agree that with the law, (as passed, signed and in place), the default state is that an Employer has immunity?

Any challenge to that would have to be done thought the court system with the Employer as the defendant backed with the legal standing of the law?

Qfac wrote:Back in 2004 when the first version was signed into law there was verbiage at protected Employers already in there. Would this not be applicable for this as well?

"Private employers are immune from civil liability for any loss related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose, and for any loss related to the private employer’s decision to permit or prohibit licensees from bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer"

The problem with that is....

This bill is granting the employee the ability to carry in their vehicle ANYWHERE, even if they are on the clock.

That immunity only would apply if the employee is a LICENSEE and it does not apply when the employee is not on the employers property. So, the post office employee that uses his own vehicle for work. Or the social service worker that makes home visits with their own vehicle because the county thinks mileage reimbursement is cheaper.

Expand that immunity and you win me on that aspect but you still won't win me on the private property rights aspect.

Qfac wrote:

Tweed Ring wrote:If memory serves, there has yet to be a well-funded legal challenge to the immunity provision.

So, would you agree that with the law, (as passed, signed and in place), the default state is that an Employer has immunity?

Any challenge to that would have to be done thought the court system with the Employer as the defendant backed with the legal standing of the law?

I'm afraid the employer has immunity right up until some court of competent jurisdiction decides they are not so immune.

As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.

Bama.45 wrote:As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.

That's true if two critical tests can be met:
1) The property must be primarily a parking lot. We've debated long and hard here whether that means by square footage, percentage of revenue, etc. Never really came to a full agreement, perhaps because there is no case law beyond following Brian D's advice.

2) Notice has to come only from posted signage. Verbal notice, or written notice by means other than a sign (e.g. a trespass letter, or employee handbook) could bump it back up to criminal.

djthomas wrote:

Bama.45 wrote:As far as retail parking lots that are posted?... It is already just a civil matter and even then the plaintiff has to prove that some type of monetary damage has been done... So the retail parking lot post is basically useless.

That's true if two critical tests can be met:
1) The property must be primarily a parking lot. We've debated long and hard here whether that means by square footage, percentage of revenue, etc. Never really came to a full agreement, perhaps because there is no case law beyond following Brian D's advice.

2) Notice has to come only from posted signage. Verbal notice, or written notice by means other than a sign (e.g. a trespass letter, or employee handbook) could bump it back up to criminal.

Ah, I see... Well I still don't see how anyone would know someone has a gun in their car in a retail parking lot unless it is being flashed around... So my theory still stands, keep the gun out of sight and out of mind unless it is needed, at that point violating the no carry parking lot sign etc is the least of someone's problem.. But that's just my opinion.

I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?

Concealed does mean concealed, except if you are forced to notify because you committed a traffic violation pulling out or are involved in a private property accident to which the police respond or if your vehicle is broken into/stolen.

Beyond that, no there's no real reason anybody should know, whether it's on your person or in your vehicle.

Bama.45 wrote:...I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?

The law says "...the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

Remember, this is the law we're talking about, so the word "primarily" is important...but what does that mean?

There is a business in Logan whose building sits on about 1/2 acre of land and has only 4 parking spots.

The building and surrounding land make up far more than 50% of the premises (premises includes buildings), so if "primarily" means "mostly" or "for the most part", the civil trespass exception wouldn't apply.

If the words "portion of" were added, it would be a huge help. Then the law could read "...the posted portion of land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:

Bama.45 wrote:...I would think most retail parking lots would be easy to know its a parking lot as example say Target, Kroger, strip mall etc.. Wouldn't you agree?

The law says "...the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

Remember, this is the law we're talking about, so the word "primarily" is important...but what does that mean?

There is a business in Logan whose building sits on about 1/2 acre of land and has only 4 parking spots.

The building and surrounding land make up far more than 50% of the premises (premises includes buildings), so if "primarily" means "mostly" or "for the most part", the civil trespass exception wouldn't apply.

If the words "portion of" were added, it would be a huge help. Then the law could read "...the posted portion of land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility..."

You also need to add in to the question of does posting the parking lot apply to the buildings?

All for naught ..... SB 180 probably won't hit the Governor's desk until after the 2016 elections. "Can't govern if not elected, etc".

With all the anti-gun sentiment among the various candidates, Kasich might do himself some good by passing another pro-gun bill or two before the end of this year.

HB 48 passed the House committee and is ready for the floor.

SB 180 is in committee, had a Sponsor hearing and is awaiting a proponent hearing.

HB 152 (license-less concealed carry) seems stuck in committee and probably won't move. It's a bit too radical for Kasich, IMHO.

But THAT is one we can save until NEXT December.

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:With all the anti-gun sentiment among the various candidates, Kasich might do himself some good by passing another pro-gun bill or two before the end of this year.

HB 48 passed the House committee and is ready for the floor.

SB 180 is in committee, had a Sponsor hearing and is awaiting a proponent hearing.

HB 152 (license-less concealed carry) seems stuck in committee and probably won't move. It's a bit too radical for Kasich, IMHO.

But THAT is one we can save until NEXT December.

It's really hard to say. Obviously Obama and Clinton were pretty much anti-gun. Bush was pro-gun but during his governor times did he pass any gun bills, especially the year before election? I would imagine if Kasich is thinking about a presidential nomination he's not going to want to get into the gun bill department until the last possible chance, maybe after the primaries.

If this governor has aspirations for higher office, he should announce his candidacy within the next 20 days. Failure todo announce will place him far beyond the curve in terms of hiring pro's and raising money.

His actions while campaigning around the country make it appear to some prognosticators that he might be posturing for VP because of his lack of organized presidential fund raising.
Maybe he recognizes that Bush 3 (NRA rating A+) is the GOP annointed one for this cycle.