Page 5 of 12
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:54 pm
by JustaShooter
westsidebestside wrote:Am I correct in saying that the penalty for concealed carry on a campus that has not voted to allow it is a minor misdemeanor?
The way I read it, the first offense (including any other ccw offense involving a handgun) for carrying on college or university property is a Minor Misdemeanor, 2nd is M4, 3rd is M3, 4th is M2. It is also an M2 if you've previously been convicted of an offense of violence if the weapon involved in that offense was a loaded firearm (or if ammunition was ready at hand) or dangerous ordnance. At least, I think I'm reading that right...
Here's the relevant part of the Act:
( 7) If a person being arrested for a violation of division (A)(2) of this section is knowingly in a place described in division (B)(5) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code and is not authorized to carry a handgun or have a handgun concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand under that division, the penalty shall be as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person produces a valid concealed handgun license within ten days after the arrest and has not previously been convicted or pleaded guilty to a violation of division (A)(2) of this section, the person is guilty of a minor misdemeanor;
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of division (A)(2) of this section, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree;
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two violations of division (A)(2) of this section, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree;
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more violations of division (A)(2) of this section, or
convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is a dangerous ordnance, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:17 pm
by M-Quigley
I thought I saw the other day someone ask this question, didn't recall seeing an answer, so will ask. Say for example you have a strip mall type shopping center with a no guns sign at each entrance to the parking lot, is that still legal? Or if it is, is it only legal for employees of the various stores but not the shoppers?
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:33 pm
by pirateguy191
M-Quigley wrote:I thought I saw the other day someone ask this question, didn't recall seeing an answer, so will ask. Say for example you have a strip mall type shopping center with a no guns sign at each entrance to the parking lot, is that still legal? Or if it is, is it only legal for employees of the various stores but not the shoppers?
At worse, for shoppers, it's a civil trespass infraction.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:39 pm
by WY_Not
LOL! Nope. I'm the original.
walnut red wrote:Are really quoting yourself?
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:56 pm
by DontTreadOnMe
WY_Not wrote:And no one is forcing anyone to choose to work at any particular place of employment.
You're using the "just get another job" argument, but the workforce isn't quite that simple, and when employees can't find another job, or another job at a similar wage to support their needs, they become a burden on the state. It is reasonable for the state to protect itself from that, especially when doing so doesn't incur direct harm or expense to employers.
WY_Not wrote:Don't like the rules, then work elsewhere
As WhyNot said that argument cuts both ways.
WY_Not wrote:Whether it causes harm to the employer or not is irrelevant.
Only because you're elevating that right completely above the right of self defense. For people who are willing to see that both rights are valid, the balance of this law (impact on employer vs employee) IMO clearly justifies it.
WY_Not wrote:To quote the much missed Tweed Ring...
Would you allow my church to hold an outdoor service, after work hours, of course, in your privately owned parking lot? We would shower you and the parking lot with our blessings.
Why not push a bill allowing a church congregation to freely use the parking lot of a business, after hours of course, to hold worship services there? After all, the property owner wouldn't suffer any harm.
That was a nonsensical argument when Tweed pushed it and quoting it doesn't make it logical. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:04 pm
by WY_Not
Oink
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:08 pm
by qmti
WY_Not wrote:How sad that we celebrate the trespass and infringement of one Ohioan by another Ohioan made legal.
I'm sure your businesses will file a court challenge to undo the law. So the courts will decide if it's legal or not.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:09 pm
by JustaShooter
pirateguy191 wrote:M-Quigley wrote:I thought I saw the other day someone ask this question, didn't recall seeing an answer, so will ask. Say for example you have a strip mall type shopping center with a no guns sign at each entrance to the parking lot, is that still legal? Or if it is, is it only legal for employees of the various stores but not the shoppers?
At worse, for shoppers, it's a civil trespass infraction.
The wording of the Act looks to me like it affects everyone with a CHL:
Sec. 2923.1210. (A) A business entity, property owner, or public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when both of the following conditions are met:
(1) Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person's privately owned motor vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle;
(2) The vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.
Is the posting legal? Sure, because it is posting the entire premises, the parking lot is just one part of the premises. The rest of the property is still a no-carry zone, as is the parking lot when you exit the vehicle (although arguably the parking lot may only be a Civil infraction).
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:29 pm
by carmen fovozzo
I think I'll say it again...Our law makers are a bunch of idiots and should be told we aren't going to stand for all this freaken lawyer crap they keep throwing in to screw us over...this has been going on to long....sorry...
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:30 pm
by curmudgeon3
Agreed ! It has been estimated that nationwide there are ~ 20,000 laws of all kinds that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment-protected RKBA.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:38 pm
by WhyNot
Gun and ammo lockers for inside the modern vehicle that does not have locking gloveboxes or trunks, just went up!!
Obviously the legis tators Downtown drive 1980 era vehicles, complete with carburetors, metal dash, and...locking glove boxes.
More resurrected BOB TAFT cow patties I says
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:42 pm
by djthomas
WhyNot wrote:Gun and ammo lockers for inside the modern vehicle that does not have locking gloveboxes or trunks, just went up!!
Obviously the legis tators Downtown drive 1980 era vehicles, complete with carburetors, metal dash, and...locking glove boxes.
Because obviously the rule they simultaneously implemented for school zones which simply says if you get out of your car you have to lock it is too straightforward to allow here and they couldn't possibly reuse the college parking lot rule because that one's another tortured mess.
Sad isn't it that we now have not one, not two, but THREE different ways in which one may/must secure a firearm in a vehicle in a parking lot depending on where you are.
1. If it's a school zone get out of the car and lock the door. Easy enough.
2. If it's a college you arguably have to lock the doors the moment you pull on to the campus property but then oddly you're allowed to get out of your car and make a big display of taking the gun off your hip and locking it up in the trunk.
3. If it's any other piece of property you have to lock it within a container or a locked glove box. Simply locking the vehicle in the lot of the stop 'n rob where you work isn't sufficient but it's perfectly fine while on the grounds of a school.
However for the first two types of property you can only do it with a handgun. For the third you can secure any firearm.
Are we the only state that has this insanity? Even frickin Illinois has a very straightforward parking lot rule for all types of CPZs.
And meanwhile day cares are still required to post even if they allow guns, making it a felony to carry notwithstanding the owner's wishes. Same goes for the two government buildings in the state that will "opt in."
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:44 pm
by M-Quigley
JustaShooter wrote:pirateguy191 wrote:M-Quigley wrote:I thought I saw the other day someone ask this question, didn't recall seeing an answer, so will ask. Say for example you have a strip mall type shopping center with a no guns sign at each entrance to the parking lot, is that still legal? Or if it is, is it only legal for employees of the various stores but not the shoppers?
At worse, for shoppers, it's a civil trespass infraction.
The wording of the Act looks to me like it affects everyone with a CHL:
Sec. 2923.1210. (A) A business entity, property owner, or public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when both of the following conditions are met:
(1) Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person's privately owned motor vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle;
(2) The vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.
Is the posting legal? Sure, because it is posting the entire premises, the parking lot is just one part of the premises. The rest of the property is still a no-carry zone, as is the parking lot when you exit the vehicle (although arguably the parking lot may only be a Civil infraction).
If it's legal what's to stop an employer to just post the parking lot in addition to the building? I'm not referring to someone carrying the gun into the strip mall itself, I mean merely driving onto the lot. In case someone think this is merely some hypothetical that will probably never happen, one lot I saw had a city cop literally parked next to the entrance where a no guns sign was posted. The lot is connected to another lot that has a business that sells guns. He was facing in such a way he could see people going out of the non posted business.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:09 pm
by JustaShooter
M-Quigley wrote:JustaShooter wrote:pirateguy191 wrote:M-Quigley wrote: "I thought I saw the other day someone ask this question, didn't recall seeing an answer, so will ask. Say for example you have a strip mall type shopping center with a no guns sign at each entrance to the parking lot, is that still legal? Or if it is, is it only legal for employees of the various stores but not the shoppers?"
At worse, for shoppers, it's a civil trespass infraction.
The wording of the Act looks to me like it affects everyone with a CHL:
Sec. 2923.1210. (A) A business entity, property owner, or public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when both of the following conditions are met:
(1) Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person's privately owned motor vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle;
(2) The vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.
Is the posting legal? Sure, because it is posting the entire premises, the parking lot is just one part of the premises. The rest of the property is still a no-carry zone, as is the parking lot when you exit the vehicle (although arguably the parking lot may only be a Civil infraction).
If it's legal what's to stop an employer to just post the parking lot in addition to the building? I'm not referring to someone carrying the gun into the strip mall itself, I mean merely driving onto the lot. In case someone think this is merely some hypothetical that will probably never happen, one lot I saw had a city cop literally parked next to the entrance where a no guns sign was posted. The lot is connected to another lot that has a business that sells guns. He was facing in such a way he could see people going out of the non posted business.
The posting may be legal since it effectively posts the property, but it would be unenforceable in the parking lot -at least, that's my take. Though I could well be wrong, I sure wouldn't mind hearing what one of our lawyer types have to say about it.
Re: Action on SB199 including parking lot carry
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:46 am
by JediSkipdogg
kSetuni wrote:then why are my rights that are guaranteed by the CONSTITUTION being infringed upon?
I have great distaste when I see that comment. You must remember the constitution is a document between the GOVERNMENT and YOURSELF. The constitution has ZERO to do with rights between people. It lays out the rights the government has or does not have.
Why do you think picket lines, which are protected by the first amendment, must occur on public sidewalks? If you want to picket your job or go on strike for union rights, you cannot do it on your company's property. The constitution does not guarantee anything may take place on private property. Therefore in that regards, it sees private property rights as pretty high.
By forcing a company to allow something on their property that they do not desire, is a violation of the 1st amendment, Freedom of Speech, for private property. So we are expanding the second amendment right by destroying the first amendment.