HB 590 (Becker) - no immunity for posted businesses

[Morne]

HB 590 (Becker)

...and that a private property owner who chooses to prohibit firearms on the property is not immune from liability if a related injury occurs.

I kind of like this one...

[djthomas]

Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity. It completely decriminalizes every single CPZ including school zones and courthouses. Heck it looks like you could drink in a bar. One would, however, be subject to removal from the premises if discovered. Once that happens if you refuse to leave or come back armed in the next 30 days you'd be guilty of disorderly conduct persisting, but not criminal trespass or CCW.

I don't see this going anywhere in its current state as much as I'd love it to.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Long Title: To amend sections 2917.11, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.122, 2923.123, and 2923.126 of the Revised Code to provide that a concealed handgun licensee who carries a handgun concealed on or in property on which carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited is subject to removal but is not guilty of a violation of the prohibition unless the licensee fails to leave the premises upon request, that a licensee who fails to leave upon request or returns with a firearm within thirty days is guilty of disorderly conduct, and that a private property owner who chooses to prohibit firearms on the property is not immune from liability if a related injury occurs.

I like the first two provisions and hope they stick (I'm not opposed to the last part, just doubtful that "a related injury" will be provable in court).

I think the last part is going to be an incredibly heavy lift, as the text explicitly makes those who post such signs "assumes responsibility for the safety and defense of all persons lawfully on the posted land or premises. "

[DontTreadOnMe]

Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity. It completely decriminalizes every single CPZ including school zones and courthouses. Heck it looks like you could drink in a bar.

I don't read it that way. The change to 2923.121 (possession of firearm in place that serves alcohol) applies to " A person who has a valid concealed handgun license and who carries a concealed handgun on or onto premises in violation of this section is subject to removal from the land or premises but is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises".
It does not state it applies to a person who actually b]consumes [/b] alcohol.

[djthomas]

It does not state it applies to a person who actually consumes alcohol.

It doesn't need to. It says that a licensee who carries in violation of "this section" is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment and is only subject to removal, blah blah blah. "This section" refers to 2923.121 as a whole. The only way for a licensee to carry in violation of section 2923.121 is to be drinking.

[DontTreadOnMe]

I still think the intent of the language is clear, but it would be easy to add " as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse" to remove any confusion.

As far as decriminalizing possession in CPZs, it only does so in regards to people who have a CHL. Similar to the way the Federal GFSZA excludes people with a state-issued carry license. It's a lift, but it's not without precedent.

[djthomas]

I still think the intent of the language is clear, but it would be easy to add " as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse" to remove any confusion.

Let me ask this. As it pertains to licensees, what other provisions of section 2923.121 apply? There's nothing in 121 about a business owner prohibiting weapons since that's covered in other sections. It's presumed that the General Assembly doesn't enact meaningless statutes. If there's no other provision within that section that applies to licensees then why is the proposed language included in the bill?

[Morne]

Did anybody actually read the text? This bill does far more than just deal with immunity.

Duh, but the title block for posting threads here is only so long.

I highlighted the immunity part because that is the portion of the bill that would get signs down the fastest from the most places. The average business owner does whatever minimizes liability, period.

The other stuff is also interesting but unless you are into flouting signs (which there should then be fewer of) it doesn't matter that much. I think most of us don't like to patronize places that post signs so why highlight that?

[Brian D.]

It does not state it applies to a person who actually consumes alcohol.

It doesn't need to. It says that a licensee who carries in violation of "this section" is not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor establishment and is only subject to removal, blah blah blah. "This section" refers to 2923.121 as a whole. The only way for a licensee to carry in violation of section 2923.121 is to be drinking.

Regarding our law about this. I had something interesting happen yesterday. Went to a big cigar shindig held in Fairfield Ohio. Included with entry was a ticket for a few bourbon samples. I chose to be armed rather than drink so I gave my ticket to a pal from Indiana. He thanked me then asked why. Explained that in Ohio a carry license means you can't have all three of the letters in "ATF" at the same time. His expression changed and he put down the beer he was working on. He said something like "Well, that ship had already sailed, oops." Meaning that in Indiana they do not have a zero tolerance for alcohol stipulation as carry licensees, and he was indeed carrying.

At that point I just smiled and told him he needed to check other states' laws before traveling, and by the way I thought Indiana's law was much better than ours.

[djthomas]

The other stuff is also interesting but unless you are into flouting signs (which there should then be fewer of) it doesn't matter that much. I think most of us don't like to patronize places that post signs so why highlight that?

Private property, I agree. But just as important this bill also has the effect of decriminalizing every single enumerated CPZ while still requiring them to post. Those particular signs will not be coming down but it will no longer be unlawful for a licensee to carry there under most circumstances. That's huge.

For the average licensee it's not as simple as choosing who we do business with when it comes to enumerated CPZs. I can choose not to support Bob's Pizza because he posts. I can't choose to stay out of the BMV every four years nor can I choose to avoid City Hall if I need to pull a permit, etc.

If you think about it, the way this bill is worded it's kind of genius. If one can control their desire to open carry or otherwise make a spectacle of themselves while in an enumerated CPZ (thus keeping the sheeple calm) they can carry with no repercussions.

[Morne]

If you think about it, the way this bill is worded it's kind of genius. If one can control their desire to open carry or otherwise make a spectacle of themselves while in an enumerated CPZ (thus keeping the sheeple calm) they can carry with no repercussions.

I agree!!!

As with most things in life, if you don't go looking to make a spectacle of yourself no one much cares what you're doing. This bill just codifies that a bit, which is both unusual and really nice.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

While this bill may not make it through on its own, it sure would make a nice addition to some other bill with more momentum.

[Brian D.]

While this bill may not make it through on its own, it sure would make a nice addition to some other bill with more momentum.

At the end of these legislative cycles we wind up with a sort of gumbo/stew that becomes law. I wish it was a smorgasbord of multiple new gun friendly laws though.

Figured you'd like the food analogy, MWSY.

[NavyChief]

Had a WCPO-TV person call Friday wanting to talk about this - missed the call, but tried calling him back yesterday - no response.

[fyrfytr310]

***Standing by childishly excited about this one***

I wonder if the liability language was put in there as an easy item to cut as a 'compromise?' The old hike the price then put it on sale trick?