Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 
Author
Message
Post subject: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:32 pm
Curious. I don't know if it has been attempted or not, but why can we not get explicit sign requirements for CHL prohibited? Personally I would like to see a 4'x8' sign but that's a little unreasonable.

Something to the effect, it must be 4"x8", contain the verbiage "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under his control,
convey, or attempt to convey a deadly handgun or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.", contain the "standard" gun with a circle and slash, and require it to be placed on ALL entrance doors between 5' and 6' from ground level. Conspicuous is a little too vague for my liking.

Pretty much as defined in the AG's brochure for government building use, with minimum dimensions and specific locations.

I've seen CPZ signs in places I would not typically see them unless I scour the entrance. One was located in a window, at the bottom, okay, but the window was on the other side of a pillar that you have to peer around. THEN, to top it off, only when you get to the checkout, there are LARGE signs about not carrying, but they are on the left side (not visible from the general area).
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:41 pm
Posts: 8
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:56 pm
Efforts in that regard have been made at our Statehouse. To date such language hasn't been met with open arms by the legislature.

Texas has such a signage requirement. I believe the size and unattractive aesthetics have discouraged many businesses there from posting. Maybe we should try another push in that direction here in Ohio.

"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 1907
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:06 pm
Brian,

Yes I did like the Texas version, but I'm going for reasonably acceptable and passable. What I suggest isn't unreasonable and provides a clear definition in an otherwise arbitrary section of the law. "signage" and "conspicuous" are very vague.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:41 pm
Posts: 8
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:27 pm
Here we go again!!!!!!!

Quote:
2923.126(C)(3)(a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.........


Also, no sign no trespass.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2651
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:32 pm
kc8iqw wrote:
Brian,

Yes I did like the Texas version, but I'm going for reasonably acceptable and passable. What I suggest isn't unreasonable and provides a clear definition in an otherwise arbitrary section of the law. "signage" and "conspicuous" are very vague.


And that can work both ways, to your advantage or against it. Right now one can say they didn't see the sign and unless they have evidence that you knew or a reasonable person should have known, they can't convict you. For example, the mall by me has it posted on the door. If someone is entering or exiting before me, I can't see the sign because the door is open.

If the law is changed and the signs are large enough, the knowingly, conspicuous, etc may go away. It could be an arrest on site type violation then. To date, and that is over 10 years of CHL in Ohio, I know of less than a handful of arrests that have resulted from signage. And in 100% of the cases, the arrest only occurred because the person wanted to argue with the business or law enforcement instead of just leaving.

So it comes down to why waste the energy and capital fighting a law that really doesn't even matter as it is written? Use the effort to fight removing something that numerous people have been arrested for, and arrested even because it wasn't timely, and that would be notification. Or someone not knowing they are in a government building. Remember, while government buildings are required to post, there is no punishment for those that fail but either way, the arrest can stand because it's a government building. This about that next time one goes to the Cincinnati Museum Center (which is privately run, but government owned) or the new park being built at Blue Ash (which is going to have restaurants that are privately leased, but the building is government owned and eventually the park operation offices will be in the same building.) That violation is the difference between a misdemeanor trespass and a felony, even though nowhere does it say government owned on the outside.
Top
Offline
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:17 am
Posts: 516
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:25 pm
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry. We just need Jim Irvine and Jeff Garvas to lead the group marches into same to bring the matter up front and center. But they won't.

"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 1907
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:31 pm
It's funny, doing most of the above is legal just across the bridge in Kentucky. Without making much special effort I have legally carried in city halls, public libraries, even police and fire stations there a few times by now, and I ain't a resident of the commonwealth.

"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 1907
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:36 am
Brian D. wrote:
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry.

Your statement that those facilities are "good to go for OPEN carry" is a bit ambitious IMO. I've seen the argument that it is permitted, (and I'll say I'm not convinced by it) but regardless I've not heard of anyone actually successfully *doing* it, much less having seen or heard of an official ruling or opinion that it is legal.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 680
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:53 am
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry.

Your statement that those facilities are "good to go for OPEN carry" is a bit ambitious IMO. I've seen the argument that it is permitted, (and I'll say I'm not convinced by it) but regardless I've not heard of anyone actually successfully *doing* it, much less having seen or heard of an official ruling or opinion that it is legal.


Did you also take note of my notion for who gets to go in first? I'd follow them, as long as we were of a goodly number. You know what the ORC says, it specifically bans CONCEALED carry in those buildings. We supposedly go by the letter of the law, not "what we think the legislature might have maybe been thinking that day", right?

"I have decided not to vote, speak in public, assemble in groups or petition my government either directly or by writing to the newspapers.

Some ignorant person may become alarmed, and we can't have that.''

--CAR15A2, 3/31/09
Top
Offline
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:07 pm
Posts: 1907
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:49 am
Brian D. wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry.

Your statement that those facilities are "good to go for OPEN carry" is a bit ambitious IMO. I've seen the argument that it is permitted, (and I'll say I'm not convinced by it) but regardless I've not heard of anyone actually successfully *doing* it, much less having seen or heard of an official ruling or opinion that it is legal.


Did you also take note of my notion for who gets to go in first? I'd follow them, as long as we were of a goodly number. You know what the ORC says, it specifically bans CONCEALED carry in those buildings. We supposedly go by the letter of the law, not "what we think the legislature might have maybe been thinking that day", right?

I did note your willingness to follow certain leadership should they, in fact, lead. And I, too, share your desire for such to happen but doubt it will come to pass any time in the foreseeable future.

My disagreement is solely with your statement that "OPEN carry" is "good to go" - until such an event happens or there is otherwise an official ruling or opinion, we shouldn't make such unqualified statements. There are far too many lurkers who could get themselves into a bind by thinking that is more than just your opinion.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 680
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:38 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry.

Your statement that those facilities are "good to go for OPEN carry" is a bit ambitious IMO. I've seen the argument that it is permitted, (and I'll say I'm not convinced by it) but regardless I've not heard of anyone actually successfully *doing* it, much less having seen or heard of an official ruling or opinion that it is legal.


Did you also take note of my notion for who gets to go in first? I'd follow them, as long as we were of a goodly number. You know what the ORC says, it specifically bans CONCEALED carry in those buildings. We supposedly go by the letter of the law, not "what we think the legislature might have maybe been thinking that day", right?

I did note your willingness to follow certain leadership should they, in fact, lead. And I, too, share your desire for such to happen but doubt it will come to pass any time in the foreseeable future.

My disagreement is solely with your statement that "OPEN carry" is "good to go" - until such an event happens or there is otherwise an official ruling or opinion, we shouldn't make such unqualified statements. There are far too many lurkers who could get themselves into a bind by thinking that is more than just your opinion.

I have laid out all the legalees in the past including case law and legislative history. Public property open to the public is public either inside or outside. There is one person that frequents these forums who has the ability to make an official request of the AG for an opinion. And why that doesn't happen is beyond me.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2651
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:57 pm
color of law wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
Brian D. wrote:
Better yet we need to get concealed carry legalized in Ohio government buildings. Village, city, township, county and state. Most of the above except detention and court facilities are good to go for OPEN carry.

Your statement that those facilities are "good to go for OPEN carry" is a bit ambitious IMO. I've seen the argument that it is permitted, (and I'll say I'm not convinced by it) but regardless I've not heard of anyone actually successfully *doing* it, much less having seen or heard of an official ruling or opinion that it is legal.

Did you also take note of my notion for who gets to go in first? I'd follow them, as long as we were of a goodly number. You know what the ORC says, it specifically bans CONCEALED carry in those buildings. We supposedly go by the letter of the law, not "what we think the legislature might have maybe been thinking that day", right?

I did note your willingness to follow certain leadership should they, in fact, lead. And I, too, share your desire for such to happen but doubt it will come to pass any time in the foreseeable future.

My disagreement is solely with your statement that "OPEN carry" is "good to go" - until such an event happens or there is otherwise an official ruling or opinion, we shouldn't make such unqualified statements. There are far too many lurkers who could get themselves into a bind by thinking that is more than just your opinion.

I have laid out all the legalees in the past including case law and legislative history. Public property open to the public is public either inside or outside. There is one person that frequents these forums who has the ability to make an official request of the AG for an opinion. And why that doesn't happen is beyond me.

Why would anyone ask the Attorney General? Each county and municipal prosecutor will decide whether such an incident is worth prosecuting on a Criminal Trespass charge. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute, then the person will be acquitted or convicted. If the person is convicted, the conviction can be appealed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is legal precedent, and an opinion of the Attorney General is not.

What is really needed is for someone to stick his neck out and carry a gun into a government building, then see what happens. Some folks think it is worth millions to be arrested for a fourth degree misdemeanor. Maybe someone like that should put his millions where his mouth is.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 5:38 pm
Werz wrote:
Why would anyone ask the Attorney General? Each county and municipal prosecutor will decide whether such an incident is worth prosecuting on a Criminal Trespass charge. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute, then the person will be acquitted or convicted. If the person is convicted, the conviction can be appealed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is legal precedent, and an opinion of the Attorney General is not.

What is really needed is for someone to stick his neck out and carry a gun into a government building, then see what happens. Some folks think it is worth millions to be arrested for a fourth degree misdemeanor. Maybe someone like that should put his millions where his mouth is.
But, an AG opinion carries a lot of weight. Mr. Prosecutor, are you telling me you are challenging your bosses opinion? It's just rhetorical....
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2651
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: CPZ signage
Post Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:17 pm
color of law wrote:
Werz wrote:
Why would anyone ask the Attorney General? Each county and municipal prosecutor will decide whether such an incident is worth prosecuting on a Criminal Trespass charge. If the prosecutor decides to prosecute, then the person will be acquitted or convicted. If the person is convicted, the conviction can be appealed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is legal precedent, and an opinion of the Attorney General is not.

What is really needed is for someone to stick his neck out and carry a gun into a government building, then see what happens. Some folks think it is worth millions to be arrested for a fourth degree misdemeanor. Maybe someone like that should put his millions where his mouth is.

But, an AG opinion carries a lot of weight. Mr. Prosecutor, are you telling me you are challenging your bosses opinion? It's just rhetorical....

Generally, my boss trusts me to offer the opinions on gun matters. And that is my opinion. I'm the guy who debated the AG's "gun guy" on the effect of United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013), in a room full of several hundred prosecutors, and I'm relatively certain that you'll like my opinions better than the AG's opinions.

That doesn't mean you'll like all my opinions. But I suspect it does mean that you won't openly carry a firearm into a government facility just to see what happens.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:42 pm
Posts: 111
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: