Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author
Message
Post subject: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:23 pm
It is time to repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a), Trespass. All these businesses enjoy being immune from lawsuit if an employee or customer uses a firearm for good or evil. We are living in different times. With the threat of ISIS or ISIL it is important that citizens be armed if they so choose.

We have the government admitting that they cannot protect us. With that said, it is repugnant that the gov. says we can't protect you, but if you attempt to protect yourself because of a sign we will prosecute you.

It is also time to make it clear that open carry in the public areas of Ohio gov. buildings is constitutionally permissible and under no circumstances does local gov. have authority to stop such carry, R.C. 9.68.

It's time to get this done.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2678
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:37 am
I disagree with appealing the trespassing part. Private property should have the right to decide who and what they allow on their properties. If you think your right to a firearm is more important than an owner's right to decide what happens on their property, then why can you say solicitors can't come to your front door? If one uses the excuse the business is open to the public, then so is your front door. After all I'm sure one doesn't prohibit UPS, FedEx, or the USPS from stepping on their front porch.

Nothing forces one to enter any private property. For the longest time UDF was posted. They aren't the only place the sells gas, ice cream, and fountain drinks therefore nobody was ever forced to enter there. Over time we proved their stupid signs as pointless and they took them down...the way it should be. But if a place is dumb enough to post, their posting should be respected and backed up by law, and we should decide if we want to enter their business without our firearm or shop elsewhere. And it's not really the government that is prosecuting you...it's the business. I've never seen a criminal trespass case go to court where the business did not wish it to go forward.

As for the government buildings...I totally agree but still think we need a stronger push on the bill that allows concealed carry inside government buildings. The biggest problem though with government buildings is many forget that small municipalities have courtrooms inside their city buildings. Ohio has 260 Mayor's Courts, and those are all protected by 2923.123. There is no exception in there for concealed or open carry besides if the courthouse offers secure storage for firearms inside open to the general public. I've yet to hear of a courthouse in Ohio offering this service and the ORC even says they are not required to, but if they do, then I can carry into the building to transfer it to an officer in charge of secure storage. So, there are 260 government buildings in Ohio that many can fall in a trap to because they have a courtroom under the auspices of a Mayor's Court that may only meet once or twice a month, but the whole building is off limits all the time.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on my last point. If you follow my logic or disagree with it, but I think it's a trap that can get many caught with regards to open carry.
Top
Online
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:17 am
Posts: 520
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:31 am
Stay on point. I did not mention private property NOT open to the public. Businesses wanting privilege to deny entry while exercising a God given right should not be entitled to immunity. Businesses having a sign and I'm shot by a robber in their store I sue and get paid a lot of money, no immunity.

Private property NOT open to the public (home) versus private property OPEN to the public (store) are two two different animals.

On the last point, the law should be changed. The court room, when being used as a court room, should be off limits. Off topic, mayor's courts should be abolished.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2678
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:45 am
color of law wrote:
On the last point, the law should be changed. The court room, when being used as a court room, should be off limits. Off topic, mayor's courts should be abolished.


I agree with your off topic sorta. I think when run by a mayor yes, when run by a magistrate, no. No real difference between a Mayor's Court magistrate and a county judge. In both cases, more tickets = more money for the department.

I agree with you on your first point there, but unfortunately the law also would need to be changed to require some signage when court is in session. Otherwise, you end up with the same hurdle of people walking into a city building and not knowing when court is in session. And since it's a felony, it would be a very expensive ride to beat.
Top
Online
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:17 am
Posts: 520
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:48 pm
color of law wrote:
Businesses wanting privilege to deny entry while exercising a God given right should not be entitled to immunity. Businesses having a sign and I'm shot by a robber in their store I sue and get paid a lot of money, no immunity.


COL - I agree with you 100% here. Also on the trespass charge repeal.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:53 pm
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:50 pm
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.

If you do that would you want gun manufactures immunity repealed?
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2678
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:25 pm
COL:

Just me, but the gun manufacturers immunity is another matter.... That's there to protect them (and us) from frivolous lawsuits as the result of somebody mis-using a firearm which is inherently (more or less) perfectly made.

In short, the manufacturer who's product is well made, should have no liability for it's misuse. Cars would be a couple zeroes more expensive if the auto manufacturers had to defend themselves against, for example, victims of drunken drivers.

The manufacturer just has no way of knowing that the product will be misused, and can't be expected to protect us from unforseeable things. They've gone far enough with warning labels ("this gun will fire with the magazine removed") and goofy safety devices.

There's a current trend about "why did you sell that guy a gun?" regarding background checks, gun shows, etc. Same silliness. There's no way to tell what somebody's going to do with it without being a mind-reader. (Heck, a private seller can't even access the NICS system without getting an FFL involved.)

Regards,

Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

יזכר לא עד פעם
Top
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:01 pm
Posts: 6711
Location: Youngstown OH
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:27 am
SMMAssociates wrote:
COL:

Just me, but the gun manufacturers immunity is another matter.... That's there to protect them (and us) from frivolous lawsuits as the result of somebody mis-using a firearm which is inherently (more or less) perfectly made.

In short, the manufacturer who's product is well made, should have no liability for it's misuse. Cars would be a couple zeroes more expensive if the auto manufacturers had to defend themselves against, for example, victims of drunken drivers.

The manufacturer just has no way of knowing that the product will be misused, and can't be expected to protect us from unforseeable things. They've gone far enough with warning labels ("this gun will fire with the magazine removed") and goofy safety devices.

There's a current trend about "why did you sell that guy a gun?" regarding background checks, gun shows, etc. Same silliness. There's no way to tell what somebody's going to do with it without being a mind-reader. (Heck, a private seller can't even access the NICS system without getting an FFL involved.)

Regards,

I was not asking you......
You need to wait until I call on you. Blurting out the correct answer will not be tolerated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2678
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:45 am
COL:

You are officially banned for five minutes.... :mrgreen:

I well remember that TV series.... "Epstein" was a friend of a cousin of mine. Met the guy at the former day job office, and it didn't register for some time who he was. (I don't know what his reaction was.) WTH he was doing here in Youngstown, I don't know. Or why....

(I wondered about me being here, too, but they were paying me fairly well.)

I'm probably on the "No Fly" list by now, too. I've got some really strange friends. Hmm.... Like you guys :mrgreen:

Regards,

Stu

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

יזכר לא עד פעם
Top
Online
Site Admin
User avatar
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:01 pm
Posts: 6711
Location: Youngstown OH
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:25 pm
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.


Keep in mind that would go both ways then. So the store that is not posted could then be sued for not posting. It would open a door for every business to basically lose thousands of dollars in court fighting a battle that never should have occurred. I think the way the immunity clause is written now is the best way to do it (besides removing the fact the person must be a licensee for it to apply).

Remember, while you want it one way, the other side wants it the other way. In the long run, both sides can be thrown out and then it is left up to the courts to decide. So now one person gets to decide on their feelings on guns.
Top
Online
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:17 am
Posts: 520
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:02 pm
color of law wrote:
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.

If you do that would you want gun manufactures immunity repealed?


No....I was agreeing with the statement you had made as well. Thought that was kind of obvious?
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:15 pm
JediSkipdogg wrote:
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.


Keep in mind that would go both ways then. So the store that is not posted could then be sued for not posting. It would open a door for every business to basically lose thousands of dollars in court fighting a battle that never should have occurred. I think the way the immunity clause is written now is the best way to do it (besides removing the fact the person must be a licensee for it to apply).

Remember, while you want it one way, the other side wants it the other way. In the long run, both sides can be thrown out and then it is left up to the courts to decide. So now one person gets to decide on their feelings on guns.


Jedi....private businesses never should have been granted this immunity in the first place! Don't get me wrong, I've thought about both sides of this but to call out guns is ludicrous!! Using that logic, if such a horrible act is committed with a knife, ball bat, letter opener, or scissors, etc. (anything meeting the state's definition of a lethal weapon) the business owner can now be sued b/c the crime wasn't committed with a gun? Sorry, just makes no sense. More reason to repeal it as well as the trespassing charges.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:26 pm
gkh7890 wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.


Keep in mind that would go both ways then. So the store that is not posted could then be sued for not posting. It would open a door for every business to basically lose thousands of dollars in court fighting a battle that never should have occurred. I think the way the immunity clause is written now is the best way to do it (besides removing the fact the person must be a licensee for it to apply).

Remember, while you want it one way, the other side wants it the other way. In the long run, both sides can be thrown out and then it is left up to the courts to decide. So now one person gets to decide on their feelings on guns.


Jedi....private businesses never should have been granted this immunity in the first place! Don't get me wrong, I've thought about both sides of this but to call out guns is ludicrous!! Using that logic, if such a horrible act is committed with a knife, ball bat, letter opener, or scissors, etc. (anything meeting the state's definition of a lethal weapon) the business owner can now be sued b/c the crime wasn't committed with a gun? Sorry, just makes no sense. More reason to repeal it as well as the trespassing charges.



I think one reason for it being firearm specific is because, we, the firearm users, lobbied for it. We take enough crap by just being a specific weapon class, finally give us some immunity on something.

Personally the immunity should be expanded to include all of those. Actually, it should be expanded so wide to say that upon entering a private business, you accept all risk for any harm that comes to you from anyone that is not an employee of the business or from the business itself unless said business had specific prior knowledge of harm.

I think the gun store in the Colorado movie shooting spent something like $200k on their defense that they did nothing wrong. Immunity could have gone a long way there. Now imagine that being Kyle's Gunshop or GunEnvy, both small gun stores. That lawsuit could put them out of business.
Top
Online
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:17 am
Posts: 520
Post subject: Re: Repeal R.C. 2923126(C)(3)(a) Trespass
Post Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:43 pm
JediSkipdogg wrote:
gkh7890 wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
gkh7890 wrote:
While were on the notion of repealing, lets repeal private business immunity as well.


Keep in mind that would go both ways then. So the store that is not posted could then be sued for not posting. It would open a door for every business to basically lose thousands of dollars in court fighting a battle that never should have occurred. I think the way the immunity clause is written now is the best way to do it (besides removing the fact the person must be a licensee for it to apply).

Remember, while you want it one way, the other side wants it the other way. In the long run, both sides can be thrown out and then it is left up to the courts to decide. So now one person gets to decide on their feelings on guns.


Jedi....private businesses never should have been granted this immunity in the first place! Don't get me wrong, I've thought about both sides of this but to call out guns is ludicrous!! Using that logic, if such a horrible act is committed with a knife, ball bat, letter opener, or scissors, etc. (anything meeting the state's definition of a lethal weapon) the business owner can now be sued b/c the crime wasn't committed with a gun? Sorry, just makes no sense. More reason to repeal it as well as the trespassing charges.



I think one reason for it being firearm specific is because, we, the firearm users, lobbied for it. We take enough crap by just being a specific weapon class, finally give us some immunity on something.

Personally the immunity should be expanded to include all of those. Actually, it should be expanded so wide to say that upon entering a private business, you accept all risk for any harm that comes to you from anyone that is not an employee of the business or from the business itself unless said business had specific prior knowledge of harm.

I think the gun store in the Colorado movie shooting spent something like $200k on their defense that they did nothing wrong. Immunity could have gone a long way there. Now imagine that being Kyle's Gunshop or GunEnvy, both small gun stores. That lawsuit could put them out of business.


Jedi - perhaps I should have been more specific, I am referring to the immunity for any actions taking place on the premises. Like a robbery or something of that nature.

As for the business transaction itself, I do agree b/c the shop/business owner followed the law, did the background check. Once the transaction is over, the shop/business owner is not responsible for what the customer does with the merchandise thereafter. Its just like SMMA pointed out earlier.

Hope that helps?
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: SW Ohio
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next

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: