What is the basis for open cary?

ares338 · Jun 23, 2012

Open Carry

I, along with most people who open carry would never OC on private property without permission. There are rude people people who would ignore people's wishes in every facet of life but you can't lump everyone into this bunch.

Grapeshot · Jun 24, 2012

ares338 said:
I, along with most people who open carry would never OC on private property without permission. There are rude people people who would ignore people's wishes in every facet of life but you can't lump everyone into this bunch.

See no reason, where otherwise legal, to seek prior permission. We don't seek approval to wear red shirts either, but a private property owner could conceivably restrict/deny such.

Until advised otherwise, we recommend proceeding normally as you go about your everyday business as a LAC.

FireFighterchen · Jul 9, 2012

Logan 5 said:
Many people claim it's the Second Amendment. Ok, that's fine. I firmly support the Second Amendment. But....

I know- "but". And I've already noticed a good number of you have a hard time with "but". That is something you need to get over.

Like the right of property owners. I've noticed a number of the Open carry supporters ALSO support ignoring the preferences and rights of property owners. Open carrying on private property against the wishes of the property owners.

So explain to me how you can justify you right to keep and bear arms when you refuse to honor the rights of property owners. This includes commercial property as well.
Perhaps you miss this part, or perhaps you simply do not care. But how can you have more right to safety on your property when you openly endorse other property owners not having the same rights?

You do realize that in today's technology not only do you, supporters of Open Carry have access to this forum, but so does the Brady Bunch....?
So when you talk about how you don't care about property owner's preferences and wishes and you STILL open carry on private property....
They see that.

And it adds more fuel to their fire.

You do realize that, right?

So explain to me how you can justify any kind of carry, open or concealed, when the property owner, no matter if it's residential or commercial, says not to.

So your thread is based off a number that is less than 5? You have linked 1 thread to your OP...do you have anything else to support your position?

Gotta agree with everyone else here, 99.9% of the OC do not disrespect private property owners wishes. CC'ing has more people who will carry concealed into those establishments, but it's still not the overwhelming majority, and such you should not speak as if it is.

jimpen · Jul 14, 2012

I haven't read every comment on this thread, so please don't bash me if this has been covered.

If you google "no guns no money cards [state name]" you can find a card for your state. Usually the back will have CC comments, but they are generally applicable to OC as well. Drop them on the stores that you can afford to skip. I always have about ten in my wallet. I print them myself off a PDF and use card stock from Staples/Wal-Mart/etc. Or you can buy them from your state's firearm association.

As for Ohio, they can legally charge you the first time by having a prominent "No Gun" sign on the door.

If they just have a "No Guns Allowed" at the bottom of the front of the door in plain white letters, the owner or police can trespass you while carrying, but can't charge you the first time.

I will respect the store's right to have me not carry. But I'll make it a point to have an empty holster and drop a card on the owner/manager.

davidmcbeth · Jul 15, 2012

XD4ME said:
Ok , here is a question.

You enter a store within a mall while you OC. You are asked to leave because of that . But, the mall has no rule against OC . Do you need to leave? The store is a renter , not an owner , so do they have "property rights"?
.

I see you put about 1 nanosecond of thought into your question. Go to google scholar and search trespassing .. because that's the charge one faces ... see if being a renter v owner matters ... post back with results.

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 15, 2012

jimpen said:
...As for Ohio, they can legally charge you the first time by having a prominent "No Gun" sign on the door.
View attachment 8847

If they just have a "No Guns Allowed" at the bottom of the front of the door in plain white letters, the owner or police can trespass you while carrying, but can't charge you the first time...

Don't tell folks the police can't charge you with something "the first time".

Two things:

The sign could be six feet high and fluorescent orange, but if I don't see it, I didn't do anything "knowingly". Maybe someone opened the door for me and blocked the sign.

And if they wrote "No guns" on a napkin, in crayon, and stuck it to the door, it has the force of law IF YOU SAW IT when you entered.

jimpen · Jul 15, 2012

MyWifeSaidYes said:
Don't tell folks the police can't charge you with something "the first time".

Two things:

The sign could be six feet high and fluorescent orange, but if I don't see it, I didn't do anything "knowingly". Maybe someone opened the door for me and blocked the sign.

And if they wrote "No guns" on a napkin, in crayon, and stuck it to the door, it has the force of law IF YOU SAW IT when you entered.

You are right MyWifeSaidYes. Let me phrase it this way:

If you accidentally miss the sign with the pictograph, and comply when asked to leave, the cops will generally not cite you for trespassing the first time unless you are being an a--h--e about it and if the store manager isn't being a real d**k.

As for the "No guns" on a napkin type thing -- As I understand it, the Ohio LEO has been instructed that without the pictograph on the door, the rest doesn't really count. The manager can ask you to leave, the cops can give you a written warning of trespass. But they can not actually cite you for it the first time. There is some conflation of how the law is written and court rulings that created that status. I can't give you the case law on it but that was how it was explained to me and the crowd at a Buckeyes Firearm Association conference by an Ohio CCW instructor.

Now if you missed the pictograph, they can cite you the first time. But it helps if your aren't a d**k about it.

GLADad · Jul 15, 2012

I tend to think that the only people who bring firearms in buildings with no gun signs are people CC'ing and those idiot street lawyers on youtube who go around filming the reactions of people or the ones who just argue with LEOs for an hour just for a dumb video. Everyone I run into who is open carrying are extremely nice, and respectful.

Personally, if a building has a no gun sign, I won't go in. If I want people to respect my rights, I better respect theirs.

WalkingWolf · Jul 15, 2012

GLADad said:
I tend to think that the only people who bring firearms in buildings with no gun signs are people CC'ing and those idiot street lawyers on youtube who go around filming the reactions of people or the ones who just argue with LEOs for an hour just for a dumb video. Everyone I run into who is open carrying are extremely nice, and respectful.

Personally, if a building has a no gun sign, I won't go in. If I want people to respect my rights, I better respect theirs.

And why go through all the hassle when a person can shop somewhere else.

Personally I would like to see some "We support the US Constitution Signs" displayed in store windows. I remember after 9/11 all the stores had US flags in the windows~~whatever happened to displaying the flag? Did we forget already?

gunns · Jul 16, 2012

wmodavis said:
A bit off topic but I think the OP gives a lot more credit to the "Brady bunch" than they deserve.
I suggest you read "Shooting the Bull" by Guy Smith to get insight as to what makes them tick and why what is said here would not affect their actions. Here is one small exerpt:

"On the subject of gun control nary a truth can be found emanating from her (Sarah Brady's) lips. Her web site fumes statistical irregularities than cannot be explained by sloppiness or stupidity. Sarah’s newspaper interviews echo grander, borrowed falsehoods. The organization that bears her name, the Brady Campaign, is a veritable misinformation factory employing a full set of machinery for minting political falsehood. Well, almost the full set. We have yet to see them produce a doctored photograph of Ted Nugent pumping a few rounds into Chuck Schumer. Why then does Sarah Brady and nearly everyone else campaigning for gun control lie? For the same reason that men lie to their wives about matrimonial infidelity and politicians lie about … well, everything. She is possessed with the same motivation as a jewel thief who lies to the police as they drag him away from a mansion. Sarah lies for the same reason as a street-corner drug dealer who slips crack junkies a homebrew of candle wax and baking soda, or as Michael Moore does when claiming not to eat children whole. Sarah lies in order to gain something she could not otherwise acquire honestly. Sarah and her cohorts fib to achieve political ends for which they have fading public support and finance. Sarah and her minions propagate propaganda to take from you what the law says they cannot take. Call it the “do-gooder” syndrome, a disease in which blind fixation on correcting a perceived social ill makes rampant dishonesty a permissible tool. This Holy Cause – or Unholy Curse – that permits telling lies in order to change the world is easily observed and difficult to swallow. Not even the famous Stomach from Flint could manage to ingest it all. Sarah is my proxy for everyone in the gun control industry who has bent a statistic, knowingly cited flawed studies or denied demonstrable fact. She is the gentle face that masks flagrant falsehoods spun by the Dianne Feinsteins and Josh Sugarmanns of the world. Sarah uses her grandmotherly façade as a distraction from the impassioned and equally fictitious rhetoric of Rebecca Peters, the Stalin-cast mistress of global gun control. Mrs. Brady is the lovable decoy for Clintonesque proclamations that “we don’t want to ban guns.”

Smith, Guy (2011-04-19). Shooting The Bull . Free Thinkers Media. Kindle Edition.

And I do agree that whether or not you carry, or how you choose to carry should not affect having a rational view of respect of personal property. And Mrs. Brady has little that affects my view of any of those.

P.S. I recommend the book to all. It is a good read!

I don't have a problem with a good imagination, but I hate liars, I hate them with a passion. If someone lies to me, but later admits and apologizes I forgive. But if they lie and never admit it, I will never have anything to do with them. Now I am not talking about that little white lie people use not to hurt someones feelings, but when its a lie to take advantage, take control or to defame or place blame on someone else I go ballistic.

Problem with a lie is that you have to remember it the rest of your life so you get it right every time you have to repeat it. But if you tell the truth, never do you have to worry about remembering it. You can actually forget it, because in the end you told the truth and all else is BS.

CornfedinOhio · Jul 19, 2012

I respect the property owners wishes. I avoid places posted with gun buster signs.
However, I consider my my car MY property. If my car is on your property I still consider the contents of my car mine. The problem is employers and businesses property rights include my car. The no guns sign starts on the posters property. In order to not violate my employers property rights I must leave my gun at home. This means my 2a right is revoked from home to work I think the property owners rights should start outside my car. If I stop for gas headed to work I'm unarmed. If I want to go hunting afterwork I must drive home first to get my gun.
If you walk into a store and see a gun buster sign you must leave the property. Most if this thread is only referencing rhe building. You can't just lock up your gun in the car. That's an issue I'm unhappy with concerning property rights.

Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

MAC702 · Jul 19, 2012

CornfedinOhio said:
(1) In order to not violate my employers property rights I must leave my gun at home.

(2) If you walk into a store and see a gun buster sign you must leave the property.

It depends on what state you live in. This is a non-state-specific thread. You don't even have your state listed in your profile. Please update.

OC for ME · Jul 19, 2012

MAC702 said:
It depends on what state you live in. This is a non-state-specific thread. You don't even have your state listed in your profile. Please update.

CornfedinOhio may be from Ohio, not positive, just a guess.

MAC702 · Jul 19, 2012

Very possible! I didn't even look at the name. Thanks. In THAT case...

CornfedinOhio said:
...The problem is employers and businesses property rights include my car... In order to not violate my employers property rights I must leave my gun at home. ...
If you walk into a store and see a gun buster sign you must leave the property...

Please cite the applicable Ohio laws because in many states this is a misunderstood issue.

jimpen · Jul 19, 2012

MAC702 said:
Please cite the applicable Ohio laws because in many states this is a misunderstood issue.

Ohio Revised Code 2923.126

(C)(1) Nothing in this section shall negate or restrict a rule, policy, or practice of a private employer that is not a private college, university, or other institution of higher education concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer. Nothing in this section shall require a private employer of that nature to adopt a rule, policy, or practice concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer.

Or in other words -- it's your employer's choice whether you can even have a firearm in your vehicle. And technically they have a right to search. As pure rumor control, I have heard of companies that want to shed employees and run 24/7 have the rule year round, but somehow make it a point to do a vehicle searches on the day before buck season. I don't have names, or facts -- that's why it's rumor control.

Now as for the gun buster signs:

I was taught at a Buckeye Firearms Seminar by an Ohio CCW instructor: If you enter a facility that has has the gunbuster photopic/icon of a gun on the door, and you enter they can get you for trespassing the first time, but the cops (and managers) generally won't push it for OC or CC. The "assume it was an accident" mentality. Just don't be an A-Hole about. There is some sort of ruling as I understand it that if they don't have the gunbuster photopic/icon on the door, but do have something on the door like "No Smoking" the next line "No Firearms Allowed" and a "No pets Allowed" you can only be warned of trespassing, but they can not file charges. This also extends to the parking lot as well. But in the case of something like a strip mall -- they can't enforce it on the parking lot, unless the everyone in the strip mall is a no carry establishment.

Also usually the cops won't worry about parking lot possession, on the property, unless you have a really f'ed up property owner or the cops are looking to charge you with anything.

=======================================================

Regardless of how you carry, you should always strive to be the calmest, coolest, most composed person in the room.

JmE · Jul 20, 2012

CornfedinOhio said:
I respect the property owners wishes. I avoid places posted with gun buster signs.
However, I consider my my car MY property. If my car is on your property I still consider the contents of my car mine. The problem is employers and businesses property rights include my car. {emphasis added}

He stated his car, not the employer's car.

jimpen said:
Or in other words -- it's your employer's choice whether you can even have a firearm in your vehicle. And technically they have a right to search. {emphasis added}

You state the person's vehicle, not the employer's vehicle.

However, the ORC states "motor vehicles owned by the private employer."

JmE · Jul 20, 2012

jimpen said:
Or in other words -- it's your employer's choice whether you can even have a firearm in your vehicle. And technically they have a right to search. {emphasis added}

In Ohio, not so sure about the veracity of that statement. The employer can search a vehicle that the employer owns. He can search a vehicle that he owns. You can search a vehicle that you own. I can search a vehicle that I own. Law enforcement can search practically anyone's vehicle provided that they do so lawfully. AFAIK, an employer can't search an employees private vehicle merely upon the authority of being the "owner" of the private property. They could call law enforcement and ask them to do their lawful thing. They could fire the employee. But, no, I'm not aware of any general circumstance in which a run of the mill employer can lawfully search someone's vehicle absent an extreme and immediate, life or death need (as possibly could any private property owner slide by doing in true emergency.)

JmE · Jul 20, 2012

jimpen said:
There is some sort of ruling as I understand it that if they don't have the gunbuster photopic/icon on the door, but do have something on the door like "No Smoking" the next line "No Firearms Allowed" and a "No pets Allowed" you can only be warned of trespassing, but they can not file charges. This also extends to the parking lot as well.

Again, AFAIK, you can smoke, have a pet, and keep your firearm in your car on such a posted property. People do it all the time, btw.

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 20, 2012

We should not state "what some guy said" as facts, as jimpen seems to be doing.

If there is a conspicuous posted sign and a cop sees you, you can be charged "the first time".

If there is NO sign, and you have been asked to leave but didn't, the cops can charge you, "the first time".

If the cops see a sign that is not 'conspicuous', but they want to be a-holes, they can charge you "the first time".

There is absolutely no requirement for there to be a 'pictograph' or any specific wording on a 'no guns' sign in Ohio.

This notion jimpen is holding on to that there is a free pass "the first time" is an utter fallacy until it is written into the ORC.

WalkingWolf · Jul 20, 2012

I would imagine also that if the place of business has the subject on video looking at the sign, and the subject claims they did not see it, they may get arrested the "first time".

What is the basis for open cary?

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Activist Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member