Questionable Sign at East Canton Save-a-lot

It is unfortunate that a license is required to simplify an act that is purportedly a Right. Rights are not licensed. Privileges are.

Carry (I don't care about concealment) is a Right. We should be able to carry anywhere we wish without a permission slip (with some very specific exceptions: private property owners have property rights and should be able to restrict any activity they choose, and sensitive areas to which the general public is not routinely allowed and is guarded by armed people, e.g. police armories and Air Force flight lines should not be forced to allow armed guests).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Just pointing out that if someone thinks that they are legally safe in a grocery store that sells alcohol, but does not allow consumption on premises, they aren't. They aren't even in control of when their behavior suddenly becomes a felony.

Unlicensed carry in an establishment selling liquor + anyone consuming any alcohol anywhere in that establishment, regardless of source = felony.

Manager keeps a bottle in his bottom desk drawer. Takes a snort. Felony.

Drunk with a bottle of Annie Green Springs in a paper bag staggers in. Takes a hit. Felony.

Hell, a shopper takes a belt of the "cough syrup" she keeps in her purse. Felony.

Not saying any of these will ever happen. Just that they could, and you are subject to arrest.

Folks, carry under those conditions at your own peril.

Click to expand...

I can see these happening; all it takes is an overzealous prosecutor who is looking for an appointment to a judgeship.

eye95 said:

As has been pointed out elsewhere: If you are carrying in a store that sells alcohol for consumption off-premises and you don't have a CHL, if someone walks in drinking (illegally) a beer, you are now committing a felony.

It is stupid, but that is the way the law is worded. The alcohol being consumed does not have to have been served by the licensed establishment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the law proceeds you. And your reading of a statute in a vacuum demonstrates that ignorance. The worse part is you are holding out your ignorance as knowledge and wisdom.

I suggest you reread Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde - paragraph {5} and {9}. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-4605.pdf

{9} Any room or open air arena in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code, in violation of section 2923.121 of the Revised Code;

Click to expand...

(My emphasise.)

End of discussion..........

Feel free to arrogantly end your part of the discussion. I will continue.

The only thing that case does to refute what I am asserting that plain reading of the law says is to misstate the law, adding dispense to the law in a place where it does not appear.

Now, if you could cite a case where a court tossed a conviction because the law must have meant "dispensed and consumed" where it said only "consumed," then I'd defer to you.

But, instead, it seems that you'd prefer to behave (again) like an ass.

Folks, read the law. Read this ruling. While it does misstate the law, it does not change it.

If you trust His Arrogance, carry in a class D establishment that is not dispensing while you have no CHL. I don't trust him. I'd have more faith in him if he'd argue rationally, rather than like a juvenile.

Not moving on. Again, he is free to end his participation in the discussion. He doesn't have the arrogant power he thinks he has to end the whole discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Makarov said:

The signs are meaningless with or without a CCW. Save A Lot stores only sells liquor. No one consumes it in the store. The department of Alcohol enforcement in the state of Ohio gives all their class D liquor permit these signs. They are optional to post if you are selling, but if you are consuming on the premises, then they are mandatory to post. Save a Lot corporate policy is to follow state law. That manager is blowing smoke. Call the Corporation and have them send an email validating their position on the subject of gun carry within the store. The manager may be mistaken for NO GUNS ALLOWED policy for employees, applies to patrons as well.

Click to expand...

(My emphasise.)

The term "shall" does not always imply mandatory. The context in which it is used determines its meaning. ORC 4301.637 makes clear that there is no punishment for not posting. And the statute makes it clear no punishment "shall" be imposed.

No person shall be subject to any criminal prosecution or any proceedings before the division or the liquor control commission for failing to display this card. No permit issued by the division shall be suspended, revoked, or canceled because of the failure of the permit holder to display this card.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Troll aside, back to the topic.

I really don't think corporate should be involved since this was not a gunbuster sign, just a warning (that I saw in a pub last night) warning of the real possibility that a carrier could run afoul of the laws regarding carry in a licensed establishment--and they well could, so the warning is quite apt.

By going to corporate when there is no gunbuster sign, we could prompt them to put one up. If they do, all I have to say is, "Thanks a lot, Bub."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Being that the managers comment appeared to imply that he believed they were not/should not be allowed. Yet they don't have proper signage. I would prefer not to have the police there to iron it out. Him implying that it is not allowed was enough for me to leave. If it turns out to violate coprorate policy I will discontinue patronage. But not on the word of an uninformed manager.

Humanshield said:

Being that the managers comment appeared to imply that he believed they were not/should not be allowed. Yet they don't have proper signage. I would prefer not to have the police there to iron it out. Him implying that it is not allowed was enough for me to leave. If it turns out to violate coprorate policy I will discontinue patronage. But not on the word of an uninformed manager.

Click to expand...

Sign does not meet the standard - so there is no problem. Would care to speculate what is meant by "appeared to imply".

Really a simple solution - don't go where your money is not appreciated.

Still want to contact corporate - then take the focus off of the sign and address the insulting/humiliating manner in which you, a LAC, were treated.

Grapeshot said:

Sign does not meet the standard - so there is no problem. Would care to speculate what is meant by "appeared to imply".

Really a simple solution - don't go where your money is not appreciated.

Still want to contact corporate - then take the focus off of the sign and address the insulting/humiliating manner in which you, a LAC, were treated.

Click to expand...

I think the sign is being mistaken for a gunbuster sign. It isn't. It is a warning that carry on the premises may be a felony.

Based on plain reading of the law, under the circumstances I posited above, carry would be.

I recommend NOT calling corporate, as this could result in a gunbuster sign being put in every store in Ohio. The current sign is just a warning about the law in Ohio regarding carry in an establishment licensed to sell alcohol. I saw the same sign in a pub a few days ago.

Please, let's NOT poke this bear.

Grapeshot said:

Sign does not meet the standard - so there is no problem. Would care to speculate what is meant by "appeared to imply".

Really a simple solution - don't go where your money is not appreciated.

Still want to contact corporate - then take the focus off of the sign and address the insulting/humiliating manner in which you, a LAC, were treated.

Click to expand...

As I said in my originall post. When my buddy mentioned that they had a sign that may imply that it was illegal to carry on the premises and I had not noticed it. The manager said "Sorry it may be the wrong sign" as to side with my buddies response. I would not have a problem with every save a lot on the state putting up a sign if that is there policy. And would gladly take my money elsewhere. I have a walmert right next to my work that does not have a sign posted. I just prefer the smaller shops. If I can get an official response on there policy then I have something to go on rather than an uniformed manager and a poorly placed/worded sign.

Humanshield said:

As I said in my originall post. When my buddy mentioned that they had a sign that may imply that it was illegal to carry on the premises and I had not noticed it. The manager said "Sorry it may be the wrong sign" as to side with my buddies response. I would not have a problem with every save a lot on the state putting up a sign if that is there policy. And would gladly take my money elsewhere. I have a walmert right next to my work that does not have a sign posted. I just prefer the smaller shops. If I can get an official response on there policy then I have something to go on rather than an uniformed manager and a poorly placed/worded sign.

Click to expand...

The point about not encouraging signs is that such become visible to all of the public, reinforcing the negative connotation that guns are bad - the antis love that approach.

Think about not just your idea of convenience, but the impact on all gun owners/carriers. Don't be guilty of allowing your wants to be more important then the effect on the OC/CC community.

Grapeshot said:

The point about not encouraging signs is that such become visible to all of the public, reinforcing the negative connotation that guns are bad - the antis love that approach.

Think about not just your idea of convenience, but the impact on all gun owners/carriers. Don't be guilty of allowing your wants to be more important then the effect on the OC/CC community.

Click to expand...

I would rather them post properly than ask me to leave every time I walk in or call the local PD. (Who likely would not know the meaning of the sign posted and be uninformed like my previous encounter.) Besides. If they in fact have a policy of no firearms. Wouldn't you rather take your money elsewhere? I am not pushing for a sign or no sign. I am asking them for an answer on there official policy.

Humanshield said:

I would rather them post properly than ask me to leave every time I walk in or call the local PD. (Who likely would not know the meaning of the sign posted and be uninformed like my previous encounter.) Besides. If they in fact have a policy of no firearms. Wouldn't you rather take your money elsewhere? I am not pushing for a sign or no sign. I am asking them for an answer on there official policy.

Click to expand...

We have many years of experience here as to what works and what does not. Please defer to that until you've been here a lot longer. You, of course, are not required to do so. You have the Liberty to proceed how you wish. Just giving you a bit of advice. Remember, your actions will affect us too.

Stores that do not have signs posted often learn over time of the value of allowing lawful carry. That is why so many places do and so few don't. Once they post the sign, that process stops, and a no-carry rule is locked in, likely forever.

So, unless there is a sign, please do not ask, and please do not motivate the posting of a sign. Just carry until and unless you are asked to leave. If asked to leave, just go. Again, your actions will affect us. Please rely on our wisdom and experience.

Thank you.

eye95 said:

We have many years of experience here as to what works and what does not. Please defer to that until you've been here a lot longer. You, of course, are not required to do so. You have the Liberty to proceed how you wish. Just giving you a bit of advice. Remember, your actions will affect us too.

Stores that do not have signs posted often learn over time of the value of allowing lawful carry. That is why so many places do and so few don't. Once they post the sign, that process stops, and a no-carry rule is locked in, likely forever.

So, unless there is a sign, please do not ask, and please do not motivate the posting of a sign. Just carry until and unless you are asked to leave. If asked to leave, just go. Again, your actions will affect us. Please rely on our wisdom and experience.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

We have many years of experience here as to what works and what does not. ????

I see you have been a member for a whole 3 years? So you are implying I do not have many years of experience?

How presumptuous of you.

There is a sign. An improperly placed sign that seems to have a different meaning than local management believes.

"Please rely on our wisdom and experience."

Why not my own?

We. Not just I.

Do what you will.

Moving on.

I had a similar issue with the posting of these signs a local Walgreens drug store. As soon as I entered the store, the cashier said no guns and pointed to the signs. I informed them their signage was meaningless and asked the management why they posted the signs. It seems there was a robbery a week earlier and they figured the sign would prevent future robberies. They even went as far as to ask a cop if the signs were appropriate and the police agreed.

To cure the issue, I contacted the district manager. She researched corporate policy on the subject and found the store was in violation because Walgreen follows state law. The District Manager followed up by sending the manger of that Walgreen an email of the violation and the signs were removed.

I'm not against contacting corporate if it is approached correctly.

The sign is not a gunbuster sign. It may not be mandatory under law but it may required by the particular liquor control agents responsible for that area. Leave the sign alone.

Focus, as the OP indicated he would, on training the manager. You will rarely succeed in educating management face-to-face. You need to 'appeal to a higher authority'.

Go to corporate and ask for their policy. It should be something like "We follow state laws." If not, stop now.

If so, you can then point out to corporate that the 'liquor control sign' looks like a 'no guns' sign, but that it is only cautionary in nature. You may even want to have a good copy of that sign to forward to corporate if they need to see it.

Once you convince them that it is not a 'no guns' sign, then you can ask them to update the local manager.

Ask when they will get a chance to update him so you will know when it is 'safe' to go back to the store.

Please be gratious and do not 'rub it in his face'. In one instance, I had a corporate officer ask if I wanted them to have the manager contact me to apologize. I said no as it was a restaurant chain and I like my food spit-free. I would recommend not seeking out your local manager even if you do get things straightened out. If he sees you and approaches, fine. Just don't make a big deal out of it.

I don't know the OP and I try hard not to make assumptions, so I'm just laying out a process that I would take. If this is what you would do, or have already done, great. If not, it's just my two cents.

As far as Color of Law and Eye95 are concerned, if I had the money to employ these two as full-time lobbyists at the statehouse, or at various city councils, I would do it in a heartbeat. If opposites attract, those two are REALLY on the same page.

Makarov said:

...they figured the sign would prevent future robberies...

Click to expand...

:lol: :banghead: :banghead:

...'cause you just KNOW that the robbers were looking for that sign when they were deciding what store to rob!

Remember they pointed the finger at me as soon as came in the door and after talking to this manager, he was hell bent that he was right and he researched everything, in other words blowing smoke. In my experience, most managers will not react unless the district manager forces the issue.

Makarov said:

Remember they pointed the finger at me as soon as came in the door and after talking to this manager, he was hell bent that he was right and he researched everything, in other words blowing smoke. In my experience, most managers will not react unless the district manager forces the issue.

Click to expand...

The contact was indeed cordial and presented as a request for there policy. By no means preaching laws/morals/common sense. And there are no plans to "I told you so" anyone. I just want to get my groceries in peace. LOL

I feel that any education on the issue would be more readily accepted from a corporate entity. So rather than challenge a policy that may or may not alight with the powers that be of this establishment I reached out.

Humanshield said:

We have many years of experience here as to what works and what does not. ????

I see you have been a member for a whole 3 years? So you are implying I do not have many years of experience?

How presumptuous of you.

There is a sign. An improperly placed sign that seems to have a different meaning than local management believes.

"Please rely on our wisdom and experience."

Why not my own?

Click to expand...

Yep many, many years of collective experience here. Eye95 has considerable more experience than the three years on this forum would suggest. The forum is only about 7 yo - that hardly states the limits of one's knowledge.

Feel free to check my profile, if it will help you gain some insight. Still I put my pants on in the same manner as others - I am no better nor worse - just different. Yah, I said that :lol:

As to "why not my (your) own"? Well after all you did come here seeking advice/opinions and that is precisely what was offered