Confused about signs

eye95 · Aug 1, 2013

My point is (for those having tremendous trouble reading) is quite simple: If they don't post the sign where it is reasonable to expect that people in the store will KNOW that they don't want carry, those people can't knowingly violate the sign until and unless they encounter it. Duh.

Moving on from the brick wall. (He's just being contrary for contrariness' sake anyway, and I will choose not to play his childish game.)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

color of law · Aug 1, 2013

eye95 said:
My point is (for those having tremendous trouble reading) is quite simple: If they don't post the sign where it is reasonable to expect that people in the store will KNOW that they don't want carry, those people can't knowingly violate the sign until and unless they encounter it. Duh.

Moving on from the brick wall. (He's just being contrary for contrariness' sake anyway, and I will choose not to play his childish game.)

Oh, now I get it. It's everybody else's fault that you can't articulate your thoughts in a written format. And it's everybody else's fault that they can't read your mind.

Instead of acting like a putz, all you had to say is that you misspoke.

What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, wickedness, deceit, envy and foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. Your hatred will eat out your substance from within.

Have a nice day.

arentol · Aug 1, 2013

color of law said:
So, what's your point?

You said:

This is not true.

If you are charged for trespass you can choose to take the stand and state your side of the story. But, you better be ready to be cross examined.
Again, knowingly is not an affirmative defence.
And you don't get to argue the law on the stand.

The fact that it isn't an affirmative defense works in your favor. The entire point of your defense is that the law can only find you guilty if they show you did the action knowing it was trespass.
With an affirmative defense you would be saying "I definitely trespassed, but it wasn't illegal because I didn't see the sign."
With a normal defense you would be saying "I didn't trespass at all because I didn't know the sign was posted and the law says it is only trespass if I see or am otherwise aware of the sign."

It is your lawyers job to make sure the court makes sure the jury understands that if the prosecution doesn't show you should have known about the sign you can't be found guilty. This is where having a good lawyer means you never even see the courtroom, while having a bad one gets you jail time.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

samkent · Aug 1, 2013

Carrying is only a crime if you knowingly violate a sign.

I didn't think it was a crime.
I thought the crime part kicks in if you refuse to leave because they asked you to?
This excludes government buildings of course.

color of law · Aug 1, 2013

arentol said:
The fact that it isn't an affirmative defense works in your favor. The entire point of your defense is that the law can only find you guilty if they show you did the action knowing it was trespass.
With an affirmative defense you would be saying "I definitely trespassed, but it wasn't illegal because I didn't see the sign."
With a normal defense you would be saying "I didn't trespass at all because I didn't know the sign was posted and the law says it is only trespass if I see or am otherwise aware of the sign."

It is your lawyers job to make sure the court makes sure the jury understands that if the prosecution doesn't show you should have known about the sign you can't be found guilty. This is where having a good lawyer means you never even see the courtroom, while having a bad one gets you jail time.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

And that's why I posted Ohio's jury instructions.

color of law · Aug 1, 2013

samkent said:
I didn't think it was a crime.
I thought the crime part kicks in if you refuse to leave because they asked you to?
This excludes government buildings of course.

Somewhat incorrect.

Knowingly proceeding beyond the posted sign is in itself trespass. The sign is notice not to enter. If asked to leave is, in effect, a second chance not to be charged with trespass.

MyWifeSaidYes · Aug 1, 2013

samkent said:
I didn't think it was a crime.
I thought the crime part kicks in if you refuse to leave because they asked you to?
This excludes government buildings of course.

You thought wrong.

Them asking you to leave is simply an indication that you have been CAUGHT committing the crime and that they are giving you a chance to avoid prosecution.

It's criminal trespass to knowingly go into a location that is posted. The fact that you are not always caught does NOT mean you haven't committed the crime.

ps1mhd · Aug 3, 2013

2923.126 Does not have anything to do with OC only CC title says(Duties of licensed individual.(A) A concealed handgun license that is issued under section 2923.125 )
If its somewhere else please let me know.

Mike

color of law · Aug 3, 2013

ps1mhd said:
2923.126 Does not have anything to do with OC only CC title says(Duties of licensed individual.(A) A concealed handgun license that is issued under section 2923.125 )
If its somewhere else please let me know.

Mike

Incorrect.

First, titles of statutes have no force and effect of law.

Second, Part (C)(3)(a) of 2923.126 covers open and concealed carry of firearms in regards to trespass.

...prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises.

Deanimator · Aug 4, 2013

Hareuhal said:
My favorites are the ones that businesses post forty feet inside their store so you are already in the store before you see they don't allow them.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

That's not properly posted.

It must be posted so that a reasonable person would be informed PRIOR to entering.

If you see it (and it's not directed at employees, or the old generic Liquor Control Board signs), you must leave.

You can't be prosecuted for entering a non-statutory CPZ if a reasonable person wouldn't have known that it was posted BEFORE entering.

If ordered to leave, you must do so.

JustaShooter · Aug 4, 2013

Deanimator said:
That's not properly posted.

It must be posted so that a reasonable person would be informed PRIOR to entering.

If you see it (and it's not directed at employees, or the old generic Liquor Control Board signs), you must leave.

You can't be prosecuted for entering a non-statutory CPZ if a reasonable person wouldn't have known that it was posted BEFORE entering.

I don't believe that is correct. ORC 2923.126 does not require the property to be posted in the manner you describe, only that it be in a conspicuous location:

(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.

(Emphasis mine)

Certainly if it is not posted in a way that makes it visible before entering you couldn't be prosecuted for just entering, but as soon as it is visible to a reasonable person, you could be if you don't leave.

Confused about signs

eye95

Well-known member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

arentol

New member

samkent

Regular Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member

ps1mhd

Regular Member

color of law

Accomplished Advocate

Deanimator

Regular Member

JustaShooter

Regular Member