That would appear to be your interpretation of the law, I and others disagree - although I agree that it is required for government buildings, I see nothing that prohibits it use for private property. Further, I do not believe it has been settled either way by case law, but if you can provide a cite I would be interested in reading it. Until such time as it it is settled, I would recommend against anyone carrying past such a sign on private property unless you are interested in becoming the test case.
State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St. 3d 507 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2007
{¶ 9} The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent in enacting the statute. Brooks v. Ohio State Univ. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 342, 349, 676 N.E.2d 162. The court must first look to the plain language of the statute itself to determine the legislative intent. State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 676 N.E.2d 519. We apply a statute as it is written when its meaning is unambiguous and definite. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 52, citing State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463. An unambiguous statute must be applied in a manner consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language. State ex rel. Burrows, 78 Ohio St.3d at 81, 676 N.E.2d 519.
State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St. 3d 5 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2005
Parsing individual words is useful only within a context. The Revised Code, like any document, is designed to be understood as a whole. "Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly." R.C. 1.42.
Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 125 Ohio St. 3d 510 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2010
{¶ 21} Our role, as this court recognized in State ex rel. Myers v. Spencer Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1917), 95 Ohio St. 367, 373, 116 N.E. 516, is to evaluate a statute "as a whole and giv[e] such interpretation as will give effect to every word and clause in it. No part should be treated as superfluous unless that is manifestly required, and the court should avoid that construction which renders a provision meaningless or inoperative." Indeed, as we determined in Weaver v. Edwin Shaw Hosp., 104 Ohio St.3d 390, 2004-Ohio-6549, 819 N.E.2d 1079, statutes "`may not be restricted, constricted, qualified, narrowed, enlarged or abridged; significance and effect should, if possible, be accorded to every word, phrase, sentence and part of an act.'" Id. at ¶ 13, quoting Wachendorf v. Shaver (1948), 149 Ohio St. 231, 36 O.O. 554, 78 N.E.2d 370, paragraph five of the syllabus.
R.C. 2923.1212:
The following persons, boards, and entities, or designees, shall post in the following locations a sign that contains a statement in substantially the following form: "Unless otherwise authorized by law...no person shall knowingly...”
Where in R.C. 2923.1212 does it authorize private businesses to post that sign? It does not. Another way to say "unless otherwise” is “except under other circumstances.” So, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, where in the law does it mandate/require a private business to post that sign? It does not.
When have you ever seen a sign that said “Unless otherwise authorized by law, no trespassing.” You haven't.
The Ohio attorney general's “Concealed Carry Laws Manual” states the following:
“An example of a standard warning sign approved for use on state buildings appears below. If you see this sign, it means that you cannot bring your concealed handgun inside. Businesses and persons wishing to post such signs are
strongly advised to consult their legal counsel for language, style, format, and placement.” (My Bold)
Why does the Attorney General say that? For at least three reasons, first, he cannot give legal advice to the public, second, the sign takes on a different legal grammatical meaning when placed on a private business and third, R.C. 2923,1212 has no relation to R.C. 2923.126 even though both are sub-sections of R.C. 2923.12.
R.C. 2901.04 Rules of construction for statutes and rules of procedure.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in division (C) or (D) of this section, sections of the Revised Code defining offenses or penalties shall be strictly construed against the state, and liberally construed in favor of the accused.
2901.22 Degrees of culpability attached to mental states.
(B) A person acts knowingly, regardless of purpose, when the person is aware that the person's conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when the person is aware that such circumstances probably exist. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.
Opinions are subjective. The test for determining whether a defendant acted knowingly is a subjective one, based on the knowledge, beliefs and circumstances of the individual defendant. State v. Elliott (1995), 104 Ohio App .3d 812, 821, 663 N.E.2d 412.
All of us are presumed to know the law; citizens, store owners and their agents, judges and law enforcement are presumed to know the law.
State v. Parker (1994) 68 Ohio St.3d 283, 286, 6226 N.E.2d 106
State v. Robinson, 187 Ohio St. 253, 2010-Ohio-543, ¶24, 931 N.E.2d 1110
Open carry in Ohio predates the federal and state constitutions. See R.C. 9.68.
When shopping at a store you are presumed to be shopping with privilege. Your privilege is not revoked until a valid sign is posted in a conspicuous place. See R.C. 2923.126(C)(b)(3)(a). If a valid sign is posted and you are carrying then you do not have privilege.
R.C. 2923.126(C)(b)(3)(a) in part says: “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.” Remember what the courts have said. Every word has meaning in a statute. Also, "expression units est exclusion alterius." Freely translated, the phrase means the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. See Saslaw v. Weiss (1938), 133 Ohio St. 496, 498, 11 O.O. 185, 186-187, 14 N.E.2d 930, 932 and State v. Chappell, 149 Ohio Misc. 2d 80 - Ohio: Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Court 2008 ¶36. Being notified to leave by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either without a valid posting of a sign is excluded from the statute.
You may disagree, but I have personal experience as it relates to guns, signs and trespass. I know of what I speak. And yes I prevailed. I would however suggest that if you are asked to leave by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either in the presence of a police officer, leave.
I would bet any business posting the state's sign would be unable to explain the meaning of that sign. I would bet a business posting the state's sign would say they never consulted with an attorney to determine if the state's sign was appropriate. Remember, the business owner is presumed to know the law.