Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: OC at Columbus Zoo?

  1. #1
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Has anyone OCed at the Columbus Zoo? My wife and I went the day after the OFCC Picnic in the Park 4. At the gate where you pay for parking, there was a sign that read "No concealed weapons". It didn't say anything else. I was considering OCing, but I had already put my wife through enough by taking her to the picnic, so I decided to give her a break and leave the gun in the car. Maybe that wasn't the right choice, but we got in and out without regretting not having the gun to shoot an attacking tiger, or anything like that.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    With that wording i would say YES you would be within the bounds of the law to open carry, weather you get arrested or not I don't know. I am sure it would NOT hold up in court if they arrested you. One thing in question though is weather or not the zoo was built with any gov. money cause you might not be able to go in any of the buildings. I would love to see someone open carry'ing in a place where they put a "no concealed sign" out front but I feel sorry for that person because the police will probably try to put a felony on you and the time spent in jail does not sound tempting.

    That being said I personally would not do it because of the potential negative outcome. However if you must do it yourself I would love to go with you and take a video camera, since its at zoo won't look out of place, and video tape the sign going in and then if you get confronted by anyone or mabey the police get it all on tape that way we might have a case. Also get you on tape quoting a few ohio statutes to the officer.



    WELL you could also say that the gun is for your own protection in case of a big animal getting loose and attacking you.

  3. #3
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    freedom1776 wrote:
    WELL you could also say that the gun is for your own protection in case of a big animal getting loose and attacking you.
    And from the out-of-control kids thatnearly leave shoe prints on your back from running over, under, and around you. I'm in my 20's and had a hard time dodging some of them.

    Edit: By no means am I promoting the shooting out of control kids... It was sarcasm!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    @freedom1776: Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor. Also, that some JBT's might try to put it on you doesn't mean they're entitled to. ANY business that chooses to post has been urged by then Attorney General Jim Petro to consult their attorneys and for this very reason. If the sign specifies no CONCEALED weapons, they are not barring the presence of defensive sidearms en masse.

  5. #5
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Idoubt I would be arrested on the spot if I had carried. I imagine I would have been asked to leave, even though they do not prohibit all firearms. If one were to refuse to leave then maybe they'd call the police. But I'm just guessing, who knows...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Beside the fact that the sign itself was probably illegal (if the Zoo is owned by the city, it can't ban concealed carry on the grounds, only in buildings), I'd say OC'ing would be OK.

    I've considered this for gov't buildings not otherwise banned, such as libraries. The sign on the downtown CincyLibrarysays no concealed weapons and the Code itself only prohibits concealed carry, so...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    888

    Post imported post

    Libraries, zoos, and fairgrounds in Ohio keep trying to "have it both ways" so to speak. When it suits their purposes they claim to be part of government, but when they feel it's in their best interest to be privately owned/operated/maintained, that's the song they sing.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    Post imported post

    If the sign was worded the way you say, then it would appear that it must be private property. The Attorney General has given guidance to government entities as to what the sign must say. The sign you describe does not meet the Attorney General’s order.

    May a person Open Carry, or a licensed person Concealed Carry on a private premise if a sign is posted giving notice that firearms are not welcomed?
    It all depends on what the sign says.

    ORC 2923.126(C)(1) states:
    (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.

    ORC 2923.126(C)(3) states:
    (3) 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. 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.

    ORC 2923.126(C)(3) states in part that: “…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.”

    So it would appear that if a sign stated: “NOTICE – No person shall carry a firearm, Deadly Weapon, or Dangerous Ordnance anywhere on this land, or these premises.” then if you ignored such notice you could be charged with trespass. The above notice does not leave much to the imagination. It’s hard to misinterpret.

    But, the Attorney General suggests a different sign.
    See: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevent...arry/index.asp

    Concealed Carry Sign (NOTE: This is an example of a standard warning sign approved for use on state buildings. If you see this sign, it means that you cannot bring your concealed handgun inside. This sign is in the public domain. Businesses and persons wishing to post such signs are strongly advised to consult their legal counsel for language, style, format and placement.)

    The link to the sign that the Attorney General approved for use on state buildings may be obtained from the following link. http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevent..._hb12_sign.pdf

    When you read the sign there is a disclaimer. The disclaimer starts with: “Unless otherwise authorized by law, no person…” The law states where a person cannot carry a firearm as it relates to government property. But, the law states what private property owners must do to not permit the carrying on their private property. In other words, if a private property owner posted the sign that the Attorney General states is authorized for government buildings, the sign would not be adequate Notice as to private property. The “Unless otherwise authorized by law” would indicate that if a person is not permitted open carry, or not licensed to conceal carry then the person may not carry on the private property. The Ohio Constitution permits open carry. And Ohio law permits licensed persons may conceal carry.

    Therefore. if a private property owner uses the government approved sign, then adequate notice has not been given.

    As stated above the Attorney General gives notice to private property owners to consult an attorney. I bet they don’t.

    But remember, if the private property owner asks you to leave and you don’t, you could be charged with trespass.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    color of law wrote:
    But, the Attorney General suggests a different sign.
    See: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevent...arry/index.asp

    Concealed Carry Sign (NOTE: This is an example of a standard warning sign approved for use on state buildings. If you see this sign, it means that you cannot bring your concealed handgun inside. This sign is in the public domain. Businesses and persons wishing to post such signs are strongly advised to consult their legal counsel for language, style, format and placement.)
    First, that was a very good and thorough break down of some very important points,

    After reading what the AG say's about "concealed carry." I am convinced now that the law does not prohibit "open carry" into these gov' buildings anymore than before we had concealed carry laws. I don't want to try it but could you imagine if someone actually open carried'ed into some gov. building, got arrested, charged, trial, and then the courts ruled that the law prohibits concealed carry NOT open carry which this guy was doing???? That would be a great win for the OC'ers.

    Also about the AG sign, it is deffinetely not worded for private property's. The "unless" and "permitted by law" stuff gives it away andI am sure it would not hold up in court. But then again, i don't want to be the one to try it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    2923.126 Duties of licensed individual.

    (B) A valid license issued under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun in any manner prohibited under division (B) of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code or in any manner prohibited under section 2923.16 of the Revised Code. A valid license does not authorize the licensee to carry a concealed handgun into any of the following places:

    (1) A police station, sheriff’s office, or state highway patrol station, premises controlled by the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, a state correctional institution, jail, workhouse, or other detention facility, an airport passenger terminal, or an institution that is maintained, operated, managed, and governed pursuant to division (A) of section 5119.02 of the Revised Code or division (A)(1) of section 5123.03 of the Revised Code;

    __________________________________________________ __________

    OK i've been thinking, if you OC'ed into a gov' building, i am convinced that you would not be breaking any laws or the intent of the law. If they wanted to banALL FIREARMS in these buildings they would have said "does not authorize the licensee to carry a firearm". Instead they just said "concealed carry"



    ANY COMMENTS?



  11. #11
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    It probably is legal, but I would guess you'd be arrested and have a legal battle on your hands. I don't have the time or resources to fight something like that, so I probably am not going to be doing it anytime soon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •