It was and is my position as a non-lawyer based upon a review of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) that open carry of a handgun is perfectly allowable in most state owned properties, with distinct exceptions being those which are specifically called out where any weapon is prohibited or at least firearms, such as K-12 schools, courthouses, mental asylums and places serving alcohol (with some limited exception as the ORC allows). However, it was pointed out to me that these agencies post a sign using the wording of ORC 2923.1212 "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person’s control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises."
Note here that 2923.1212 requires certain state agencies to conspicuously post a notice regarding the illegality of carrying a handgun or weapon at that facility. ( http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.1212 )
Here were my thoughts at this point ( http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923 ):
What is apparent here though is that there is a discontinuity in the actual restrictions on where a person may carry (concealed or openly) and the wording of the signage mentioned in 2923.1212.
Parts of 2923.12
2923.121 restricts all carrying of a firearm within a school safety zone with limited exception.
2923.122 restricts all carrying of firearms within places serving alcohol (Class D serving) with limited exception.
2923.123 restricts all carrying of firearms into a courthouse.
2923.124 defines the terms used for the discussion of concealed handguns.
2923.125 defines the application and licsensing process for concealed handgun licenses.
2923.126 lists the duties of a concealed handgun licensee, including places where a concealed handgun licensee is not authorized to carry a concealed handgun.
2923.127-.1211 all deal with the process of obtaining, maintaining and operating the concealed handgun licensing program.
2923.1212 recommends the signage to be used to ban concealed handgun carry and specifies where this signage must be posted, it is not the establishment of places in which a person may carry. Further by title this section deals only with the banning of concealed carry. The wording recommended here does not jive with the remainder of the code as it incorrectly states that all forms of firearm carry is forbidden in the places called out; however this wording is not supported by the remainder of 2923 and no authority is laid out for the banning of open carry of a firearm unless it is specifically called out in 2923.121 - 2923.126 (this one specifically dealing with concealed handguns). Note as well that there is no punishment called out for violation of 2923.1212, like there is for 2923.121-126; it is specifically a signage requirement with recommended wording. Note as well that the codification of punishment for violating a posting against the carrying of firearms is provided within 2923.126 and specifically relates to privately held premises, not public premises.
To establish the full meaning of the law one must apply the rules of statutory construction. One of the rules of statutory construction establishes the practice that the titles of statutes limit the text of the statute itself. However, if the ORC specifically states that the titles have no limitation or existing Ohio case law establishes this precedent then the statutory rule does not apply. Here in Virginia our Code of Virginia explicitly states that the titles and headings have no effect upon the wording of the law itself, however that had to be established or the statutory construction rules would be in effect.
Even if the titles themselves have no limitation to the remainder of the law text, I see nothing within the code that would limit someone from lawfully carrying an openly carried handgun in a BMV location or other location, because all that 2923.1212 holds is recommended wording for the postings that certain public agencies are required to post by law. However, it would be wise to ensure that the BMV, localities and other agencies know that the wording of the signage does not match the actualy codified authority granted to them by the legislature to bar the carrying of firearms. This is a task that some volunteers could tackle with the coordinating support of OFCC or BFA, in my opinion.