Question about no carry zone sign posting requirements

I was told by my ccw instructor and many others who concealed carry that in order for a no carry zone to be valid the proper signage must not only be posted conspicuously but at the door before you make entrance to a building. O.R.C. code 2923.126(3)(A) only states the conspicuous part not the part about it being posted at the door. I looked at the definition of conspicuous as defined in the O.R.C. general definitions 1301.201(10) which also didn't help me. Ive been to several establishments which have the sign posted incorrectly if this is true, but i'm always a little nervous. Can anybody help me out here, I just cant find it in writing anywhere.

I can understand where you are coming from with this. Recently I was dropping my wife off at the mall while I was carrying. I did remove my pistol and lock in the car until I had proof that I was good to go. When I got to the door there was no sign posted on the exterior of the doors or entrance anywhere. After getting past the second set of doors there was a code of conduct sign in a free standing poster holder as you enter. After reading that and getting to point #3 it did state that weapons up to and including firearms were not permitted on the premises.

I am very curious what the legalities of this are. As you walk in there, there is also a security desk where the Toledo Police work security along with the mall security. I've not challenged the sign as of yet.

And that's the exact situation I'm concerned about, signs being posted at the second door in a double door type set up where its posted on the second set of doors or as in your case. In one case where i was in Chilliocothe at a cable television payment place the Doors were tinted and when i walked in the first set of doors there was the sign posted at the second set, Yes i would say it was conspicuous but not visible before entry could be made.

Yeah, see that sign there in the mall, how many people REALLY stop and read it. I did solely because I did not want to break the law and risk permit loss. The state really needs to do a better job of defining the no carry zones. In my opinion that does not constitute conspicuous placement just like your situation.

whitewolf68 said:

Yeah, see that sign there in the mall, how many people REALLY stop and read it. I did solely because I did not want to break the law and risk permit loss. The state really needs to do a better job of defining the no carry zones. In my opinion that does not constitute conspicuous placement just like your situation.

Click to expand...

The laws says the sign has to be "conspicuous" and to violate the law you have to "knowingly" ignore the sign. I submit that a code of conduct sign is not a conspicuous posting and if you hadn't read it, you would not "knowingly" be violating the law.

RT48 said:

The laws says the sign has to be "conspicuous" and to violate the law you have to "knowingly" ignore the sign. I submit that a code of conduct sign is not a conspicuous posting and if you hadn't read it, you would not "knowingly" be violating the law.

Click to expand...

I fully agree but Toledo P.D. is posted right there as you walk in and I checked last night and the same code of conduct sign is posted on the podium they are seated at. So now that I know I am going to follow their rules despite the fact it goes against every part of my being.

RT48 said:

The laws says the sign has to be "conspicuous" and to violate the law you have to "knowingly" ignore the sign. I submit that a code of conduct sign is not a conspicuous posting and if you hadn't read it, you would not "knowingly" be violating the law.

Click to expand...

I can go with that i totally overlooked the "knowingly" part. When i make entry to a building im not looking for a code of conduct with 70 items and guns listed at #58, im looking for a sign specific to hand guns. (Not saying im going to ignore it if i see it, im just not going to look as hard at places other than the entrance.) I also revisited the definition of "conspicuous" in the ORC which reads as follows:

(10) “Conspicuous”, with reference to a term, means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it. Whether a term is “conspicuous” or not is for decision by the court. Conspicuous terms include the following:

(a) A heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and

(b) Language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.


Paying attention to part (a) and (b) i think that rules out anything other than a sign that is dedicated specifically for no weapons because a code of conduct would typically not display the no weapons in a larger text or include anything to contrast it.