What is the basis for open cary?

[jimpen]

We should not state "what some guy said" as facts, as jimpen seems to be doing.

If there is a conspicuous posted sign and a cop sees you, you can be charged "the first time".

If there is NO sign, and you have been asked to leave but didn't, the cops can charge you, "the first time".

If the cops see a sign that is not 'conspicuous', but they want to be a-holes, they can charge you "the first time".

There is absolutely no requirement for there to be a 'pictograph' or any specific wording on a 'no guns' sign in Ohio.

This notion jimpen is holding on to that there is a free pass "the first time" is an utter fallacy until it is written into the ORC.

From the the Ohio AG's handbook about page 22-23 area:

Signage
The law does not say precisely what language must be on the sign. At a minimum, signs must be conspicuous and inform people that firearms and/or concealed handguns are prohibited. However, the law suggests that the prohibited locations post a sign that substantially says the following:

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under his control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly handgun or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.

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.

Sorry I didn't dig it out earlier. I also forgot to mention AG Mike Dewine's aide was sitting in the room as the CCW instructor said it. I didn't realize I was being an A-Hole for not digging out every cite that was needed. I hope the Ohio's AG's viewpoint is an acceptable reference.

:banghead:

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Sorry I didn't dig it out earlier. I also forgot to mention AG Mike Dewine's aide was sitting in the room as the CCW instructor said it. I didn't realize I was being an A-Hole for not digging out every cite that was needed. I hope the Ohio's AG's viewpoint is an acceptable reference.

jimpen-

I don't mean anything personal by my comments.

There are people that come to this forum that may, although they SHOULDN'T, take what is said here as gospel.

What your CHL instructor, his legal presenter, or the AG's aide may have said in a class or at a BFA function have NO bearing on the law.

If they cited a case that says "cops can't charge you the first time", cite that case. If you don't, someone may get the wrong idea and go get themselves in trouble because of what you said. If a police officer SEES you commit any misdemeanor, he can charge you. First time. Second time. Etcetera.

If a LEO charges you with a CPZ violation, you can go to court and argue that you did not KNOWINGLY violate the sign. Maybe someone was in your way. As mentioned by another user earlier, just hope they don't have video of you pointing at the CPZ sign and laughing!

The Attorney General can issue official opinions to police and municipalities, but they don't have to follow any advice in those opinions. Even so, I haven't seen any specific to CPZ signage.

You quoted the AG handbook which gives a summary of the CPZ sign law. Please, please, please note the first two sentences that you quoted.

Signage
The law does not say precisely what language must be on the sign. At a minimum, signs must be conspicuous and inform people that firearms and/or concealed handguns are prohibited.

That says it all. What the sign HAS to look like or HAS to say is NOT defined in the ORC.

There is no requirement for words OR pictures. It could be one or the other or both.

If a reasonable person (the people on your jury) would see the sign posted and think that guns are not allowed, you'll have to hope it wasn't conspicuously posted.

 

[JmE]

You are right MyWifeSaidYes. Let me phrase it this way:

If you accidentally miss the sign with the pictograph, and comply when asked to leave, the cops will generally not cite you for trespassing the first time unless you are being an a--h--e about it and if the store manager isn't being a real d**k.

As for the "No guns" on a napkin type thing -- As I understand it, the Ohio LEO has been instructed that without the pictograph on the door, the rest doesn't really count. The manager can ask you to leave, the cops can give you a written warning of trespass. But they can not actually cite you for it the first time. There is some conflation of how the law is written and court rulings that created that status. I can't give you the case law on it but that was how it was explained to me and the crowd at a Buckeyes Firearm Association conference by an Ohio CCW instructor.

Now if you missed the pictograph, they can cite you the first time. But it helps if your aren't a d**k about it.

Now as for the gun buster signs:

I was taught at a Buckeye Firearms Seminar by an Ohio CCW instructor: If you enter a facility that has has the gunbuster photopic/icon of a gun on the door, and you enter they can get you for trespassing the first time, but the cops (and managers) generally won't push it for OC or CC. The "assume it was an accident" mentality. Just don't be an A-Hole about. There is some sort of ruling as I understand it that if they don't have the gunbuster photopic/icon on the door, but do have something on the door like "No Smoking" the next line "No Firearms Allowed" and a "No pets Allowed" you can only be warned of trespassing, but they can not file charges.

Okay, now I'm beginning to remember hearing these things in past from instructors. However, the context was simply that the more conspicuous the posting, the less successful one could argue that they did not knowingly violate/ignore a posting. For example, a general rule of thumb for them was that a pictograph might very well be considered more conspicuous than "no firearms" buried in "No smoking, no pets, no firearms" which, itself, might be more conspicuous than "no firearms" listed within a long list of mall rules. i.e. the more conspicuous, like a clear pictogram, the less likely one would be able to argue that they did not knowingly ignore a posting. The rest of it dealing with being cited the first time was just about officer discretion.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

Yes, there have been several such posts. As for CC, it doesn't matter. If there is a sign saying no weapons, then honor it.
I'll dig up those posts and put their links here.

I try to avoid anti-gun companies, but I think you have to realize that sometimes a sign does not indicate the true policy of companies. For instance, in my town, the biggest gun show around, The Big Reno Show, is held in a building where there are signs posted banning weapons inside! It would be a dull show without weapons.

Many times, signs are posted for liability purposes or other strange thinking.

There is a gun store with a sign that says no loaded guns inside. I regularly go in and chat with the owners while doing loaded open carry and they know it is loaded. The purpose of their sign is not to stop people from open carry and concealed carry, they just don't want people bringing in guns for sale or repair or returns and putting them on the counter loaded or being stupid and discharging in the store from poor gun handling. They are cool with holstered guns. Similar policies often abound at sporting goods stores if you call them and ask them or write them an e-mail.

In the past, I have open carried in places without noticing a sign and the management didn't tell me to leave or to put it in my car, and said instead that concealed carry was fine but they just didn't want to see the guns. I've gotten similar responses from writing to some companies about how I won't partonize their business if they don't allow guns inside.

A sign often allows a company the ability to remove someone who is getting out of hand, and point to the sign, without necessarily being the company's view on guns in general.

Further, if any entity was truly interested in stopping weapons from entering, they would probably put up metal detectors with armed security manning them. Only a fool thinks that a sign can really stop anyone from carrying. A sign banning people from having guns on a private property in most states has about as much force of law as signs on properties requiring shirts and shoes, or requiring that you only buy drinks inside and don't bring any in. I'll bet many of the same people who abhor the idea of violating a private companies rules regarding weapons have done the sneakaroo and brought bottled water into theme parks, ball parks, or theaters so they didn't have to pay $5 per bottle inside, without feeling pangs of shame for not respecting the private property owner.

As for public property, space owned by the government, that space is owned by all, and the management has no property rights whatsoever and I have as much right to be there as any other member of the public, and I am often compelled to be at those places by the government as well. If they are not authorized by law to ban guns, they have no authority at all.