Anybody ever shot a criminal?

[drgrant]

I thought that Ohio just got CCW? Aren't there grounds for dismissal or qualifiers to obtain a CCW.

I think Ohio's CCW is shall issue, but the license there so far is next to
worthless- You can't carry concealed in a vehicle, and their legally binding
signage requirement is way too easy to fulfill, so it effectively nullifies the
usefulness of the permit. (Tons of businesses put up signage there).

To top it off, some recent court decision swayed in favor
of "town fiefdoms" on gun laws.... eg, there's no preemption
there. I guess it's a LOT better than nothing, though. I'm sure there
are plenty of folks in OH that would rather have a permit than not have
one at all.


-Mike

 

[M1911]

My aged in-laws are in OH and I've gone there a couple times this year to visit. I was going to bring Mr. Kahr with me until I read up on the laws. I agree with drgrant -- CCW in OH is crippled. You are required to expose your gun while driving. That would have gone over real big with the in-laws...

 

[Jose]

I thought that Ohio just got CCW? Aren't there grounds for dismissal or qualifiers to obtain a CCW.

Ohio does have shall issue CCW, and it has some screwed up rules. But that can be fixed, and both guys running for Gov have it on their agenda. There is a bill pending in the Senate to fix both the screwed up "in plain sight" provision for in-car CCW and the lack of state pre-emption. As for the "no-CCW" signs, I ignore them unless violating them carries a felony (liquor est., police stations, etc.). Private businesses? It's concealed. What they don't know won't hurt them. If I have to defend my life a simple misdeamenor is going to be the least of my worries.

CCW is the only reason I need a permit here. I have lots of guns and not a single license or permit to buy or own any of them. I can guarantee you that the county Sheriff has no clue how many or what kind I have. And he probably doesn't care.

 

[Jose]

(Tons of businesses put up signage there).

Not where I live. Even the Dayton area is pretty free of signs.

 

[drgrant]

Not where I live. Even the Dayton area is pretty free of signs.

Maybe not where you live, but I hear people whining about places like Toledo
constantly on the boards. The problem is it's not like TX, where legally
binding signage looks obnoxious and is a pain in the ass for the owner to
do properly, so as a result, most anti-ccw signs in texas aren't even compliant
with the law, which makes them statutorily meaningless. In OH the signs
apparently don't have to obey any sort of a standard. It's like "any sign
conspicuously posted" is enough.

I didn't know that carrying against the signage was only a misdemeanor... of
course it depends on the severity of said misdemeanor. If the antis that
wrote the thing crafted it handily enough, it can be a pretty crippling "misdemeanor".
(eg, if the misdemeanor triggers a gun disability, ala prohibited person).

For reference, most states use a "tresspass only" standard, even MA. Carrying
against signage, is meaningless, unless the owner tells you to leave and you
refuse.

I agree that "concealed is concealed" but with newer technology and the like
coming along, in the next few decades, it's going to be a lot harder to
defy that by simply concealing. A scary future for CCWs (and people in general) is
"gun detectors" that cost little money or are even integrated into existing anti-theft systems
in stores. About 5 pro gunners will whine and boycott the places, and the sheeple will
"agree" with the a**h***s that employ these detectors. Not a good future... which is
why legally speaking, binding signage is BAD.

-Mike

 

[Jose]

Mike, there are two kinds of places where one is prohibited from carrying in Ohio: those defined in statute and those posted by the private owner.

Carrying where it is statutorily prohibited is a felony. Those places are outlined in state law, but basically they are any building owned by state or local government (including the non-secure areas of airports), schools, and any place that serves liquor for consumption in the premises.

Carrying on posted private property is criminal trespass, a fourth degree misdeamenor in Ohio. So basically the situation looks about the same as every other state. As CCW matures here, I predict that amendments to the law will be enacted removing the "in plain sight" provision for motor vehicles and restricting the ability of property owners to post no CCW.

I live here, so take my impression of the situation for what it's worth.

 

[drgrant]

Carrying on posted private property is criminal trespass, a fourth degree misdeamenor in Ohio. So basically the situation looks about the same as every other state.

No, it's clearly not.

In most states that don't have legally binding signage, you are NOT in
violation of the law if the property owner tells you to leave, and you then
vacate the premesis. Merely carrying on the premises in and of itself
is not a crime. In states WITHOUT this signage bs, carrying a gun
against signage is NOT a crime. (the only exceptions obviously would
be property thats explicitly prohibited in the law. )

In "legally binding signage" states, like Ohio, if you are violating the sign,
you're BREAKING the law, and can be arrested for doing so, regardless of
wether or not you leave. Merely entering the posted premisis with a
firearm means you broke the law.

There's a big difference. Otherwise people wouldn't make an issue out of it at all.
Everyone would be saying to simply ignore the signs, the same way
people ignore non-compliant 30.06 signs in TX, or the way we ignore "no
guns / no firearms" signs in MA, or other states for that matter.

Edit: to put this in utterly simplistic terms:

Violating Binding Signage = You can easily get arrested + charged.

Violating Non-Binding Signage = You get kicked out. (at worse) .

I guess a question is whats the punishment for criminal tresspass? if the
penalties are disabling, in the sense that they could make one a prohibited
person, then it's just a bad as committing a felony. (some states have
misdemeanor sentencing guidelines that make certain misdemeanors
"prohibited person" grade convictions, eg, in MA, DUI now falls under
this, because the punishment bracket can exceed a year, regardless of
wether or not that amount of time is served. If you doubt this, read
the back of an ATF 4473 form sometime. )


-Mike

 

[Jose]

Mike, unless Ohio has a radically different definition of criminal trespass from all other states, you are incorrect.

 

[drgrant]

Mike, unless Ohio has a radically different definition of criminal trespass from all other states, you are incorrect.

The only way I'm incorrect is if Ohio doesn't have legally binding
signage. The impression that I get, however, due to all of the whining
and such, on various boards, is that the signage is binding. Otherwise
people wouldn't have bothered to erect websites, letter mailing jihads and
the like to complain to businesses about their signs. I don't see people
in NH, ME, and VT, for example, complaining about such things, or even
in MA, for that matter... and the reason for that is pretty clear- these
states generally do not have binding signage for private businesses. (or at least
they don't have provisions that allow businesses to expressly ban CCW
very easily!)


I'll use NH as an example....


See:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-4.htm

NH does have binding signage, in this regard, but can you imagine the
local crawl mart setting up signs in this manner? The entire parking
lot or perimiter of the building would look like "danger mines" in order for
the signs to be legally binding. So as a result, a singular little dippy "no guns"
sign in the window of a store in NH isn't going to cut it, as far
as the law is concerned.

Then see:


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm

See the nifty part that says:

"In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally
communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person "

This means, that you're not committing criminal trespass unless:

- the owner tells you not to come in or to leave, and you don't.

Note the conspicious absence of any verbiage stating that -any- posted
signage is equivalent to being "personally communicated".

I'm not a lawyer, but please find me a case where someone was charged
with a crime because they violated a privately posted "no guns" sign in
NH, and then left when they were asked to do so.

FWIW, MA also has no binding signage that I'm aware of,
the only problem is here is if the cops come, there is often times non
statutory punishment inflicted by the PD... you might not get charged with
anything here, but in MA if the responding PD tattles to your IA, you might
have your license yanked under "unsuitable person" guillotine. That
punishment, however, is not a misdemeanor or a felony of any kind, it's
just an administrative punishment. The kicker is in MA though, is if you
lose your license here, you lose ownership rights, as well, because of the
other commie laws here pretaining to posession.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

To add a dollop of fun about Ohio- This is the ball-crushing problem with
their signage there: (taken from the Ohio AG's CCW guidebook)

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_booklet20040319-72.pdf

Page 16-17:

"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."

Gee, if that isn't specious and vague, I dont know what is. From
the sounds of it, Some meathead could take a piece of paper, scribble
NO GUNS ALLOWED on it, and stick it on their door, and it'd be legally
binding.

There is a blurb of verbiage they reccomend on the sign, and that it
be conspiciously posted, but NONE of that is described in the law.

Even compared to other states binding signage laws, Ohio is
harsh, because of this. In TX, for comparison, the sign has to meet
a very stiffly defined set of requirements under 30.06. They are
thorough and exhaustive in nature. Then the law even has a caveat
built into it saying that if the signs aren't compliant, then the person isn't
in violation.

Whereas, compared to NH's law, the only way they could ban CCW is
through an end-around attack by using trespass laws. On the other
hand, Ohio allows business owners to ban CCW explicitly and directly
through R.C. 2923.126(C)(3). The whole point of that section is
to give Ohio businesses a very blunt, broad axe to hit permit holders with.

Edit: I rest my case... let the readers construe what they may from all of
this stuff.... My point was just that OH has -explicitly- binding anti-ccw
signs, and other states do not, or those states only have signs which are useable
through end arounds and wallhacks. (which as a result, business never use those
signs, eg, in NH, because implementing them is far too cumbersome.) It doesn't get
any simpler than that.


-Mike

 

[Jose]

Ohio allows businesses to use the trespass statues to ban CCW, just like most other states. You seem hell bent on declaring Ohio CCW hell, when in practice it is far from that. But WTF do I know? I just live and own guns here.

If you want to see gun owner's hell, look outside your door. LTC, FID, ALP at Chief's discretion, mandatory gun locking, handgun lists, no mail order, no NFA, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Dude, worry about your backyard first. We in Ohio are doing pretty damn good.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It all depends on what town in MA you compare it to.

A MA resident in a green town :

#1: Does not have to display his/her gun while driving.

#2: May carry in a restautant that serves alcohol. I do not consider it wise to drink while carrying, however, attendance at an establishement with a license to serve alcohol with dinner does not mean you are drinking.

#3: No business can make it a criminal offense for me to carry just by posting a sign. All businesses retain the usual rights to order anyone they wish off the premises, but MA law does not delegate the right to make certain otherwise lawful behaviors a crime in a business simply by posting a sign.

#4: We don't have "No NFA." In fact, one of the local clubs has a range with a semi-automatic ban. Yup, that's right - if you don't have a full auto, this MA club expects you to use one of the other 15 or 20 or so ranges on the premises. Unforutnately, silencers are only available if you are a licensed manufacturer (ie, $500 annual SOT to the feds).

#5: The list of proscribed by statute places is among the smallest of any state.

Pretty good? The logistics of having to filter where you eat, what businesses you enter, displaying a gun while in a car (which beams briefing all passengers that you are armed) does not seem to be "pretty good."

Carrying where it is statutorily prohibited is a felony. Those places are outlined in state law, but basically they are any building owned by state or local government (including the non-secure areas of airports), schools, and any place that serves liquor for consumption in the premises.

Comaring to MA:

State and local govt: No problem, though some places have administrative prohibitions and checkpoints (state house, courts) and I doubt someone sneaking a gun in would keep a permit for long.

Schools: Carry on your person prohibited unless you have permission from the school.

Alcohol: No ban on carry; illegal to carry while intoxicated

 

[GaryO]

The way the question seems to be asked it seems like he is looking for info after the fact.