Wal Mart No CCW [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Wal Mart No CCW


ede
09-03-2007, 05:28
is it that way at all the wal marts or just the local one to me? it's the only one i've ever seen posted but i don't got to it or any others very often. the sign isn't colored very well to make it stand out more like it's colored to make it somewhat unnoticable.

cellison1460
09-03-2007, 06:36
Which Wal Mart is posted?

I live within 20 miles of five Wal Mart stores and none of them are posted.

degoodman
09-03-2007, 18:11
The one here in Marysville has posted the Liquor Department firearms notice on their front door for several months now.

Is it a posting, or a notice based upon the CCW arrest in Marion County AT A WALMART, for vioating the class D permit provision in 2923 (Both stores have active class D permits for sunday sales). I'll let you know after the court case ends and we hear the results.

ede
09-04-2007, 03:24
i'd have to look again to be sure but basically it's the pistol with the slash across it and a "no weapons allowed on premiss" sign

anyplainjoe
09-04-2007, 14:52
If a place sells(in any form) beer/booze, don't carry in there.

Brian Dover
09-04-2007, 18:28
Call WalMart corporate with the manager's name and store's location. Chances are good that somebody local got carried away.

Degoodman, I've heard some about that Marion arrest. In spite of the fact that the town has LOTS of "gunbuster" signage (local police chief must be an anti-gunner), the story of that incident sounds strange. Would love to know just what really went on.

glockess56
09-05-2007, 00:19
I haven't seen any Wal-Marts in central Ohio posted. I go into the Lewis Center, Bethel Rd, Morse Rd and occationally the one in Reynoldsburg and haven't seen any signs. In fact, isn't that where people go after they get their CCW - into Wal-Mart and order nachos? That used to be a thing someplace on GT!

degoodman
09-05-2007, 09:25
Originally posted by Brian Dover
Call WalMart corporate with the manager's name and store's location. Chances are good that somebody local got carried away.

Degoodman, I've heard some about that Marion arrest. In spite of the fact that the town has LOTS of "gunbuster" signage (local police chief must be an anti-gunner), the story of that incident sounds strange. Would love to know just what really went on.

We won't know much more until the trial or after. Ken Hanson is the guy's attorney, so he's got the resident expert on the subject in his corner. I'm sure there's been discovery and all, but Ken's bound by confidentiality, so we won't be hearing anything until it's a matter of record in a trial court.

The situation as I understand it was that the CCW exited his vehicle with a pistol in a holster which another patron saw as he was covering up (and remember open carry is also legal here in most jurisdictions). The patron made the "man with a gun" call. The CCW went into the wal-mart, shopped for 30 - 45 minutes, checked out and returned to his vehicle. While exiting the store, the man was approached by a deputy sheriff, and he dutifully notified the sheriff as required by law. The Sheriff then questioned him as to whether he was just shopping inside that walmart, which he verified that he was. The sheriff then took custody of the mans weapon and placed him under arrest for a violation of ORC 2923.121(A). The walmart in question has a valid Class D-6 liqour permit authorizing sunday sales, and that was the basis for the arrest.

firedog978
09-10-2007, 09:41
We certainly need a clear understanding of this portion of the law. Hopefully, this case will turn out well for the defendant and set a precedent.
I think as it stands right now, it depends on the jurisdiction where one enters such an establishment. I am aware of a couple of incidents whereby an LEO contact (routine), occured in similar (class D) establishments and no arrest was made. We can't however depend on ccw friendly jurisdictions to interpret the law as meaning 'consumed' and not 'sold'. It's just to vague and open to interpretation as it stands.
Ken Hanson is certainly the guy to defend this man. If it is to be won and set a precedent, Ken's the guy to do so.

Blitzer
09-10-2007, 10:14
Originally posted by degoodman
We won't know much more until the trial or after. Ken Hanson is the guy's attorney, so he's got the resident expert on the subject in his corner. I'm sure there's been discovery and all, but Ken's bound by confidentiality, so we won't be hearing anything until it's a matter of record in a trial court.

The situation as I understand it was that the CCW exited his vehicle with a pistol in a holster which another patron saw as he was covering up (and remember open carry is also legal here in most jurisdictions). The patron made the "man with a gun" call. The CCW went into the wal-mart, shopped for 30 - 45 minutes, checked out and returned to his vehicle. While exiting the store, the man was approached by a deputy sheriff, and he dutifully notified the sheriff as required by law. The Sheriff then questioned him as to whether he was just shopping inside that walmart, which he verified that he was. The sheriff then took custody of the mans weapon and placed him under arrest for a violation of ORC 2923.121(A). The walmart in question has a valid Class D-6 liqour permit authorizing sunday sales, and that was the basis for the arrest.

"Man with a gun", farging soccer moms and girly men. :moonie:

G37 Commando
09-10-2007, 22:19
Maybe I missed something, but I thought our CCW law stated that establishments serving alcohol was off limits, not ones that sold it.

degoodman
09-11-2007, 01:09
Originally posted by G37 Commando
Maybe I missed something, but I thought our CCW law stated that establishments serving alcohol was off limits, not ones that sold it.

That's what you get for assuming things not in the codes. People have assumed that the prohibition applies only to premises licensed for on-site consumption, that it only applies to liquor sales and not beer, and several other variations on the theme. Here's the EXACT statute from the ORC:

2923.121(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for which a permit of that nature has been issued.

That's it. No other words.

Here are the key points.

"Dispensed" is a word not defined in the ORC with an exact legal meaning. The dictionary definition (and keep in mind that the "legal" definition of a word as established by case law or statute can be QUITE different from its "dictionary" definition) of dispensed is "to be sold by portions". Sold, well alcohol is being sold plainly enough. "Portions" is another hangup for many, who assume that portions means "by the drink" for on site consumption. That is a very grave stretch. A 12 ounce bottle of beer is a portion, as is a 750ml of wine or a liter of booze, as are lesser portions of the bottle sold by the drink. Where does the line for "portion" fall? A pharmacist dispenses drugs, and some of the "portions" they dispense are whole sealed containers. The point being is that people who are relying on the "by the drink" definition of "portions" are relying on a hyper-narrow interpretation of portion, one which does not hold up under comparison to other "book" definitions, or other areas of law.

The next point is that the statute mentions class D permit, and it makes NO exception based on the type of Class D permit. MOST class D permits are for establishments that sell alcohol for on site consumption of alcohol. However one type, the class D-6 permit is not for on site consumption. That permit authorizes sunday sales of alcohol. It is still a class D permit however, so by the black letter of the law, any establishment possessing one is off-limits for carry, including any grocery store, gas station, and carry out that sells beer on sunday.

The last point is closely tied to the previous point. NOWHERE in the exact text of the statute is the word "consumption" mentioned anywhere. Whether the alcohol is consumed on site or not makes absolutely no difference. It's just not in the statute. If the alcohol is sold by portions, and sealed retail containers are portions by the book definition, and the establishment has a class D permit, including the class D-6 permit for sunday sales, then carry is prohibited under current black letter law.

If you read the AG's pamphlet carefully regarding these points, you'll notice several things. The first is that the AG mentions VERY SPECIFICALLY that the pamphlet does not constitute legal advice. Second, the language mentions that the class D permit is GENERALLY for places where alcohol is sold for consumption, but the language does not exclude the possibility of exceptions by more stringent language including words like ONLY. Third, The AG places the burden on the citizen to verify the type of permit that an establishment has been issued.

So until there's some case law established by courts of appeal, and ultimately the Ohio Supreme Court, and that could take YEARS, you are taking definite risks by carrying in ANY establishment that has a Class D permit of any type issued for it, including premises that do not authorize on-premises consumption, but have a Class D-6 permit authorizing sunday sales of alcohol.

It would be nice to eliminate the alcohol rule completely, but I'd lay money on hell freezing over before that any day of the week. It just won't happen in our legislature. We could go for a 51% rule, but that would add further complexity to our already convaluted liquor statutes as well as the carry statutes.

I think that as good a way as any to proceed would be to press the legislature to create a separate classification of liquor permit, the C-3 permit, authorizing sunday sales for retail establishments, and leaving the D-6 permit for sunday sales at establishments authorizing on-site consumption. That way it could be sold as an "administrative clarification" of the liquor law, as opposed to a "gun bill" which might allow it to slip through the legislature relatively unnoticed. They already have a seperate fee schedule based on whether the D-6 suppliments a class C permit or a class D permit, so just separate the permits. The nice side effect is that is clarifies the situation for CCW holders immensely.

The other change I'd press for is that any liquor licensee who is statutorially prohibited from CCW should have to display a STANDARDIZED sign, seperate from the optional sign usable by any private property owner, on the entrance to the establishment, eliminating any confusion regarding the permit status of the premises.

ventura
09-13-2007, 13:17
Can someone tell me approximately when this arrest occured in Marion county? This is the first time I have heard of it and have not seen it discussed on any other forums.

Thanks

ventura

degoodman
09-13-2007, 17:06
Originally posted by ventura
Can someone tell me approximately when this arrest occured in Marion county? This is the first time I have heard of it and have not seen it discussed on any other forums.

Thanks

ventura

It was in mid-May, like a week before Memorial day. It has not garnered much media attention at this point, and thats probably a good thing for now.

Catalina
09-13-2007, 19:34
Great research degoodman.

If this poor sap gets convicted of CCW in a D6 dispensing booze our legal system is an ass.

What's that line from Shakespeare's Henry VI?

Brian Dover
09-13-2007, 19:38
I'd love to look at the details of this myself, but can't seem to find much of a Marion County Clerk of Courts site like some of the bigger counties have. But even so, it would probably be tough for someone with my meager computer skills to find the case in question without acase number, arrestee's name, or something.

Also, the folks at Ohioans For Concealed Carry have begun to discuss this situation on their forum, but nobody there seems to have any definitive info to work with. Degoodman, are there more details that can be shared?

degoodman
09-14-2007, 14:30
Originally posted by Brian Dover
I'd love to look at the details of this myself, but can't seem to find much of a Marion County Clerk of Courts site like some of the bigger counties have. But even so, it would probably be tough for someone with my meager computer skills to find the case in question without acase number, arrestee's name, or something.

Also, the folks at Ohioans For Concealed Carry have begun to discuss this situation on their forum, but nobody there seems to have any definitive info to work with. Degoodman, are there more details that can be shared?

I don't have any more details than what I've given here.

Ken Hanson had mentioned a couple things, keeping in mind that he is currently bound by client confidentiality. First is that he would probably have more info in a week or two, leading me to believe that a plea agreement of some sort is being hammered out, but that's just a guess.

The other thing he mentioned is that until our CCW statute is fixed, we're screwed on carry into walmart, kroger, etc, which I'm guessing means that D-6 is just like the rest of the D permits, and CCW is a no-go in any establishment so licensed.

I, like everybody else, would like to have answers now, but it looks like we'll have to wait a week or two. Hopefully the plea agreement gets the guy down from the big-F down to some kind of misdemeanor and he gets to keep his guns, let alone his permit. But we'll see.

Catalina
09-15-2007, 13:15
Instead of a plea down I kinda hope they push the case and the D6 conundrum gets some case law (in our favor) behind it.

Dandapani
09-15-2007, 13:31
Thanks to the Gods that I left the Great State of Ahia for a more sane state!

Thed
09-15-2007, 22:30
Makes me wonder how many of the approximately 100,000 license holders are aware of this or even read forums such as these.
Most probably figure dispensed means... well... dispensed.
No matter how the law is written there's always some Nazi somewhere ready to twist the meaning so they can harass some law abiding citizen. Truly sickening.

SCC
09-17-2007, 17:55
Originally posted by G37 Commando
Maybe I missed something, but I thought our CCW law stated that establishments serving alcohol was off limits, not ones that sold it. A ++++++++++

degoodman
09-17-2007, 18:47
Originally posted by SCC
A ++++++++++

Once again people, all I can do is point to the black letter of the statute:

ORC 2923.121(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for which a permit of that nature has been issued.

Dispensed, no matter what definition you choose to apply to it deals with the SALE of alcohol, not it's consumption. Dispense means:

dis·pense /dɪˈspɛns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-spens] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -pensed, -pens·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to deal out; distribute:

or

dis·pense (dĭ-spěns') Pronunciation Key
v. dis·pensed, dis·pens·ing, dis·pens·es
v. tr.
To deal out in parts or portions; distribute

or

dispensed

adjective
distributed or weighted out in carefully determined portions

A whole unopened retail container is a portion.

The other key is the class D liqour permit. Some of those permits are issued to establishments that sell alcohol by the drink, for consumption on the premises. However some, like the D-6 permit authorizing Sunday sales do not, and the law makes NO distinction between them. If the establishment has ANY class D permit, and you take a gun in there, concealed or not by the way, you have comitted a class 5 felony. If the weapon is concealed it's actually a more severe class 3 felony per ORC 2923.12(G)1.

This is serious stuff, with felony penalties on the line. The black letter of the law is clear on this. If there has been a class D permit of any type issued for a premises, carrying of firearms into the establishment is prohibited.

Catalina
09-17-2007, 21:15
Again, if the law is interpreted to mean that dispensing cases of beer out of a cooler for sale at a register is equal to dispensing Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 into a shot glass :flamingdrpep:at the corner bar for immediate ingestion, the law is an ass :eric: and so are the people who decide such things.


They will not last long in public position, for we are not a felons of any class by CCW'ing into a Wal Mart, K Mart, or any mart.


To most prudent people (not lawyers & judges) this is dispensing alcohol>>> :drinkie: :drink: :drunk:

crowkiller
09-22-2007, 07:56
Possibly a lot of CCW holders are breaking the law unintentionally.:shocked:

firedog978
09-22-2007, 10:43
Catalina,

You're right. Alot of ccw'ers are UN-intentionally breaking the law. Until recently, I was one of them. I too (along with many, many others), was under the impression that the law made a distinction between 'selling' and 'consuming'. I am (as posted earlier), in my area, aware of numerous times a ccw'er was in such a mart and spoke to an LEO that knew he was carrying. No charges, no arrest, no saying, "hey you're not allowed to do that", NOTHING!
Since hearing of the Marion arrest and charges, I have become aware that indeed one can be charged. I even debated the fact here with numerous people. I still believe it is only enforced in certain (political) areas but, if charged it is a felony and I'm not willing to gamble on that! I also believe that the true INTENT of the law (originally), was to prohibit where 'CONSUMED'. However, with all the high priced anti-gun lawyers about, they found the loophole and made it an issue.
We need to pray that the Marion case is decided in the defendants' favor and, that precedent is set to CLARIFY THE LAW once and for all! This is a big issue. Walmart, Meijer, Kroger, gas stations and just about all mini-marts are some of my priority places to be armed. Especially at night for that one item you find you have to go get! My only salvation if this holds up, is that I live in a tri-state area (Oh., Ky., Ind.) and am moments from both other states where they have 51% laws making even alcohol serving dining establishments ok. That doesn't help most Ohioans though.

Brian Dover
09-22-2007, 17:37
I can't fault your concern with trying to keep legal firedog. But ever since seeing the aftermath of a pair of serial killers' "handiwork" some 20+ years ago, I've been more concerned with getting murdered than arrested, to put it bluntly.

firedog978
09-23-2007, 06:39
Originally posted by Brian Dover
I can't fault your concern with trying to keep legal firedog. But ever since seeing the aftermath of a pair of serial killers' "handiwork" some 20+ years ago, I've been more concerned with getting murdered than arrested, to put it bluntly.

And I Sir, completely understand your concern. It is a gamble (at this point) either way and, a personal choice of which way to gamble.

It appears that this is an issue we must all stick together on and fight. I debated (pre-election), those that backed State office Democrat candidates that were supposedly, pro-gun. Namely the Governor, Strickland and Attorney General, Dann. A pro-gun stance was a big factor in getting them elected in Ohio. Let's call in our '****' and have them clarify (in favor of), or amend that item of law. This is not a big gamble for them (politically), since the locations we are speaking of do not serve for 'consumption'. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Ohio gun rights organizations are currently lobbying specifically for this. One point of contention to make to Ohio officials for doing so is, the reciprocity we share with states that have the 51% law, and have not experienced any ill effect from that.

glockess56
09-23-2007, 16:58
I thought there were two kinds of permits. When I worked at a grocery chain, we couldn't sell beer after 1am, because we had the same permit as "carry out." This type was to be consumed off premises. A bar could sell, even for carry out beer until 2:30am, because they had a license to sell liquor/beer for on premise (I don't know the numbers for these permits only they started with D!). Also, it had to do with Sunday sales. We couldn't sell alcohol before 1pm on Sundays. Through the week, we could start selling alcohol again at 5:30am. Until this thread started, I thought only the bars and restaurants that served alcohol were off limits because they had the alcohol for consumption on premises. They should really clarify what they mean and even push for the 51% law like other states. Hey, doesn anyone remember 3.2% beer in Ohio? That's dating yourself if you remember it!

degoodman
09-23-2007, 17:55
The D-6 permit is a funny one, because it cannot be obtained on its own. It must be in support of another permit, a Class C or a Class D, and it is the permit that authorizes sunday sales. There are no sunday sales without a D-6. That's why every gas station, grocery store, carry out, convenience store, etc, has one.

Why they didn't create a class C-5 and a class d-6 for sunday sales seperately I have no idea.

actually I do have some idea. its probably to cater to the religious nuts in this state. They would probably swallow the class D permit for sunday sales because they have the chance to vote on class D permits. You know, all those "liquor options" that you vote on at the bottom of the ballot every election. if it were classed under retail / package sales they don't get to vote on those, so they wouldn't get to feel all high and mighty by shutting them down with a vote.

Sorta like the gay marriage ammendment, the smoking ban ammendment, and the strip joint ammendment. Its not enough to live the good life and not smoke, not marry someone of the same sex, and not go to the strip club. They have to feel all good by imposing that will on others.

We should be scared of those people, because it's the same mob majority like actions that get gun rights taken away. One of those things.

JSK333
09-23-2007, 22:53
..."in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises." How would a place dispense in a room off-premises?

I think it's quite obvious the code makes "dispense" mean portion out, as in drinking on site.

Otherwise, there is no purpose for the "in premises" clause, especially after it confines the action to "any room."

Ken should have a field day with these guys.

degoodman
09-24-2007, 01:24
Originally posted by JSK333
..."in any room in which liquor is being dispensed in premises." How would a place dispense in a room off-premises?

I think it's quite obvious the code makes "dispense" mean portion out, as in drinking on site.

Otherwise, there is no purpose for the "in premises" clause, especially after it confines the action to "any room."

Ken should have a field day with these guys.

If this isn't an out of context read for those words, I don't know what is.

Dispense has to deal with sales, not consumption. Pick up a webster's. Look it up. I copied out several definitions above.

And Ken is not having a field day with this. He's in a fight with it, and if the tone of one or more messages he's sent on the subject in another venue are indicative of where he's at with it, it's a fight we're going to lose. to quote him:

"I might have more of an update on the specific Marion case in a week or two. As to the class d issue in general, we are SOL with Walmart, Kroger etc until they fix our statute."

That is a direct quote from him in response to this very thread, from a different venue.

The barn is on fire, and lots of you are the horses running back into it at this point. "Legislative intent", prayerful interpritations of the law based on what it should be like, etc are not what counts at this point. The black letter of the law is clear, and until it is changed, if an establishment has a class D permit of any type, and you carry any firearm into that establishment, you are comitting a felony crime. It SHOULD NOT be a crime, but right now it is under the laws we have in place.

Right now Governor Ted is the keynote speaker at the OFCC party in the park several weeks out. I'd like to think that means he thinks highly enough of our cause to listen on this when we get in his ear about it. You can be sure that BFA and PRO are gearing up for this one as well, and the pressure will very likely step up after the Marion case is finalized.

The fix for this is not case law, and its probably not an easy slap in 51% rule in the liquor statute or the CCW statute. Our current liquor laws are very confusing, often contradictory (there are at least two applicable definitions of beer and liquor in the code that are contradictory) and will likely need a pretty severe clean up to satisfy both the needs of the lawful weapons carrying public, among many many other classes of people wrapped up in our outmoded system of licensing booze.

I stand by the fact that the quickest fix is most likely going to be to create a new permit classification, call it the C-5, that would serve the same purpose as the D-6, but is issued to establishments whos underlying permit is of class C type. The D-6 already has a seperate fee structure depending on which permit it is issued against (it's $300 per year when issued to a c-permit holder, and $400 if issued to a d-permit holder) so selling it to the legislature as an administrative correction instead of a gun bill should keep it off the front pages for smooth passage through an unsuspecting legislature. Couch it as a gun bill, and the loonies start coming out of the woodwork to oppose it, no matter how benign the change, and we have to fight it all the way through. Its pretty clear which road has the smoother pavement.

Linda
09-24-2007, 05:37
Originally posted by firedog978
To the best of my knowledge, none of the Ohio gun rights organizations are currently lobbying specifically for this.

Not true! It was Buckeye Firearms that brought this error to the attention of the Legislators. I was one of the 3 leaders who had meetings with the Senators and Representatives very early this year. They were shocked to say the least that they had done this to us. We will get it fixed, but as we all know, in Ohio, we have to have patience!

firedog978
09-24-2007, 08:37
Quote: degoodman

"The barn is on fire, and lots of you are the horses running back into it at this point. "Legislative intent", prayerful interpritations of the law based on what it should be like, etc are not what counts at this point."

I believe that may have been directed at this quote of mine from an earlier post:
" I also believe that the true INTENT of the law (originally), was to prohibit where 'CONSUMED'."
And, this one from my same post:
"We need to pray that the Marion case is decided in the defendants' favor and, that precedent is set to CLARIFY THE LAW once and for all!"
Sir, I was not meaning to indicate that prayer alone would do what we need in this situation. It was intended as a common saying meaning that we indeed need the help of a very powerful being.
As for the use of "INTENT" of the legislators originally that I used, I can best point to Linda's post where she said this:" They were shocked to say the least that they had done this to us."
I do not disagree with you and your posts. It is indeed a fight on Ken's part. Furthermore, your idea of changing the permit classification sounds to me as the way to go.
You and several others here have pointed out the mistaken interpretation I once had of the meaning of the law. That and the FACT that charges have been filed in Marion. I am convinced of the true meaning of the law as it is currently written thanks to you and others. I am not 'one of the horses running back into the barn'.

Quote: Linda
"Not true! It was Buckeye Firearms that brought this error to the attention of the Legislators. I was one of the 3 leaders who had meetings with the Senators and Representatives very early this year. They were shocked to say the least that they had done this to us. We will get it fixed, but as we all know, in Ohio, we have to have patience!"

My apologies to you and BFA. In my defense though my post did say:
"To the best of my knowledge, none of the Ohio gun rights organizations are currently lobbying specifically for this." I believe that left room for interpreting that one or more may be. Thank you for the clarification.

JSK333
09-24-2007, 09:05
Originally posted by degoodman
If this isn't an out of context read for those words, I don't know what is.


Would you care to explain how?

You've posted definitions for dispense, but nothing in the definition says it can't mean portion out as in drinks either.

Since you obviously believe you have a firm grasp of what the statute means, what is the purpose of the other words in the statute? Why also use words like "in any room" and "in premises" if dispense is enough to portray the intent of the statute as anywhere liquor is sold?

Surely you know that the courts read the statutes as though the lawmakers used each word with a purpose and don't disregard entire clauses because of how you interpret one single word.

In addition, I've received emails from the Liquor Board that support the above. They agreed that carry in a supermarket was OK, as was in a hotel that served at a bar, as long as you didn't go to the bar area.

The same opinion came from my lawmaker, Bill Seitz, when discussing ways to improve the law (i.e., allow carry anywhere alcohol is served, not just where it is sold bottled).

Also, what would the point be of Kroger taking down their signs, if they knew we couldn't carry in their stores by law anyway?

Dinho
09-24-2007, 19:48
arent stores that serve alcohol and therefore are off limits to firearms required to post the sign in a conspicuous place?

either way, it has me thinking a lot.

degoodman
09-24-2007, 23:23
Originally posted by Dinho
arent stores that serve alcohol and therefore are off limits to firearms required to post the sign in a conspicuous place?

either way, it has me thinking a lot.

They do, according to the department of liquor control. Look behind the bar at a place that serves, or in the customer service counter at your local grocery and you're likely to see the required department of liquor control signage posted on a bulliten board. Kinda sucks for situations where you are comitting a crime by unknowingly walking through a door, but it's there and conspicuous in the eyes of the liquor control board.

And unfortunately, liquor licensees do not have a duty to post prominently on the entrance to their establishment, andother glaring deficiency in our law. If there are going to be places statutorially prohibited from carry, they should have to display prominent, standardized signage to eliminate any possible confusion for law abiding citizens.

Dinho
09-25-2007, 04:42
+1

all these details really need to be worked out. i really hope our legislators do their job.

ventura
09-25-2007, 16:43
Originally posted by Linda
Not true! It was Buckeye Firearms that brought this error to the attention of the Legislators. I was one of the 3 leaders who had meetings with the Senators and Representatives very early this year. They were shocked to say the least that they had done this to us. We will get it fixed, but as we all know, in Ohio, we have to have patience!

If this meeting took place very early this year and the legislators we so "shocked" why has no legislative solution been introduced?

Patience hell, so more innocent carriers can become convicts?!

Sorry they screwed it up and they should be in a hurry to fix that kind of mistake!

ventura

Linda
09-25-2007, 17:20
Originally posted by ventura
If this meeting took place very early this year and the legislators we so "shocked" why has no legislative solution been introduced?

Patience hell, so more innocent carriers can become convicts?!

Sorry they screwed it up and they should be in a hurry to fix that kind of mistake!

ventura

Hey venny, don't shoot the messenger!:upeyes:

This was a new legislative session this year. Naturally the budget came first. They worked on that Jan-June. Then they go on summer break. Session doesn't start until Oct. Then it will be a short session because of the upcoming holidays. And then they all start campaigning again after the holidays. Not making excuses for them. That's just the way it works in the world of politics. We were lucky to have gotten Castle Doctrine introduced in May. That hopefully will be at the top of their agenda when they get back.

Things WILL get fixed. But, this is Ohio and we know that in Ohio things go at a snails pace. That's what I meant by have patience.

Arquebus12
09-26-2007, 13:54
Originally posted by Catalina
Great research degoodman.

If this poor sap gets convicted of CCW in a D6 dispensing booze our legal system is an ass.

What's that line from Shakespeare's Henry VI?

Something about killing all the lawyers, isn't it?:banana:

Banker Billy
09-27-2007, 19:54
Few questions, gents . . .

The city of Marion in Marion County. If carrying in a liquor establishment is a felony, then the case would be heard in Marion County Common Pleas Court.

Almost all court records/proceedings are “open to the public”, with the exception of juvie and maybe a few others.

So far I have not seen the name of the person charged, but it appears he was charged in late August/early September.

All one has to do is go the Clerk of Courts Office in Marion County, get on their computer, and look-up all the criminal cases filed in the past 4 to 6 weeks. If there has been an arrest and a case filed, it will show up on the docket report.

So . . ..

Does anyone here live in Marion County ? ? ? Searching to Court Docket could be completed in a very short amount of time – Marion County is a pretty small county.

Thoughts ? ? ?

Not to get “flamed” but I have not heard of ANYONE in the state of Ohio being arrested like this, other than in Marion County. So . . . is it true, or just “the internet” ? ? ?

Linda
09-27-2007, 21:11
Originally posted by Banker Billy
Few questions, gents . . .

Not to get “flamed” but I have not heard of ANYONE in the state of Ohio being arrested like this, other than in Marion County. So . . . is it true, or just “the internet” ? ? ?

Well, if you don't mind the answer from the lady in the house....,

it is not "just the internet". This happened in mid-May.

Banker Billy
09-27-2007, 21:22
Sorry Linda ! !

Now we know it was in mid-May, the search will be a lot easier.

All someone needs to do is to go to the Clerk of Courts Office and look up the docket for the criminal cases in the month of May.

If there is a felony charge filed, the Plaintiff will be "the State of Ohio". The defendant will be the person charged. Really very easy to do, even if you don't have the defendant's name. Just look-up anything that is related to the ORC section that deals with CCW.

Remember: this information is PUBLIC -- anyone can go and get the info.

So . . . anyone live in Marion County ? ? ? ?

Banker Billy
09-28-2007, 14:44
Me again folks,

The following was just posted over at OFCC:


I called the Marion County Sherriff's office 3:05 Friday afternoon 9-28-07 (740) 382-8244.

Hold on to your hats....

THERE WAS AN ARREST MADE IN WAL MART BY THE MARON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT..


BUT

THE WAL MART WAS POSTED. THE ARREST WAS MADE REGARDING THE CPZ ISSUE WE ALL KNOW AND HATE.

The prosecutor is currently reviewing the case regarding signage, etc. (This could be another interesting issue...Was the signage correct, displayed properly etc.)

THERE WAS NO ----I REPEAT NO ARREST REGARDING ANY CLASS D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, lets move on. And CARRY ON!!

firedog978
09-28-2007, 17:53
Wow! Not only was/is the law misunderstood. Now it seems we haven't even got clear proof that the arrest and charge we're discussing is understood. If this guy's charge is violating signage and not for being in a Class D (non-consumption on premesis) establishment, we're back to square one. At least in what I am going to believe the law means again.

Thanks Banker Billy for looking up the charge.

crowkiller
09-30-2007, 03:30
Cool! Thanks BB

I wonder where the Wal-Mart NO CCW sign was posted, on the entrance door or on a bulletin board? The reason is I have heard of a Wal-Mart posting no ccw on bulletin boards in the store but not on the entrance doors. I wonder what kind of sign it was I have seen the Ohio liquor signs saying no firearms but from what I understood that doesnt apply to CCW holders. With Ohio law it seems like if a CCW holder farts the wrong way they are committing a felony.:upeyes:

JSK333
09-30-2007, 11:57
FWIW, the liquor signs posted in supermarkets, etc., actually say,

"Warning, if you are carrying a firearm in this Class D establishment, you may be committing a felony punishable by..."

Why "may be"? Because it's not always the case, as the Liquor Control Board knows. Only in places where it is dispensed in a room in premises. Otherwise, it would simply say "are."

anyplainjoe
04-04-2008, 06:48
BTT: anyone know the outcome of this?

cloudbuster
04-28-2008, 02:17
Bump.