Ohio: Bill to protect against accidentally carrying into no-gun zone

[coyotehitman]

RTROHA, if it is not conspicuously posted it is unenforceable. What the "Oops, I forgot" bill does is offer an out to anyone who disregards a sign and tries to carry in violation of signage, or is reckless/negligent in that regard. I promote responsible carry, safe carry, and adherence to the law. I see alot of people in my business who have no business having a CCW and are walking liabilities to anyone around them. I don't support offering "outs" to them.

 

[Red Wind]

I find it interesting that someone that carries would be against a law that cleans up some the bureaucratic confusions and gotchas that permeate many laws on the books in States regarding guns. Ohio certainly had a few of those that were cleaned up in the recent past, for the best. I find any opposition to expansion of gun rights even more interesting. We rail against any assault on our rights, should we be not be supporting anything that pushes the needle in the other direction?

Indawind, Coyotehitman has stated that same position three times in this single thread. In posts #11,#23 and #26.

Ergo, that appears to be his conclusive thoughts on the matter. They speak for themselves, loudly and clearly. I agree with you that it's interesting.

 

[Art Eatman]

Reading through this thread, it looks to me that objectors are missing a key point. That is, where the signage for "no guns" is not obvious or is missing, the CHL person is not subject to criminal complaint.

And, a distracted person might not see a sign. Stuff happens.

The key is that if a person with authority says, "Leave," and the CHL person leaves, no harm and no foul. That's much like the trespass laws in many states; not at all unusual.

A valid harsh judgment against some incompetent CHL people is no justification for the implicit harshness against all CHL people. That's the same sort of argument as is used by the gun-control antis.

 

[Indawind]

where the signage for "no guns" is not obvious or is missing, the CHL person is not subject to criminal complaint. And, a distracted person might not see a sign. Stuff happens.

Since my post this morning I have been out and about and found this situation. I was at an IKEA store that had a white lettered "no weapons" at ankle level on the door. It was under all kinds of blah blah blah and there was a white concrete floor behind it. I would have never noticed it if I was not with someone that noticed it 2 days ago. It was not the normal red crossed circle that would draw the eye. Coupled with the 100 or so people within 25 feet of me and the door. I never saw it.

The key is that if a person with authority says, "Leave," and the CHL person leaves, no harm and no foul. That's much like the trespass laws in many states; not at all unusual.

Pretty much how I look at signage with that much force of law behind it.

A valid harsh judgment against some incompetent CHL people is no justification for the implicit harshness against all CHL people.

I look at it like they have passed all necessary training, background checks and paid the money for the piece of plastic. At that point they have the right to carry concealed. Much better than the open carry types running around trying to make some kind of a statement.

BTW as an Ohio resident for many years I can say I have seen an open carry I think 2 times, unless you count the times I was riding my bike to grade school with my 22 over my shoulder so I could shoot at the dump after school as open carry.