Is this legal? Parking lot question

T

tsavo

Moderator
There's this area in Canton, ohio called the stip. It consists of about 50-60 stores(all outside and seperated) and about 15 restaurants. It has a main road that goes down the length of it and then parking lots. They have signs posted outside that say no firearms anywhere on the premises, including any parking lots in the area. How is this legal? In ohio you can carry a gun in your car even in city owned parking lots(court houses etc...), even without a permit as long as it's in your trunk and unloaded.

How can they say you can't have a gun in your car in the parking lot? The parking lots are city owned. I don't understand how that isn't violating our basic rights, especially if the gun is in your trunk. It really amazes me how quick every business around here put up their no firearms signs. Way to prevent a citizen from stopping a robbery or a terrorist attack :rolleyes:
 
I'm in Colorado and not familiar with the gun laws there. However, are you SURE that the government cannot place restrictions on taking your gun on government property? Laws vary by state. Make sure.

Also, is it possible that the STORES privately own the parking lot and collectively don't want firearms? If that's the case and you were caught you could be prosecuted for trespassing (as you don't have their consent).

More likely it's a liability thing -- they want to point to the sign in the event that there's a shooting and state that they didn't authorize nor condone firearms on the premises.

I refuse to patronize any store owner with similar signs.

Speak to the store owners and boycott them if they keep their policy. Start a local boycott.
 
Even if the business has a privately owned parking lot I didn't think that over rides state law...What is the statue of limitation there? Can they post up signs that say no women on the premises-just because the parking lot is privately owned? No hispanics on the premises? Where do you draw the line. This is where the law is very ify and I don't think you can get a straight answer out of anyone.
 
Guns and civil rights discrimination are entirely different issues.

A business has the right to refuse service to anyone not based on a Title VII protection for their race, national origin, religion, etc.

There's not similar protection for a gun owner/carrier; guns are property. Sure, you can carry in the state with the appropriate permit, but private land owners can keep you off their land if they don't want guns on their land. The owners could also say "NO red Ford trucks on our lot," or "No shirt no shoes no service."

I don't agree with the law and think that guns should be allowed nearly EVERYWHERE, but it is what it is.
 
I just don't see what the hell the legislators in Ohio are thinking. They have basically made a ccw permit obselete and useless. I envy some of you in other states with more sensible laws:)
 
tsavo - The Strip is not far from my house. The parking area is privately owned and the owners of the property have the right to set rules for the guests they allow on their property. In this case, property law overrides the concealed carry law - as it should.

State representative Jim Aslanides has introduced a bill that will fix most of what's wrong with the current CCW laws. Foremost among these is the onerous car carry restriction which allows you to carry concealed in a motor vehicle only if your firearm is in a holster in plain sight (or locked up and useless).

Some key issues to be addressed are:

* Statewide preemption to prevent a patchwork of local gun laws
* Removes the plain sight requirement for a CHL holder carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle
* The license fee would increase to $55, but the license would be good for 5 years
* Affirmative defense for discharge of a firearm from a vessel or motor vehicle if the act was for self-defense
* Provides a definition for a "loaded firearm" as actually containing ammunition in the firearm and specifically denotes a firearm as unloaded if ammunition is merely near the firearm
* Specifies that a CHL applicant must be a US citizen
* Requires sheriffs to accept applications for a license during all normal business hours without restrictions
* Allows for a CHL holder to convey into a courthouse a firearm in order to turn the firearm over to any officer in charge of the facility
* Allows for a CHL to be renewed up to 90 days before the expiration date
* Allows for a CHL holder to file a statement with the sheriff that he/she has reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon his/her person or a family member if his/her name, county of residence, and date of birth is released to journalists requiring the sheriff to deny auch requests for disclosure
* The background check will include an FBI records check which will allow a CHL to be used in place of the NICS system when purchasing a firearm.
Click to expand...

More info here: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2699

If you're really peeved about The Strip being posted as No Guns Allowed, shop at their competitors and send copies of your receipts to the managers of the stores in The Strip. Shortly after the law was enacted, the Giant Eagle store near my home posted a No Guns Allowed sign. I walked in, asked for the manager and handed him my shoppers card. I told him that I'd be shopping elsewhere because of his no firearms policy. I also asked him to look up how much I spent each year on groceries (over $5,000).

I don't think that I spurred his decision singlehandedly, but the sign came down within a month.
 
Here in Utah there was landmark case concerning internet giant AOL. They have a "no guns" policy that even affects thier leased employee parking lot.

After work, an employee transferred a firearm into a co-workers vehicle so they could carpool to a local range.

They were seen and consequently fired. The courts upheld the employer's right to regulate such thing on even their leased property.
 
<--slaps his head and thinks "why didn't I think of that"

I walked in, asked for the manager and handed him my shoppers card.
Click to expand...
Dave,
Great idea. That's a way to really put teeth into a boycott.
 
I used to manage a Valet service and 1 of the properties was a Big Hotel chain. Their parking lot is private property and they can establish there own policies. In fact 1 ongoing fight was between the hotel and handicap parkers at the hotel. They could not believe that they could be charged for parking and always threatened to contact this agency or that, but in the end they always paid.
Any private property can put forth their own policies as long as it doesn't violate civil rights. :D
 
Scared Heart, the Physicians(sp) Center, Costco (they aren't really "posted" but if you are a member they have a "we don't allow guns so you can shop safely ad), and a few other places have a no guns sign.

Which as a CCW holder, means nothing to me.

Called the Sheriffs department and the police department and they won't even come out if called (even if you don't leave). Not enough resources. What they will do is have the manager ask the customer if they have a CCW. If the customer does (and shows it) then the police are like "ho hum, it's legal and we won't respond". If they (the manager) calls back and says that the person doesn't, and they show, and they do, then the manager is ticketed for false report and are made to pay for the police time.

Bascially, the stores have the right to post, the cops just won't show since no law is being broken, not even trespass. They can ask you to leave but if you stay and shop, get medical attention, etc.., they can't do anything about it. And if they touch you, they will be charged with assault, you won't be charged with trespass.

Wayne
 
MeekandMild - That Brady rating (raging?) was from 2003. Ohio passed shall-issue CCW early in 2004. I have no doubt that if Sarah Brady updated her website as often as she told a lie, that Ohio would get an F.
 
Unless there's some law against the owners of the stores/shopping center from posting the signs, then I suppose they haven't done anything illegal. Unless Ohio's law gives some force of law to signs posted by private citizens, why would you assume that the signs mean anything to you? When you have your car parked by a valet and receive a receipt that says in fine print that the valet company isn't responsible for damage to your car, do you really think that the valet company isn't liable for damage to your car? People can post signs saying anything they want..so what??
 
Bascially, the stores have the right to post, the cops just won't show since no law is being broken, not even trespass. They can ask you to leave but if you stay and shop, get medical attention, etc.., they can't do anything about it. And if they touch you, they will be charged with assault, you won't be charged with trespass.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's fair in any way. A business owner has as much right to refuse service to anyone with a firearm as you have to walk around with one. Your CCW shouldn't mean anything on someone else's property.

do you really think that the valet company isn't liable for damage to your car?
Click to expand...

The valet service isn't responsible for any damage to car caused by anyone other than them. If some thug jumps into the parking lot and starts smashing in windows, the valet service should not be held responsible for the damages. Now if a valet employee or improper maintanance of the parking lot causes damage then it's their own fault and will be held liable. Those disclaimers do mean something; it doesn't protect them from sheer stupidity and negligence but it does protect them from things that are simply not their fault.
 
I love this leftist type thinking. This "strip" place sounds like a great place for a criminal to commit an armed robbery. No worries about people shooting back.
Stupid liberals, when will they learn? :rolleyes:
 
Red:

If a property owner, that has a storefront open to the public, doesn't respect my Rights then why should I respect theirs?

I don't care what is "fair". The world isn't a "fair" place, so therefore, I do what I believe is "fair" for me, which is the protection of my life.

I don't really care about what they post, or what they think. It's not their life, it's mine.

And as for posting, the main word in concealed carry is CONCEALED, so what they don't know, won't scare them.

And if they touch you, for whatever reason, it's assault, plain and simple and what you do to them, whether it's "fair" or not, is legal.

I for one, don't subscribe to the "but it's not fair" doctrine. Life isn't fair, plain and simple.

Sorry to be so blunt but how do you expect me to respect a company/owner/business that has no respect for my life?

Wayne
 
But in that same sense you're not showing respect for his property. Just as you have the option to shop elsewhere, he should have the option to refuse doing business with anyone.

Redworm: The disclaimers don't protect them from anything. Ask any first-year law student.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I've seen more than a few news stories where businesses couldn't be held responsible for injuries or property damage when there was nothing the business could've done. I really don't see how it's right for a valet service to be blamed if someone decides to crash through the gates and ram into half a dozen cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top