ohio mall carry allowed - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

ohio mall carry allowed

This is a discussion on ohio mall carry allowed within the Concealed Carry Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by Golden Eagle I'd look at it from a different angle... If you don't look for and see ...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Eagle View Post
    I'd look at it from a different angle...




    If you don't look for and see a sign your not knowingly violating the law.
    Then if they ask you to leave... leave.
    Except that the legal definition of "knowingly" does not focus on your knowledge of the law or knowledge of existence of a sign, but rather on your voluntary act with knowledge that you are in possession of a firearm on the premises in question. For example, if someone slipped a firearm into your coat pocket without your knowledge, then you would not be "knowingly" in possession of the weapon.

    The prosecutor only needs to show that:

    1. the sign was conspicuous; and

    2. you knowingly possessed the weapon on the premises.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    249

    Default

    So do any of you guys carry in Ohio malls? It bothers me that its discouraged, as its one of the places where i would actually want to have it. The way it is treated under law, a class 4 misdemeanor does not seem too serious, although its still against the law i suppose. Maybe Ohio wants to please gun control advocates by making the penalty so light?

  3. #13
    handgonnetoter Guest

    Default

    Yeah, I'm beginning to see some of those stupid signs in some of the places, like the mall, here in Indiana too. Sucks. Like a sign will save them from a lunatic, but a CCW might. Idiots.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Except that the legal definition of "knowingly" does not focus on your knowledge of the law or knowledge of existence of a sign, but rather on your voluntary act with knowledge that you are in possession of a firearm on the premises in question. For example, if someone slipped a firearm into your coat pocket without your knowledge, then you would not be "knowingly" in possession of the weapon.

    The prosecutor only needs to show that:

    1. the sign was conspicuous; and

    2. you knowingly possessed the weapon on the premises.
    So it must happen a lot in Ohio that people sneak guns in others pockets to the point their law makers wrote the law that way...

    I'm having a hard time with that

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 901-Memphis View Post
    So do any of you guys carry in Ohio malls?
    The old West Gate mall in Rocky River was torn down and rebuilt as an open air "mall". That I know of, nothing there is posted. Even Longhorn and Applebees aren't posted, although they're statutory CPZs.

    Crocker Park and Great Northern are posted, including the lots, but the latter are only civil trespass if you let them know you have the gun in your car. I can't think of a reason why you'd want to.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Eagle View Post
    So it must happen a lot in Ohio that people sneak guns in others pockets to the point their law makers wrote the law that way...

    I'm having a hard time with that
    It is simply a way of illustrating the meaning of "knowingly" to a non-lawyer.

    The Ohio legislature added a mens rea requirement to the statute, and they did so through the common law concept of "knowingly." They weren't necessarily concerned with people slipping guns into other people's pockets, but they wanted to limit conviction under the law to those who knew they had a weapon while on the premises. It's a legal concept.

    For example, speeding is generally a strict liability crime - whether or not you knew how fast you were going (e.g., your speedometer was broken), you get a ticket if you are going faster than the legal speed limit.

    "Knowingly" does not mean you know you are committing a crime - it simply means you acted voluntarily and intentionally.

    Under the Ohio law the state need only show that:

    1. The sign was conspicuous; and

    2. you knowingly possessed a weapon on the premises.

    If the mens rea element was eliminated, then it would only be necessary to show that there was a conspicuous sigh and you were in possession of weapon, regardless of how you came to be in possession of a weapon.

    Remember, the state has the burden of proof in a criminal matter. If they can't show either element, then you can't be convicted. The "knowingly" element is most shown by circumstantial evidence because seldom is there direct evidence of a person's mens rea.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    It is simply a way of illustrating the meaning of "knowingly" to a non-lawyer.

    The Ohio legislature added a mens rea requirement to the statute, and they did so through the common law concept of "knowingly." They weren't necessarily concerned with people slipping guns into other people's pockets, but they wanted to limit conviction under the law to those who knew they had a weapon while on the premises. It's a legal concept.

    For example, speeding is generally a strict liability crime - whether or not you knew how fast you were going (e.g., your speedometer was broken), you get a ticket if you are going faster than the legal speed limit.

    "Knowingly" does not mean you know you are committing a crime - it simply means you acted voluntarily and intentionally.

    Under the Ohio law the state need only show that:

    1. The sign was conspicuous; and

    2. you knowingly possessed a weapon on the premises.

    If the mens rea element was eliminated, then it would only be necessary to show that there was a conspicuous sigh and you were in possession of weapon, regardless of how you came to be in possession of a weapon.

    Remember, the state has the burden of proof in a criminal matter. If they can't show either element, then you can't be convicted. The "knowingly" element is most shown by circumstantial evidence because seldom is there direct evidence of a person's mens rea.
    "Knowingly" and "firearms" are not used together in the sentence in question.

    The sentence in question uses the words "Knowingly" and "posted".

    Your right I admit I'm not a lawyer, I do agree with what you say there but do you think it applies to this sentence?

    Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,342

    Default

    "knowingly" is a legal term of art. It stands by itself in that sentence. It distinguishes the law from a strict liability statute. it means only that the actor was aware of his acts.

    It won't be read as you have suggested because to do so:

    1. It would have to be read to require that the actor not only knew of the sign, but the law as well, and knowledge of the law is not an element of a crime; and

    2. It would render the word "conspicuous" meaningless, because people who didn't see the sign would not "know" even if it was conspicuous, and people who did it see it, even if it was not conspicuous, would "know." The courts are loath to read such specific language out of the statute with a strained interpretation of "knowingly"

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lancaster
    Posts
    41

    Default

    901-Memphis

    I carry in our local mall. Sometimes openly. I have been told that it is not allowed, but I have never seen it posted anywhere. I know for certain that none of the anchor stores are posted and I am not going to check every entrance in the mall when I go in.

    I have not seen a standard sign called for in the statutes, only a guideline. I have seen a very wide range of signs. Our hospital has gun buster signs only in text. No picture. If you can't read, I guess you are out of luck. It took me forever to realize what it was. I can read, I am just not used to looking for a sign only in text. That taught me to really pay attention.

    I would suggest you just look things over very well when you get to the mall. If it is posted, then you can decide if you want to shop there.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Conspicuous signage is only 1 part of the law. You have to knowingly posess a weapon in a place you "knew or should have known" was posted. That is the purpose of the "conspicuous" language of the statute.

    A valid defense might be that you either entered the mall for the first time through an unposted entryway or always entered the mall through an unposted door. It may not matter in that case if other doors are posted.

    However if you have EVER entered the mall through a posted entryway that arguement would not hold weight as the prosecutor could prove that you knew or should have known that the mall was off limits.

    My local mall has gunbuster signs on all of the maps posted throughout the mall, and all of their "mall guide" pamphlets are similarly posted. That would also meet the "conspicuous" portion of the law.

    Clearly if you are informed by a security guard that firearms are forbidden and asked to leave and you refuse you are without defense.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •