Here is my response to Mr. Granville....
Dear Mr. Granville,
Your last sentence of your Email (I share your frustration that this issue has not yet been dealt with.) is quite disturbing. Either you are trying to pass the buck by implicating the boards incompetence in their failings to take your advice, or could it be that you and the board lack respect for the law. Lets not forget that all of you took an oath of office to support the laws of Ohio. Lack of due diligence is unacceptable.
I see that section 1545.09 5b has been deleted from the Metro Park Rules showing an Adopted: May 13, 2008 date, but lacking any revision date or footnote indicating such change. I hope the altering of the park rules has been internally recorded should an open records request demand such official acts.
Section 1545.09 5b is not the only problem with the park rules.
Regarding posted signs on state government buildings; another park rule that is in violation of state law is: “1545.09 5a
No person, except Park Rangers or other law enforcement officers,
shall, within a Park building, carry or be possessed of firearms of any description or other dangerous ordinances, or any air rifle, sling*shot, missile throwing device, switchblade, hunting knife, dagger, or metal knuckles.”
First, R.C. 2923.1212 is a supplemental section of R.C. 2923.12. See “A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators,” page 67.
http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/guidebook/guidebook15.pdf Second, R.C. 2923.1212 addresses state agencies or state government entities, not the citizens or a concealed carry licensee. In other words, posted signs on state government buildings only apply to the conceal carrying of firearms, not the open carrying of firearms.
Other than bars (R.C. 2923.121), schools (R.C. 2923.122), Courthouses (R.C. 2923.123), Jails and State run mental hospitals, Ohio law does not interfere with citizens' inalienable right, as protected by the Constitution, of the open carrying of firearms on public property open the public, outside under the sky or inside a building. Open carry is a right, not a privilege. Conceal carry of a firearm is a privilege in Ohio. See R.C. 9.68.
In
State v. Shelton, 63 Ohio App. 3d 137 – Ohio: Court of Appeals 1989, the court stated: (The issue is: Did she have a privilege to enter the lobby of the sheriff's office? As a general rule, a person has the right to enter and be upon the public areas of public property. So we have to ask: May a county official revoke such a privilege when the official finds that person to be a nuisance? We think not.) In other words, it says you cannot be charged with trespass for just being in the open to the public area of a state building just because some government employee doesn't like you being there.
Open carry by itself does not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct, Inducing Panic or even Trespass.
We know a person may be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon in a public building under R.C. 2923.126(9). So, what law says it's a crime to open carry in a state government building open to the public? We know it's not R.C. 2923.12 or R.C. 2923.1212. And in light of R.C. 9.68 I will bet that you will not find an Ohio statute saying otherwise.
Carrying firearms in your parks is not your only problem, I suggest you read
Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d 867, 869 (6th Cir. 2013) relating to begging and soliciting, (The first issue is whether begging is a form of solicitation that the First Amendment protects. We hold that it is.).The Park Rules at 1545.09 7l (No person shall beg, hawk, peddle, or solicit within the Park without a special permit issued by the Executive Director.) and 1545.09 10c (No person shall beg or solicit any person for any purpose in the Park.) appear to be in violation of the First Amendment.
You and the board, as well as law enforcement have a duty to not violate peoples' rights. And law enforcement cannot claim ignorance of the law. See
Northup v. City of Toledo Police Department, No. 14-4050 (6th Cir. May 14, 2015) (If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes.
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014).
It appears you and the board have a lot to get done before your October meeting.
Sincerely,
Color of Law