Cinépolis Theater, Dayton, OH is NOW POSTED!!!

[eye95]

I haven’t been to the movies in years. One by one, until every theater chain in Dayton had done so, each chain, finally even including Chakeres, posted no guns signs.

Cinépolis, relatively new to Dayton, started offering $5 tickets, all day, every day, for everyone. I scoured the Internet, looking for their firearms policy, with no luck at all. So I picked a movie and went. No signs on the door. At the ticket taking station were two signs. (I’d attach photos of them, but OCDO tells me that they are too large. Any tips for posting them would be appreciated.)

The first lists rules, none of which says “no weapons”. The other merely alerts carriers that carrying in a Class D establishment may result in imprisonment for one or two years. However, my understanding is that this sign does not bar carry and that my CHL allows me to carry in a Class D establishment, as long as they don’t specifically tell me not to carry and as long as I am both not under the influence and not drinking alcohol.

I won’t ask the theater management, because that can result in them explicitly telling me that I cannot carry.

Is my interpretation of the situation correct?

BTW, Cinépolis theaters are amazing and The Kid Who Would Be King was better than I expected. The downside is that the only Cinépolis in Ohio is about 30 minutes away. I really would like to attend a few movies a year and believe that Cinépolis theaters will afford me the chance to do so while carrying.

 

[JustaShooter]

... At the ticket taking station were two signs. ...

The first lists rules, none of which says “no weapons”. The other merely alerts carriers that carrying in a Class D establishment may result in imprisonment for one or two years. However, my understanding is that this sign does not bar carry and that my CHL allows me to carry in a Class D establishment, as long as they don’t specifically tell me not to carry and as long as I am both not under the influence and not drinking alcohol.

I won’t ask the theater management, because that can result in them explicitly telling me that I cannot carry.

Is my interpretation of the situation correct?

As I understand ORC 2923.121 you are correct:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.121

(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which any person is consuming beer or intoxicating liquor in a 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.

(B)
(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
...
(e) Any person who is carrying a valid concealed handgun license or any person who is an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States and is carrying a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements described in division (G)(1) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code, as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse.

 

[eye95]

Thank you. I was pretty sure I had it right.

 

[eye95]

Bad news.

I just went the Cinépolis theater again, and they now have a sign posted on the door. I complained to management and stated my intention not to return. How can business people be so freaking dumb. Just don’t post a sign. Be neutral. Don’t tick any of your customers off.

BTW, the ORC reference in the sign is to a section requiring signage in jails, courthouses, government buildings, etc. Still, I will respect the intent of the sign and never go back. I was willing to drive 30 minutes to patronize this place. No more.

 

[eye95]

I have a license.

They now allow no carry at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Not with a license. Not without. Per the management, to whom I spoke, that is the intent of the sign, despite its silly wording.

Previously they had not been posted except for a sign citing the prohibition of unlicensed carry in a Class D establishment.

Do you ever contribute to a discussion? Or do you only try to derail them? Are you only out to antagonize?

I no longer wonder why OCDO is a shadow of its former self.

 

[solus]

Sorry, let’s put our head in the sand, whine like a petulant child instead of being a responsible firearm advocate, state your disappointment to mgmt about the sign with a “oh by the way - your ORC cite on your sign is incorrect, turn around and walk away.

Oh BTW eye95 that was great you went to the main organizational contact site and informed them of the ORC error on the sign as well as providing your personal views about posting it in the first place!

 

[eye95]

Again, I no longer wonder why OCDO is a shadow of its former self.

Exhibits 1 and 2.

 

[OC for ME]

WOW!!! I just skimmed through ORC 2923...man, Ohioans have got a real problem.

Is there an exemption for, or affirmative defense against ORC 2923.15 if when acting in SD?

 

[eye95]

None that I know of. My guess is that, as long as the defense was reasonable, the citizen would be protected from prosecution for assault or murder. However, he could still face consequences for carrying under the influence.

One of the problems rampant throughout Ohio is missing critical definitions. As it relates to carry, there is no definition of “under the influence”.

HB228 changed much of ORC 2923 (but not 2923.15). HB86 and SB53 attempt to fix a major flaw in HB228.

 

[OC for ME]

Please let me clarify...does (could) 2923.15 apply in a private residence? Sorry for the lack of specificity.

 

[eye95]

IANAL, but since 2923.15 does not address handling a firearm while under the influence in the home, and since I know of no other section that does, I would assume that the answer would be the same in the home as the one I provided above.

One would hope that the prosecutor would show some discretion following what was otherwise a good shooting. However, prosecutors can apply the letter of the law, and some do because of their personal agendas.

 

[OC for ME]

Unfortunate. Perhaps the below RSMo could be of some small assistance in rectifying the offending ORC 2923.15.

RSMo 571.030.5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.

571.030

Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties.

revisor.mo.gov

Subs 2 thru 10 are a list of unlawful uses of a firearm, intoxication is not defined/quantified, in the RSMo.

 

[color of law]

That sign only applies to State of Ohio buildings.

The Ohio General Assembly passed SB 199 which took effect on or about March 20, 2017. Some of the changes in SB 199 clarify that those “no gun” signs apply to government buildings and only apply to concealed carried guns, not open carried guns.

Presently, R.C. 2923.1212(A) says: The following persons, boards, and entities, or designees, shall post in the following locations a sign that contains a statement in substantially the following form: "Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under the person's control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.":

And R.C. 2923.1212(A)(9) says: The officer of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, or the officer's designee, who has charge of a building that is a government facility of this state or the political subdivision of this state, as defined in section 2923.126 of the Revised Code, and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or other building or structure in which a courtroom is located that is subject to division (B)(3) of that section.
So, under R.C. 2912.1212 a sign is to be posted on a building that is a government facility as defined in R.C. 2923.126.

R.C. 2923.126(B)(7) says: Any building that is a government facility of this state or a political subdivision of this state and that is not a building that is used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or other building or structure in which a courtroom is located that is subject to division (B)(3) of this section, unless the governing body with authority over the building has enacted a statute, ordinance, or policy that permits a licensee to carry a concealed handgun into the building;

This law clearly points out the posted signs as described in 2923.1212 apply to conceal carry licensees carrying concealed, not open carriers. Open carry in the public areas of buildings that are government facilities is perfectly legal. See R.C. 9.68.

But, lets not forget that Ohio law only prohibits open carry in courthouses, jails, schools, bars and state run mental hospitals, period. And conceal carry is regulated by state law as to where you can and cannot carry in those same places.

If a private business posts that sign they will have to point to the Ohio law that adresses them. Remember the sign starts with "Unless otherwise authorized by law…” I don’t think movie theaters are addressed in Ohio law relating to gun laws.

 

[eye95]

The intent of the sign is clear, the idiocy of their lawyers choosing the wording and the ORC reference notwithstanding.

Could I get away with carry because of the bad sign? Sure. But that is not the point that I am striving to make.

The manager made it clear. They allow no carry at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Regardless of the faulty sign, if they find out someone is carrying, that person will be asked to leave. Carriers are unwelcome. Can I make this point any clearer?

I will respect their policy, and point it out to everyone I can.

 

[color of law]

Per Attorney General's handbook: The AG gave private business a stern warning:

Signage
The law does not say precisely what language must be on a sign prohibiting firearms. At a minimum, signs must be conspicuous and inform people that firearms and/or concealed handguns are prohibited. However, the law suggests that the prohibited locations post a sign that substantially says the following:

Unless otherwise authorized by law, pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code, no person shall knowingly possess, have under his control, convey, or attempt to convey a deadly handgun or dangerous ordnance onto these premises.

An example of a standard warning sign approved for use on state buildings appears below. If you see this sign, it means that you cannot bring your concealed handgun inside. Businesses and persons wishing to post such signs are strongly advised to consult their legal counsel for language, style, format, and placement. The sign is available to download from the Attorney General’s website at www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov.

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Model-Concealed-Carry-Sign.aspx

 

[eye95]

They don’t want carry.

The sign is cleary faulty, citing the wrong code section.

Are these two concepts that difficult to understand?

This is not a discussion of legal signage in the State of Ohio. If that is what you desire, it would be more effective for you to start your own thread rather than going to extreme lengths to derail that of another.

Folks, despite efforts to the contrary by others, I started this thread to inform you that the Cinépolis theater in Dayton did not bar carry when I first visited, BUT NOW THEY DO.

 

[color of law]

The intent of the sign is clear, the idiocy of their lawyers choosing the wording and the ORC reference notwithstanding.

Could I get away with carry because of the bad sign? Sure. But that is not the point that I am striving to make.

The manager made it clear. They allow no carry at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Regardless of the faulty sign, if they find out someone is carrying, that person will be asked to leave. Carriers are unwelcome. Can I make this point any clearer?

I will respect their policy, and point it out to everyone I can.

Those will perish for lack of knowledge.

 

[color of law]

They don’t want carry.

The sign is cleary faulty, citing the wrong code section.

Are these two concepts that difficult to understand?

This is not a discussion of legal signage in the State of Ohio. If that is what you desire, it would be more effective for you to start your own thread rather than going to extreme lengths to derail that of another.

Folks, despite efforts to the contrary by others, I started this thread to inform you that the Cinépolis theater in Dayton did not bar carry when I first visited, BUT NOW THEY DO.

But if they do not listen, they perish by the sword and die without knowledge.

 

[eye95]

If you want to share knowledge, START YOUR OWN THREAD! duh.

 

[color of law]

WOW!!! I just skimmed through ORC 2923...man, Ohioans have got a real problem.

Is there an exemption for, or affirmative defense against ORC 2923.15 if when acting in SD?

2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.

(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

And, Ohio courts have applied this to persons inside their home.