Do you support this law? It seems to infringe on property rights in the name of strengthening the right to bear arms.
SPONSORIf you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.
As the law currently stands, a business may post signage stating that firearms are prohibited on the property. If an individual knowingly violates this prohibition, he or she may be charged with criminal trespass. As such, employers have some leverage in prohibiting employees from bringing guns to work, as those employees may be convicted of a crime if they refuse to honor the prohibition.
House Bill 233, however, cuts into this protection by proposing that a concealed carry licensee may carry a deadly weapon into a restricted space as long as he or she leaves when asked to do so. The licensee will not be charged with criminal trespass for violating the business’s prohibition on guns unless he/she refuses to leave when specifically asked.
As such, even if an employer prohibited firearms in the workplace, an employee could still bring a gun to work and would face no criminal penalties for doing so unless the employer specifically asked the employee to take the firearm off the premises and the employee refused. Employers could still take disciplinary action against such an employee, but they would not be backed by the threat of criminal prosecution.
If it feels like I’m beating (or shooting) a dead horse with Ohio gun laws lately, it is because the Ohio legislature keeps passing laws that restrict employers’ right to prohibit firearms