Shelby Co. Licensee petitions elected officials re: VZ liability

• 
• 

Published on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00

Written by Jeff Garvas

We couldn't have said it any better ourselves...

Ohio State Senator Jim Jordan
Ohio State Representative Derrick Seaver

Dear Sirs,

I'm one of your taxpaying voting citizens and a Shelby County CCW Licensee (yes, I'm one of the persons damaged by the Shelby County Sheriff, but that is not the issue of this letter).

I have serious problems with this part of the Ohio CCW law and how it is being used:

Sec. 2923.126. (C)(2)(a)

A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer's decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, "private employer" includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

Since this law is written under the heading title of "Ohio CCW". This law "could" be interpreted to only apply to "CCW licensees". Which means Ohio CCW licensees (or their estate) cannot bring legal actions against a property owner if a non-carrying licensee is injured or killed on said property by illegal firearms activity; but a non-CCW victim "could" bring legal actions against this property owner.

I do not deny or challenge the right of property owners to prohibit firearms from their property. But when a property owner posts anti-CCW signs on their property and then invites citizens onto said property to transact business or is an employee of an anti-CCW employer these property owners "should" be held responsible to provide protection to these patrons/employees. This law, as written, denies me the right of self-defense at the discretion of a property owner and then absolves the property owner of any and all responsibilities and liabilities.

The italicized highlighted portion of the above sentence should be removed. This italicized part of this sentence is the proverbial "having their cake and eating it too" for anti-CCW property owners, anti-gun legislators, and law-enforcement anti-gun activists (such as the Shelby County Sheriff)! Removal of this highlighted sentence will restore "common sense" balance to this law and send a message "that a property owners have the right to prohibit firearms from their property, but this action has consequences." The consequence of denying a CCW licensee the right of self-protection puts the burden of the CCW licensee's protection upon the property owner - legally and morally.

The CCW Law covering anti-CCW property postings should be modified to allow CCW licensees to keep and store, under lock and key, their firearm inside their private vehicle on any private property. Employers are not allowing CCW licensed employees from bringing a firearm onto the employer's "private property" parking lot. Consequently, we cannot protect ourselves to and from work due to this anti-CCW restriction. Parking off private property is not always available, within a reasonable distance from the work location, and may put the employee at an additional personal risk.

If you would like to discuss these issues further please call me at anytime. Thank you,

Respectfully,

Dale R. Kubichek

Ohio Shelby County CCW Licensee
NRA Certified Instructor & RSO
USN Vietnam Veteran

• < Prev
• Next >