The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gunset Training Group or its affiliates.
Click HERE to view the original post on the GunSnobbery Blog
I’ve had several people reach out to me and ask me about this story – St. Paris Police Chief Eric Smith arrested at the Champaign County Fair. It’s an interesting case so I thought I’d write this post about it. My first thought when I read the article was that there is something going on behind the scene in this case that isn’t public knowledge (yet). It will not surprise me if we learn that there is some sort of axe to grind in this scenario. But I might be wrong.
First and foremost – I am not a lawyer so this is not legal advice or a legal opinion, just some thoughts and observations. This post is for educational purposes only. If you want to go open carry at a fair, talk with a good gun law attorney to get actual legal advice. With that out of the way, join me as we slosh our way through the quagmire which is the Ohio legal system in an effort to find answers to the question of “was this a good arrest?” If you have ever spent time perusing the Ohio Revised Code and reading relevant case law, then you know how mind numbing and confusing it can be. I’ll try to keep it interesting.
There are actually two main “legal” issues at play in this case that I’ll talk about – open carry and a police officer’s right to carry a firearm while they are off duty. I’ll start with open carry. Open carry of a firearm is the carrying of a firearm (by anyone legally allowed to own firearms, this has nothing to do with cops in general) in a manner in which the firearm is not concealed in any way. It is irrelevant as to whether the firearm is a pistol, rifle or shotgun.
It is legal to open carry in Ohio. Ohio Revised Code 9.68 codifies the right to bear arms and sets out a “preemption” that prohibits political subdivisions of the state (like cities, villages, counties, townships and maybe – fair boards) from passing gun legislation that is more restrictive than what the state law allows (with some exceptions for zoning rules/ordinances). Since 2004, 9.68 has been challenged in court several times and the Supreme Court of Ohio has always upheld the constitutionality of 9.68. 9.68 clearly states that this preemption is applicable to open carry – “The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, their ammunition, or knives include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, their ammunition, or knives.” Since there is no state level ban on open carry in general, political subdivisions cannot enact their own, more restrictive open carry legislation or rules. Many cities had laws that prohibited the carrying of firearms in city parks prior to 9.68. When 9.68 came along it invalidated all of those laws.
Probably the best court case to talk about open carry in Ohio is Northrup v. Toledo. This is a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case that the Ohio Attorney General talked about in their June 2015 Law Enforcement Bulletin. In Northrup, the Court made it very clear that open carry is a legal activity in Ohio and put police agencies on notice when it comes to what the law is.
Having said that, open carry is not without its limitations. For example, there are several places where the open carry of a firearm is or may be illegal under Ohio and federal law (courts, schools, liquor establishments and federal installations all come to mind) but that list is few and far between. For the purposes of this article, let’s just talk about one other place open carry can be illegal – private property. For example, if John Q Citizen is open carrying a pistol on their hip and walks into Home Depot, Home Depot has every right to tell John Q, “We don’t allow open carry, you’ll have to take your pistol out to the car.” Or they can say, “We only allow concealed carry, please cover up your pistol if you want to shop here.” Or they can just ban guns in general. Since any of those options are legal, many businesses post some sort of “no guns” signage on their doors and windows. Those signs carry the force of law. Ignoring those signs or requests from the business could justify a charge of Criminal Trespass under certain circumstances.
In this open carry case, the important question is whether or not the Champaign County Fairgrounds is considered private property and whether or not the Champaign County Agricultural Society is considered a political subdivision of the state. Agricultural Societies in Ohio have been deemed to be “political subdivisions” of the state by state and federal courts and various Ohio Attorneys General for several different reasons, but I can’t find any case that specifically addresses whether they are political subdivisions when it comes to gun laws and 9.68. If, in this case, a court were to determine that the Agricultural Society is, in fact, a political subdivision of the state for the purposes of Ohio’s gun laws then open carry could not be prohibited anywhere on the fairgrounds property except the buildings. The buildings, one could argue, would still be off limits under Ohio’s CCW laws. But that doesn’t appear to be an issue in this case and is a topic for a different day. If a court were to determine that the Agricultural Society was a private business and the Fairgrounds were private property because the Agricultural Society owns the property, then the Agricultural Society would legally be allowed to ban firearms from the Fair.
So there you have it. The answer to the question of whether or not open carry is legal at the Champaign County Fairgrounds – it depends.
But to me, that’s not really the important part of this case. According to this article, the Sheriff’s Office staff said that “At the time that Eric (Police Chief) was carrying his firearm and his badge, he was not working in any capacity nor had any jurisdiction at the Champaign County Fair”, which is why he was ordered by the Sheriff to take his firearm to his vehicle. Thats an interesting statement for a couple of reasons.
Let’s start with Ohio Revised Code 9.69. This is relatively new (2022), but it basically says, “Cops don’t stop being cops when they leave work. Cops are always on duty, whether they’re on the clock or not.” Even more important to this discussion is Ohio Revised Code 2923.1214. This is also relatively new (2019). Here’s what it says, “Subject to division (B) of this section, an establishment serving the public may not prohibit or restrict a law enforcement officer….who is carrying validating identification from carrying a weapon on the premises that the officer….is authorized to carry, regardless of whether the officer or investigator is acting within the scope of that officer’s….duties while carrying the weapon.”
The Cincinnati Reds understand 2923.1214. They have a special procedure in place to address it. I’ve been to other venues that understand it and I’ve carried into those venues without a problem (some of which may surprise you). Other places and organizations still don’t understand it. I know an Officer that is dealing with a separate “establishment serving the public” and a different Sheriff’s Office due to them denying him entry into a venue because he was armed.
However, just like open carry, 2923.1214 is not without its limitations. For example, if the Chief’s agency has a “restrictive firearm carrying policy” that prohibits them from carrying off duty, then Officers from that agency would not fall under the provisions of 2923.1214.
Another consideration for 2923.1214 is that it only applies to “an establishment serving the public”. What is that? Well, it’s defined in 2923.1214 as “a hotel, a restaurant or other place where food is regularly offered for sale, a retail business or other commercial establishment or office building that is open to the public, a sports venue, or any other place of public accommodation, amusement, or resort that is open to the public.” What’s a “place of public accommodation”? Well, a place of public accommodation is not defined in 2923, but it is defined in Ohio Revised Code 4112 as, “any inn, restaurant, eating house, barbershop, public conveyance by air, land, or water, theater, store, other place for the sale of merchandise, or any other place of public accommodation or amusement of which the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges are available to the public.” Wow. Which part would apply to the Fairgrounds? That is for a court to decide, but I’d be shocked if a court decided that the Fairgrounds did not fall under the definition of “an establishment serving the public” or “a place of public accommodation”. But hey, I’ve been wrong before.
So there you have it. The answer to the question of “was the Chief allowed to carry at the Fairgrounds under his authority as a police officer?” – it depends.
Isn’t the law great?
It depends.
