Grassroots persistence pays: ODOT removes ''No-guns'' signs from state garages

By Chad D. Baus

Recently, I wrote a piece examining the importance of pro-gun grassroots activism vs. anti-gun mega-foundation funding, in an investigation that compared media claims that money bought Ohio's concealed carry law to proof that grassroots efforts were what truly made the difference.

In this column, I'd like to offer proof of how volunteer grassroots activism (and persistence) gets the job done.

Since Ohio's concealed carry law went into effect, I and many others have been working to get "no-guns" signs taken back down, especially illegally-posted signs bought with our tax dollars. One such situation was brought to my attention by several people in late 2004.

I was contacted by several people who had noticed "no-guns" signs posted at the entrances to rest stops maintained by the Ohio Department of Transportation. While Ohio law does (ridiculously) prohibit bearing arms for self-defense inside the state-owned rest stop buildings, there is no such prohibition outside. The need for self-defense at these locations was given even greater attention in the wake of two sexual assaults which had occurred at ODOT rest stops. As such, CHL-holders were rightly concerned when they pulled off the highway and were greeted by these signs, and contacted me to see what could be done. At about the same time, another concerned activist contacted me about signs he had seen posted on fences surrounding ODOT highway garages.

On December 5, 2004, I emailed Michaela J. C. Peterson, who is the Assistant Legal Counsel at the Ohio Department of Transportation about these concerns. After noting the specific locations that had been reported to me, I said, in part:

Ms. Peterson, CHL-holders are trained to observe and honor these signs. By posting them in places where they are NOT prohibited to go, ODOT is at the very least unnecessarily confusing license-holders, and at worst disarming them in places where they have every legal right to be, and which are proving to be increasingly dangerous.

I know you don't have anything to do with the wording of the sign, but since the General Assembly chose to state use the words "on the premises" in the sign they provided for state-owned facilities, it is even more imperative that these signs be placed on the buildings themselves, and not in places where they might be misunderstood by people who have every legal right to remain armed.

Peterson's reply came ten days later.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michaela Peterson
To: Chad D. Baus
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: ODOT's improperly placed "No-Firearms" signs

Dear Mr. Baus,

My apologies for the delay in response.

It is our policy, in accordance with Ohio law, to post "No Firearms" signs on the doors of all rest stop facilities. We have contacted the Administrator of our facilities management division and he assures us this is where the signs are located. Additionally, the signs we post were designed by the Governor's committee for use in all state buildings.

With regard to the county garages, we reserve the right to place the signs in a conspicuous location, as contemplated in the law, in order to put the public on notice that concealed weapons are not permitted in any state owned or leased building.

Sincerely,

Michaela J. C. Peterson
Assistant Legal Counsel
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

We did eventually establish that there were problems at several specific rest stops, and in separate emails Peterson assured me she had asked the managers of those facilities to move the signs to the doors. But it was impossible to miss the fact that ODOT tried to stand its ground with regard to the signs located at highway garages. After some more email communications, in which I expressed my opinion that this was a decision that violated the law, our discussions ceased.

Then, in late April, Attorney General Jim Petro issued an opinion in response to a question he had received concerning whether a county fair board could post "no-guns" signs on the fences, or whether they had to be on the buildings within the fairgrounds. Petro said state law was clear - public buildings are off-limits to CHL-holders, but public property is not.

I decided to email ODOT to see if they were going to observe the Attorney General's opinion on fairgrounds, or if perhaps she would consider asking Mr. Petro for an opinion.

Peterson's response was as follows:

----- Original Message -----
From: Michaela Peterson
To: Chad D. Baus
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: ODOT's improperly placed "No-Firearms" signs

Mr. Baus,

I am aware of this opinion. I will be reviewing it and discussing it with ODOT's Chief Legal Counsel.

Thank you,

Michaela J. C. Peterson
Assistant Legal Counsel
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

Nearly two weeks went by with no further communication from Peterson, so I sent a reminder on May 15. Her response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Michaela Peterson
To: Chad D. Baus
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: ODOT's improperly placed "No-Firearms" signs

Mr. Baus,

I have no update for you at this time.

Sincerely,

Michaela J. C. Peterson
Assistant Legal Counsel
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

I waited another month, and tried again on June 15. On June 22, I received this vague statement from Peterson:

From: Michaela Peterson
To: Chad D. Baus
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: ODOT's improperly placed "No-Firearms" signs

Dear Mr. Baus:

We have reviewed the Attorney General's opinion and will be taking it into consideration with respect to our facilities.

Sincerely,

Michaela J. C. Peterson
Assistant Legal Counsel
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but to me that didn't really answer the question. I emailed and told her so, saying in part:

I am asking for a specific answer so that there is no misunderstanding - are the signs which you have acknowledged were posted being moved to the ODOT buildings themselves as specified in Ohio Revised Code and as noted in the Petro opinion?

A direct answer about the status of the signs would be most appreciated...

Thanks for all of your help to this point.

Another month went by, so I thought I'd try again, by sending a short email reminder on July 19. The next day, nearly 8 months after my first email, Michaela Peterson finally sent a note to tell me that the signs at highway garages were, in fact, coming down.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michaela Peterson
To: Chad D. Baus
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: ODOT's improperly placed "No-Firearms" signs

Mr. Baus,

As I stated previously, we have been evaluating the placement of signs at our county facilities. As I'm sure you can imagine, this takes time. It has been ODOT's practice to place a sign on both the building and the surrounding fencing. In the future, we will be the appropriate employees to ensure the signs are placed only on the buildings and not the surrounding fence.

Sincerely,

Michaela J. C. Peterson
Assistant Legal Counsel
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

My point for sharing this is simple - polite persistence by a grassroots volunteer far more can accomplish far more than close to a million dollars of funding to prop up a gun control group. One person can make a difference.

Are you ready? Good! Then check out our Five Minute Handbook for Grassroots Activists.

Related Story:
Three dead in TDOT garage shooting; ODOT insists on garage lot signs