Source: Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police tells off-duty cops to observe bans

Ohioans For Concealed Carry has learned that the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) may be interpreting the new Ohio concealed handgun license (CHL) law to mean that off-duty police officers may not carry in businesses which have posted discriminatory signs banning concealed carry.

Although the OACP position is flawed (click on the "Read More..." link below for commentary by a Cleveland police sergeant and OFCC executive Board of Directors member), business banners should be made aware that they are not only barring CHL-holders from shopping in their establishments, but also at least some law-enforcement officers.

As usual, criminals will carry in these businesses at will.

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) has been aligned with the anti-gunners, so it is not surprising that
they would find an anti-gun interpretation. In general they are wrong.

The following is info that I have known for some time, and was recently
reinforced by a seminar taught by the chief trial lawyer from the Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor's office.

First, the "unless otherwise authorized by law" phrase on the OAG sign is
intended to exempt law enforcement officers (LEOs). The prosecutor pointed out
that the law requires that essentially similar language as specified in law be
used on signs. To be safe, he had initially been recommending that government
offices and businesses use the exact language specified by the OAG. However,
after realizing that CHL holders might interpret "unless otherwise authorized by
law" to mean them, he designed different language for the Cuyahoga county buildings.

Second, the CCW law has always (prior to HB12) had a provision that exempted a
LEO only if he is "acting within the course and scope of his duties." OFCC
fought to have that ambiguity removed from the law and succeeded in previous
proposed versions. The anti-gunners managed to have it put back in.

Law enforcement needs to realiize that the anti-gunners are NOT their friends. The
anti-gunners hate all guns, and also want to disarm the police. After the
anti's succeed in disarming everyone else, the police won't need guns. That is
their ultimate vision of a perfect society.

But, going back to "acting within the course and scope of his duties.", that is
defined by the particular officers department. Cleveland's policy is that an
officer is on duty 24/7 and is an officer anywhere in the State of Ohio (since
all law enforcement authority comes from the State). Some departments
(thankfully few) have a policy that states one is only a police officer while
actually working, or while going to and from work.

Obviously, those officers who are not defined as being on duty 24/7 are not
exempted from the previous or current versions of Ohio's CCW law and would have
to get a CHL to carry off duty and put up with the limitations of a CHL license.

If an officer is defined as being on duty 24/7, I strongly advise against
getting a CHL, as the CHL embodies many restrictions not put on a leo. These
include limitiations on where one may carry, the duty to retreat, and removing
liablity from the leo's agency and putting it all on the LEO.

Sergeant Bryan Torok
Cleveland Police Department