Clarification Wanted, Inquire Within

I just added this comment to my latest on AmmoLand:

I may have misinterpreted Ohio law in re permitless carry in D-class liquor permit premises. I had trouble trying to find an authoritative source to clarify and ended up being guided by an AI web crawl that said:

“In Ohio, a person with a gun is not exempt from the prohibition on carrying firearms in liquor-permitted establishments, even under the new permitless carry law, unless they possess a valid Concealed Handgun License (CHL). The state’s permitless carry law does not change the specific exemption granted to CHL holders for carrying in these locations.”

Yeah, I know– I should know better.

I see from further reading that:

“As of June 13, that exemption also applies to qualifying adults, meaning that any qualifying adult may now lawfully carry a concealed handgun in D-class premises.”

I’ll attempt to track this down– in the meantime, if anyone has actual legal knowledge, please weigh in. I apologize if it turns out my permitless carry statement was wrong and misleading.

Share on Facebook

Save

Author: admin

David Codrea is a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. View all posts by admin

3 thoughts on “Clarification Wanted, Inquire Within”

JG says:

October 30, 2025 at 2:29 pm

Though IANAL, here is another tidbit:

“Permitless carriers are subject to the same laws, rules and prohibitions as CHL holders, with one important exception. CHL holders are permitted to carry a handgun in their vehicle when they drive into a school safety zone.

“Permitless carriers may NOT carry a handgun in their vehicle when they drive into a school safety zone.” * * *

D. Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Ohio Concealed-Carry Laws and License Application, June 2022, p. 2.

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Publications-Files/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF).aspx
1. Henry says:
  
  October 31, 2025 at 2:14 am
  
  That’s most likely gospel, since it’s a valid recitation of the FEDERAL GFSZ Act.
  Bonus tip: According to the wording of that act, “licensed” out-of-staters carrying on their states’ mutual reciprocity may fall af0ul of the FEDERAL law for driving through a school zone armed. Check it out.
  1. JG says:
    
    October 31, 2025 at 12:52 pm
    
    You are quite right. The carry permit exception to the GFSZA only applies “if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so *by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State*” * * *
    18 U.S.C. sec. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

Comments are closed.

HOW THINGS WORK AROUND HERE

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Anyone not happy with anything on this site at any time will get 100% of all money they paid to me refunded, no questions asked. (No gratuities solicited or accepted.)

Comment House Rules

Keep them on topic. Trying to hijack threads really grinds my gears. No spam.
I moderate them so I’ll get to them when I can.
No threats against anyone except me. No fights–this is my place and if things get ugly, I treat unruly visitors the same way as I would in my home. Do not feed trolls–I’ll take out the trash.
Try to keep it clean.
I’m the final arbiter. If you don’t like the rules, start your own damn blog.

WarOnGuns Correspondents

Story tips received via email and social media messages will be credited. Just let me know how you want to be recognized (real name, first name/last initial, or screen name.)

Link Policy

I maintained a WogRoll at the old Blogspot place predicated on reciprocity with like-minded RKBA-related sites. Truth be told, I never got much in terms of site visits to make the effort worth the time. I may try to do something again in the future, but for now, my hands are more than full trying to get a new site started.

Advertising Disclosure

This is a placeholder for now because I have not done ads on the old blog for years. In case I ever start them up here, this will be the policy in effect: The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don’t think we’re getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you’re stupid, too. I have had a few ads on the old site in the past and may do so again if I think it’s worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn’t buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don’t mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now–you’re not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer without complete disclosure.

About “The Only Ones”

So named from a comment by DEA agent Lee Paige, who told a classroom full of kids he was “the only one” qualified to be armed and then promptly shot himself in the foot, the purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it’s also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank, or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.