July 28, 2025

The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi

Champaign County Prosecuting Attorney
200 North Main Street
Urbana, Ohio 43078

SYLLABUS: 2025-012

A county agricultural society organized under R.C.

Chapter 1711 is a political subdivision for purposes of
R.C. 9.68.
 Opinions Section
Office (614) 752-6417
Fax (614) 466-0013
30 East Broad Street, 25th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov

July 28, 2025

OPINION NO. 2025-012

The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi

Champaign County Prosecuting Attorney
200 North Main Street
Urbana, Ohio 43078

Dear Prosecutor Talebi:

You have requested an opinion regarding the legal sta-

tus of the Champaign County Agricultural Society.
You pose the following question:

Is the Champaign County Agricultural

Society considered a political subdivision
with regard to R.C. 9.68 so that it cannot
prohibit open carry and concealed carry
of firearms on its premises (outside of its
buildings) during the annual Champaign
County Fair, and at other times through-
out the year?

For the reasons that follow, I find that a county agri-

cultural society organized under R.C. Chapter 1711 is
a political subdivision for purposes of R.C. 9.68.
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -2-

You have advised a member of my staff that the Cham-

paign County Agricultural Society is controlled by
twenty-six board members elected by the society’s
membership. The agricultural society owns the land
and buildings that constitute the Champaign County
Fair Grounds in Urbana, Ohio. It controls and man-
ages the fairgrounds, and it contracts with the county
sheriff to provide law enforcement services on the
grounds.

You further related that the Champaign County Agri-

cultural Society has implemented specific rules limit-
ing the open and concealed carry of firearms on its
premises. The issue your question seeks to resolve is
whether a county agricultural society is a “political
subdivision” for purposes of R.C. 9.68 and thus subject
to that statute’s requirements. You are requesting a
formal opinion on this matter in order to properly ad-
vise the county sheriff of his responsibilities regarding
enforcement of the agricultural society’s rules.

The provisions of R.C. 9.68 relevant to this question

may be summarized as follows: it (1) affirms the “indi-
vidual right to keep and bear arms”; (2) expresses the
General Assembly’s intent “to provide uniform laws
throughout the state” regulating firearms and knives;
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -3-

(3) preempts all local firearm restrictions “except as

specifically provided by the United States Constitu-
tion, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law”; and
(4) provides a civil cause of action against a political
subdivision for improperly restricting a person’s fire-
arm rights.

To determine if a county agricultural society is a “polit-

ical subdivision” within the meaning of R.C. 9.68, it is
necessary to review the relevant attributes and char-
acteristics of a county agricultural society.

A county agricultural society is a creature of statute. It

derives its existence, as well as its powers, responsibil-
ities, and limitations from the statutory provisions of
R.C. Chapter 1711. R.C. 1711.13 provides that:

County agricultural societies are hereby

declared bodies corporate and politic, and
as such they are capable of suing and be-
ing sued and of holding in fee simple any
real estate purchased by them as sites for
their fairs. (Emphasis added.)

R.C. Chapter 1711 includes provisions that authorize

a county agricultural society to hold a county fair, offer
and award premiums in competitions regarding farm-
ing and livestock, support a junior club, and mortgage
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -4-

their grounds. See generally R.C. 1711.01-.13. A

county agricultural society must file its constitution
and by-laws with the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
Adm.Code 901-5-08(D). It may also receive and use
public money. 1985 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 85-061;
1988 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 88-026.

A county agricultural society has at times been charac-

terized as a private organization performing some gov-
ernmental functions; it is a corporation voluntarily
formed and governed by a board of directors who are
statutorily designated as not being “public officers.”
See R.C. 1711.01-.81. See, e.g., 1987 Ohio
Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 87-057, at 2-350, 351 (listing such
instances) and 2013 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2013-023.
More recent authority, however, gives greater focus to
the governmental aspects of a county agricultural soci-
ety, described below, such as the determination that it
must comply with the open meeting requirements of a
public body, must follow the prevailing wage laws of a
public authority, and is a political subdivision under
the state’s political subdivision tort liability law even
though not expressly listed in that statute.

Previous attorney general opinions examining the

question of a county agricultural society’s legal status
have outlined at least three important circumstances
under which a county agricultural society will be cate-
gorized as a public authority, public body, or political
subdivision. First, 1984 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 84-
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -5-

035 determined that a county agricultural society was

a public authority subject to prevailing wage laws to
the extent it spends public funds for public improve-
ments. Second, 1988 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 88-034
concluded that a county agricultural society is a politi-
cal subdivision and may, under Ohio’s tort liability
statute, establish a self-insurance program and join
with other political subdivisions to establish a joint
self-insurance pool. Third, 1992 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops.
No. 92-078, at 2-326, ascertained that because a county
agricultural society is a political subdivision, its board
of directors is a public body subject to the open meeting
requirements of R.C. 121.22.

County agricultural societies have been determined to

be political subdivisions in at least two court decisions.
The 11th District Court of Appeals, without detailed
analysis, held the Portage County Agricultural Society
to be a political subdivision for purposes of bidding on
public contracts under R.C. 153.54. Griffith v. Portage
Cty. Agricultural Soc., 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 2774
(11th Dist. May 29, 1992).

The Ohio Supreme Court in Greene Cty. Agricultural

Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551, 556 (2000), held that
a county agricultural society is a political subdivision
for purposes of tort liability even though it is not spe-
cifically listed as such in the definitional section of R.C.
2744.01. In reaching its decision, the Court looked to
the three additional characteristics of a political
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -6-

subdivision stated in that statute: to be a political sub-

division, an entity must be a (1) “body corporate and
politic” (2) that is responsible for governmental activi-
ties (3) in a geographical area smaller than the state.
Id. at 554.

II

With this background, I now turn to the question of de-

fining “political subdivision” for purposes of R.C. 9.68.

The statute lacks any definition of political subdivision.

My statutory interpretation is guided by R.C. 1.42,
which mandates that “[w]ords and phrases shall be
read in context and construed according to the rules of
grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that
have acquired a technical or particular meaning,
whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be
construed accordingly.”

As a court of appeals has noted in applying a different

statute, “There is little authority as to what ‘political
subdivision’ actually means and encompasses within
the narrow context relevant [here].” Crane v. Ohio
Adult Parole Auth., 2023-Ohio-3031, ¶23 (10th Dist.).
“[T]he General Assembly has variously defined the
term ‘political subdivision’ for different purposes.” Id.
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -7-

The definitions of “political subdivision” employed by

the legislature in other sections of the Revised Code,
however, are relevant to the legislature’s use of the
term here. “It is a well-settled rule of statutory inter-
pretation that statutory provisions be construed to-
gether and that the Revised Code be read as an inter-
related body of law.” State v. Moaning, 76 Ohio St.3d
126, 128 (1996). Consequently, “when in a system of
laws relating to a particular subject a general policy is
plainly declared, in order to arrive at the meaning of
any particular part or provision the whole must be con-
sidered and that construction adopted, if may be,
which will bring it in harmony with such general pol-
icy.” Alexander v. Baker, 74 Ohio St. 258, 269 (1906).

A statutory definition for “political subdivision” fre-

quently lists specific entities as political subdivisions,
but also includes entities identified by their function
and geography: “a municipal corporation, township,
county, school district, or other body corporate and pol-
itic responsible for governmental activities only in geo-
graphic areas smaller than that of the state.” (Empha-
sis added.) R.C. 2744.01(F). This definition is used
with some variation in at least twelve sections of the
Revised Code. See, e.g., R.C. 9.22 (subdivision use of
debit card accounts), R.C. 9.23 (disbursement of public
funds), R.C. 9.73 (criminal background question on em-
ployment application), R.C. 9.74 (occupational licens-
ing), R.C. 122.9511 (SiteOhio certification program),
R.C. 905.503 (regulation of fertilizers), R.C. 917.06
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -8-

(dairy products regulation preemption), R.C. 1533.83

(immunity for certain actions relating to shooting
ranges), R.C. 2744.01 (political subdivision tort liabil-
ity), R.C. 3722.01 (hospitals), R.C. 4796.01 (out of state
occupational licensing), and R.C. 5735.40 (alternative
fuels tax preemption).

As previously discussed, the Ohio Supreme Court in

Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming decided that a
county agricultural society is within the definition of a
political subdivision for purposes of the state’s political
subdivision tort liability law even though not specifi-
cally listed. It reached this decision by considering the
three common definitional characteristics of a political
subdivision included in that law: the entity must be a
(1) “body corporate and politic” (2) that is responsible
for governmental activities (3) in a geographical area
smaller than the state. Greene, 89 Ohio St.3d at 554.

From these examples, I can reasonably conclude that

an entity, although not expressly listed by name in the
statute, may nevertheless be considered a political sub-
division if it has all of the following characteristics: (1)
it is a “body corporate and politic” (2) that is responsi-
ble for a “governmental activity” (3) within a geo-
graphic area smaller than the state. Thus, it is neces-
sary to examine whether a county agricultural society
aligns with these three elements essential to being a
political subdivision.
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi -9-

Recall that the authorizing statute for county agricul-

tural societies designates them as “bodies corporate
and politic.” R.C. 1711.13. The Ohio Supreme Court
has concluded that “a body corporate and politic is a
governmental body or public corporation having pow-
ers and duties of government. * * * [It is a body] created
by the state for political purposes and to act as an
agency in the administration of civil government, * * *
and usually invested, for that purpose, with subordi-
nate and local powers of legislation.” Weber v. Oriana
House, 1995 WL 623068, *11 (9th Dist. Oct. 25, 1995),
quoting Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of
Ohio, 46 Ohio St.3d 147, 150 (1989). “Body politic” is
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (12th Ed. 2024) (15c)
as “[a] group of people regarded in a political (rather
than private) sense and organized under a common
governmental authority.” Because the statute desig-
nates a county agricultural society as a “body corporate
and politic,” a county agricultural society conclusively
meets the first factor in the three-prong definition of a
political subdivision.

The second prong of the common definition of a politi-

cal subdivision is whether the entity is responsible for
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi - 10 -

a governmental function. It is apparent in examining

the activities of a county agricultural society that its
primary function is to educate the public on a panoply
of agricultural, horticultural, and livestock subjects.
“[T]he primary purpose of county agricultural societies
has repeatedly been identified as education.” Greene,
89 Ohio St.3d at 555, (citing 1988 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops.
No 1988-034, at 2-153). “An agricultural fair is . . . a
public institution designed for public instruction, the
advancement of learning and the dissemination of use-
ful knowledge.” Id. at 555-556, quoting State ex rel.
Leaverton v. Kerns, 104 Ohio St. 550, 554 (1922). In
fact, under R.C. 1711.10, the Director of Agriculture
“may withhold funds for a particular county agricul-
tural society if it is shown that the fair put on by that
agricultural society was not of sufficient educational
value to justify the expenditure of those funds.” Id. at
556. A county agricultural society’s educational pur-
pose and activities are sufficient to meet the required
second prong of the definition of a political subdivision
by its exercise of the governmental function of educat-
ing the public.

The final prong of this three-part consideration is

whether the entity is responsible for governmental ac-
tivities within a geographic area smaller than the
state. “A county agricultural society shall consist solely
of members who are residents of the county in which the
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi - 11 -

society is organized.” (Emphasis added.) R.C.

1711.01(C). Moreover, to form a county agricultural
society, “[t]hirty or more persons who are residents of
the same county adopt a constitution and bylaws gov-
erning the society.” (Emphasis added.) R.C.
1711.01(A)(1). Thus, a county agricultural society is
county-specific and plainly exists and operates within
the confines of a geographic area smaller than the
state. See generally 1988 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 88-
034, 2-153 (“a county agricultural society may exist
only in a single county, and only one society may exist
in each county”).

One of the purposes of R.C. 9.68 is uniformity in the

regulation of firearms. As expressed in the statute it-
self, the General Assembly found a “need to provide
uniform laws throughout the state regulating” the pos-
session, transport, carrying, and other matters relat-
ing to firearms and knives. The Ohio Supreme Court
has recognized the legislative objective in City of Cleve-
land v. State, wherein it observed that this statute ad-
dresses “the General Assembly’s concern that absent a
uniform law throughout the state, law abiding gun
owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing
requirements, possession restrictions, and criminal
penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to an-
other.” 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶35. The determination that
a county agricultural society is a political subdivision
The Honorable Kevin S. Talebi - 12 -

for purposes of R.C. 9.68 supports the purpose of the

statute for uniformity of regulation.

In summary, by weighing all of the attributes of a

county agricultural society, including its statutory re-
sponsibilities and the state’s oversight; the consistent
use throughout the Revised Code of the three-element
definition of a political subdivision; and the legislative
purpose of the firearms pre-emption statute, I must
conclude that a county agricultural society is a political
subdivision within the meaning of R.C. 9.68.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion, and you are hereby ad-

vised that:

A county agricultural society organized

under R.C. Chapter 1711 is a political
subdivision for purposes of R.C. 9.68.

Respectfully,

DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General