Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

Post by techguy85 »

With Sub HB 199 going into effect today, this is my warning to anyone who may be privately thinking about carrying on campus because of the new graduated penalty scale contained in R.C. 2923.12 (F) (7), that things aren’t nearly that simple. If you read division (d) you’ll note that another element to the scale seems to make the lower part of the scale all but useless because it seems to specify if you have a firearm that is loaded or that you have ammunition ready at hand that it is automatically elevated to the top of the scale, an M2, who is going to carry a firearm unloaded or with no ammunition ready at hand? All of this in addition to the administrative consequences one would undoubtedly face. A similar issue is present in the day care language as well.
Text from the statute below:
(7)
If a person being arrested for a violation of division (A)(2) of this section is knowingly in a place described in division (B)(5) of section
2923.126 of the Revised Code and is not authorized to carry a handgun or have a handgun concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand under that division, the penalty shall be as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person produces a valid concealed handgun license within ten days after the arrest and has not previously
been convicted or pleaded guilty to a violation of division (A)(2) of this section, the person is guilty of a minor misdemeanor;

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of division (A)(2) of this section, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree;

(c)
Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two violations of division (A)(2) of
this section, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree;

(d) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted o f or pleaded guilty to three or more violations of division (A)(2) of this section, or convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is a dangerous ordnance, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

Post by Brian D. »

Yeah, the bill in its current form is lousy.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

Post by Chuck »

This "bill" is law as of today
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

Post by JustaShooter »

I'm not sure you are reading it right:
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted o f or pleaded guilty to three or more violations of division (A)(2) of this section, or convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is a dangerous ordnance, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree
To me, that says if you have previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence that involved a firearm that is either loaded or for which you had ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved in the offense of violence was a dangerous ordnance.

Otherwise, *any" previous offense of violence triggers the higher penalty, which doesn't make sense.

Of course, until a case hits the courts, we won't know for sure...
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: Sub HB199 poison pills re: campus carry and day care

Post by techguy85 »

JustaShooter wrote:I'm not sure you are reading it right:
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this division, if the person has previously been convicted o f or pleaded guilty to three or more violations of division (A)(2) of this section, or convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is a dangerous ordnance, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree
To me, that says if you have previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any offense of violence that involved a firearm that is either loaded or for which you had ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved in the offense of violence was a dangerous ordnance.

Otherwise, *any" previous offense of violence triggers the higher penalty, which doesn't make sense.

Of course, until a case hits the courts, we won't know for sure...
The placement of that , could indicate exactly what you are saying, and I can totally see where you think that. Now that you bring that up, I'm wondering too. On the other hand, it seems like this is one of those things that winds up involving a test case and grammar experts...
Post Reply