HB 228: Stand your ground + other changes

[Liberty]

While the wording that landed in subdivision K instead of subdivision L, was originally intended to decriminalize the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms, if Am Sub HB 228 becomes law its consequence would be more than just definitively banning the Mossberg shockwave. It could serve as an assault weapons ban, which is precisely what that traitor in the Governor’s mansion was pushing.

Proposed subdivision K (7) defines any firearm with an overall length of more than 26 inches as a dangerous ordnance—not just the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms. As pointed out by JustaShooter on BFA’s forums, R.C. § 2923.11(L)(2) exempts firearms “designed or suitable for sporting purposes.” The following is on ATF’s website regarding “sporting purpose” firearms:

Note: ATF has determined that certain features designed for military application are indicative of non-sporting rifles and shotguns. Features which are not recognized as sporting include, but are not limited to, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips that protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet or bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher and night sights. These features as well as other information concerning a particular firearm may result in ATF classifying a rifle or shotgun as non-sporting. Additional information regarding this subject is available in the Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles or The Department of Treasury Study on the Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles.

See: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-g ... war-import" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It looks like Kasich may get his assault ban after all.

[JustaShooter]

I don’t know anyone at the BFA, but has someone pointed out the K(7) “screw up” yet?

EDIT: Juat saw on their FB page they are aware taking steps to fix it with the LSC.

I did, yes - and they claim it was an LSC screw-up that can be fixed. We'll see.

[JustaShooter]

While the wording that landed in subdivision K instead of subdivision L, was originally intended to decriminalize the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms, if Am Sub HB 228 becomes law its consequence would be more than just definitively banning the Mossberg shockwave. It could serve as an assault weapons ban, which is precisely what that traitor in the Governor’s mansion was pushing.

Proposed subdivision K (7) defines any firearm with an overall length of more than 26 inches as a dangerous ordnance—not just the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms. As pointed out by JustaShooter on BFA’s forums, R.C. § 2923.11(L)(2) exempts firearms “designed or suitable for sporting purposes.” The following is on ATF’s website regarding “sporting purpose” firearms:

Note: ATF has determined that certain features designed for military application are indicative of non-sporting rifles and shotguns. Features which are not recognized as sporting include, but are not limited to, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips that protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet or bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher and night sights. These features as well as other information concerning a particular firearm may result in ATF classifying a rifle or shotgun as non-sporting. Additional information regarding this subject is available in the Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles or The Department of Treasury Study on the Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles.

See: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-g ... war-import" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It looks like Kasich may get his assault ban after all.

Except that the full test of the exception in R.C. § 2923.11(L)(2) is:

(2) Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable for sporting purposes, including a
military weapon as issued or as modified, and the ammunition for that weapon, unless the firearm is
an automatic or sawed-off firearm;

(emphasis mine)

Given that qualification (that the ATF does not consider), would that not prevent the scenario you propose?

(This is all moot if the issue was an LSC error that can be fixed, of course.)

[rickt]

So here's Kasich's take on the bill even without STG.

COLUMBUS – Even after Ohio lawmakers removed “stand your ground” language from a gun bill passed Thursday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich finds the final proposal difficult to support.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/p ... 240465002/

[Liberty]

While the wording that landed in subdivision K instead of subdivision L, was originally intended to decriminalize the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms, if Am Sub HB 228 becomes law its consequence would be more than just definitively banning the Mossberg shockwave. It could serve as an assault weapons ban, which is precisely what that traitor in the Governor’s mansion was pushing.

Proposed subdivision K (7) defines any firearm with an overall length of more than 26 inches as a dangerous ordnance—not just the Mossberg shockwave and similar firearms. As pointed out by JustaShooter on BFA’s forums, R.C. § 2923.11(L)(2) exempts firearms “designed or suitable for sporting purposes.” The following is on ATF’s website regarding “sporting purpose” firearms:

Note: ATF has determined that certain features designed for military application are indicative of non-sporting rifles and shotguns. Features which are not recognized as sporting include, but are not limited to, folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips that protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet or bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher and night sights. These features as well as other information concerning a particular firearm may result in ATF classifying a rifle or shotgun as non-sporting. Additional information regarding this subject is available in the Report and Recommendation of the ATF Working Group on the Importability of Certain Semiautomatic Rifles or The Department of Treasury Study on the Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles.

See: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-g ... war-import" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It looks like Kasich may get his assault ban after all.

Except that the full test of the exception in R.C. § 2923.11(L)(2) is:

(2) Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable for sporting purposes, including a
military weapon as issued or as modified, and the ammunition for that weapon, unless the firearm is
an automatic or sawed-off firearm;

(emphasis mine)

Given that qualification (that the ATF does not consider), would that not prevent the scenario you propose?

(This is all moot if the issue was an LSC error that can be fixed, of course.)

That would make sense to you and I, but some liberal judge in Cleveland would be the one deciding what sporting purposes means all while someone sits in jail with his/her AR-15's in the evidence room. I just wanted to point out that this may be much more serious if it becomes law. I also wanted to point out that this is all too coincidental. Typos happen, but how often to they just so happen to such a result that could not otherwise become law? It is probably just a typo, but it would not surprise me it it were orchestrated. I hope it can be fixed, but the only way I think it can be fixed is if the legislature passes another one within a time frame where it can override a veto.

[Chuck]

I don’t know anyone at the BFA, but has someone pointed out the K(7) “screw up” yet?

EDIT: Juat saw on their FB page they are aware taking steps to fix it with the LSC.

I did, yes - and they claim it was an LSC screw-up that can be fixed. We'll see.

I really don't think that's possible. The committee passed that language out of committee and reported it to the floor.
The Senate voted on that language and passed it to the House for concurrence.
The House concurred with that language and that is the language that was sent to the governor.
I don't think those voted can be taken back, and if there is a constitutional means of doing so, could someone please point that out to me?

If it was that easy, they would have fixed the one about requiring signs where carry is legal two years ago

[rickt]

OFCC and BFA should plan on pushing for an emergency bill to be introduced next session ASAP. The "fix-it" bill mentioned earlier was HB 9 which shows how soon it was introduced in the session.

[Liberty]

OFCC and BFA should plan on pushing for an emergency bill to be introduced next session ASAP. The "fix-it" bill mentioned earlier was HB 9 which shows how soon it was introduced in the session.

While anticipating a DeWine veto.

[JustaShooter]

I don’t know anyone at the BFA, but has someone pointed out the K(7) “screw up” yet?

EDIT: Juat saw on their FB page they are aware taking steps to fix it with the LSC.

I did, yes - and they claim it was an LSC screw-up that can be fixed. We'll see.

I really don't think that's possible. The committee passed that language out of committee and reported it to the floor.
The Senate voted on that language and passed it to the House for concurrence.
The House concurred with that language and that is the language that was sent to the governor.
I don't think those voted can be taken back, and if there is a constitutional means of doing so, could someone please point that out to me?

If it was that easy, they would have fixed the one about requiring signs where carry is legal two years ago

I don't disagree - which is why I remain skeptical. On the one hand, I see exactly what you do - the version as reported by the Senate committee, as passed by the Senate, and concurred by the House, all have the language in the wrong place. On the other hand, whoever is posting on behalf of BFA on their FB page says a fix is in progress. I don't see how it can be a simple fix. We'll see.

[schmieg]

I really don't think that's possible. The committee passed that language out of committee and reported it to the floor.
The Senate voted on that language and passed it to the House for concurrence.
The House concurred with that language and that is the language that was sent to the governor.
I don't think those voted can be taken back, and if there is a constitutional means of doing so, could someone please point that out to me?

If it was that easy, they would have fixed the one about requiring signs where carry is legal two years ago

I don't disagree - which is why I remain skeptical. On the one hand, I see exactly what you do - the version as reported by the Senate committee, as passed by the Senate, and concurred by the House, all have the language in the wrong place. On the other hand, whoever is posting on behalf of BFA on their FB page says a fix is in progress. I don't see how it can be a simple fix. We'll see.

Their fix is probably to have us do the groundwork and legwork to get an emergency bill passed at the beginning of the year and then take credit for it.

[Liberty]

Is there any developments regarding the fix that BFA claimed could be done with the language in subdivision (K) being moved to subdivision (L)?

If that does not get fixed, I do not want Am Sub HB 228 becoming law. Defining any firearm over 26 inches as a dangerous ordnance unless it meets a sporting purpose without defining what sporting purpose is, will have disastrous consequences. State preemption would be rendered useless. Cleveland would have judges define sporting purpose to suit their own purposes (e.g., only 22lr that are used by college shooting teams) while rural areas would define it differently, and it will take years for the cases to move through the appellate process. If a judge uses the ATF’s definition, Am Sub HB 228 would become a de-facto assault weapons ban.

If the language cannot get fixed, I think we should hope Kasich don’t sign it and lobby for the legislature not to override a veto. If the incoming legislature would be willing to pass a bill to move the language in subdivision (K) to subdivision (L), they should be willing to just pass another bill with the other things in that are in Am Sub HB 228. We cannot take the chance that they will not do anything or leave it alone until the next lame duck session while we are jailed and have thousands of dollars worth of firearms confiscated.

[ArmedAviator]

If the language cannot get fixed, I think we should hope Kasich don’t sign it and lobby for the legislature not to override a veto. If the incoming legislature would be willing to pass a bill to move the language in subdivision (K) to subdivision (L), they should be willing to just pass another bill with the other things in that are in Am Sub HB 228. We cannot take the chance that they will not do anything or leave it alone until the next lame duck session while we are jailed and have thousands of dollars worth of firearms confiscated unfortunate police officers upholding unconstitutional laws against their sworn oath are killed by morally sound gun owners (no longer legal by State law, but just no less).

Fixed that for you.

[dustymedic]

Isn't great how all these politicians made all these promises? Did anything Pro 2A get passed this session?

[JustaShooter]

Isn't great how all these politicians made all these promises? Did anything Pro 2A get passed this session?

HB 228 as passed puts the burden of proof in self-defense cases onto the prosecution (where it belongs, as it is in all other states), and fixes the signage screw-up from last session (and incidentally requires churches to post if they don't want to allow carry...). Also strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption.

IT also has its own screw-up in that instead of fixing the legality of the Shockwave it specifically defines them as Dangerous Ordnance, but BFA claims it was an LSA screw-up and there is a fix in progress. We'll see.

Now, Kasich will likely veto it, but the OGA has indicated a desire and willingness to override his veto, and has a session scheduled for Wed. 12/19 in anticipation of his veto so they can hold a vote before the end of the legislative session.

[JustaShooter]

Isn't great how all these politicians made all these promises? Did anything Pro 2A get passed this session?

HB 228 as passed puts the burden of proof in self-defense cases onto the prosecution (where it belongs, as it is in all other states), and fixes the signage screw-up from last session (and incidentally requires churches to post if they don't want to allow carry...). Also strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption.

IT also has its own screw-up in that instead of fixing the legality of the Shockwave it specifically defines them as Dangerous Ordnance, but BFA claims it was an LSA screw-up and there is a fix in progress. We'll see.

Now, Kasich will likely veto it, but the OGA has indicated a desire and willingness to override his veto, and has a session scheduled for Wed. 12/19 in anticipation of his veto so they can hold a vote before the end of the legislative session.

Oh, and earlier in the session they passed (and Kasich failed to veto) a bill that allows veterans to get their licenses for free and allows anyone with a CHL to renew it as early as they want so if you still don't have a CHL issued after March 23, 2015 and want one so you can bypass the NICS check and carry in Texas and Wisconsin you can do so.