Anti-gun HB 31 - Call for Advocacy

[Chuck]

Attention advocates!
Anti-gun House Bill 31, the so-called "safe storage"bill, is having it's third and final hearing in the House State and Local Government Committee. This bill will make it a first degree felony to not keep firearms inaccessible to minors IN YOUR HOME.
This hearing is for opponents and interested parties to offer testimony.
OFCC opposes this bill and is looking for like minded people to testify against it's passage

Tuesday, December 10 2013
Statehouse Room 121
3:00pm (1500 for you military types)

I don't think I can make it for this hearing, in fact, right now I don't know if anyone from OFCC will be there, so your support is especially important this time.

Here is a link to the bill for everyone to read:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bill ... =130_HB_31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks!!

[Curzyk]

I only just learned about the Legislative Service Commission, but they seem to do a really good job of summarizing bills into a more consumable format.
LSC HB31 Summary

This bill is short enough that I suppose the summary isn't really necessary, but it's nice for more complex bills. I read the summary and on the surface it's not really that bad of an idea to me. For me, firearms are either on my person, within my direct reach, or locked up. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable any other way.

BUT, just because that's how I feel doesn't mean that it's right to impose on everyone, and I'm not sure a felony charge is appropriate. Add in the concerns about enforcement and what it might do to RAS, and the possibilities are horrendous. I don't think I can testify, but I can (and will) write my elected representative to oppose this bill.

[BobK]

I read the summary and on the surface it's not really that bad of an idea to me. For me, firearms are either on my person, within my direct reach, or locked up. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable any other way.

John Lott's research has quantified that when a state passes a so-called "secure storage" law, the murder rate and crime rate increases by a measurable amount. The CDC has also released a major study showing such laws have no positive impact.

It grinds my gears that these anti-gunners keep trying to pass laws regardless of the fact they do harm. Their only point is to create additional pitfalls for the law-abiding gun owners to get trapped.

[Aesinsp]

I read the summary and on the surface it's not really that bad of an idea to me. For me, firearms are either on my person, within my direct reach, or locked up. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable any other way.

John Lott's research has quantified that when a state passes a so-called "secure storage" law, the murder rate and crime rate increases by a measurable amount. The CDC has also released a major study showing such laws have no positive impact.

It grinds my gears that these anti-gunners keep trying to pass laws regardless of the fact they do harm. Their only point is to create additional pitfalls for the law-abiding gun owners to get trapped.

Good points BobK..
What other bullet points or factual information would make reasonable/valid arguments againt this HB31?
Refuting proponent testimony could be a good thing too, but do we know what that was?

[Tweed Ring]

OGA.

Democrats propose.

Republicans dispose.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I'll be there. My wife has a Dr. appt at 1pm and we should be able to get there by 3pm or shortly after.

This is supposed to be a PROponent hearing, but having a few OFCC shirts there can't hurt.

[Chuck]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... dicat.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It appears the reason for this hearing is to allow the Sandy Hook parents to testify for the bill

The thing is, this bill couldn't and wouldn't have made any difference in the tragedy that happened up there
For one thing, the mad man up there wasn't a minor, for another, he killed his mother and took the guns from her safe.

I'm thinking our chance to rebut their testimony will come at a later time.

[Curzyk]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... dicat.html

It appears the reason for this hearing is to allow the Sandy Hook parents to testify for the bill

The thing is, this bill couldn't and wouldn't have made any difference in the tragedy that happened up there
For one thing, the mad man up there wasn't a minor, for another, he killed his mother and took the guns from her safe.

I'm thinking our chance to rebut their testimony will come at a later time.

I caught the fact that he wasn't a minor, and I agree that HB31 would do nothing for that, unless it was broadened (I am not advocating this) from just minors to any and all unauthorized/ineligible people (felons, etc.). As far as killing his mother and taking the guns from her safe, what order did that happen in? Didn't he shoot her to death? Wouldn't that mean that he already had access to either an unsecured gun or the safe? Didn't she know ahead of time that he was mentally unstable? Couldn't she have stored some/all of her guns off-site, temporarily at the very least?

[JediSkipdogg]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... dicat.html

It appears the reason for this hearing is to allow the Sandy Hook parents to testify for the bill

The thing is, this bill couldn't and wouldn't have made any difference in the tragedy that happened up there
For one thing, the mad man up there wasn't a minor, for another, he killed his mother and took the guns from her safe.

I'm thinking our chance to rebut their testimony will come at a later time.

I caught the fact that he wasn't a minor, and I agree that HB31 would do nothing for that, unless it was broadened (I am not advocating this) from just minors to any and all unauthorized/ineligible people (felons, etc.). As far as killing his mother and taking the guns from her safe, what order did that happen in? Didn't he shoot her to death? Wouldn't that mean that he already had access to either an unsecured gun or the safe? Didn't she know ahead of time that he was mentally unstable? Couldn't she have stored some/all of her guns off-site, temporarily at the very least?

In the Newtown case I believe he had one firearm himself that he legally purchased. He then stole the rest from her after he killed her. Yes, she could have stored them off site, but at what point do we legally require that? So if I have a 25 year old mentally unstable son live with me that can't get correct medical treatment I can't have a firearm readily accessible to me when I need it? Yes, it's unfortunate, but that's the left thinking. And really there's no safe out there (that is affordable to the average joe) that will keep someone mentally unstable out of it unless they don't know said safe exists.

[Chuck]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... dicat.html

It appears the reason for this hearing is to allow the Sandy Hook parents to testify for the bill

The thing is, this bill couldn't and wouldn't have made any difference in the tragedy that happened up there
For one thing, the mad man up there wasn't a minor, for another, he killed his mother and took the guns from her safe.

I'm thinking our chance to rebut their testimony will come at a later time.

I caught the fact that he wasn't a minor, and I agree that HB31 would do nothing for that, unless it was broadened (I am not advocating this) from just minors to any and all unauthorized/ineligible people (felons, etc.). As far as killing his mother and taking the guns from her safe, what order did that happen in? Didn't he shoot her to death? Wouldn't that mean that he already had access to either an unsecured gun or the safe? Didn't she know ahead of time that he was mentally unstable? Couldn't she have stored some/all of her guns off-site, temporarily at the very least?

And you think that making this victim a felon helps somehow?

[Curzyk]

And you think that making this victim a felon helps somehow?

No, please see my original reply.

BUT, just because that's how I feel doesn't mean that it's right to impose on everyone, and I'm not sure a felony charge is appropriate. Add in the concerns about enforcement and what it might do to RAS, and the possibilities are horrendous. I don't think I can testify, but I can (and will) write my elected representative to oppose this bill.

[Chuck]

Proponent testimony is here:
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/stat ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to the hearing on Oct 29 and click on it, then find HB31
There are 14 of them

This is what we are up against,,,,

[JediSkipdogg]

Proponent testimony is here:
http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/stat ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to the hearing on Oct 29 and click on it, then find HB31
There are 14 of them

This is what we are up against,,,,

And IMO is a tough one to beat. That is some STRONG emotion there. If we can't get rid of the whole bill, hopefull we can at least get rid of it being a felony. So I lose my rights and my life over the actions of someone else? Ummmm, nope. I'll go take a hammer to the front of my safe now so I can say someone broke into it and took them all.

[pleasantguywhopacks]

People are already criminally punished when leaving a gun where a child gets to it and injures. There is just no gun specification. Why compound when there are laws that will punish already? That would be my argument.

[DontTreadOnMe]

12 year old Kendra St. Clair is sure glad she had access to her mom's gun http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clai ... d=17524438" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The same man caused an Amber Alert when he took a 17yo mentally disabled girl (with the mental capacity of a 10- to 12-year-old) from her high school and dropped her off 20 miles away the next day (http://newsok.com/man-shot-by-durant-gi ... le/3721634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

If it becomes unlikely to kill the whole bill, here are examples of such laws from Oklahoma, Kentucky & Indiana (italics mine):

Oklahoma

It shall be unlawful for any parent or guardian to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly permit his or her child to possess any [firearm]…if such parent is aware of a substantial risk that the child will use the weapon to commit a criminal offense or if the child has either been adjudicated a delinquent or has been convicted as an adult for any criminal offense.

Kentucky

A person is guilty of unlawfully providing a handgun to a juvenile or permitting a juvenile to possesses a handgun when he is the parent or legal guardian of a juvenile and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provides a handgun to the juvenile or permits the juvenile to possess a handgun knowing that there is a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony offense; or, with knowledge that the juvenile has been convicted of a crime of violence as defined in KRS 439.3401 or has been adjudicated a public offender of an offense which would constitute a crime of violence as defined in KRS 439.3401, provides a handgun to that juvenile.

Indiana

A child's parent or legal guardian who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly permits the child to possess a firearm:
(1) while:
(A) aware of a substantial risk that the child will use the firearm to commit a felony; and
(B) failing to make reasonable efforts to prevent the use of a firearm by the child to commit a felony; or
(2) when the child has been convicted of a crime of violence or has been adjudicated as a juvenile for an offense that would constitute a crime of violence if the child were an adult; commits dangerous control of a child, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is a Level 4 felony if the child's parent or legal guardian has a prior conviction under this section.