2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

[Chuck]

What legislation should OFCC pursue in the up coming legislative session?
Please post your ideas and I'll edit this post to add them to the list (they let me do that)
Maybe we can go after stuff a little more organized this time around.
The first thing we asked for in this last session was to put some teeth in ORC 9.68. It's part of HB 203
What do you want to see this time?
I'd like to see us asking for several things at once, early this session
February, March, maybe we can go shopping for sponsors

So what do you want to see passed?


1- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.
2- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(5) -- campus carry (unless private college decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
3- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(6) -- church carry (unless church decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
4- Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(7) -- daycare carry (unless private day care decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
5- Either eliminate RC 2923.122 Schools, or redefine "school zone" to only mean inside actual buildings instead of property.
6- Put teeth in 9.68 to fine both the body politic and its elected officials (personally) for statutes that violate preemption.
Clarify 9.68 that preemption is reserved only to statutes enacted by the OGA, and state agencies do not have the right to impose additional restrictions by regulation.
7- Repeal of RC 2923.16, allowing all Ohioans to carry in their vehicle for self defense. Allow loaded handguns and long guns.
8- Repeal ORC 2923.12(B)(1), ORC 2923.12(F)(3), ORC 2923.16(E)(1) and (2), ORC 2923.16(I)... requiring notification and ORC 2923.126(A), relevant language.
9- Constitutional Carry
10- "Swatting" law

11-15 I reorganized the list
Anything else?

[Chuck]

Removing notification is going to be difficult
All the police groups want it and no one wants to go against them,
(except for a few hardy souls I know)

I still think we ought to call for it,,,,

[Greg the baker]

Removal of some statutory CPZs (i.e. unsecured gov. offices & buildings, airport terminals, churches, etc.).

Also it would be nice (or at least more convenient/easy to remember) if your CHL expired on your birthday of year XX vs. the anniversary of the exact date it was issued. I can see how this could screw some people out of a couple months though so I'm not as concerned with this one.

[JustJack]

Well, may as well shoot for the moon. Even if you come up short you'll still land among the stars.

1. Constitutional Carry. As the Founders intended.

2. Amend the Ohio Constitution similar to the recent Amendment passed in Alabama stipulating that the RKBA is a "Fundamental Right" and any attempt to limit it must be held to "Strict Scrutiny". No more "Balancing Test" crap.

3. Remove State University's from the CPZ list. Private is private, and I respect the rights of private property holders, but state run is state, and state shouldn't be able to limit your/my RKBA.

4. If 1 fails legislate that OC is not just "not illegal" but actually pass a law making it legal. Won't stop MWAG calls, but would, one would think, give pause to LEO's before they SWAT someone just for OC.

5. Stiffer penalties for falsely reporting a crime. Maybe that'll shut some of the Mad Mommies up.

[Chuck]

2. Amend the Ohio Constitution similar to the recent Amendment passed in Alabama stipulating that the RKBA is a "Fundamental Right" and any attempt to limit it must be held to "Strict Scrutiny". No more "Balancing Test" crap.

Constitutional amendments in Ohio are done by ballot, not by legislation

4. If 1 fails legislate that OC is not just "not illegal" but actually pass a law making it legal. Won't stop MWAG calls, but would, one would think, give pause to LEO's before they SWAT someone just for OC.

ORC 9.68 does exactly that,,,,

[BobK]

Removing notification is going to be difficult
All the police groups want it and no one wants to go against them,
(except for a few hardy souls I know)

I still think we ought to call for it,,,,

This issue was sidestepped in Texas. They left notification on the books but removed all criminal penalties. If I forget to provide my CHL when requested, there is nothing I can be charged with.

I understand the amount of sausage grinding results in the Rolling Stones syndrome (we don't always get what we want). If notification has to stay at all, then amend it to be required only when asked for identification. This whole "promptly" issue is unconstitutionally vague. Here is similar language from Texas:

If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.

Note that there are limited circumstances that a LEO can demand identification already defined in Ohio law. I think that something like "when law enforcement demands identification pursuant to RC 2921.29, the licensee shall provide . . . ".

Next items on the wish list:

1. Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.
2. Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(5) -- campus carry (unless private college decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
3. Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(6) -- church carry (unless church decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
4. Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(7) -- daycare carry (unless private day care decides to post per RC 2923.126(B)(3)(A))!
5. Either eliminate RC 2923.122 Schools, or redefine "school zone" to only mean inside actual buildings instead of property.
6. Put teeth in 9.68 to fine both the body politic and its elected officials (personally) for statutes that violate preemption.
7. Clarify 9.68 that preemption is reserved only to statutes enacted by the OGA, and state agencies do not have the right to impose additional restrictions by regulation.
8. Repeal of RC 2923.16, allowing all Ohioans to carry in their vehicle for self defense. Allow loaded handguns and long guns.

I am sure I'll think of a few more!

[techguy85]

The ones that effect me most regularly are the campus carry, church carry, and government building restrictions. (from most effect to least.)
The church thing has always struck me as ridiculous. Let them post like any other private establishment.
Notification is a heavy lift, but really needs to go as well. if we could get 3-5 cops to show up and tell them how unnecessary it is, it might go a long way to getting it tossed.
Note that any campus carry bill, in order to really work for those of us on campus daily, must firmly set in place that the University has no authority to punish people administratively who are students faculty or employees. Otherwise it really only helps visitors as if they can fire and expel us, be assured that they will do so.

[Tweed Ring]

I would like to see the traffic stop notification requirement be repealed.

[JediSkipdogg]

My biggest ones in order....

1) Remove notification unless asked

2) Remove government buildings as restricted carry zones (few exception, jails, police stations, court houses but not government buildings that have mayor's court held in them except in the court room only)

3) Once a facilities prime purpose is set it cannot be changed to something else. Generally thinking once government, it stays government even if leased to someone else. But I'm also thinking schools and school carry zones for spaces they have rented or they claim they control. Technically, that school bus stop is a no carry zone. But how far does it extend and what is the exact area of it?

5. Stiffer penalties for falsely reporting a crime. Maybe that'll shut some of the Mad Mommies up.

We already have multiple sections for that. Just police are reluctant to charge it because the courts are reluctant to try it. Falsification is an M1 and Disrupting Public Services is an F4. The biggest thing in each case is you need evidence it was false. Someone changing their story is not enough as most eye witnesses will change a story. If I call Chuck in waving his gun in the air walking down the street and police arrive and see it holstered, did I lie? You have no evidence against Chuck so he's not arrested, you have no evidence I lied, so I'm not arrested. Both sent on their way.

Also it would be nice (or at least more convenient/easy to remember) if your CHL expired on your birthday of year XX vs. the anniversary of the exact date it was issued. I can see how this could screw some people out of a couple months though so I'm not as concerned with this one.

That's one I'm stuck on. On one hand I love it. On the other hand people already whine enough if their original license expires on November 30 and they go to renew today and it's issued tomorrow that they lost 18 days of their license. A whopping 18 days but to some that matters for some reason. The other issue is if we ever wanted to use it for purchasing a firearm from an FFL (if we add a NICS check to the application process) we'd have to lower it to expire in 4 years from your next birthday so that it could never be valid over 5 years.

[Brian D.]

Removing/Decriminalizing "notification" seems like an area where we could cite the examples of numerous other states where it's never been a problem, then see if all the police groups still have anything cogent to say afterwards.

I'm also on board for removing carry prohibitions at most all government buildings. Again, we could point at neighboring states where it works just fine, and has for years.

And even though it looks like a heavy lift, we should continue to push towards making public universities behave like the government-funded political entities they are. Combine legislative efforts with the already-filed lawsuit, just in case that ever looks like it could move forward in our lifetimes. Naturally we should also continue those open carry walks at the public universities, and anyplace else where such boots-on-the-ground activism appears to be needed. That last activity could, eventually, remove the need to waste time at the Statehouse having them reaffirm that something legal, is, indeed, legal.

All of the above--and the greatest majority of what has been posted above here--will work better if we have PAC-type money to toss at the Statehouse, otherwise we're just a (persistent) headache to them.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Removing/Decriminalizing "notification" seems like an area where we could cite the examples of numerous other states where it's never been a problem, then see if all the police groups still have anything cogent to say afterwards.

I'd like that but I'd even support it being a MM. The current penalty level of a first degree misdemeanor is, to me, outrageously high for a passive act (failure to notify) that doesn't directly endanger anyone. By way of comparison, negligent homicide, assault and aggravated menacing are also first degree misdemeanors.

[JediSkipdogg]

Removing/Decriminalizing "notification" seems like an area where we could cite the examples of numerous other states where it's never been a problem, then see if all the police groups still have anything cogent to say afterwards.

I'd like that but I'd even support it being a MM. The current penalty level of a first degree misdemeanor is, to me, outrageously high for a passive act (failure to notify) that doesn't directly endanger anyone. By way of comparison, negligent homicide, assault and aggravated menacing are also first degree misdemeanors.

I don't see what that even accomplishes other than possible fines against people. The way I look at it is that I have to notify that I have a CHL and am armed. If I'm armed, carrying illegally, without a CHL, I don't have to notify. Only if you have a CHL are your required to notify. Therefore, the criminals of society will never notify as they are not required to notify or else they would be admitting to breaking the law. If they then use the logic that they won't know who is legally carrying or who may be a threat to them then how do they explain open carriers where no license and no notification is required. And if one goes a step further, police should never let their guard down. When they lower the guard is when they become victims themselves. They shouldn't take everyone as a threat, but they should always keep a solid guard up. Which that then comes back to police training and not something that can be codified easily into law.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Jedi I don't dispute your logic and I agree with you. However if the OGA agreed with us both we already wouldn't be required to notify. Although I'd resent the fact of the fine, and I'd rather there be no requirement, the fine would be preferable to today's M1.

[JediSkipdogg]

Jedi I don't dispute your logic and I agree with you. However if the OGA agreed with us both we already wouldn't be required to notify. Although I'd resent the fact of the fine, and I'd rather there be no requirement, the fine would be preferable to today's M1.

I think the problem is first we have to get someone to submit the bill. So far I've seen it only come up once. There really hasn't been enough pressure to politicians to change that aspect. If we make it one of our top priorities, then I think we can get it to go somewhere.

[Tweed Ring]

Removing/Decriminalizing "notification" seems like an area where we could cite the examples of numerous other states where it's never been a problem, then see if all the police groups still have anything cogent to say afterwards.

I'm also on board for removing carry prohibitions at most all government buildings. Again, we could point at neighboring states where it works just fine, and has for years.

And even though it looks like a heavy lift, we should continue to push towards making public universities behave like the government-funded political entities they are. Combine legislative efforts with the already-filed lawsuit, just in case that ever looks like it could move forward in our lifetimes. Naturally we should also continue those open carry walks at the public universities, and anyplace else where such boots-on-the-ground activism appears to be needed. That last activity could, eventually, remove the need to waste time at the Statehouse having them reaffirm that something legal, is, indeed, legal.

All of the above--and the greatest majority of what has been posted above here--will work better if we have PAC-type money to toss at the Statehouse, otherwise we're just a (persistent) headache to them.

As you have stated, other states do not have the notification provision, and they seem to survive without it. I think it's silly, and it needs to go.