HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
propertymanager
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by propertymanager »

It passed at 3:15 am and is on the way to the Governor. School zone provision is in the bill as is an employer prohibition that keeps employers from adopting a policy that prevents CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car. That's the good news. The bad news is that the government building provision was neutered by allowing local governments to choose whether CHL's can carry in their buildings. It passed as Substitute SB199.
Last edited by propertymanager on Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike
OFCC Member
User avatar
sd790
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:40 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by sd790 »

propertymanager wrote:It passed at 3:15 am and is on the way to the Governor. School zone provision is in the bill as is a prohibition on employers preventing CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car. That's the good news. The bad news is that the government building provision was neutered by allowing local governments to choose whether CHL's can carry in their buildings. It passed as Substitute SB199.
I've read the bill as passed by the Senate. If I am reading it correctly, the only buildings that can be allowed by local governments are:
HB48_06_PS wrote: if the building is used by the county child
support enforcement agency or the public children services
agency, the board of county commissioners in the county where
the building is located may prohibit carrying concealed weapons
on the premises. If the board of county commissioners prohibits
concealed weapons on the premises, a sign must be posted at the
facility pursuant to section 2923.1212 of the Revised Code;
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by WY_Not »

Oh yay, the petulant children have won the right to infringe on the rights of others. :roll:
propertymanager wrote:... as is a prohibition on employers preventing CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by djthomas »

propertymanager wrote:It passed at 3:15 am and is on the way to the Governor. School zone provision is in the bill as is an employer prohibition that keeps employers from adopting a policy that prevents CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car. That's the good news. The bad news is that the government building provision was neutered by allowing local governments to choose whether CHL's can carry in their buildings. It passed as Substitute SB199.
And no changes were made to the signage requirements. So while day cares are no longer statutory CPZs they carry the same felony charges as statutory CPZs if posted. Which, since they forgot to remove the requirement that day cares post nothing was gained there. Furthermore on the extremely off chance that some city or charter county* decides to allow concealed carry they're still required to post the buildings, and there is no affirmative defense that the building in question lacked signs.

Airport terminals are no longer off limits, but wait, they're also government buildings so yeah they're still off limits.

IMO this bill added a metric crap ton of language to the ORC without changing much other than being allowed to store on school and employer property.

This is what happens when you have a legislature that has two years to do its job and then tries to ram everything even remotely controversial through in the span of 48 hours.

Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted to nix the government building carry in favor of the requirement that they have security screening to be off limits. I'm curious why the House Republicans were against this twice (in committee months ago), and again last night. Unless the thought was that with the employer parking lot part AND the government facility rollback the governor wouldn't support it. If it's just RINO squeamishness in the House, hopefully those rabble-rousers aren't coming back next year.

* I chose those specifically because in the original version of the House bill the language was so poorly drafted that only municipalities and charter counties are able to pass the type of legislation required to allow concealed carry. I haven't seen the final version but I imagine it's the same.
User avatar
sd790
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:40 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by sd790 »

djthomas wrote:
propertymanager wrote:It passed at 3:15 am and is on the way to the Governor. School zone provision is in the bill as is an employer prohibition that keeps employers from adopting a policy that prevents CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car. That's the good news. The bad news is that the government building provision was neutered by allowing local governments to choose whether CHL's can carry in their buildings. It passed as Substitute SB199.
And no changes were made to the signage requirements. So while day cares are no longer statutory CPZs they carry the same felony charges as statutory CPZs if posted. Which, since they forgot to remove the requirement that day cares post nothing was gained there. Furthermore on the extremely off chance that some city or charter county* decides to allow concealed carry they're still required to post the buildings, and there is no affirmative defense that the building in question lacked signs.

Airport terminals are no longer off limits, but wait, they're also government buildings so yeah they're still off limits.

IMO this bill added a metric crap ton of language to the ORC without changing much other than being allowed to store on school and employer property.

This is what happens when you have a legislature that has two years to do its job and then tries to ram everything even remotely controversial through in the span of 48 hours.

Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted to nix the government building carry in favor of the requirement that they have security screening to be off limits. I'm curious why the House Republicans were against this twice (in committee months ago), and again last night. Unless the thought was that with the employer parking lot part AND the government facility rollback the governor wouldn't support it. If it's just RINO squeamishness in the House, hopefully those rabble-rousers aren't coming back next year.

* I chose those specifically because in the original version of the House bill the language was so poorly drafted that only municipalities and charter counties are able to pass the type of legislation required to allow concealed carry. I haven't seen the final version but I imagine it's the same.
Please read the bill before ranting. It's a great step in the right direction.

Government buildings will be allowed, so airports outside of secure areas are fine, along with fairground buildings, libraries, rec centers, etc. Cities do not get to "allow concealed carry" with this bill. They must allow it with a single exception: if the building is used by the county child support enforcement agency or the public children services agency.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by JustaShooter »

sd790 wrote:
djthomas wrote:
propertymanager wrote:It passed at 3:15 am and is on the way to the Governor. School zone provision is in the bill as is an employer prohibition that keeps employers from adopting a policy that prevents CHL's from keeping their firearm in their car. That's the good news. The bad news is that the government building provision was neutered by allowing local governments to choose whether CHL's can carry in their buildings. It passed as Substitute SB199.
And no changes were made to the signage requirements. So while day cares are no longer statutory CPZs they carry the same felony charges as statutory CPZs if posted. Which, since they forgot to remove the requirement that day cares post nothing was gained there. Furthermore on the extremely off chance that some city or charter county* decides to allow concealed carry they're still required to post the buildings, and there is no affirmative defense that the building in question lacked signs.

Airport terminals are no longer off limits, but wait, they're also government buildings so yeah they're still off limits.

IMO this bill added a metric crap ton of language to the ORC without changing much other than being allowed to store on school and employer property.

This is what happens when you have a legislature that has two years to do its job and then tries to ram everything even remotely controversial through in the span of 48 hours.

Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted to nix the government building carry in favor of the requirement that they have security screening to be off limits. I'm curious why the House Republicans were against this twice (in committee months ago), and again last night. Unless the thought was that with the employer parking lot part AND the government facility rollback the governor wouldn't support it. If it's just RINO squeamishness in the House, hopefully those rabble-rousers aren't coming back next year.

* I chose those specifically because in the original version of the House bill the language was so poorly drafted that only municipalities and charter counties are able to pass the type of legislation required to allow concealed carry. I haven't seen the final version but I imagine it's the same.
Please read the bill before ranting. It's a great step in the right direction.

Government buildings will be allowed, so airports outside of secure areas are fine, along with fairground buildings, libraries, rec centers, etc. Cities do not get to "allow concealed carry" with this bill. They must allow it with a single exception: if the building is used by the county child support enforcement agency or the public children services agency.
No, I think you are mistaken - the government facilities provision was stripped out last night / early this morning. *A LOT* changed overnight, and we are still waiting on the updated text of the bill (now Sub SB 199) so we can tell exactly what the details are.
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!
User avatar
Stryker74
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1470
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Grove City, Ohio

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by Stryker74 »

JustaShooter wrote: No, I think you are mistaken - the government facilities provision was stripped out last night / early this morning. *A LOT* changed overnight, and we are still waiting on the updated text of the bill (now Sub SB 199) so we can tell exactly what the details are.
^^^ This. Take everything we knew about HB48 that was changed, and throw it all out.

Based on verbals last night, the latest incarnation of HB48 is DOA at this point. The House took SB199 and stripped the provisions of CHL holders as "protected class". But they also (again, this is verbal - the text is not available yet) took the original wording of HB48 and shoved it into SB199. The Senate concurred, but I don't think they changed it any further.

Again - we need the final text of what is being sent to Kasich - but much of these mutated bills has changed since yesterday.
Aaron

NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Instructor - Pistol, Refuse To Be A Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer
Kentucky CCDW Certified Instructor



Want to become more active with OFCC, and the fight for your rights? Click the link to find out how!
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=64852" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by JustaShooter »

From what I've been able to gather, this is what the changes consisted of - and what I posted to the OFCC FB page:

Rather than passing SB 199 and HB 48 as amended and passed by the Senate, last night the Ohio House dropped provisions from SB 199, took some provisions from HB 48 and inserted them into SB 199, changed a few other provisions, and ended up passing a very different (and in my opinion, very flawed - Dave) Substitute SB 199, which was also passed by the Ohio Senate early this morning. Although we are still waiting to see the official text of the Act, it is our understanding that the Act does the following:

- Allows active duty members of the US Armed Forces to carry concealed handguns without a license as long as they are carrying valid military ID *AND* documentation of successful completion of firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements in ORC 2923.125 (G) (1).
**This is a significantly flawed provision that has the potential to trip up members of the military due to the additional documentation requirement.**

- Prohibits employers from adopting policies that ban firearms in employees' personal vehicles.

- Removes the statutory prohibition against carry into day-care facilities. Privately-owned day cares can still post no-guns signage, just like any other business.

- Removes the statutory prohibition against carry onto private aircraft.

- Removes the statutory prohibition against carry into public areas of airport terminals up to the security checkpoint.

- Allows persons with a concealed handgun license to possess handguns in school safety zones in a motor vehicle for any reason, and may exit the motor vehicle as long as the firearm remains in the vehicle and the vehicle is locked.

- Grants political subdivisions the authority to allow concealed carry in their government buildings.

- Grants colleges and universities the authority, if they choose, to allow concealed carry onto their campus.
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!
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by djthomas »

Two video segments worth watching: House consideration of SB199, click on the segment marked 11:26:06 PM. Watching the back and forth between Maag and some of the Democrats I don't think even he fully knew the mechanics of his amendment but he did make it clear that the Senate's addition of secure government facilities to SB 48 was reverted to what the House had originally passed.

Next, watch the Senate concurrence which occurred as the last piece of legislation considered at 3:07:47 AM. Senate Concurrence.

Do not rely on the links on the video pages that say Legislation Text - those are outdated by several versions.

Agreed we need to wait for the exact text but given how half-baked the originally amended bills were going into the session I really doubt they had a sudden moment of clarity at 11 PM last night and resolved all the internal inconsistencies.

Justashooter I think your summary is accurate but you might need to change the "day care" part to say that privately owned day cares MUST still post no-guns signage, depending on what the final bill looks like. I'd also argue that they're not like any other business because carrying a loaded handgun into a posted day care will remain a felony as opposed to the M4 that applies to all other businesses.

The airport terminal one bothers me. Someone is going to get really jammed up some day thinking that airport terminals are now allowed but forgetting that they're (almost?) always government buildings and there is no chance in heck any city in Ohio that runs an airport is going to allow carry in its buildings. Also as an aside, private aircraft were never off limits.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by JustaShooter »

djthomas wrote:Justashooter I think your summary is accurate but you might need to change the "day care" part to say that privately owned day cares MUST still post no-guns signage, depending on what the final bill looks like. I'd also argue that they're not like any other business because carrying a loaded handgun into a posted day care will remain a felony as opposed to the M4 that applies to all other businesses.

The airport terminal one bothers me. Someone is going to get really jammed up some day thinking that airport terminals are now allowed but forgetting that they're (almost?) always government buildings and there is no chance in heck any city in Ohio that runs an airport is going to allow carry in its buildings. Also as an aside, private aircraft were never off limits.
Once I have access to the final text and can do some research, I'll update it.

BTW, "private aircraft were never off limits" - depends on your definition of private, I suppose. The current language in the ORC says "An aircraft that is in, or intended for operation in, foreign air transportation, interstate air transportation, intrastate air transportation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft;". Yes, the Piper Cub you own and take out for fun on weekends or whatever probably wasn't ever covered by this provision. But, the aircraft my company chartered for a few of us to go investigate a customer's issue a while back was privately owned, and would have fallen under the restriction of this section. But, it will not any more.
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!
User avatar
pirateguy191
Posts: 11009
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:06 pm
Location: 44146

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by pirateguy191 »

sd790 wrote: Please read the bill before ranting. It's a great step in the right direction.
Probably going to come back and bite ya.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." ~ Mike Vanderboegh

NRA member, NRA basic pistol instructor, DBACB
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by djthomas »

JustaShooter wrote:BTW, "private aircraft were never off limits" - depends on your definition of private, I suppose. The current language in the ORC says "An aircraft that is in, or intended for operation in, foreign air transportation, interstate air transportation, intrastate air transportation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft;". Yes, the Piper Cub you own and take out for fun on weekends or whatever probably wasn't ever covered by this provision. But, the aircraft my company chartered for a few of us to go investigate a customer's issue a while back was privately owned, and would have fallen under the restriction of this section. But, it will not any more.
My definition of private would be the same as the law's: any airplane other than a common carrier or one transporting the mail. It took looking up several definitions to get there. The CHL definitions in 2923.124 sent you to 49 U.S.C. 40102 where you could finally get the precise definitions of "foreign air transportation, interstate air transportation, and intrastate air transportation." It pretty much comes down to whether or not a common carrier was involved.

Incidentally if your charter is being operated under FAR 121 it's against federal law to carry on that plane. That's why I always thought Ohio's rule concerning aircraft was a bit superfluous.
Last edited by djthomas on Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by BB62 »

Ah yes, after stripping localities of the right to set their own gun laws, and court cases affirming the General Assembly's right to do so - the right to control concealed carry in certain places has been given back to political subdivisions.

Makes sense. :roll:

Clearly the legislators do not fear the people or even Ohio's gun groups.
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by techguy85 »

BB62 wrote:Ah yes, after stripping localities of the right to set their own gun laws, and court cases affirming the General Assembly's right to do so - the right to control concealed carry in certain places has been given back to political subdivisions.

Makes sense. :roll:

Clearly the legislators do not fear the people or even Ohio's gun groups.
I don't always agree with DB62 but on this one I have to agree. As I said on facebook, I’m extremely frustrated that we haven’t been able to see a real meaningful change in the places we can carry that make the biggest differences e.g. college
campuses, government buildings, places of worship. What has been done here is flawed, dilutes the authority of the General Assembly and by extension R.C.
9.68, and are half-measures that will generate confusion and will likely trip someone up at some point. If these politicians expect us to be engaged in
supporting them, they had better think about better representing our views. This year was an anomaly for
me, given the presidential election at stake, I would've shown up no matter what, but otherwise it's hard for me to be motivated to support people who
are not going to represent my views and government more faithfully.
Mustang380gal
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Amish Country, Wayne County

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense

Post by Mustang380gal »

Anything about notification? Our advocacy day was about eliminating the requirement or at least making it a minor misdemeanor instead of an arrestible offense.
RIFLEWOMAN, wife of a RIFLEMAN, mom of 9, NRA life member, OFCC Patron member!
Post Reply