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

NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

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

Post by NavyChief »

ORC 2923.11(R) (as passed):
"Active duty" has the same meaning as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101.
10 U.S.C 101(d)(1):
The term ‘‘active duty’’ means full-time duty in the active military service of the United States. Such term includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.
So, pretty much a complete slap in the face to all Ohioans serving honorably as Reservists or in the Guard. Nicely done you nitwits.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
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 »

NavyChief wrote:So, pretty much a complete slap in the face to all Ohioans serving honorably as Reservists or in the Guard. Nicely done you nitwits.
In their defense, part of the push for this was because active duty servicemen often move from place to place and so they are very transient, making it impractical to get a CHL from every state they are ever stationed in. That's why they are exempt from having to obtain a new driver license whenever their station changes. Ohioans serving in the Reserve or National Guard are Ohio residents and should have no problem or hardship getting an Ohio CHL.

Having said that it does bug me that if an active duty person can't produce their papers when stopped they're subject to a civil fine which will be dismissed if they can show proof within 10 days. Meanwhile a similarly situated CHLer comes away with a minor misdemeanor criminal record for CCW even if everything is otherwise in order.

I hate to keep pointing to other states but in Pennsylvania there's no requirement to have your $20 no training required LTCF on you. They just look you up in the statewide computer and you're good to go. Verifying that one has CHL in Ohio is extremely simple and within reach of every law enforcement agency in the state.

Give me a few days, I just might rile myself up enough to write what I think would be the ideal CHL statute for Ohio.
NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

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

Post by NavyChief »

djthomas wrote:Having said that it does bug me that if an active duty person can't produce their papers when stopped they're subject to a civil fine which will be dismissed if they can show proof within 10 days. Meanwhile a similarly situated CHLer comes away with a minor misdemeanor criminal record for CCW even if everything is otherwise in order.
And we told them - more than once - military members are not given "wallet portable" documentation of their firearms training. But one of our esteemed lawmakers who happens to be in the Guard said "Well I get a card..." And he probably figures he's covered with this if he doesn't already have a CHL. I would SO love karma to make an appearance.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by Brian D. »

djthomas wrote:Give me a few days, I just might rile myself up enough to write what I think would be the ideal CHL statute for Ohio.
Oh yeah? Well, I DARE you to do that!! 8)
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

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

Post by FormerNavy »

valian wrote:Yes, BF just posted the wording of the changes to the employer's parking lot and again we have problematic stipulations.

1) If a person is outside the vehicle the following is 1 of 2 conditions that must be met: "each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle;" .

Most vehicles do not have locking glove boxes. Many also do not have trunks.

If you happen to forget one round of ammunition in you coat pocket from yesterday's time at the range... the law no longer applies to you.

2) The second condition is that the vehicle is in a location it is otherwise permitted to be.

So if you accidentally park in a space not allocated to you or in some other reserved space the law no longer applies.

Time and time again, the supposed 'fixes' to the carry laws in Ohio produce still more problems to fix. It is getting quite old now after 12 years of these predictable problems. It seems to show a lack of real care and attention to the issues at hand as, obviously, too little time is spent on detail. Of course, the language here discussed was written at the last minute to appease the Ohio Chamber of Commerce but others as discussed above have had nearly 2 years of time pass and still this legislation should not have been put off for so long.

edited to add: I should point out the good too... the language does stipulate that this law applies to both public and private employers, so no waffle room for any employer such a OSU to try to fit themselves into another category they do not belong to be able to make their own rules.

Notwithstanding your other points, I would personally feel comfortable with the firearm in a glovebox as long as the car is locked....
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

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

Post by qmti »

Could someone explain the K-12 school zone/parking lot gun requirements of the Bill.
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

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

Post by WhyNot »

there's always tupperware LoL
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

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

Post by FormerNavy »

qmti wrote:Could someone explain the K-12 school zone/parking lot gun requirements of the Bill.

Sounds to me like you would be able to keep your gun locked in your car on school grounds now. But really, I hope somebody at OFCC is typing up a summary because the whole thing is really convoluted.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

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

Post by JediSkipdogg »

FormerNavy wrote:
qmti wrote:Could someone explain the K-12 school zone/parking lot gun requirements of the Bill.

Sounds to me like you would be able to keep your gun locked in your car on school grounds now. But really, I hope somebody at OFCC is typing up a summary because the whole thing is really convoluted.
We are still trying to figure it all out. Last minute bills are generally never good as that doesn't give us any time to analyze proposed changes.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
docachna
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:26 am
Location: Mount Juliet TN

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

Post by docachna »

FormerNavy wrote:
valian wrote:


Notwithstanding your other points, I would personally feel comfortable with the firearm in a glovebox as long as the car is locked....
That would mean your weapon is available to a BG with a brick and a pry bar in ten seconds or less. Locking your car, IMHO, is like posting a sign that says "Please break my window !". I leave NOTHING in my car I can't afford to part with, and I don't lock the doors.

Locked in the trunk, at least you've got a fighting chance of delaying them long enough they lose interest.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
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 »

Here's my summary:

- 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 or enforcing 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 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.

There are some other tweaks, most notably to penalties related to a couple of the changes, but this is the high-level view of the changes.
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!
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

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

Post by qmti »

Re: HB 48: Remove some CPZs; modify affirmative defense
Unread postby JustaShooter » Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:35 pm


Thanks JustaShooter for the plain explanation of the Bill's content. This rural deplorable citizen likes plain English.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

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

Post by FormerNavy »

docachna wrote:
FormerNavy wrote:
valian wrote:


Notwithstanding your other points, I would personally feel comfortable with the firearm in a glovebox as long as the car is locked....
That would mean your weapon is available to a BG with a brick and a pry bar in ten seconds or less. Locking your car, IMHO, is like posting a sign that says "Please break my window !". I leave NOTHING in my car I can't afford to part with, and I don't lock the doors.

Locked in the trunk, at least you've got a fighting chance of delaying them long enough they lose interest.
I was speaking with regards to compliance with the law. Once in my car, the trunk is a mere push of a button.... so I'm not sure I see the deterrent there. Personally, I think you're much more likely to have a car broken into if you leave it unlocked by the folks who go around checking for unlocked cars. My car has been broken into one time in my life.... and that was the time I left it unlocked by accident.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

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

Post by JediSkipdogg »

JustaShooter wrote:- 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.
One of my biggest issues is the change of this one. Yes, they removed the statutory prohibition, however, they made it if they post the parking lot it is now a felony. Prior to this, I could gladly go into any daycare parking lot and be safe as long as I didn't take the firearm in the building. Unfortunately it says "posted land or premise" which to me depending on the wording one places on their front door, could include the entire land, at which point it is now an F4 violation for the firearm being loaded in the vehicle. HUGE step backwards on that one.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

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

Post by FormerNavy »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:- 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.
One of my biggest issues is the change of this one. Yes, they removed the statutory prohibition, however, they made it if they post the parking lot it is now a felony. Prior to this, I could gladly go into any daycare parking lot and be safe as long as I didn't take the firearm in the building. Unfortunately it says "posted land or premise" which to me depending on the wording one places on their front door, could include the entire land, at which point it is now an F4 violation for the firearm being loaded in the vehicle. HUGE step backwards on that one.
I'm wondering how this is reconciled with parking lots only being a civil problem. Does one take precedent over the other?
Post Reply