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
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 »

Mustang380gal wrote:Anything about notification? Our advocacy day was about eliminating the requirement or at least making it a minor misdemeanor instead of an arrestible offense.
As I understand it, that didn't even make it into the Senate version of HB 48, which means it almost certainly isn't in Sub SB 199 - and nobody is talking about it, so I'd say no. Once I can get my hands on a copy of the Act as passed, I will know more. Still haven't been able to find a copy.
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 »

techguy85 wrote: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.
What frustrates me is Ohio seems to have a penchant for writing laws that take thousands of words to accomplish. Lots of "notwithstanding, unless, except, but if, provided all, but only if" exceptions to everything that require you to look to another division of code only to be told to look at some other section if all three specific things apply. So then we wind up with code that's impossible to understand, let alone comply with, that in the end doesn't even really do what the legislature intended. Too smart by half.

You look at other states' concealed carry laws and they're not that hard. Pennsylvania basically says it's unlawful to carry a concealed handgun on your person or in a vehicle unless you fit one of 16 clearly defined exceptions. Then there's a short law making it illegal to carry at a school, another concerning courthouses.

As to notification nothing was mentioned about that during any of the floor speeches (I stayed up until 3:30 AM watching them all). Nor was it in any of the drafts I saw online so it's highly unlikely anything changed with respect to that.
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. »

^^What djthomas said about overkill with regards to the verbiage, the ORC is chock full of that type of writing.
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 »

This is the version passed by the House on 12/7/2016 - if the Senate just concurred, doesn't that make the below the text sent to Kasich:

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sola ... format=pdf" 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 »

FormerNavy wrote:This is the version passed by the House on 12/7/2016 - if the Senate just concurred, doesn't that make the below the text sent to Kasich:

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sola ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually, this is what was passed by the House late last night / early this morning so yes, it is the text that is being sent to the Gov., as I understand it. It was updated on ohio.gov a couple of hours ago.
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
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

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

Post by schmieg »

Brian D. wrote:^^What djthomas said about overkill with regards to the verbiage, the ORC is chock full of that type of writing.
Lawyers comprise a large part of the GA and they need to make sure their services are needed and that they can justify the fees based on the complexity of the law.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

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

Post by Chuck »

schmieg wrote:
Brian D. wrote:^^What djthomas said about overkill with regards to the verbiage, the ORC is chock full of that type of writing.
Lawyers comprise a large part of the GA and they need to make sure their services are needed and that they can justify the fees based on the complexity of the law.

^^^ THIS ^^^
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
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 »

I want the people in the legislature to stop assigning felony status to things that concealed carriers do.

Walking into a building should not be a felony. Period. Shoot someone with the gun, and that is felony worthy.

Having a gun in a parking lot of a daycare should not be a felony. Failing to notify PROMPTLY should not be a felony worth jail time.

At this point, it almost would be better if Kasich would veto it. I think we'd have less to fix that way. Now we have what they broke, and the things that we were trying to get, too.

They either needed more caffeine, or should have just gone to bed. I work night shift. The brain does not do good things after 0100.
RIFLEWOMAN, wife of a RIFLEMAN, mom of 9, NRA life member, OFCC Patron member!
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 »

Mustang380gal wrote:I want the people in the legislature to stop assigning felony status to things that concealed carriers do.

Walking into a building should not be a felony. Period. Shoot someone with the gun, and that is felony worthy.

Having a gun in a parking lot of a daycare should not be a felony. Failing to notify PROMPTLY should not be a felony worth jail time.

At this point, it almost would be better if Kasich would veto it. I think we'd have less to fix that way. Now we have what they broke, and the things that we were trying to get, too.

They either needed more caffeine, or should have just gone to bed. I work night shift. The brain does not do good things after 0100.

I wonder if the legislature could be convinced on a "clean up" bill that wouldn't take 1 yr and 11 mos to get moving?
User avatar
rainmaker
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:18 am
Location: Middletown, Ohio

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

Post by rainmaker »

I agree with Mustang380gal. It would seem pretty simple (probably isn't) to replace "felony" with "misdemeanor" in many parts of the law relating to concealed carry. Changing "criminal" trespass to "civil" trespass would go a long way to making things better, too. Maybe go ahead and allow businesses and others to post - but make any penalty civil trespass at the most - and perhaps this compromise will placate some of our opposition. Or remove enforcement of "force of law" from postings (like many other states do). I guess notification will have to be dealt with another day.
Steve
NRA member (long, long time)
NMLRA member (even longer)
OFCC member, BFA member
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 »

Mustang380gal wrote:Having a gun in a parking lot of a daycare should not be a felony.
It isn't - well, possibly if the parking lot is posted but Ive never seen a day care post the parking lot. Don't get me wrong I agree with what you are saying about felonies, it just shouldn't be the way it is.
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 »

Mustang380gal wrote:I want the people in the legislature to stop assigning felony status to things that concealed carriers do.

Walking into a building should not be a felony. Period. Shoot someone with the gun, and that is felony worthy.
I do wonder if they actually understand what the LSC puts in front of them. Someone commented that there are lots of lawyers in the GA, which is true but there's also lots of "common sense Joe's" who rely heavily on the LSC to do the bill drafting. When it comes to the actual code they don't have a real good grasp. If you watch the exchange between Rep. Maag and the Democrats when he offered the "strike the protected class" amendment it was very clear he didn't know what sections of the revised code were involved and specifically how they would be changed. Many of the LSC folks are new lawyers looking to build the experience. When they do a copy and paste job like this from the general CCW statute:
If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of the nature described in this division and the posted land or premises is a child day-care center, type A family day-care home, or type B family day-care home, unless the person is a licensee who resides in a type A family day-care home or type B family day-care home, the person is guilty of aggravated trespass in violation of section 2911.211 of the Revised Code. Except as otherwise provided in this division, the offender is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the person previously has been convicted of a violation of this division or of any offense of violence, if the weapon involved is a firearm that is either loaded or for which the offender has ammunition ready at hand, or if the weapon involved is dangerous ordnance, the offender is guilty of a felony of the fourth degree.
They say oh but carrying in a day care is just aggravated trespass if it's your first offense. Completely overlooking the fact of what concealed carrier is going to carry a gun and not have the ammo ready at hand? The whole bit about the M1 offense only applies if you're not carrying a firearm with ammo. And the point of discussing this in the section pertaining specifically to licensees carrying loaded handguns is ..... ? Meanwhile the penalty for carrying on college premises without authorization is actually covered in 2923.12. Thus we have two different sections of code handling penalties related to violations of 2923.126. WHY?

Here's another problem I just noticed with this particular section. So here it says a day care can post the land, which would presumably include the parking lots and it's a felony if you carry there. But then they pass the parking lot storage section which says no employer can have a policy that precludes you having a firearm in your personal vehicle no matter what the premises. So which is it?

Our legislators should be ashamed. I'm not upset because we didn't get everything we want - that happens and I get it. But this bill is such a drafting disaster it's the kind of thing my high school teacher would have written "Redo within one week and resubmit" at the top in big red letters with a tentative grade of 0 assigned.

Years ago Michigan did a complete rip and replace of their concealed carry law and it really streamlined a ton of stuff and they really haven't had to go back and tweak it much since. Heck I might even be willing to try my hand at drafting a new one.
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 »

Mustang380gal wrote:At this point, it almost would be better if Kasich would veto it. I think we'd have less to fix that way. Now we have what they broke, and the things that we were trying to get, too.
Concur. But I'm sure I'll be slapped up back o' the head for saying so.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
valian
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:26 pm

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

Post by valian »

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.
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 »

I see Sheriffs can now use their portion of the CHL fees on firearms and ammunition.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
Post Reply