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
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

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

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Surprised they dropped places of worship but are keeping day care facilities. The optics on that are so bad I can't imagine it'll stay in.

A comment about the OFCC proponent testimony: OFCC's testimony seriously under-represented the # of Ohio CHL licensees. The number given to the committee was 145,342, which is only the number of licenses which were granted or renewed in 2013. Since the licenses are good for 5 years, using 5 years worth of Attorney General data (accounting for all licenses newly issued or renewed, and subtracting all licenses suspended or revoked) shows that the # of active licensees at the end of 2013 was 403,919.
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 »

Not that my opinion counts for anything but I'm neutral on this bill now. If it passes, great, but I'm not going to be burning up the phone lines or writing letters of support to see it move forward.

I really don't know why they continue to dicker around with (1) concerning police stations, airports and the like. So long as the newly proposed language in (7) which makes government facilities off limits unless the local legislature "opts in" it pretty much neuters (1). Although I suppose you could carry into an unsecured portion of the Cleveland Clinic's police department and only be guilty of an M4 instead of a felony, but whoopie. Day cares will continue to be off limits because the state agency that regulates them will continue to order them to post signs, a la casino carry. I can probably count on one hand the number of colleges and legislative entities that will ever exercise their "opt in" rights, just like I can count the number of school boards that have done likewise for the general public (I believe that to be zero).*

Essentially this bill has just become a vehicle (pardon the pun) for Rep. Grossman's school parking lot bill. Otherwise it has no practical impact.

* Speaking of government facility "opt in" - how the heck is that even practical? One of the greatest arguments for 9.68 and the like was that they brought uniformity across the state. To recap what things would look like under this bill:
1. All government facilities must still be posted (per 2923.1212), arguably making carrying criminal trespass, notwithstanding any legislative authorization to carry.
2. Facilities that are not posted are not necessarily authorized.
3. One must research the laws of the entity that controls the unposted building to determine whether one may enter with a concealed handgun (messing this up is just a mere felony).
4. No or very few legislative entities will ever exercise their ability to "opt in", rendering the whole thing moot.

Bleah.
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 »

The one thing I very much like about the remaining language is that you can store your handgun in your locked vehicle if you need to leave your vehicle and are be on school property for any reason. Very disappointed about what was removed and changed otherwise. :(
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 »

Oh, and on the government "opt in" provision, I don't think that townships or non-charter counties will be able to opt in. There may also be problems with public owned colleges/universities.

1. To the best of my knowledge, these bodies do not enact statutes or ordinances, but rather they govern through resolutions and regulations.
2. Townships are prohibited from establishing regulations concerning the possession of firearms (normally a good provision of law, this restriction cuts both ways in the proposed case). About the only thing a township can do is fail to post the signs required by 2923.1212, which passively permits open carry in their buildings. But they could not take an active step to affirmatively allow concealed carry in their buildings as that would be regulating the possession of firearms.

The only two charter counties are Cuyahoga and Summit. I just about wet myself laughing at the prospect of either of them even entertaining the concept of opting in.

As far as public colleges/universities go, even with the "opt in" provision provided in the University restriction, they're still going to be bound by the general government facility prohibition, and since they do not have legislative they bodies cannot enact the required statutes or ordinances to opt in. State colleges might be OK since the OGA is essentially opting them in with respect to (7), but your community colleges are out of luck.

The more I think about it, the more I realize this opt in thing is just a train wreck, pretty much in line with the Buckeye Tuck nonsense of yesteryear.

I'd much rather see HB 20 (the original school parking lot bill) amended to match the language in this bill than try to focus any political capital on moving this one forward. Normally I say that any gun bill that doesn't take steps back is a good one, but this might be the first time I feel differently.
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 »

personally I'm against giving colleges and universities any authority whatsoever along these lines. Removing that authority at a later date will be much harder than not ever giving it to them to begin with.
User avatar
JustJack
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:17 am
Location: Findlay
Contact:

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

Post by JustJack »

techguy85 wrote:personally I'm against giving colleges and universities any authority whatsoever along these lines. Removing that authority at a later date will be much harder than not ever giving it to them to begin with.
I'm personally of the opinion that if it's a state/public college/university they already do NOT have the authority to regulate firearms any more than the State of Ohio does, as I'm of the opinion that 9.68 applies to STATE colleges/universities as much as it applies to any other subdivision of the STATE.
IANAL, YMMV, other standard disclaimers, yada, yada, yada, etc, ad nauseum, in infinitum.
"If stupidity was painful, I would be deaf from all the screaming." - Samuel A. Grim
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 »

Agreed but if we give them statutory authority under Ohio law, then they won't be in violation of R.C. 9.68 and will fight tooth and nail to retain any authority going forward. yes, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the ban in place as well but at least if we've never given them any authority then we don't have to fight the ban and the authority.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

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

Post by rickt »

Substitute HB 48 was passed out of committee yesterday. Looks like there is one more week before the House goes on summer recess.
Ray81
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: Franklin County

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

Post by Ray81 »

All cpz should be removed.
Cpz are stupid.

Do bad guys care if an area is cpz? Yes they do. Only if they plan to attack it because they know people are unarmed in a cpz.
pleasantguywhopacks
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 16747
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Whitehouse, OH

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

Post by pleasantguywhopacks »

Gutless pols removing houses of worship from the bill.. Especially after Charleston. Disgraceful!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxXpNBdrVE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Life Member NRA
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

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

Post by rickt »

pleasantguywhopacks wrote:Gutless pols removing houses of worship from the bill.. Especially after Charleston. Disgraceful!
Just another sign how weak the gun rights movement is here in Ohio.
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 »

rickt wrote:
pleasantguywhopacks wrote:Gutless pols removing houses of worship from the bill.. Especially after Charleston. Disgraceful!
Just another sign how weak the gun rights movement is here in Ohio.
They claim churches can "opt-in" and that is no difference than "opting-out." If churches were a total ban with no opt-in method there would be a talk. Coming up wit a persuasion of how they are different is tough to do and not really a sign of weak gun rights.
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
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

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

Post by djthomas »

JediSkipdogg wrote:
rickt wrote:
pleasantguywhopacks wrote:Gutless pols removing houses of worship from the bill.. Especially after Charleston. Disgraceful!
Just another sign how weak the gun rights movement is here in Ohio.
They claim churches can "opt-in" and that is no difference than "opting-out." If churches were a total ban with no opt-in method there would be a talk. Coming up wit a persuasion of how they are different is tough to do and not really a sign of weak gun rights.
And since we're all law abidin' folk, the difference between an F4 and an M4 is inconsequential.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

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

Post by rickt »

BFA is reporting that HB 48 will have a floor vote in the House today.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/flash-hb ... ion-needed
User avatar
buckeye43210
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH USA

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

Post by buckeye43210 »

Here's a link to the Ohio Channel. They will be broadcasting the proceedings live starting at 11:00 today.
Post Reply