HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military

[rickt]

Introduced today:

H. B. No. 235 - Representative Terhar.

Cosponsors: Representatives Antani, Becker, Blessing, Brenner, Dever, Perales, Johnson, T., LaTourette, Maag, Romanchuk, Schaffer.

To amend section 2923.125 of the Revised Code to waive the concealed carry license fee for active members of the armed forces and retired and honorably discharged veterans and to accept military experience with firearms as proof of competency with firearms regardless of when the applicant for a license acquired the experience.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 131-HB-235

[schmieg]

That would be nice to go into effect just as my wife and I are about to start drawing Social Security and the annual income will significantly drop.

[carmen fovozzo]

Taking care of our Veteran's....I like that a lot....Thank You...

[WY_Not]

I'll be the odd man and speak against the idea. Now, before you jump down my throat... I am a veteran so I would benefit from it. The elimination of the fee I can live with that if I have to. However, laws should apply equally to all citizens. We should not be carving out special exceptions for this group or that group, irregardless of how deserving.

As far as dropping the training requirements... Either the training is needed for ALL CHL carriers or it isn't. NOTHING in my AF training prepared me for carrying a handgun much less trained me in even the basics of Ohio rules/laws regarding CHL. We trained with M-16s not handguns. If you are going to drop the training requirements then drop them for all.

[schmieg]

I'll be the odd man and speak against the idea. Now, before you jump down my throat... I am a veteran so I would benefit from it. The elimination of the fee I can live with that if I have to. However, laws should apply equally to all citizens. We should not be carving out special exceptions for this group or that group, irregardless of how deserving.

As far as dropping the training requirements... Either the training is needed for ALL CHL carriers or it isn't. NOTHING in my AF training prepared me for carrying a handgun much less trained me in even the basics of Ohio rules/laws regarding CHL. We trained with M-16s not handguns. If you are going to drop the training requirements then drop them for all.

I agree with you that laws should apply to all equally and my comment above was a bit facetious. If I can't afford $65 every five years, I probably won't be able to afford to keep my guns and I don't foresee either happening.

However, all citizens are not entitled to use VA facilities. All citizens are not entitled to participate in Tri-Care or use the PX or commissary. Some things can be legitimate consideration for service.

[WY_Not]

Yep, that is why I said I could live with the reduction in fee if I had to. Doesn't mean I like it though. Those other things you mentioned though are specific employee benefits that are spelled out when you sign on the dotted line.

The dropping of the training requirement is a serious flaw in logical thinking on the part of the legislators though. Just because someone was in the military doesn't mean they know the first thing about the safe and proper handling of firearms or have a clue about the rules and laws that apply to CHL carriers in the state of Ohio. Like I said, in the AF we never touched handguns. Our training was solely with M-16's. I also got to play around with nuclear weapons platforms aka B-52G and H models.

[Brian D.]

As far as dropping the training requirements... Either the training is needed for ALL CHL carriers or it isn't. NOTHING in my AF training prepared me for carrying a handgun much less trained me in even the basics of Ohio rules/laws regarding CHL. We trained with M-16s not handguns. If you are going to drop the training requirements then drop them for all.

I've known at least three Air Force veterans through the years that stated their only firearms training in the service was with semi-auto rifles chambered for .22 long rifle. The descriptions made it sound like Ruger 10/22 models. Of course that's better than NO firearms training, but according to these folks they maybe spent parts of five or six days over a two week period practicing then qualifying, and never touched a gun again the rest of their hitches.

[schmieg]

Yep, that is why I said I could live with the reduction in fee if I had to. Doesn't mean I like it though. Those other things you mentioned though are specific employee benefits that are spelled out when you sign on the dotted line.

The dropping of the training requirement is a serious flaw in logical thinking on the part of the legislators though. Just because someone was in the military doesn't mean they know the first thing about the safe and proper handling of firearms or have a clue about the rules and laws that apply to CHL carriers in the state of Ohio. Like I said, in the AF we never touched handguns. Our training was solely with M-16's. I also got to play around with nuclear weapons platforms aka B-52G and H models.

I was trained on everything in the arsenal from the 1911 to the 155 Howitzer, including the M60 tank weapons and the POS grease gun. My favorite, second only to the M2 .50 MG, was the 81 mm mortar, but I never got to fire one after leaving Armor Officers Basic Course.

This law fits the requirement for universal application because people can enlist if they want the benefits. Benefits can be conferred by the feds and by the States and are often changed after enlistment or commissioning.

[carmen fovozzo]

I find the comments that training should be required in this thread very confusing..I find that some on this forum argued that we don't need training in order to get our CHL in prior threads....I argued that we should have some training... And I was jumped on by some members for it. Why is this different now ?

[Morne]

I find the comments that training should be required in this thread very confusing..I find that some on this forum argued that we don't need training in order to get our CHL in prior threads....I argued that we should have some training... And I was jumped on by some members for it. Why is this different now ?

You're being rather vague. Is a specific poster now changing his/her tune?

[carmen fovozzo]

I guess I am.....there was a thread a few weeks back, I believe it was about Constitutional carry, not sure,but I was against not having some kind of basic hand gun safety training for CC and I was jumped on by many forum members...just wondering why this would be different to some.....? Can't name names,but there were quite a few that disagreed with me.....Though I am use to it by now...

[WY_Not]

We got to use real M-16's because at the time the Ciener (sp?) .22LR conversion models were too unreliable. That was during Basic. Once we left Basic we never touched them again.

No idea what they use now.

As far as dropping the training requirements... Either the training is needed for ALL CHL carriers or it isn't. NOTHING in my AF training prepared me for carrying a handgun much less trained me in even the basics of Ohio rules/laws regarding CHL. We trained with M-16s not handguns. If you are going to drop the training requirements then drop them for all.

I've known at least three Air Force veterans through the years that stated their only firearms training in the service was with semi-auto rifles chambered for .22 long rifle. The descriptions made it sound like Ruger 10/22 models. Of course that's better than NO firearms training, but according to these folks they maybe spent parts of five or six days over a two week period practicing then qualifying, and never touched a gun again the rest of their hitches.

[Brian D.]

I don't really care to have training required for anyone, Carmen. That said it would certainly be a good thing for most to have before toting a handgun around daily.

Also have found it amusing for years that legislators and other policy/decision makers believe that everybody who was ever in the U.S. military had extensive training with small arms, enough to make them competent to carry a handgun around, years later.

[carmen fovozzo]

MOS 111.... AIT ...ONLY...

[WY_Not]

If you are speaking of me, nothing contradictory in what I've posted. I still think the mandatory training requirement is wrong and a waste of time/money and a violation of rights. I also think that letting certain groups off the hook for it is wrong. If the State wants to have a law then enforce it for all.

I was simply pointing out that waiving the training requirements just because someone served in the military is based on very flawed logic and misinformation. Just because someone was in the military does not mean they had any firearms training beyond basic rifle. If a person can produce a DD-214 that shows they had pistol training, fine let that stand as the required training. But, along those lines, why shouldn't the SAFS school at Camp Perry qualify? I got more training during the SAFS rifle and the SAFS pistol classes that I took than I was given in the AF. Or what about Appleseed classes? Or a hundred other equally fine training classes. In the end though, neither military service nor any of these classes provide any teaching of the rules/laws that are Ohio specific.

Heaven forbid they make and pass laws that are logical and consistent.

I find the comments that training should be required in this thread very confusing..I find that some on this forum argued that we don't need training in order to get our CHL in prior threads....I argued that we should have some training... And I was jumped on by some members for it. Why is this different now ?