https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 131-HB-235H. 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.
HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- rickt
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
- Location: Cuyahoga County
HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
Introduced today:
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5757
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 19039
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: NEO
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
Taking care of our Veteran's....I like that a lot....Thank You...
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.
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.
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.
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5757
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.WY_Not wrote: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.
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.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 16239
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.WY_Not wrote: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.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5757
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.WY_Not wrote: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.
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.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 19039
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: NEO
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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 ?
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
- Morne
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 10631
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: Wayne County
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
You're being rather vague. Is a specific poster now changing his/her tune?carmen fovozzo wrote: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 ?
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.
Remember, only you can prevent big government!
Footsoldier in the Conservative Insurrection of the GOP.
Remember, only you can prevent big government!
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 19039
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: NEO
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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...
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.
No idea what they use now.
Brian D. wrote: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.WY_Not wrote: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.
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.
-
- Posts: 16239
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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.
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.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 19039
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
- Location: NEO
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
MOS 111.... AIT ...ONLY...
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Re: HB 235: CHL applicants who are/were in military
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 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.
carmen fovozzo wrote: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 ?
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.