SB 199: Active military may carry without CHL

[147Doc]

I appreciate what Mike is trying to do... but just being in the military does not automatically mean you had pistol training.
Or even safe weapons training! I've spoken to AF brethren who trained on M-16's once, with .22 adapters, then never saw another firearm during their enlistment.

[djmac1964]

I appreciate what Mike is trying to do... but just being in the military does not automatically mean you had pistol training.
Or even safe weapons training! I've spoken to AF brethren who trained on M-16's once, with .22 adapters, then never saw another firearm during their enlistment.

I never touched a pistol, or had any kind of handgun training during my 8 years in the army.

[ashtabula]

I received pistol training in AIT in the Army. I qualified as an expert, yes the standards are that low. At my duty post I was required to qualify yearly. I carried every day for my job, and was given permission to carry openly or concealed while off duty. None of this was of any use when I applied for a permit in 2006, as it was all too far in the past.

If you're going to require training I believe everyone should have to get it. I also believe it should not matter where or when you received it. There should be no carve outs for anyone, If you had the training fine, if you havent, go get it.

[rickt]

A substitute bill was passed by the committee last week. The 8 Republicans voted for the bill and the 3 Democrats against.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 131-SB-199

Wording was changed from

any person who is an active member of the armed forces of the United States and is carrying a valid military identification card and a certificate issued by the person's applicable service branch indicating that the person has successfully completed small arms qualification

to

is an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States and is carrying a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements described in division (G)(1) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code

Another interesting addition was

If the person is not able to promptly produce a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements described in division (G)(1) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code and if the person is not in a place described in division (B) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code, the officer shall issue a citation and the offender shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars. The citation shall be automatically dismissed and the civil penalty shall not be assessed if both of the following apply:

(a) Within ten days after the issuance of the citation, the offender presents a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training that meets or exceeds the training requirements described in division (G)(1) of section 2923.125 of the Revised Code, which were both valid at the time of the issuance of the citation to the law enforcement agency that employs the citing officer.

(b) At the time of the citation, the offender was not knowingly in a place described in division (B) of section 2923.126 of the Revised Code.

So if I am reading that correctly, even if the active duty military cannot produce the necessary training documentation, the penalty for CCW is a $500 civil fine.

[Chuck]

We've discussed this and I just can't get enthusiastic about it.
From what I hear, no one will benefit from it, NO ONE.
The type of certification one would need to carry is difficult/impracticable/impossible to carry.

Easier to just get a CHL

I want to see an end to notification
I could get enthusiastic about that,,,,,,

[sd790]

I want to see an end to notification
I could get enthusiastic about that,,,,,,

This

[djthomas]

The type of certification one would need to carry is difficult/impracticable/impossible to carry.

Or get. Among the requirements of "division (G)(1) of section 2923.125" that must be met or exceeded are that the class has to give you information on where to get the Ohio AG's pamphlet. That simple little detail will almost assuredly never be met by any military training course, small arms or not. Let alone some of the other required topics like dispute resolution.

[buckeye43210]

Could this tie into the recent move to allow Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) members of the Ohio National Guard to carry in Armories after taking a firearms training course offered by the Ohio State Highway patrol?

[djthomas]

Could this tie into the recent move to allow Active Duty members of the Ohio National Guard to carry in Armories after taking a firearms training course offered by the Ohio State Highway patrol?

Doubtful because they are specifically not exempt from the enumerated CPZs under this bill, which an armory would no doubt be.

[buckeye43210]

Could this tie into the recent move to allow Active Duty members of the Ohio National Guard to carry in Armories after taking a firearms training course offered by the Ohio State Highway patrol?

Doubtful because they are specifically not exempt from the enumerated CPZs under this bill, which an armory would no doubt be.

Here's a link to earlier discussion about the Governor allowing AGR members of the National Guard carry firearms at Ohio National Guard facilities.

That is only for full time AGR and after you take an additional 8 hour course with OSHP. And you can only carry the firearm and holster that you you put on the spreadsheet to sign up for the class. If you are involved in a shooting using anything other than what you gave them you are SOL.

The Governor's policy allows "certain" members of the Ohio National Guard to carry firearms at their duty locations and this legislation would allow them to carry elsewhere without an Ohio CHL.

[jeep45238]

OHANG isn't authorized to carry outside of their vehicles on base. Better than Reserve or Active Duty however.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Sub S.B. 199 would finally allow SALES of handguns to 18-20 year old service members.

That's a big step since they've been allowed to BUY handguns for years.

[NavyChief]

We've discussed this and I just can't get enthusiastic about it.
From what I hear, no one will benefit from it, NO ONE.
The type of certification one would need to carry is difficult/impracticable/impossible to carry.

I actually oppose it. Why? because it's doing exactly what the anti's normally do - pass some meaningless legislation just so they can be seen to be DOING SOMETHING. ...which in my mind is the worst kind of pandering.

[Brian D.]

Sub S.B. 199 would finally allow SALES of handguns to 18-20 year old service members.

That's a big step since they've been allowed to BUY handguns for years.

A lot of people never picked up on the pointlessness of that previous legislative "fix", Dave. But having corralled one of the Ohio representatives about it before passage, I knew HE was well aware it was merely lip service. But he went along and voted yes anyhow.

Hence one example of why I'm always ready to call 'Shenanigans!' on that bunch in Columbus. It's not the only time they've pulled such stunts in their jobs.

[NavyChief]

. . . HE was well aware it was merely lip service. But he went along and voted yes anyhow.

But - but - they're DOING SOMETHING.