132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby djthomas » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:16 am

They essentially decriminalized carrying in colleges and universities even without authorization. As Mgal said in another thread it's time to stop treating every oppsie committed by a licensee as a felony. It took two tries to get Class D carry so I don't think we should just walk away from the statutory CPZs saying "oh well. We tried."

At the very least there should be a strong push to decriminalize CPZ violations as they did for colleges. I really don't see notification going away. Honestly it will probably be harder than the second shot at the CPZ rules. Decriminalization might be possible. I don't know all the dynamics of what went on in the lame duck but consider:
House watered own bill down to allow "opt in" for local government but removed police stations from CPZ list. Bill sent to Senate where it sat for months.
Senate amended to allow carry in insecure govt buildings BUT added police stations back to the CPZ list after concerns from law enforcement. Senate passes bill overwhelmingly.
House reverts govt building language and Senate concurs as clock expires.

So the House is afraid of the local governments. The Senate couldn't care less about them but follows the wishes of law enforcement.

There is another dynamic to consider here. Our Republican president is on record about getting rid of victim zones so it is somewhat of a national issue, depending on how and when he pushes it. As currently written the national carry bill would not require out of state licensees to notify under any circumstances. If that becomes law then I think it is a much easier conversation in Ohio. Why in the world would we subject ourselves to rules that no visitor has to follow, particularly with such harsh sanctions?
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5724
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby JediSkipdogg » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:26 am

Ole_grizzly wrote:
The biggest law that I see people arrested for is failing to notify.


Are those ofcc people or the public in general? What is more beneficial to ofcc members? Going after a non-starter so far by the legislature to try to help people too lazy to learn the law? Or go after something that would benefit the membership every day if more cpz's were removed?

This is the best possible climate we will likely ever see, as its very likely there will be a democratic wave, especially nationally, in response to trump the next few elections. I just don't see how worrying about traffic ticket level offenses when people have the opportunity to learn and follow the law versus going after the core tenant of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is still severely compromised in our state.

Would be nice to get both.


They are general public but I know ALOT get warnings on it. What MOST at OFCC bicker about is when they are told they have to notify even if they are not carrying. Yes, the officer does not correctly know the law, but wouldn't total removal of notification help in that case?

Also, it's not necessarily learning and following the law. During a traffic stop the average person's heart rate will elevate, they become nervous, worried, and simply forget. It happens quite often and is not a blatant failure on their part.

Also, failure to notify IS NOT a traffic level offense. It's an M1 with a suspension of the license. Sure, you can say it's an MM without suspension if the officer had knowledge, but that's one you prove in court, after you have been arrested of an M1. Hard for you on a traffic stop to know if he had knowledge or not.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby M-Quigley » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:30 am

Ole_grizzly wrote:It seems as if most Ohio police departments understand the law, I haven't heard of notification horror stories in a while, and I just question why that would be the top priority?


I don't know if you'd call it a horror story, but the one I posted about happened recently. Granted, this particular cop acted like he was doing the woman a favor and told the woman he wasn't going to charge her "this time" but that she'd better notify in the future. He and his new dept. would've really been embarrassed if he'd have done that. He wasn't some rookie out of the academy either, had been a cop in another city. It's an unknown how long this particular cop had done something before getting caught, or how this woman felt being told this by that cop when she thought (correctly) that she was obeying the law in the first place. Getting stopped for a mere traffic violation is stressful enough without having to worry about a more serious charge also.

Ole_grizzly wrote:To people un-familiar with firearms who have never thought through the need or value to carry a defensive weapon, they think we sound like idiots for complaining about notification to an officer. Yes, every reason we are complaining about is valid, but those type of people would never in a million years think through the consequences that could happen with the current ambiguity.

Therefore, the reaction is predictable, and they just further strengthen their opinion that gun owners are crazy. I have tested this out on a few people I know that aren't comfortable around firearms, and this response is consistent.


I've noticed a similar response from people who aren't comfortable around firearms. The problem is that they are uninformed, not just about this but about some other gun laws as well, whether current or proposed. I'm talking about the laws the anti gun groups call "reasonable", like nics checks for all firearms transfers, registration of guns, bans on high cap magazines, people on no fly lists included in the nics checks, anyone who has had mental health treatment regardless of what it was for, restrictions on so called "assault weapons", etc. It all sounds "reasonable" to most people if you are uninformed, or have never personally experienced a problem with a particular law, or know someone who has.
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby Ole_grizzly » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:16 am

They are general public but I know ALOT get warnings on it. What MOST at OFCC bicker about is when they are told they have to notify even if they are not carrying. Yes, the officer does not correctly know the law, but wouldn't total removal of notification help in that case?

Also, it's not necessarily learning and following the law. During a traffic stop the average person's heart rate will elevate, they become nervous, worried, and simply forget. It happens quite often and is not a blatant failure on their part.

Also, failure to notify IS NOT a traffic level offense. It's an M1 with a suspension of the license. Sure, you can say it's an MM without suspension if the officer had knowledge, but that's one you prove in court, after you have been arrested of an M1. Hard for you on a traffic stop to know if he had knowledge or not.


Again, 100% agree, all your points are valid and not arguing any of them. I'm questioning the priority of this versus other agendas, and whether or not this is winnable, which I highly doubt based on the back sliding that goes on with our current legislature.

Thanks for all your input jedi.
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too - the Repo man
Ole_grizzly
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:34 pm
Location: Chesterland, OH

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby concreteguy » Sun Jan 22, 2017 2:50 pm

Mustang380gal wrote:Church/house of worship carry would be nice.



I'm able to carry at my place of worship. I would assume you mean churches should be required to post or not?
concreteguy
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:37 am
Location: Rushville

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby JustaShooter » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:08 pm

concreteguy wrote:
Mustang380gal wrote:Church/house of worship carry would be nice.



I'm able to carry at my place of worship. I would assume you mean churches should be required to post or not?

Removed from the statutory no-carry list (which makes it a felony if you carry without permission) and require them to post if they wish to prohibit carry, yes.
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
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby troy bilt » Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:59 pm

I have a personal goal to get more involved this year.

I think 9.68 need some teeth. I would also like to see notification removed.
I have struggled with dyslexia my entire life. I know it's spelled wrong but thanks for pointing it out.
User avatar
troy bilt
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:53 pm
Location: Norwalk

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby schmieg » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:02 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:
Ole_grizzly wrote:
The biggest law that I see people arrested for is failing to notify.


Are those ofcc people or the public in general? What is more beneficial to ofcc members? Going after a non-starter so far by the legislature to try to help people too lazy to learn the law? Or go after something that would benefit the membership every day if more cpz's were removed?

This is the best possible climate we will likely ever see, as its very likely there will be a democratic wave, especially nationally, in response to trump the next few elections. I just don't see how worrying about traffic ticket level offenses when people have the opportunity to learn and follow the law versus going after the core tenant of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is still severely compromised in our state.

Would be nice to get both.


They are general public but I know ALOT get warnings on it. What MOST at OFCC bicker about is when they are told they have to notify even if they are not carrying. Yes, the officer does not correctly know the law, but wouldn't total removal of notification help in that case?

Also, it's not necessarily learning and following the law. During a traffic stop the average person's heart rate will elevate, they become nervous, worried, and simply forget. It happens quite often and is not a blatant failure on their part.

Also, failure to notify IS NOT a traffic level offense. It's an M1 with a suspension of the license. Sure, you can say it's an MM without suspension if the officer had knowledge, but that's one you prove in court, after you have been arrested of an M1. Hard for you on a traffic stop to know if he had knowledge or not.

If you are lucky enough to have the conversation recorded (either by you or the officer's setup) and the officer is asking if you forgot to tell him something, you have a pretty good argument that the charge should be a MM instead of a M1. Otherwise, good luck.
-- 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
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4917
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby djthomas » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:21 pm

schmieg wrote:If you are lucky enough to have the conversation recorded (either by you or the officer's setup) and the officer is asking if you forgot to tell him something, you have a pretty good argument that the charge should be a MM instead of a M1.

Depends on when that question gets asked. ;)
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5724
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby schmieg » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:25 pm

djthomas wrote:
schmieg wrote:If you are lucky enough to have the conversation recorded (either by you or the officer's setup) and the officer is asking if you forgot to tell him something, you have a pretty good argument that the charge should be a MM instead of a M1.

Depends on when that question gets asked. ;)

Yes, I'm speaking of the initial encounter.
-- 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
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4917
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:12 am

Here is what I would like to see introduced this session:

CHL Law Training for LEOs
Authorize and require the Ohio Attorney General to create and distribute training documents to ALL law enforcement agencies in Ohio regarding concealed carry laws and all changes to those laws, either through legislation or case law. The AG should also proactively clarify legal requirements, such as 'notifying while unarmed'.

The AG already does a similar update each quarter with their "Law Enforcement Bulletin". As of now, this is an opt-in email newsletter, but the same process could be used to deliver 'required reading'.

I feel this would help protect Ohio citizens from inconsistent enforcement of laws across the state. This ties in with the core purpose of R.C. 9.68 - to provide consistent firearms laws statewide.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby sd790 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:44 am

Constitutional carry.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
sd790
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:40 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby JediSkipdogg » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:11 am

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Here is what I would like to see introduced this session:

CHL Law Training for LEOs
Authorize and require the Ohio Attorney General to create and distribute training documents to ALL law enforcement agencies in Ohio regarding concealed carry laws and all changes to those laws, either through legislation or case law. The AG should also proactively clarify legal requirements, such as 'notifying while unarmed'.

The AG already does a similar update each quarter with their "Law Enforcement Bulletin". As of now, this is an opt-in email newsletter, but the same process could be used to deliver 'required reading'.

I feel this would help protect Ohio citizens from inconsistent enforcement of laws across the state. This ties in with the core purpose of R.C. 9.68 - to provide consistent firearms laws statewide.


If we do it, it would be done through eOPOTA which all officers in Ohio are required to do annually. But ask any officer how effective it is. Most will say it's useless and they do the one hour course in under 5 minutes.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby MyWifeSaidYes » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:30 pm

JediSkipdogg wrote:If we do it, it would be done through eOPOTA which all officers in Ohio are required to do annually. But ask any officer how effective it is. Most will say it's useless and they do the one hour course in under 5 minutes.


Ah, but there is a record of that training, right?

I don't care how 'effective' the officer thinks it is, as long as they have the training.

The Supreme Court will let a LEO off the hook if the LEO 'thinks' they were doing the right thing.

I want them to have training about the 'right thing' and not leave it up to their imagination.
MyWifeSaidYes
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: 132 Ohio Legislature - Our Goals

Postby JediSkipdogg » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:15 pm

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:If we do it, it would be done through eOPOTA which all officers in Ohio are required to do annually. But ask any officer how effective it is. Most will say it's useless and they do the one hour course in under 5 minutes.


Ah, but there is a record of that training, right?

I don't care how 'effective' the officer thinks it is, as long as they have the training.

The Supreme Court will let a LEO off the hook if the LEO 'thinks' they were doing the right thing.

I want them to have training about the 'right thing' and not leave it up to their imagination.


And the Supreme Court will still let them off the hook. Training is generally only bad for LEO when it comes to civil litigation. For criminal, you could spend as much time on training as you want in an individual area and the officers are still granted the ability to make errors.

It's also pretty tough to push the legislatures on what type of training would be required and how. Most eOPOTA is a bunch of slides and then questions at the end. So most skip to the end and take the questions. Legislators aren't going to pass a law that says training must be one hour, with videos, on current laws, and require a 90% passage at the end. It would be nice, but they tried that with the huge Human Trafficking laws years ago and the state said nope, we will mandate training and let the AG design it.

It would be nice, but I'm just laying out reality with how it's always been and how pointless it is. Heck, right now officers are only required 2 hours of legal updates a year by the state. Last I checked it would take more than 2 days to update officers are law changes over the past year.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

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
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

PreviousNext

Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest