HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by 3FULLMAGS+1 »

curmudgeon3 wrote:Would it be politically incorrect to get the name(s) of the individual(s) who are opposing our RKBA out into the open sunshine ? "The Committee" just seems so vague.
I'm assuming your asking about the opposition to notification repeal ?

Well , apart from the usual anti gun dems....It's mainly (or should I say "always"), the usual anti carry law enforcement organizations.
Not the ordinary officers on the street , but the organizations that "supposedly" represent them, but in reality, DON'T.

The FOP, the Sheriff's assoc., (don't know the actual full name), and the OSHP.
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by curmudgeon3 »

3FULLMAGS+1 wrote:
curmudgeon3 wrote:Would it be politically incorrect to get the name(s) of the individual(s) who are opposing our RKBA out into the open sunshine ? "The Committee" just seems so vague.
I'm assuming your asking about the opposition to notification repeal ?

Well , apart from the usual anti gun dems....It's mainly (or should I say "always"), the usual anti carry law enforcement organizations.
Not the ordinary officers on the street , but the organizations that "supposedly" represent them, but in reality, DON'T.

The FOP, the Sheriff's assoc., (don't know the actual full name), and the OSHP.
Yeah, those are the usual instigators; but I was thinking a little more specific than the usual. Like the personal names of the OGA Legislators who vote against restoration/improvements to RKBA so we can reciprocate when election time comes around. With Politicians, that always works.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by Chuck »

We have the votes, both in the committee and on the floor, we just can't GET TO a vote. The problem is house leadership, the speaker of the house. Leadership is pressing for this "compromise" and has let it be known that if the committee does vote the original language out and onto the floor of the House, the floor vote will never be taken. Representative Wiggam choices are to a) let the bill die in committee as is without a vote, b) Ask the chairman to call for a vote on the original language and if it passes out of committee let it die on the House floor without a vote, or c) Accept the sub bill, let it get voted on both by committee AND the floor of the House.

OFCC has been fighting this amendment since the end of June. We have had our calls to leadership ignored before the amendment AND been called unexpectedly by house leadership after the amendment to be chastised and brow beat into submission. They practically crowed when they told us "the other gun groups" meaning BFA and NRA, supported the amendment. I'm sure Rep. Wiggam was browbeat in a similar fashion, and certainly find no fault in him, as a freshman legislator, is finally agreeing to the amendment because he thought that it is at least an improvement over existing law now.
He once asked me rather incredulously "You mean OFCC would rather have an arrestable offense instead of a minor misdemeanor?"

He is new to the gun community, but he is our friend. Being new, he doesn't fully comprehend the years of issues we have been dealing with and how deeply we feel about matters such as this. He is gaining valuable experience, IMO.

I have compiled a new list of seven reasons the amendment sucks. At the top is DontTreadOnMe's point about local municipalities ability to make it an arrestable offense anyway. I intend on passing it to Rep. Wiggam today.

To answer zeko's question, we don't know what "possible amendment" may be considered, other than what we can convince Wiggam of before the hearing
This week's committee meeting ought to be interesting
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by curmudgeon3 »

Chuck, if I read you correctly it's the Ohio Speaker of the House, Cliff Rosenberger who's diddling the HB-142 proposal submitted by our friend Mr. Wiggam by blocking a floor vote. He's sure NOT our friend and we should remember that at the next election by dragging the name out into the sunlight now
Has he stated WHY he is not our friend? I'd be interested to know.
Last edited by curmudgeon3 on Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
zeko
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Morrow County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by zeko »

If we have the floor votes for the original HB142, could a discharge petition be used to get to a floor vote?

zeko
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by Chuck »

curmudgeon3 wrote:Chuck, if I read you correctly it's the Ohio Speaker of the House, Cliff Rosenberger who's diddling the HB-142 proposal submitted by our friend Mr. Wiggam by blocking a floor vote. He's sure NOT our friend and we should remember that at the next election by dragging the name out into the sunlight now
Has he stated WHY he is not our friend? I'd be interested to know.
It's all rumor and innuendo as he doesn't speak to us directly, but sends his minions on such errands. Plausible deniability is well established.

There is also a HUGE risk in publicly declaring war on someone so powerful.
We can shame him and STILL not get a floor vote, and mostly likely NEVER get a vote on anything else we might want in the future.
There are other republicans not happy with leadership, and perhaps a change may be brought about from another direcction
Hard to cross a burned bridge

Zeko,
I don't know much about "discharge petitions"
Can you enlighten me?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by qmti »

[quote="Chuck"]We have the votes, both in the committee and on the floor, we just can't GET TO a vote. The problem is house leadership, the speaker of the house. Leadership is pressing for this "compromise" and has let it be known that if the committee does vote the original language out and onto the floor of the House, the floor vote will never be taken. Representative Wiggam choices are to a) let the bill die in committee as is without a vote, b) Ask the chairman to call for a vote on the original language and if it passes out of committee let it die on the House floor without a vote, or c) Accept the sub bill, let it get voted on both by committee AND the floor of the House.

I'll go with option "b", at least we will know what legislators support us. The more I think about this, Sub.HR142 is a terrible bill. If passed it will be a gold mine for the little townships/villages that support their law-enforcement by the amount of tickets fees they write (Some do supplement the force with township funds if they don't make their ticket quota). After all it's only $25 and who's going to fight it, and anyway the village needs the money (the mayors are going to figure this out real quick). OH, you now have a criminal record? The officer doesn't care. I wonder how the guys at BFA will feel when they get their first ticket under this new law if enacted. After it dies we need to thank Wiggan for his efforts.
zeko
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Morrow County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by zeko »

Chuck wrote: Zeko,
I don't know much about "discharge petitions"
Can you enlighten me?
Others probably know more about the procedure than I do, but here's what I think is the case:

A "discharge petition" is a document circulated by a legislator to force a floor vote on a bill which (for whatever reason) doesn't get scheduled the normal way. It needs a majority vote in the legislative body (House or Senate) to whose floor the bill is desired to be brought. In this case it would need 50 votes out of the 99 House members. Some House member would have to get it started (and be willing to oppose whoever doesn't want the bill voted on).

zeko
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by djthomas »

zeko wrote:A "discharge petition" is a document circulated by a legislator to force a floor vote on a bill which (for whatever reason) doesn't get scheduled the normal way. It needs a majority vote in the legislative body (House or Senate) to whose floor the bill is desired to be brought. In this case it would need 50 votes out of the 99 House members. Some House member would have to get it started (and be willing to oppose whoever doesn't want the bill voted on).
That's it in a nutshell. In practice it's more complicated because it essentially amounts to a vote of no confidence against the speaker. So not only is it matter of getting the votes of 50 people who want to see the bill passed, but getting 50 people willing to go on record in opposition to the speaker. While the votes may be there for the bill, that doesn't automatically mean the votes are there for a discharge petition. Legislators will have to ask themselves if it's the hill they want to die on. The other problem is I believe the committee has accepted the substitute bill so at best a discharge petition could force a vote on the substitute bill. I don't know if amendments would be permitted on the floor to revert to the original language.

Not that I know anything but I don't think there's any serious possibility of a discharge petition occurring, especially at the hands of a freshman legislator who has to ask himself when and where he wants to rock the boat.

I believe the last time a discharge petition was used it was by Danny Bubp trying to get Class D carry passed in a lame duck session. The petition was successful against an equally lame duck Democratic speaker but due to the House calendar the session expired before the floor vote could be heard.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by Chuck »

That's a lot of food for thought. Thanks guys
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by curmudgeon3 »

Legislators will have to ask themselves if it's the hill they want to die on.
Sometimes there is way too much drama in politics. In regular commerce jobs if an employee does not perform satisfactorily they are simply discharged, without great drama. So if a politician does not perform to the satisfaction of their constituents they are replaced at the ballot box; again, without any great drama. Lets dispense with the theatrics and direct our elected representatives to proceed with Zeko's suggestion.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by Chuck »

Here's a preview of our email blast:

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************

Fellow freedom loving Ohioans,
In accordance with our members wishes, OFCC actively advocated for a bill to repeal the odious requirement to notify law enforcement every time we had an encounter with them. That bill is HB 142, introduced by our friend, Representative Scott Wiggam, and after FIVE hearings in the House Federalism and Interstate Relations Committee, our bill was compromised into what is now called Sub HB 142.
Shadowy forces in the background of the Ohio House pushed this compromise language and here's why it is the wrong thing to do.

Problems with Sub HB 142:

1. Current precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court (City of Niles v. Howard, 12 Ohio St. 3d 162) says that municipalities can increase an offense listed in the ORC as a minor misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, even in the case of general laws which are exempted from Home Rule.

Said another way: Even if this passes and becomes law, all the anti-gun areas of the state can simply write their own statutes using the same language, but change the penalty from "minor misdemeanor" to "first degree misdemeanor". Once they figure out they can do that, you can bet they will do that.

2. Upon demand for ID, CHL holder must still interrupt officer and tell him they are armed. Still no right to remain silent. Further, if CHL holder doesn’t have is license on his person, it is an arrestible offense.

3. It will be nearly impossible to get rid of

4. The name of the crime for failing to notify is “carrying concealed weapons”
*Page 5, ORC 2923.12 (F)
This “$25 ticket” has to potential to impact employment in many fields.

5. It costs more to fight than the penalty. This will encourage more tickets and fewer people to challenge them.

6. Adds confusion in that if an officer asks a person for their ID the person must give more than ID or get a ticket. How are out of state drivers to know? How will more than half a million Ohioans know?

7. The SUPPOSED purpose of this law is “officer safety”. Why is it that NO ONE can explain how notification makes officers safer? Unless law enforcement groups can explain logically how this law makes them safer, leaving it on the books shouldn’t even be considered.

The TRUE purpose of notification is to make it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a gun for self-defense. Why else would they fight so hard for something they can’t explain? Their track record speaks for itself; they have never supported expanding our freedoms, NEVER.

Yet, they have no problem with their continuing efforts to expand their own rights, right they refuse to allow we normal citizens. Carrying into CPZs and Drinking while armed are two the come to mind quickly.

OFCC urges everyone to Email Representative Scott Wiggam at: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/scott-wiggam/contact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Phone: (614) 466-1474

Email Chairmen Kristina Roegner at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/kristina-roegner/contact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Phone (614) 466-1177
and urge them to adapt, vote and pass HB 142 IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by qmti »

Good write-up Chuck. Members should also contact their own district Representatives to push defeat of Sub.HB142 and thank Wiggm for his efforts.
qmti
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by qmti »

This is how I see this Bill, right or wrong, and my opinion:
*Original HB142
Positive; Rep. Wiggam did a fine job on the wording of the original HB142. It was good legislation.
*Sub.HB142
Negative: where do I start
1. Legislators that will vote "Yes" on this bill really don't realize the implications that it will have on law abiding CCW individuals
2. A $25 fine and a misdemeanor on your clean record by law enforcement who don't understand the bill or will take advantage of it
3. This is a cash cow for townships/villages/towns/etc. Who has the time and money to fight a ticket
4. If passed it would take years to fix it
5. Anti-carry law enforcement organizations will have won and will enforce it vigorously
6. Border line CCW individuals who carry will now think about leaving their protection at home to avoid the hassle if stopped
7. BFA seems to be on the wrong track defending the CCW community
8. Disappointed with the lack of support by the NRA for Ohioans right to carry
*Leave the present Duty to Notify in-place, a least by now we all know how to handle a stop
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

qmti wrote:*Leave the present Duty to Notify in-place, a least by now we all know how to handle a stop
I get what you're saying but even as flawed as this is, it's an improvement over current law:

1. *Who* and *when* to notify is both much clearer & narrower under this bill.
2. The "bad parts" of this bill don't make anything worse than it is today.
3. The lower penalty (minor misdemeanor) will apply throughout the state when the law goes into effect, and even if some municipalities enhance that penalty (as discussed earlier) it will take them time to do it and it still won't be a more severe penalty than under current law.

I strongly prefer the original version of this bill, and I do think if this version passes it will make completely removing notification harder, but IMO this is better in many ways than current law.
Post Reply