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: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby Werz » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:43 pm

JustaShooter wrote:
qmti wrote:
qmti wrote:Jim Irvine from Buckeye Firearms contacted me on email about my opposition to Sub.HB142. I replied with most of the bullet points that "I see" as negative on the notification issue. It was a reply that I sent him on email on my opposition to the bill.

Received a reply from Jim Irvine, some good points, some I still disagree on. Don't know much about privacy laws so I won't copy/reprint his reply to me. Obviously he does support the Sub. bill and says it's better than what we have today as far as notification.

Tell him to post his points in the BFA forums, there is a thread going on over there where he's been asked to participate.

Good luck on that. I went through that when it looked like BFA was going to surrender us to federal firearm disabilities solely for the sake of reciprocity with Texas. I had to go through channels to get a legal memorandum to some NRA board members, along with a complaint that we definitely did not want that in Ohio. That part of the bill was not enacted, but it had been in the earlier BFA bill, and even though they protested that it was not in the new bill, nobody would promise that they wouldn't toss it in there just to score reciprocity with one state.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 5491
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby Chuck » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:54 pm

Werz wrote:Good luck on that. I went through that when it looked like BFA was going to surrender us to federal firearm disabilities solely for the sake of reciprocity with Texas. I had to go through channels to get a legal memorandum to some NRA board members, along with a complaint that we definitely did not want that in Ohio. That part of the bill was not enacted, but it had been in the earlier BFA bill, and even though they protested that it was not in the new bill, nobody would promise that they wouldn't toss it in there just to score reciprocity with one state.


Do you have a proper write up on that?
I may be able to use it sometime

Thanks!!
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)
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby dustymedic » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:13 pm

JustaShooter wrote:And those of you out there who are NRA members or BFA members and are *not* paid-up OFCC members: How's that working out for you? Feel like you are getting any value for your money? No? Then why not become an OFCC member and support an organization willing to actually fight for you and your rights!


I joined BFA before I found out about OFCC. I'd already decided before this came to a head that i probably wasn't going to renew... :roll: :roll:
XDS 9mm, S&W M&P 2.0 9C, S&W Model 66, S&W 340PD

Somewhere, Darwin is crying...
User avatar
dustymedic
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:21 pm
Location: Just east of Columbus....

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby zeko » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:51 pm

The following proposed sequence of events assumes that we have the votes to pass the original HB142, but the present House leadership refuses to allow the vote to take place:

1. Sub HB142 passes the House, goes over to the Senate, lands in some committee (say Judiciary).

2. Possibly by our influence, sub HB142 gets amended in that committee, producing sub sub HB142 (really just the original HB142 as introduced) and passed out of committee to full Senate.

3. Restored HB142 is passed by the Senate, sent back to House for concurrence vote.

Question: in such a case, is the House REQUIRED to hold a concurrence vote? Or can the House leadership derail things by simply not ever holding the concurrence vote?

zeko
zeko
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Morrow County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby pleasantguywhopacks » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:13 am

My Rep has sipped the coolaid. He just posted his support.for the sub bill version. I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxXpNBdrVE
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Life Member NRA
User avatar
pleasantguywhopacks
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 16743
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Whitehouse, OH

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby WestonDon » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:34 pm

I have really struggled with this bill. My initial inclination upon hearing of sub HB 142 and the backdoor treachery, yes treachery, behind it was to accept that this is the best we can get so be it. Not with enthusiasm like some of our fellow "advocates" but with grudging resignation. My position has reversed as I learned more about this sub bill. I have written my rep urging her to either amend this pig back to it's original language or vote against it. I shall also write to the speaker explaining I can and will make sure this crap follows him for the rest of his political career.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby FormerNavy » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:57 am

I hate this substitute bill, but I am wondering if our time would be better spent trying to get some amendments done to make it more palatable. The original language will never see the light of day it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with nothing passing as opposed to this... but I am also wondering if we could get some amendments such as the one suggested before about a violation not being counted as a crime you have to report on a job application - that seems very reasonable.

I am not worried about this becoming a "cash cow" for municipalities because I think the simple fact is, CHL holders are a low percentage of the overall population. Then out of that small percentage, even fewer will not notify "in time" and get hung up on the $25 fine. The fine is just too low vis a vis the number of violations that will occur to make it a real money source for folks.

The much, much bigger problem is that municipalities can take this and make it an M1. That is the single biggest problem with this thing that needs changed, because you will be back to your patchwork of laws that 9.68 was supposed to fix. That's the real thing certain municipalities will take advantage of - not the $25 fine.
User avatar
FormerNavy
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby djthomas » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:26 pm

FormerNavy wrote:That is the single biggest problem with this thing that needs changed, because you will be back to your patchwork of laws that 9.68 was supposed to fix.

Sadly we're already there. It's tough to argue the need to keep 9.68 sacrosanct when during the last session our wonderful legislators decided to allow local governments to optionally permit carry in their buildings. It's prohibited! No, it's allowed! But you still have your sign up! We're not allowed to take it down! So much for the idea of one state, one rule.

If there's a silver lining about a city making it an M1 it's that one's license will no longer be suspended as it would be today.
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: 5726
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby JediSkipdogg » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:18 pm

FormerNavy wrote:I hate this substitute bill, but I am wondering if our time would be better spent trying to get some amendments done to make it more palatable. The original language will never see the light of day it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with nothing passing as opposed to this... but I am also wondering if we could get some amendments such as the one suggested before about a violation not being counted as a crime you have to report on a job application - that seems very reasonable.

I am not worried about this becoming a "cash cow" for municipalities because I think the simple fact is, CHL holders are a low percentage of the overall population. Then out of that small percentage, even fewer will not notify "in time" and get hung up on the $25 fine. The fine is just too low vis a vis the number of violations that will occur to make it a real money source for folks.

The much, much bigger problem is that municipalities can take this and make it an M1. That is the single biggest problem with this thing that needs changed, because you will be back to your patchwork of laws that 9.68 was supposed to fix. That's the real thing certain municipalities will take advantage of - not the $25 fine.


Here's the slight problem with making it not a criminal record....we are in the 21st century of policing. Sure, it may not be a criminal record, but Google and Lexis Nexis are uber powerful creatures. Both are highly used by companies now days. Sure, MM weed possession is not a criminal record, but it is still a public record under Ohio Sunshine Laws at the time of arrest. It is also still readily accessible via almost any Clerk of Courts website in Ohio as a charge. It is still released to the media by most departments. The ONLY place it will not show up on is if you get an official background check.

From 2925.11...

(D) Arrest or conviction for a minor misdemeanor violation of this section does not constitute a criminal record and need not be reported by the person so arrested or convicted in response to any inquiries about the person's criminal record, including any inquiries contained in any application for employment, license, or other right or privilege, or made in connection with the person's appearance as a witness.

Nowhere in there does it say the charge does not exist or police departments/courts must keep it hidden. Therefore, saying "lets change it to make it not show up on background checks" is a pointless argument when it can still pretty easily be found by most employers.

The only solution to make sure a Carrying Concealed Weapon charge does not show up for the arrest of failure to notify in regards to employment purposes is to make sure the charge does not exist. There is no other way to hide it.
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: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby bignflnut » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:20 am

Chuck wrote:David Codrea wrote a very nice piece on our current mission.
He is a well known progun reporter and I hope this helps

https://www.oathkeepers.org/substitute- ... tion-bill/


The FOP cries "officer safety" and OFCC still opposes the Sub bill. In any other day, OFCC would be seen as anti-cop for taking the opposing side of the FOP's argument. If you're slaying sacred cows now, because you have a principle you'd like to stand on, and not accepting the soft bigotry of "the best bill we can get" pragmatism, then I say huzzah. It's a day long overdue.

This linked article contains the infamous Harless video, the long running, oft maligned "Don't Talk to the Police" video and this damning paragraph:
Add to this various Ohio police incidents that have shown either ignorance of or contempt for the very firearms laws being enforced, with accounts of police in years past illegally harassing, bullying, drawing guns on and endangering the lives of citizens who weren’t breaking any laws. That includes officers contemptuously “joking” on social media about “double tapping” citizens openly carrying firearms.


I recognize that nobody in OFCC wants to offend cops, as many members are cops/related to cops.
It's nice to see OFCC on the proper side of the battlefield, is all I'm saying. (Directed at the leadership, certainly not CHUCK) Didn't think you had it in ya, kid. Previous leadership certainly didn't.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 5729
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby Chuck » Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:12 am

Leadership is the same. We still have a Sargent of the Cleveland PD on the board of directors and Jeff is still our president.
Those guys have been here since the founding.
Remember back when the hidden compartment bill was being passed? Anybody who opposed THAT was labeled anti cop. Well, I was there when that same "leadership" pulled out a police drug detecting kit and tested money from the committee members own wallets. The positive results set them all back so far they took a break and had informal discussions all about the room until everyone came up with an exemption for hiding guns and requiring visible amounts of drugs.
Before that, OFCC challenged the law enforcement groups on restaurant carry, heck, even in getting the original CC law passed.
Law Enforcement opposes nearly everything we do and it's just not a fair representation of our work to say we haven't stood up to them in the past, nor will in the future.

We ain't skeert of them
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)
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby bignflnut » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:26 pm

Chuck wrote: Anybody who opposed THAT was labeled anti cop.

Before that, OFCC challenged the law enforcement groups on restaurant carry, heck, even in getting the original CC law passed.
Law Enforcement opposes nearly everything we do and it's just not a fair representation of our work to say we haven't stood up to them in the past, nor will in the future.

We ain't skeert of them


I'm heartened to hear it.

The "anti-cop" accusation is the 2A version of the baseless charge of "racism" in greater society. It is intended to put someone on the defensive and get them to back away from their staunch, principled position.

Glad to hear that OFCC can speak the truth, even in the midst of baseless charges.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 5729
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby JustaShooter » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:05 pm

Chuck wrote:Law Enforcement opposes nearly everything we do and it's just not a fair representation of our work to say we haven't stood up to them in the past, nor will in the future.

We ain't skeert of them


I'd like to note that it is law enforcement's leadership that opposes nearly everything we do, not the rank and file. Most of them are fully supportive of our efforts.
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: 4256
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby JediSkipdogg » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:47 am

JustaShooter wrote:
Chuck wrote:Law Enforcement opposes nearly everything we do and it's just not a fair representation of our work to say we haven't stood up to them in the past, nor will in the future.

We ain't skeert of them


I'd like to note that it is law enforcement's leadership that opposes nearly everything we do, not the rank and file. Most of them are fully supportive of our efforts.


And that there is my problem with most of them and when I was a member of the FOP, I expressed that concern all the time. They claim surveys were sent out...but 12 years I never received one. Maybe they only handed them out at the meetings they kept trying to get me to attend. Cause yeah, I want to attend a meeting listening to a group talk about how we should oppose this and that. :?
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: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Postby 3FULLMAGS+1 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:09 am

JustaShooter wrote:
Chuck wrote:Law Enforcement opposes nearly everything we do and it's just not a fair representation of our work to say we haven't stood up to them in the past, nor will in the future.

We ain't skeert of them


I'd like to note that it is law enforcement's leadership that opposes nearly everything we do, not the rank and file. Most of them are fully supportive of our efforts.


This article supports Justashooter's comment.

Just shows how out of touch with those officers they, (the LE orgs), "say" they represent.

I wander if this has been shown to our legislators, when they chose to listen to them , rather than us.

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislati ... spectives/
Darrel
They say the best "Home Remedy" for "tyranny" is....."LEAD POISONING".
3FULLMAGS+1
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: S.W. corner of stark. co.

PreviousNext

Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron