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
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia
Contact:

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by JediSkipdogg »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
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.
The problem is do you go for better and settle with that for possibly forever or do you go the full distance and take nothing less?
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by JustaShooter »

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
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.
I disagree. I think this bill does make it worse - the biggest reason being the very things many people think makes it better. Since it would be an MM with $25 fine (and thus will have less work on the part of the LEO), I think LEOs will hand out *way* more of them, and people are going to be much more inclined to just pay the fine and be done with it - not thinking that they now have Carrying Concealed Weapons on their record. Have fun explaining that one to prospective employers, landlords, etc. Oh wait, you won't ever get the chance to explain it, your application will be placed in the circular file without you ever getting a chance to talk to anyone. And we will likely be stuck with it for a very long time. We will be faced with resistance saying "it's just an MM with a $25 fine, good grief".
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
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by djthomas »

JediSkipdogg wrote:The problem is do you go for better and settle with that for possibly forever or do you go the full distance and take nothing less?
You go for better but be prepared to settle for less. The current requirements around "promptly" notifying and having to notify every single LEO are ridiculous rules that have cost very real people dearly including the loss of their right to carry for a time.

The way I look at it is this. If we take our parade of horribles and every anti-gun city makes this a first degree misdemeanor you're still better off.

1 - The circumstances under which one must notify are clear and require an affirmative action on the part of the contacting LEO to trigger notification. Is it silly to have to say you are armed in addition to presenting your plastic or saying that you are armed? Yes, but that's how it is today too - you must state that you are licensed and that you are armed.

2 - Even if a city makes it an M1 the license suspension is gone.

If the MM must stay, I would like to see language stating that a conviction does not constitute a criminal record for any purposes. There's precedent for it in our drug laws, see ORC 2925.11 concerning weed tickets and make a few adjustments.

Something like this could be used here: "Arrest or conviction for a violation of division (B)(1) of this section or an equivalent municipal ordinance 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. Upon disposition of a charge for a violation of division (B)(1) of this section or an equivalent municipal ordinance the court shall order the record sealed."
JustaShooter wrote:Since it would be an MM with $25 fine (and thus will have less work on the part of the LEO), I think LEOs will hand out *way* more of them
In order to "hand out" tickets the law must first be broken. In my experience the vast, vast majority of people with CHLs are fully capable of complying with the law. It's not like speeding tickets where literally everyone is doing at least one over so you can write tickets all day long. In 10 years I've probably had one or two people that arguably failed to properly notify but it was only because their definition of promptly was different than mine. The new wording has even less ambiguity so officers can't interpret "promptly" in their favor.

From my perspective, and that of many of my peers, the fact that it's a $25 MM doesn't mean less work. It means the offense isn't even worth pursuing without a really good reason. I still have to come off the road and write a report. I still have to identify all witnesses and preserve any and all video/audio evidence. A supervisor must review and approve the report. Then I still have to meet with the prosecutor to discuss the case. The only real savings is not having to transport the person to jail. Big whoop. When you factor in the time required by the officer and others like the prosecutor it'd be fair to say that every $25 ticket probably costs the city $100, or more if someone has to hang over past the end of shift to complete their report on OT.
rimfireOH
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:49 am
Location: NE Ohio

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by rimfireOH »

I just got off the phone with Steven, Rep Wiggam's legislative aide. He feels strongly that the as-introduced language is greatly superior to the substitute bill, but that the substitute bill improves the current situation (lower penalty, less-confusion around timing and situations, etc.) Not nearly as good as the as-introduced bill, but better than current state. We've seen some discussion concerning that prior to this post and do doubt will see some more afterward, too.

What I've not understood prior to this call is that there's still some hope to get back to the as-introduced bill. Here's how it could play out:
  1. Substitute bill gets voted out of committee tomorrow (9/19)
  2. Sometime in the next week or two the substitute bill goes to the floor for a vote
  3. Maybe (but not probably) the substitute bill gets cleaned up/improved through a floor amendment and passes
    More probably, it gets debated and the substitute bill gets sent to the Senate
  4. In the Senate, we call our Senate-side congress-critters and ask them to amend (replace, really) the substitute bill with the original, as-introduced language removing notification
  5. Then we continue to call our Senate-side congress-critters and ask them to vote for the original (no-notification) bill
    Yes, it has to go back to the House and get reconciled, (or whatever), but it keeps moving.
Steven was adamant that if we stuck to the as-introduced language today, it'll never leave the committee and will never have a floor vote. Assuming he's right, getting the committee to approve the substitute bill is the best way to keep this issue alive and (in his words), "move the ball forward".

I believe I represented Steven's conversation with me accurately. He seemed like a nice guy who is sincerely trying to improve the situation. And it's clear he understands the backroom deals and behind-the-scenes stuff way more than I ever considered.
User avatar
scottb
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:42 pm
Location: Wooster

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by scottb »

He's a good kid from Wooster. Helluva football player.
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”― George Carlin
rimfireOH
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:49 am
Location: NE Ohio

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by rimfireOH »

scottb wrote:He's a good kid from Wooster. Helluva football player.
Steven? or Rep Wiggam? I was favorably impressed with Steven. Do I like the substitute bill? No. I think the as-introduced bill is vastly superior. Steven seemed to show that he knows how this game is played.
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 »

Stephan once told me he doesn't know what they are waiting for. With all the republicans controlling everything all this stuff should sail through and this session was the time to do it.
Of course, that was way back at the first hearing for this bill.
Obviously things have changed, and the republican leadership isn't worried about winning our vote.
What are we going to do, vote democrat?
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
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by djthomas »

Chuck wrote:Obviously things have changed, and the republican leadership isn't worried about winning our vote.
What are we going to do, vote democrat?
Not to drift too far off topic but they're obviously taking their cues from Washington. Say much, do nothing. Eight months and counting with zero legislative accomplishments on any subject from that group of knuckleheads. I for one was glad to see Trump start striking deals with Democrats to get things done. It left the Republicans flabbergasted and maybe, just maybe, will be the swift kick in the pants they need to start doing their jobs.

The problem is Democrats will unite on anything, whether they are in the majority or the minority. Republicans seem to only be able to unite when they are in the minority. It comes down to a lack of leadership at all levels.

Back to this topic, don't undercount the suburban Republicans. They love their little fiefdoms and many come from local elected positions. So when their mayors back home call and say "hey we really don't like this concealed carry in our buildings bit" we start getting the 11th hour changes we saw at the end of last session.
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by curmudgeon3 »

Hey, if my memory serves, our Republican Governor refused to even attend the RNC in Cleveland. lol.
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 »

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/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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)
techguy85
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:55 am
Location: Columbus

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by techguy85 »

Chuck wrote:Stephan once told me he doesn't know what they are waiting for. With all the republicans controlling everything all this stuff should sail through and this session was the time to do it.
Of course, that was way back at the first hearing for this bill.
Obviously things have changed, and the republican leadership isn't worried about winning our vote.
What are we going to do, vote democrat?
Nope, but maybe I won't vote for them either. At least with the democrats, they will own their anti-gun positions.
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 »

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.
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 »

I have submitted written testimony opposing the sub bill, and our own Mr. Magoo with attend and offer his own testimony opposing it also.
Should be interesting

Is anyone else attending?
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 »

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

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Post by djthomas »

Crazy idea: Merge the original HB 142 into HB 253 and pass it out of committee as a single bill. Everybody's happy, everybody's sad.
Post Reply