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