HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

[rickt]

Here's what the FOP thinks of us. This quote is in reference to HB 233 which would decriminalize no carry zones.

"He noted that if the proposal becomes law, concealed-carry holders could walk into a police station with a hidden gun but not face a legal penalty. Among the concerns with such a policy, he said, is the increase in ambush-style killings of officers. "

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170530/s ... egislature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[M-Quigley]

Here's what the FOP thinks of us. This quote is in reference to HB 233 which would decriminalize no carry zones.

"He noted that if the proposal becomes law, concealed-carry holders could walk into a police station with a hidden gun but not face a legal penalty. Among the concerns with such a policy, he said, is the increase in ambush-style killings of officers. "

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170530/s ... egislature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That makes sense. After all, someone who is planning on committing mass murder would think twice if they had to face the legal penalty of carrying a firearm into the station.

[Brian D.]

Here's what the FOP thinks of us. This quote is in reference to HB 233 which would decriminalize no carry zones.

"He noted that if the proposal becomes law, concealed-carry holders could walk into a police station with a hidden gun but not face a legal penalty. Among the concerns with such a policy, he said, is the increase in ambush-style killings of officers. "

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170530/s ... egislature" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you know that attitude towards us from the state level FOP is nothing new. Keep it mind when they solicit funds and political help from us, it's not a two way street.

[zeko]

According to BFA's website, HB142 is up for a fifth hearing tomorrow (Tuesday Sep 12) with a "substitute bill" to be discussed. Does anyone know anything about this "substitute bill"?

zeko

[Chuck]

The sub bill makes it still a crime, but only a minor misdeamor, with a $25.00 fine.
I personally see it as a potential money maker for cops, open to lots of abuse because no one is going to miss a day of work to fight a $25 fine.

We have been fighting this behind the scenes for all this quiet time and apparently the sponsor, Rep. Wiggam, has agreed to this amendment. Otherwise, i am told it will never get a vote.
Buckeye Sheriffs Association supposedly has agreed to drop their opposition if the sub bill makes it.

I'm not a very happy camper right now.
I was expecting to learn to committee date via email, not the forum

[Chuck]

More on the sub bill. Notification won't be required unless and until the officer asks for ID. For example, if you and your wife are both carrying and she gets pulled over, she must notify when he asks for her license and registration. Handing him her CHL will count as meeting that requirement, so she can still remain silent.
Unless he asks you directly, or asks for your ID as a passenger, you don't have to notify. Once he asks you if you have a gun or for your ID, you must notify too.

[qmti]

More on the sub bill. Notification won't be required unless and until the officer asks for ID. For example, if you and your wife are both carrying and she gets pulled over, she must notify when he asks for her license and registration. Handing him her CHL will count as meeting that requirement, so she can still remain silent.
Unless he asks you directly, or asks for your ID as a passenger, you don't have to notify. Once he asks you if you have a gun or for your ID, you must notify too.

Unfortunately the bill is being watered down and we have a gray area instead of black and white. Still a opportunity for LEO to entrap the ccw carrier on the notification and give him a cause for issuing a citation (and the anti-gun officer WILL take advantage of it). I would rather see the bill die than have to come back later to fix it like so many other bills that were negotiated down to please opponents.

[djthomas]

That's politics.

If this is what it takes to get the bill moving then it's still a significant improvement over current state. Ultimately it still has to get past the governor who is looking more and more like a (D) every day.

[zeko]

I also think the substitute bill is a significant improvement -- it gets rid of the need to interrupt an officer and blurt out our memorized line regardless of what the officer has asked for. I would rather get this much done than have to do it all over again later (possibly under less favorable circumstances).

zeko

[WestonDon]

A lot of time and effort went into the campaign for this by OFCC advocates. It bites to have to settle for half a loaf after all that work but it is an improvement. It would bite even worse if we were to get nothing. I guess that's the alternative.

[Chuck]

A lot of time and effort is right!
Some of that was yours too.
I am REALLY not happy right now

[Chuck]

For those who want to attend here are the details:

DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2017
TIME: 2:30 PM
ROOM: Room 115

H. B. No. 142
Rep. Wiggam
Eliminate need when stopped to notify carrying firearm
5th Hearing
Poss. Sub. Bill

[M-Quigley]

djthomas said

That's politics.

If this is what it takes to get the bill moving then it's still a significant improvement over current state. Ultimately it still has to get past the governor who is looking more and more like a (D) every day.

zeko said

I also think the substitute bill is a significant improvement -- it gets rid of the need to interrupt an officer and blurt out our memorized line regardless of what the officer has asked for. I would rather get this much done than have to do it all over again later (possibly under less favorable circumstances).

zeko

A lot of time and effort went into the campaign for this by OFCC advocates. It bites to have to settle for half a loaf after all that work but it is an improvement. It would bite even worse if we were to get nothing. I guess that's the alternative.

I agree with all of this.

[JediSkipdogg]

A lot of time and effort went into the campaign for this by OFCC advocates. It bites to have to settle for half a loaf after all that work but it is an improvement. It would bite even worse if we were to get nothing. I guess that's the alternative.

I still have the issue with how one has to present identification. And no, you don't have to be specifically asked for your CHL. If you are pulled over and stopped for say speeding, and the officer says "driver's license please" then you have to remember and hand over your CHL as well. At least that's how I read it unless something has changed and they made it more specific than that.

[rickt]

The actual substitute bill hasn't been posted yet but they have posted a comparison between the original bill and the substitute.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... mp_doc.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modifies the notification requirements so that, when a law enforcement officer or employee of the motor carrier enforcement unit stops a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and requests the person's driver's license or state identification card ("ID"), the person must do both of the following:

(1) Display the person's concealed handgun license or documents demonstrating the person to be a qualified military member with the driver's license or state ID, or orally inform the officer or employee, at the same time as displaying the driver's license or state ID, that the person has been issued a concealed handgun license or is authorized to carry a concealed handgun as an active duty military member;

(2) Disclose that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle (R.C. 2923.12(B)(1), 2923.126(A), and 923.16(E)(1) and(2)).

Specifies that failure to comply with the notification requirement described above is a minor misdemeanor and that the offender may be subject to a fine of not more than $25; also removes the possibility of having a concealed handgun license suspended for failure to comply (R.C. 2923.12(F)(3), 2923.128, and 2923.16(I)).

BFA statement to the committee:

Buckeye Firearms Association is happy to support Sub H.B. 142. We thank you for your work to address the issues of law enforcement as well as Concealed Handgun License holders.

Sub H.B. 142 is good legislation which solves problems which have existed since the first days of concealed carry in Ohio. It is good public policy which eliminates vagueness and protects both license holders and law enforcement.

Buckeye Firearms Association supports Sub H.B. 142 and will work to see it enacted into law.