Page 9 of 11

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:40 pm
by JustaShooter
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.

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:36 pm
by Chuck
Mr.Magoo just texted me he did q & a for 25 minutes.
I'm guessing it was rough.
Gary is a good man for that sort of thing

He's a Marine, you know

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:05 pm
by djthomas
Chuck wrote:Mr.Magoo just texted me he did q & a for 25 minutes.
I'm guessing it was rough.
Maybe, but I'd like to think that means they care. If the OFCC concerns were being dismissed out of hand I'm sure they could have found other things to talk about.

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:24 pm
by Chuck
Sub bill was voted out of committee by a vote of 9-2

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:12 pm
by Chuck
Representative Scott Wiggam is going to be on the Chuck Douglas Radio show today at 5:30 pm.
98.9 FM in Columbus
Listen online at 989theanswer.com
Please call in and show him your appreciation
1-844-825-5988

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:04 pm
by zeko
I barely made it to the hearing (At work we were monitoring a fix to a network problem that had already been (unsuccessfully) "fixed" several times; when the latest fix looked OK at 1:30 pm I ran for Columbus).

Mr. Magoo's q & a session was indeed somewhat rough; several committee members seemed incredulous that anyone could think of sub HB142 as anything but an advancement. He explained the same thing several times.

I keep hearing that getting a vote on the original HB142 is impossible, absent something like a discharge petition (and I can see why such a petition is extremely unlikely). If this is the case, and sub HB142 is headed for the House floor and (probable) passage, what can be done to better the situation?

Three things occur to me as the most important changes to sub HB142:

1. The ability of certain municipalities to increase the penalty portion needs to be neutralized. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if that is possible . . . some seem to think that since the City of Niles case happened in 1984, ORC 9.68 (passed later) will affect this. I just don't know.

2. djthomas's suggestion about not having a conviction of improper notification constitute a criminal record needs to be implemented. If this can be done for certain drug offenses, it should be doable for this "offense".

3. The second part of notification which says we must "disclose" that we have a firearm needs to at least be changed to "acknowledge" that we have a fiream IF ASKED. This would at least insure that we wouldn't have to take the initiative anywhere in the stop.

Any such changes would probably have to be done in whatever Senate committee sub HB142 would land in. What other changes (which seem realistically possible) can people think of?

zeko

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:48 pm
by JustaShooter
I'm sure this is going to come across badly, but I honestly don't care. I've worked up a pretty good head of steam over how we've been given the shaft and anyone who doesn't like it can go pound sand.

There is no fixing this bill, you may as well try to polish a turd. Screw 'em.

I say we keep the pressure on our Representatives in the House. Tell them to vote against the substitute bill when it comes up for a vote. Tell them to amend it back to the original language. If they are in a position to do so, tell them to sit on it and keep it from coming to a vote. I don't care what they think, call them, again, and again, and again. Call so often you get on a first-name basis with their aides. Email them. Post on their FB pages. Let them know how distasteful we find this piece of garbage and how upset we are at having been bent over and told to enjoy it.

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 know you can't tell because of my Coordinator badge under my name, but I not only volunteer my time as a Coordinator, I'm a paid-up Patron member. And I pay for a membership for my wife. And for both of my sons. Because I think this organization deserves my support and because I know when it comes right down to it, both green money *and* numbers count.

How about you?

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:24 am
by qmti
We made news on another pro-gun site. Evidently we won't be getting a Christmas card from some lawmakers that are upset about our opposition to the Sub. HB142.

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own “facts” . . . Gun backers accuse cops of lying about Ohio conceal-carry law

The latter measure, House Bill 142, was a watered-down substitute for an original bill that would have wiped out penalties altogether. It did, however, cut the penalty for not speaking up about your guns from a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine to just a $25 fine.

To the frustration of some pro-gun lawmakers, the compromise wasn’t enough for some gun-rights advocates.

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, asked, “Who is this committee trying to placate?” Answering himself, he said it must be people who don’t have “full restoration of gun-owners’ rights at heart.”

Gary Witt, director of Ohio Concealed Carry, said that when law-enforcement groups say it puts officers in danger when they don’t know about permit holders’ guns during detentions and traffic stops, they’re making “false claims.”

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:08 am
by curmudgeon3
qmti wrote:We made news on another pro-gun site. Evidently we won't be getting a Christmas card from some lawmakers that are upset about our opposition to the Sub. HB142.

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own “facts” . . . Gun backers accuse cops of lying about Ohio conceal-carry law

The latter measure, House Bill 142, was a watered-down substitute for an original bill that would have wiped out penalties altogether. It did, however, cut the penalty for not speaking up about your guns from a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine to just a $25 fine.

To the frustration of some pro-gun lawmakers, the compromise wasn’t enough for some gun-rights advocates.

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, asked, “Who is this committee trying to placate?” Answering himself, he said it must be people who don’t have “full restoration of gun-owners’ rights at heart.”

Gary Witt, director of Ohio Concealed Carry, said that when law-enforcement groups say it puts officers in danger when
they don’t know about permit holders’ guns during detentions and traffic stops, they’re making “false claims.”
Those "Law Enforcement" groups are a little squirrelly about about what they say for publication but, are they referring to "detention" situations while they're away from their cruisers and don't have immediate access to their computer ?

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:26 am
by Chuck
Any situation you can't walk away from is a detention, be it in a store, on the sidewalk, etc

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:34 am
by Pops Fun
Chuck wrote: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?
Has this already happen, if not what's the date and time.

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:58 am
by JustaShooter
Pops Fun wrote:
Chuck wrote: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?
Has this already happen, if not what's the date and time.
The hearing was Tuesday Sep 19, 3:00pm. After hearing the testimony, they voted it out of committee so it will at some point go to the house floor for a vote.

Please, everyone, continue to work on your Representatives and tell them to vote *NO* on this bill when it comes up for a vote!

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:14 am
by NavyChief
qmti wrote:We made news on another pro-gun site.
Do tell? ...got a link?

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:35 am
by qmti
NavyChief wrote:
qmti wrote:We made news on another pro-gun site.
Do tell? ...got a link?
I'm computer challenged and have trouble with links. It was on Truth About Guns web site dated 9-20-2017.

Re: HB 142 Proponent Testimony 5-16-2017

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:36 pm
by scottb
Truth About Guns published a snippet. The original article is from the Columbus Dispatch.
http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170920/g ... -carry-law