Page 2 of 4

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:08 pm
by Chuck
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Chuck,

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention. I've contacted my rep.
We appreciate your membership

We're just regular guys like you all, doing what we can to make the world a better place for our grandchildren.

Any and all input you mat have is solicited and appreciated

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:23 pm
by FormerNavy
Anyone have the # of states with CCW that do not require notification?

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:54 pm
by JustaShooter
FormerNavy wrote:Anyone have the # of states with CCW that do not require notification?
I believe 39 states do not require active notification, and 11 do, including Ohio of course.

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:26 pm
by Morne
I think the list of active notify states is 10, including Ohio.

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:16 am
by AlanM

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:53 am
by TJW815
I made sure to include easing the burden of people travelling from neighboring states in my contact.

Always helps to give them ways to sell it to other constituents.

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:39 am
by JustaShooter
Some of their count are not what I would consider Duty to Inform - for eaxample they count these as Yes:
Arizona – If Asked (If Asked – Yes)
Louisiana – If Under The Influence (See Notes)

(They also list many states as "If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement) which to me means something different than they seem to think...)

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:15 pm
by djthomas
Two notes about Texas are in order as well:

1. One must show their CHL at the time they are asked to present identification, and not a moment sooner. If you get asked for ID a half hour into the encounter then that's when the notification procedure kicks in. If you never get asked for your ID then you never notify. There's no lawyer-employing ambiguous weasel words like "stopped for a law enforcement purpose", "promptly" or "reasonable" or a requirement to recite two specific facts (e.g. "I am a concealed handgun licensee and I am currently carrying a firearm."). Produce the plastic at the clearly specified time and you need not say another word.

2. There is no longer a penalty for failing to notify though the requirement to notify is still there.

IMO if notification has to remain on the books here then the Texas procedure is a model to follow.

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:26 pm
by zeko
This afternoon (July 5, 2017) the Federal and Interstate Relations Committee heard testimony on HR233, HR142, and HR201. Moms Demand Action and their allies were there in force and gave much opposition testimony (mostly saying the same things over and over). HR233 (Decriminalizing posted zones) came to a committee vote and was passed 9-3. The other two bills were not voted on.

The actual bill passed by the committee was "Substitute" HR233. I'm not sure what substitutions were made, but judging from the testimony of the Demanding Moms and their allies, it wasn't at all substitute enough for them.

Others that were there can probably provide more accurate details . . .

Zeko

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:21 pm
by JustaShooter
zeko wrote:The actual bill passed by the committee was "Substitute" HR233. I'm not sure what substitutions were made, but judging from the testimony of the Demanding Moms and their allies, it wasn't at all substitute enough for them.

Others that were there can probably provide more accurate details . . .
I wasn't there, and unfortunately the OGA website hasn't been updated so I can't say what might have changed yet.

More than a little disappointed that HB 142 wasn't passed out of committee. :evil:

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:11 pm
by FormerNavy
JustaShooter wrote:
zeko wrote:The actual bill passed by the committee was "Substitute" HR233. I'm not sure what substitutions were made, but judging from the testimony of the Demanding Moms and their allies, it wasn't at all substitute enough for them.

Others that were there can probably provide more accurate details . . .
I wasn't there, and unfortunately the OGA website hasn't been updated so I can't say what might have changed yet.

More than a little disappointed that HB 142 wasn't passed out of committee. :evil:
Comparative analysis of the original and substitute can be found here:

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/downlo ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And more here:

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/downlo ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:22 pm
by Chuck
Here is a link to Sub HB233

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... 0078-4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


We should contact our representatives again urging them to have a floor vote on HB233 tomorrow before they break for summer

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:39 pm
by zeko
It seems HR233 has passed the house, 64 - 31. I haven't heard anything about any amendments.

Zeko

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:13 pm
by MyWifeSaidYes
zeko wrote:It seems HR233 has passed the house, 64 - 31. I haven't heard anything about any amendments.

Zeko
No amendments.

Here is the video from today’s House session. Skip forward to the 41:20 mark.

http://www.ohiochannel.org/video/ohio-h ... s-7-6-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Statehouse Hearings Posted Here

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:23 am
by AlanM
Bearing in mind that I no longer have a dog in this fight.

Well, that's not totally true, I will be coming back to the Columbus area this fall for my daughter's wedding.

I just watched the above video (at least the part about HR 233) and IIHO Rep. David Leland, (D) District 22, Columbus is an idiot.
Obviously this ignorant individual has NEVER noticed how small and hard to see many no guns signs are.
All of you and I know many times the no guns restriction is buried in the text of a small text, verbose, policy statement in a hard to notice location. The best example I can think of, unless they've changed it is the grey text sign at the entrance of an Aldi store.

If you watch Leland's opposition speech to HR 233 (see: time tick 47:15) he states that a CHL holder is violating a law by walking into a bar while armed.
The toxic combination of guns and alcohol you can just imagine what's going to happen.

Bearing in mind that in Ohio only restaurants can get liquor licences to sell by the drink, would someone like to point out to this ******** that restaurant carry became legal in Ohio quite some time ago?

I typed the above before I watched the other speakers for and against the bill.
I now realize that I could NEVER be a legislator. I would be laughing out loud too often and disrupting the session listening to some of the drivel coming out of the mouths of the people speaking against that bill.

FYI: The vote on HR 233 is at time tick ~ 1:20:00. That was the most painful half hour I've spent in quite some time.
I'd rather watch sausage being made.