Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Introduced yesterday. This bill says that any place open to the public has to allow LEO carry whether on or off duty. This would allow carry in some places currently off-limits like MLB ballparks and the Cleveland Clinic. Another interesting aspect is it modifies the class D liquor law to make LEO carry the same as CHLs, i.e. carry only allowed if not consuming or intoxicated.

S. B. No. 208 - Senator Terhar.
Cosponsors: Senators Beagle, Coley, Hottinger, Huffman, Jordan, Thomas, Uecker.
To amend sections 2923.121 and 2923.126 and to enact section 2923.1214 of the Revised Code to allow a law enforcement officer or investigator, whether on or off duty, to carry a weapon on certain premises open to the public.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 132-SB-208

Interesting wording in the proposed 2923.1214:

(A) An establishment serving the public may not prohibit or restrict a law enforcement officer from carrying a weapon on the premises that the officer is authorized to carry, regardless of whether the officer is acting within the scope of that officer's duties while carrying the weapon.

If I read my department policy closely, only department-issued weapons are authorized to be carried on duty. Department-issued weapons may not be carried off duty, so I am not authorized to carry them off duty.

Not quite sure how this would be reconciled with the proposed law.

Add the ORIGINAL language of HB 142 and we're golden. Other than that, screw 'em. Just keep the part about being treated like everyone else in a liquor establishment and let 'em live by the same laws we peons have to.

I just can't get behind special privileges for LE after the debacle of 142.

djthomas wrote:Interesting wording in the proposed 2923.1214:

(A) An establishment serving the public may not prohibit or restrict a law enforcement officer from carrying a weapon on the premises that the officer is authorized to carry, regardless of whether the officer is acting within the scope of that officer's duties while carrying the weapon.

If I read my department policy closely, only department-issued weapons are authorized to be carried on duty. Department-issued weapons may not be carried off duty, so I am not authorized to carry them off duty.

Not quite sure how this would be reconciled with the proposed law.

There was under something similar back in the old days, except the wording was "department approved", as not all reserve officers were issued handguns. Off duty handguns if they were carried had to be approved as well, if not your on duty handgun, and you had to qualify with it also. Many officers would carry a 4 or 6 inch medium frame revolver on duty, but carried off duty a smaller frame revolver with a short barrel. I couldn't recall anyplace back then (hospitals, sporting events, etc) that cared if cops carried off duty, but this was before CHL's.

Officially you weren't supposed to be carrying in a bar off duty, but I never saw anyone get in trouble for it locally. (although they could have if something bad had happened) I never carried in a bar at that time, and rarely even went to bars period. Between work, school, and volunteering I didn't have much time for anything else.

WestonDon wrote:Add the ORIGINAL language of HB 142 and we're golden.

Agreed.

WestonDon wrote:I just can't get behind special privileges for LE after the debacle of 142.

How is that different than prior to the Substitute 142?

How can any swamp critter vote against cops? They're our #Heroes! Someone will get the vap-ahs...

WestonDon wrote:Add the ORIGINAL language of HB 142 and we're golden. Other than that, screw 'em. Just keep the part about being treated like everyone else in a liquor establishment and let 'em live by the same laws we peons have to.

I just can't get behind special privileges for LE after the debacle of 142.

I just told Senator Terhar that on Facebook not ten minutes ago

bignflnut wrote:

WestonDon wrote:I just can't get behind special privileges for LE after the debacle of 142.

How is that different than prior to the Substitute 142?

What's different is I'm madder now.

Fourth hearing with possible amendments on 4/10/18.

The committee accepted and passed a substitute bill by a vote of 9-1. Next step will be a full vote of the Senate.

The bill passed the Senate yesterday on a vote of 30-3.

From the beginning of time there has always been a special class of people that were above the common person. This is just another example of that. The peasants have always know that.

First hearing in the House Federalism and Interstate Relations committee scheduled for 5/22/2018.

Scheduled for a floor vote in the House today.