Notification

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Notification

Postby MrMagoo » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:33 pm

OFCC opposed the amendded language of HB 142 when it was in committee in the House. It passed anyway and is now in the Senate. It has been assigned to the Government oversight and Reform committee where OFCC will oppose the amended language. Chuck has posted the reasons why. One of the reasons is that the Ohio Supreme Court has decided that municipalities can mirror ohio law so long as the only thing that changes is increasing the penalty (Niles v. Howard). We know that reducing the notification penalty to a minor misdemeanor in the amended houe bill is meaningless because municipalities will mirror that and jack the penalty back up to an M1. In anticipation of giving testimomy against this bill I am looking to our members and friends who can cite any law, no matter what the subject, where municipalies have jacked the penalty above what the state law says. I want to have evidence that municipaliteis do this when I testify before the Senate committee. Thank you, Gary
"The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor." Vince Lombardi
User avatar
MrMagoo
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: Delaware County

Re: Notification

Postby JediSkipdogg » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:22 pm

Here is when Cincinnati did it for marijuana possession...

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/p ... /18004439/

Cincinnati City Council members have already admitted a 2006 crackdown on marijuana was a mistake, repealing a law that made possessing even a small amount a misdemeanor crime.

The problem was it created criminal records that are tough to get expunged. That means employers can see them when doing background checks. And those criminal records are stopping people from getting jobs. Elsewhere in the state a similar charge is a minor misdemeanor, which doesn't count when a judge considers expunging a record.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10107
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: Notification

Postby Brian D. » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:09 pm

A great example, Jedi.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14608
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Notification

Postby FormerNavy » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:59 pm

Fairfield, OH changes Operation in Willful or wanton disregard from an MM to M1:


ORC 4511.20

4511.20 Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.
(A) No person shall operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

Compared to City of Fairfield, Ohio:

333.02 OPERATION IN WILLFUL OR WANTON DISREGARD OF SAFETY.
(a) No person shall operate a vehicle on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.
(ORC 4511.20)
(b) No person shall operate a vehicle on any public or private property other than streets or highways, in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.
This subsection does not apply to the competitive operation of vehicles on public or private property when the owner of such property knowingly permits such operation thereon.
(c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(d) Whenever a person is found guilty under this section of operating a motor vehicle in violation of this section relating to reckless operation, the trial court of any court of record, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law, may impose a class five suspension of the offender’s driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit or nonresident operating privilege from the range specified in division (A)(5) of Ohio R.C. 4510.02.
User avatar
FormerNavy
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio


Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest