HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

bsctov
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by bsctov »

Supposedly, they said they're going to work with NRA on the language..but so far, it looks like the language is a hold over from the old Soviet days, and the only people consulted were Hillary Clinton and Michael Bloomberg.

:?
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by Chuck »

This is what I have found so far:
1. It completely eliminates the restoration of rights process
2. It forces gun owners to to transfer possession of all firearms and ammunition upon issuance of the new ERPO
3. it adds to the list of prohibited firearms and what's more, allows the federal government to make that decision instead of the Ohio legislature.
4. Puts even TEMPORARY protection orders (a common legal tactic in divorces) into the federal database
5. provides no penalty what so ever for those who make false claims to obtain a protection order against anyone
6. Makes even non violent offenders unable to possess a firearm
7. Even if the courts finds that the ERPO is not valid and discontinues it at the initial hearing, the subject of that order is prohibited from getting their firearms back nor possessing a firearm for 180 days
8. Authorizes Law Enforcement to sell any confiscated firearms and keep a portion of the money 90 days after the order goes into effect, before any appeals are concluded

I'm sure there's more, but IANAL
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by rickt »

There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Sec. 3113.30 . (A) No person shall file a petition for an extreme risk protection order or an ex parte extreme risk protection order under section 3113.27 of the Revised Code alleging that respondent presents a significant risk, whether imminent or in the near future, of committing suicide, committing another form of serious self-harm less than death, or causing physical injury to another person to such an extent that the respondent should be temporarily enjoined from having in the responden t ' s possession, custody, or control any deadly weapon or any firearm if the person knows the allegation is false.
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by djthomas »

There's no protection for firearms owned by third party - at least the Democrats version of the bill has this. Even the Gifford Center "ideal legislation" considers this a priority: Protections for Co-Habitants.

They also say that person's whose guns have been seized should be allowed to legally transfer them to others (they say licensed dealers but this bill doesn't even give that option). There's federal court precedent somewhere saying that when a person becomes a felon and their guns are confiscated they still have a title interest in their property, just not a possessor interest.

The law must allow the person to dispose of their firearms in a lawful manner and not just through the stupid "let LE sell it at auction and take a cut of the price" offered here. A person subject to an ERPO should be allowed to sell their firearms to or through a dealer or to any other third party who affirms that they will not return them to the subject of the order.

And since we're going down the path of suspending constitutional rights I still say that someone this much of a danger should have their right to vote suspended. May also want to consider suspending their right to have an abortion too. Churches have been shot up a lot by deranged people too. Might be a good idea to take away their right to attend a church for the duration of the order.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by Chuck »

rickt wrote:There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Sec. 3113.30 . (A) No person shall file a petition for an extreme risk protection order or an ex parte extreme risk protection order under section 3113.27 of the Revised Code alleging that respondent presents a significant risk, whether imminent or in the near future, of committing suicide, committing another form of serious self-harm less than death, or causing physical injury to another person to such an extent that the respondent should be temporarily enjoined from having in the responden t ' s possession, custody, or control any deadly weapon or any firearm if the person knows the allegation is false.
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Thank you rickt, for this information
As I said, IANAL
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
steves 50de
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 3515
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: n.e. ohio
Contact:

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by steves 50de »

Chuck wrote:
rickt wrote:There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Sec. 3113.30 . (A) No person shall file a petition for an extreme risk protection order or an ex parte extreme risk protection order under section 3113.27 of the Revised Code alleging that respondent presents a significant risk, whether imminent or in the near future, of committing suicide, committing another form of serious self-harm less than death, or causing physical injury to another person to such an extent that the respondent should be temporarily enjoined from having in the responden t ' s possession, custody, or control any deadly weapon or any firearm if the person knows the allegation is false.
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Thank you rickt, for this information
As I said, IANAL
I think we all would like this to be a high felony charge.
Black Rifles Matter
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by WhyNot »

Well, at least the ''extreme'' part of the name is correct.

It's Bob Taft 2006 (correct date?) allll over again. He dragged every state wide office with him to defeat.

Well, almost every one 8)
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by schmieg »

Chuck wrote:This is what I have found so far:

4. Puts even TEMPORARY protection orders (a common legal tactic in divorces) into the federal database

I'm sure there's more, but IANAL
When I was doing domestic cases, this was a standard practice and almost never contested. The view was, if you weren't going to beat or abuse your spouse, what's the harm in the order. I would expect a lot of those orders would be contested if this passes, so it would increase the cost of a divorce by several hundred to thousand dollars for the extra hearing and preparation involved. This is not a good thing for those who really need such an order.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by rickt »

Rep. Henne's testimony to the committee:

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... ponsor.pdf

"I have always been and will continue to be an adamant defender of second amendment rights."
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by Chuck »

rickt wrote:Rep. Henne's testimony to the committee:

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... ponsor.pdf

"I have always been and will continue to be an adamant defender of second amendment rights."
Well, that was nauseating
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
bsctov
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by bsctov »

I found my jaw gradually dropping more and more with each passing sentence of that non-sense. I have already called my legislators and am urging everyone I know to familiarize themselves with them, and then contact their legislators. I feel like the opposition to these bills deserves a sticky, or some type of formal mention by OFCC & BFA. (Maybe there already has been and I just missed it.)


Can you tell I do not support these? :twisted:
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by WhyNot »

I concur ^^^

There are several and again I say, several bills in the latest barrage since 260 that are (R) sponsored.
Now is not the time in Ohio 2A for complacency, it'll allll be ok, this has happened b4 etc

If you haven't phoned or emailed your Rep & Senator, now is a good time to do so


If you have already that's great...please do it again
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
zeko
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Morrow County

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by zeko »

I was at the HB585 hearing today. I had to leave before the end of the discussion, but here are some impressions:

After a number of other bills were discussed, Representative Henne read his sponsor testimony in a rather bombastic voice. Numerous committee members plied him with questions; none seemed particularly favorable. A number of the questions came from Chairwoman Anielski.

Representative John Becker specifically raised the question of the deletion of the disability removal language; Henne answered by claiming that the process wasn't useful anyway since the Federal disability removal process isn't authorized (I think he meant funded). Not a good reason to remove it, in my opinion.

Much of HB585 mirrors Federal law. A self-described non-lawyer on the committee asked Henne why we needed to do this if the various items were already covered by Federal law; after weaving around a bit, Henne said he wasn't sure whether local law enforcement could act on Federal law.

Henne began the presentation quite strongly; after a few questions he was increasingly searching for words, sometimes stumbling, at other times recycling previous answers with increased volume. Even one of the Democrats (Holmes) on the committee expressed difficulty understanding the bill.

On the whole, reception of HB585 by the committee seemed to be considerably less than enthusiastic. Perhaps there is still hope the bill will die a natural death (or at least not pass out of committee in its present form).

Zeko
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by JustaShooter »

Zeko, thank you for attending the hearing and for your take on the proceedings. If I may, what was your impression of the other attendees? Were many people there, and of what persuasion? (lots of antis wearing color-coordinated t-{inappropriate language} making encouraging noises vs pro-rights folks decked out in hunting gear, etc.)
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
bsctov
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am

Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms

Post by bsctov »

Representative John Becker specifically raised the question of the deletion of the disability removal language; Henne answered by claiming that the process wasn't useful anyway since the Federal disability removal process isn't authorized (I think he meant funded). Not a good reason to remove it, in my opinion.
Zeko, thank you for the information and attendance at the hearing.

The only problem with this is...well..it's wrong. Ohio's relief of disability process was fixed so that weapon disability relief granted by the state would be viable on a federal level. This was accomplished via SB247 which brought Ohio's restoration process into compliance with federal requirements in light of the Caron v. United States decision and the whole "Unless" clause debacle. I think Rep. Henne is poorly informed at best, and at worst, being intentionally dishonest in order to advance this bill. It seems to be a questionable decision to target this section of the law when it already supposedly "Doesn't work". And even if this were the case, why would the General Assembly act to fix someone, and it still not end up fixed? Is he really expecting someone to buy this non-sense?


I'm terrified that someone like him with almost no grasp on the law, or the will of the people who sent him to office is actually out there messing with legislation.
Post Reply