HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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.
- Chuck
- OFCC Director
- Posts: 4753
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
- Location: Licking County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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
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)
"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)
- rickt
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
- Location: Cuyahoga County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.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.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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.
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.
- Chuck
- OFCC Director
- Posts: 4753
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
- Location: Licking County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
Thank you rickt, for this informationrickt wrote:There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.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.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
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)
"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)
-
- 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
I think we all would like this to be a high felony charge.Chuck wrote:Thank you rickt, for this informationrickt wrote:There is a penalty for filing a false protection order. (Lines 2376-2385 in PDF file)
Then lines 2962-2963 specify the penalty.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.
(2) Whoever violates division (A) of section 3113.3 0 o f the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
As I said, IANAL
Black Rifles Matter
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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
It's Bob Taft 2006 (correct date?) allll over again. He dragged every state wide office with him to defeat.
Well, almost every one
Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5751
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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.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
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
- rickt
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
- Location: Cuyahoga County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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."
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."
- Chuck
- OFCC Director
- Posts: 4753
- Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
- Location: Licking County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
Well, that was nauseatingrickt 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."
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)
"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)
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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?
Can you tell I do not support these?
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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
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
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
- Location: Morrow County
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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
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
- JustaShooter
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5800
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
- Location: Akron/Canton Area
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
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!
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!
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am
Re: HB 585: Kasich supported bill on firearms
Zeko, thank you for the information and attendance at the hearing.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.
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.