POISON PILL ALERT Am. Sub. H. B. 51 seeks to undermine SB 215 - Ohio unlicensed carry/constitutional carry

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
Liberty
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Akron

POISON PILL ALERT Am. Sub. H. B. 51 seeks to undermine SB 215 - Ohio unlicensed carry/constitutional carry

Post by Liberty »

I don’t know how serious the legislature is about passing Am. Sub. H. B. 51. Much of it appears to be a knee-jerk reaction of ATF’s recent over-reach, which is being dealt with in the courts. Am. Sub. H. B. 51 is being sold as removing federal laws from the state code, but it doesn’t really accomplish that. In fact, it makes it worse. It incorporates a poison pill reminiscent of HB 203 from 2014. The lawyers at the state house are once again taking advantage of the complexity of the interplay between state and federal firearms laws in an attempt to sneak in provisions to further the civilian disarmament agenda.

Ohio unlicensed carry/constitutional carry bill (SB 215) that went into effect in 2022 created a class of persons defined as Qualifying adult who are deemed to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun under the existing rules for those who have obtained a concealed handgun license. See R.C. § 2923.111.

Am. Sub. H. B. 51, entitled “the Second Amendment Preservation Act,” would create a whole new class of persons to whom concealed carry by a qualified adult under R.C. § 2923.111 would not apply, which would result in making that class of people federally prohibited from possessing firearms.

The relevant offensive provisions of Am. Sub. H. B. 51 can be found on page 8 lines 217 – 219 and page 11 lines 288 – 294.

Defining who is a qualifying adult to allow concealed carry without a license, page 8 lines 217 – 219 would change:
(2) Qualifying adult means a person who is all of the following:
***
(b) Not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9) or under section 2923.13 of the Revised Code or any other Revised Code provision
to
(2) Qualifying adult means a person who is all of the following:
***
(b) Not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under any Revised Code provision;

(c) Not within a category of persons specified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) to (9), as that law exists on the effective date of this amendment
This incremental roll-back of SB 215; this turning SB 215 into a bludgeoned is obviously and deliberately reinforced on page 11 lines 288 – 294.

In Ohio, a person loses the right to possess a firearm once convicted of a felony of violence or a drug related felony pursuant to R.C. § 2923.13. There are many Ohio felonies that use to be misdemeanors or are not offenses of violence or drug related. Individuals convicted of those non-violent non-drug offenses have their firearms rights restored automatically upon final release pursuant to R.C. §§ 2961.01(A)(2) and 2967.16(C)(1). A less serious class of persons convicted of a felony of violence or a drug related felony may have firearms rights restored by court order under R.C. § 2923.14 upon a finding that the person “has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely to continue to do so.”

Subsection (g)(1) of 18 U.S.C. § 922 creates a federal firearms prohibition for persons who have been convicted of an offense for which the person could be sentenced to one year or more in prison unless the person has had rights restored by the sentencing state. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) and United States v. Cassidy (6th Cir. 1990), 899 F.2d 543. In order for this exception to apply, the restoration must be complete and without exceptions. See Caron v. United States, 524 U. S. 308, 316 (1998).

Therefore, there are many people in Ohio who are in a category of persons specified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), but who are not prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms because of the current structure of Ohio’s firearms laws and the federal exceptions codified in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), i.e., people with non-violent felonies and those who have had rights restored by Ohio courts.

Therefore, Am. Sub. H. B. 51 seeks to make those individuals ineligible for Ohio’s new unlicensed carry/constitutional carry law, and pursuant to the legal standard set in Caron v. United States, 524 U. S. 308, 316 (1998), those individuals would also immediately lose the right to even possess firearms. Thousands of Ohio citizens would become instant federal felons.
Post Reply