HB 228: Stand your ground + other changes

[Morne]

I'm likely to go give testimony in favor of this bill tomorrow.

[qmti]

Just sent a email to my representatives Huffman and Vitale to support this bill. Both are Republicans so I'm sure they will.

Just received a reply from Mary Parker, aid to Representative Nino Vitale 85th district, they have not heard of the bill. Wants me to reply with explanation.
Update: I made a typo; hit the N key instead of the B key and typed HN228 instead of HB228. I mean, I could have figured that out reading the email.

[zeko]

I attended the third hearing for HB228 yesterday (Feb 13). The hearing room was packed; some latecomers were accommodated in another room, presumably with video. About a dozen of the Demanding Moms were there, although none of the Moms spoke. Probably half the people there were for HB74 -- something about denying corporations the right to contribute to political campaigns (I wonder if labor unions are included in their definition of corporations?).

At the beginning of the session a quorum wasn't present -- several committee members had been excused, and some others just hadn't arrived yet, so some of the business wasn't conducted until after the first testimony. Speaking for OFCC, Morne gave what I thought was excellent testimony in favor of the "teeth in ORC 9.68" provision. After enough committee members arrived to make a quorum, an amendment was discussed which lowered the prosecutor's burden of proof (in HB228) from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence". This had been requested by the prosecutor's association. I don't know whether that amendment is now part of HB228 -- I hope not. I didn't see an aye-or-nay vote.

Next came a representative of the prosecutors' association who mainly complained that HB228 made a prosecutor's job too difficult. He was followed by a (male) representative of Moms Demand Action who delivered the usual remarks about how Stand Your Ground would make people shoot each other in a public place, etc. Finally, a lady from a defense lawyers' group spoke in favor of HB228, saying (among other things) that the aforementioned amendment would probably be found unconstitutional. She was questioned on that point, but the questioner seemed satisfied with her answer.

The point that concerned me most was the amendment that was discussed. I don't know how to check on this -- the version I can pull up on http://www.ohiohouse.gov is still the "as introduced" version. Does anyone know how to get at the (possibly) amended version?

Zeko

[WestonDon]

Thanks for that report Zeko.

[Chuck]

The point that concerned me most was the amendment that was discussed. I don't know how to check on this -- the version I can pull up on http://www.ohiohouse.gov is still the "as introduced" version. Does anyone know how to get at the (possibly) amended version?

Zeko

If it was adopted, they would have taken a vote, usually by calling the roll, but sometimes with just a voice vote.
If they didn't take a vote, they didn't adopt the proposed amendment.
Where I get confused is when someone moves to table an amendment, and the vote to table is a vote against the amendment.

Thank you for going, zeko, and thank you for the report
Very much

[rickt]

Does anyone know how to get at the (possibly) amended version?

Here is the substitute bill.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... 0595-7.pdf

The meeting minutes might tell us more about that possible amendment but we won't be able to see them until they are approved at the next committee meeting.

[djthomas]

The only real issues I have with 228, as it stands now, are some of the provisions that may not work as intended.

For example, in the new 9.68 it appears that challenges against rules and regulations promulgated by the state, e.g. capitol square advisory board, state colleges/universities, and the casino control commission, may not enjoy the same level of support. Over the years various state officials have seen it their right to promulgate rules pertaining to firearms contrary to state law.

Second, while I like the idea of reducing the penalty for various weapons-related offenses the rule about "is not committing any other offense" practically makes this a dead letter. If you're in a vehicle and get stopped there was probable cause that you were committing an offense. Granted it's a traffic offense but it's still a criminal offense. If you're in a CPZ the owner can just claim he asked you to leave and you didn't and boom it goes from an MM to an F4.

I also wonder if these new penalty reductions shouldn't apply only to licensees. By making them apply to every dope slinger you're practically begging cities to pass local laws making the offense an M1. This is not constitutional carry light or even a step in that direction so I think a fair argument can be made for not applying the penalty reduction to everyone.

[rickt]

Rosenberger Wants Bigger Discussion On Gun Issues, Pauses "Stand Your Ground" Bill

The controversial “Stand Your Ground” bill has stalled in the Ohio House. The measure which makes it easier to use lethal force as self-defense had its last hearing one day before the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. The top House leader says it’s time to take a step back and look at the bigger picture on gun policies.

http://statenews.org/post/rosenberger-wants-bigger-discussion-gun-issues-pauses-stand-your-ground-bill

[qmti]

Rosenberger Wants Bigger Discussion On Gun Issues, Pauses "Stand Your Ground" Bill

The controversial “Stand Your Ground” bill has stalled in the Ohio House. The measure which makes it easier to use lethal force as self-defense had its last hearing one day before the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. The top House leader says it’s time to take a step back and look at the bigger picture on gun policies.

http://statenews.org/post/rosenberger-wants-bigger-discussion-gun-issues-pauses-stand-your-ground-bill

I'm not surprised. It will probably be put in the bottom drawer like HB142 did.

[qmti]

Does anyone think that HB228 and HB142 will ever be laid upon the governors desk top? Will Kasich sign them or will DeWine?

[JediSkipdogg]

Does anyone think that HB228 and HB142 will ever be laid upon the governors desk top? Will Kasich sign them or will DeWine?

Kasich, it's hard to tell under current times right now. As for Dewine, if you believe BFA that Dewine has changed then sure, he'll sign them. But if you go by his history, he won't touch them and we could have many years of no gun bills going anywhere.

[JustaShooter]

Does anyone think that HB228 and HB142 will ever be laid upon the governors desk top? Will Kasich sign them or will DeWine?

From what I've been told, Kasich has said he would not sign SYG if it made it to his desk. Which, given how Ohio politics works these days, means it won't make it out of committee, much less to his desk.

[rickt]

Fourth hearing with a possible substitute bill on 4/10/18.

[sunfish valley]

today i had a buddy that is an instructor call me, said he was talking to the deputy in ross county, that takes care of the ccw in the sheriffs dept. there, he stated he was there to pick up some of the laws books for a class he was having, and the deputy told him that there would be no more books, the state was not sending them out anymore, and to tell the students to download the application online, he said the deputy stated that stand your ground law had passed and there was little changes in the new law., This afternoon i had a gentleman tell me he took his ccw class, and went to ross county to get his lic. and they told him they were now keeping the original certificate and giving him a copy, he told them no he would rather keep it, he left and went to pike county to get it.,, anybody else been hearing anything such as this ??

[Chuck]

The Federalism and Interstate Relations Committee of the Ohio House is meeting Tuesday, April 17, 3:00 PM in Room 115 of the statehouse, to receive testimony from ALL parties on HB 228.

Please publicize this hearing and encourage testimony and attendance.
For those who may not be familiar with this bill, it contains
1. burden of proof
2. removes duty to retreat
3. eliminates mandatory posting of gun signs
4. reduces to minor misdemeanor many crimes unless the subject is committing another crime at the same time.
5. It expands ORC 9.68 and makes it easier for organizations to sue cities for their illegal ordinances.

(Please correct me if I have anything wrong or left important items out)

Here is a link to the text of the sub bill:
http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... 0595-7.pdf

The following two links are to synopsizes addressing how the amendments to the bill differs from the original bill “As Introduced)
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/downlo ... format=pdf
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/downlo ... format=pdf

This is the committee'a email address on the announcement they sent out
FederalismAndInterstateRelationsCommittee@ohiohouse.gov