Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

1. Repeal Notification
2. ORC 9.68 Reform
3. Stand Your Ground

What else?

Church/house of worship carry would be nice.

Free guns and ammo. If we can't get rid of notification even with all the testimony against it, then we might as well try to get something else. It didn't take long to get rid of the Buckeye Tuck.

First, we need to get the stupid broken stuff passed last session fixed - most notably, the requirement to post signage *still exists* for those places removed from the statutory no-carry list or optionally allowed to permit carry. This needs to get done sooner than 2 years from now at the end of the session. SMH

Along with Stand Your Ground, bring Ohio's self-defense laws into line with the other 49 states so that self defense is no longer an affirmative defense. Put the burden of proof / production on the prosecution.

Also (and, we were *so* close last session!), from the poll for the 130 OGA: Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.

JustaShooter wrote:First, we need to get the stupid broken stuff passed last session fixed - most notably, the requirement to post signage *still exists* for those places removed from the statutory no-carry list or optionally allowed to permit carry. This needs to get done sooner than 2 years from now at the end of the session. SMH

Along with Stand Your Ground, bring Ohio's self-defense laws into line with the other 49 states so that self defense is no longer an affirmative defense. Put the burden of proof / production on the prosecution.

Also (and, we were *so* close last session!), from the poll for the 130 OGA: Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.

Amen^^^^

Carry in government buildings. Including any privately owned building that ever got one dime of public assistance. (Land acquisition, construction, road building, tax abatement, whatever).

JustaShooter wrote:First, we need to get the stupid broken stuff passed last session fixed - most notably, the requirement to post signage *still exists* for those places removed from the statutory no-carry list or optionally allowed to permit carry. This needs to get done sooner than 2 years from now at the end of the session. SMH

Also (and, we were *so* close last session!), from the poll for the 130 OGA: Repeal of RC 2923.126(B)(9) -- ridiculous to be unable to carry in buildings we paid for. Should be language that prohibits posting of any public building or property.

We also need to have a single, clear, concise rule concerning storing firearms in a vehicle at otherwise prohibited properties. It pains me to say it but even Illinois figured that out.

As it stands today we have five different rules depending on the type of premises, and sometimes a different rule applies depending on your affiliation with the premises in question. And is it still civil trespass under 2923.126 (C) if the private premises is posted? The revised 2923.126 (which left (C) alone) and 2923.1210 were both passed as part of the same bill.

Editing to add my non-lawyer's handy dandy guide to having a concealed handgun in your vehicle as you visit various places across our fair state and must leave the gun in your vehicle for one reason or another. The sad thing is I'm not positive that this is 100% correct.

Premises Type

• The parking garage at the state capitol building or the parking garage at the Riffe center for government and the arts in Columbus - Question A
• K-12 School - Question B
• College/University - Question D
• BCI - Status Unclear
• Other Property - Question G

Question A: Did you violate division (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of 2923.16 or any other provision of the Revised Code (like say, maybe the traffic code) in getting there?
Yes - Sorry, no storage for you.
No - Storage Option 1

Question B: Do you work there?
Yes - Question C
No - Storage Option 2

Question C: Does your employer have a policy prohibiting you from possessing weapons in your vehicle?
Yes - Storage Option 5
No - Storage Option 2

Question D: Do you work there or are you a student?
Yes - Question E
No - Storage Option 3

Question E: Does the college or university have a policy prohibiting you from possessing weapons in your vehicle?
Yes - Question H
No - Question F

Question F: (After March 21, 2017) Has the college or university granted you permission to carry a concealed handgun on the premises?
Yes - Storage Option 4
No - Storage Option 3

Question G: If you work there, is there a policy prohibiting you from having weapons in your vehicle?
Yes - Question H
No or Don't Work There- Storage Option 4

Question H: Is your vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be?
Yes - Storage Option 5 (But only on or after March 21, 2017)
No - Sorry, no storage for you.

Storage Option 1:
The vehicle must remain locked at all times. No explicit allowance is made for entering/exiting the vehicle but that right is probably inferred.

Storage Option 2: (Not available until March 21, 2017)
Keep it in your vehicle. The vehicle may be unlocked while you are in it. If you exit the vehicle you must lock it. Again, no explicit allowance made for reentering but it can probably be inferred.

Storage Option 3:
The vehicle must remain locked at all times. The handgun must remain in your vehicle unless you are in the process of putting it in your vehicle. Again, no explicit allowance made for reentering but it can probably be inferred.

Storage Option 4:
Keep it in your vehicle but otherwise let good judgement be your guide.

Storage Option 5: (Not available until March 21, 2017)
Keep it in your vehicle. The vehicle may be unlocked while you are in it, otherwise each firearm and all ammunition must be locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container.

Um...aren't we starting the 132nd GA?

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Um...aren't we starting the 132nd GA?

Some people just always have to be right...

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Um...aren't we starting the 132nd GA?

Probably!
Can you fix that for me?

Maybe the U.S.P.S. could modify their Rule 39 to allow carry inside vehicles on their parking lots while conducting postal business ? Heck, I can't even remember the last time a U.S.P.S. employee went postal.

Chuck wrote:

MyWifeSaidYes wrote:Um...aren't we starting the 132nd GA?

Probably!
Can you fix that for me?

Done.

I don't necessarily disagree with trying to get notification repealed, but I often wonder if the energy poured out on these forums surrounding the issue is a lot of residual anger from the early days of concealed carry.

I've been pulled over a few times in the 6+ years I've had my chl, and because I notified promptly I believe it caused warnings to be generated instead of a ticket, which I would have deserved in every sense.

It seems as if most Ohio police departments understand the law, I haven't heard of notification horror stories in a while, and I just question why that would be the top priority?

To people un-familiar with firearms who have never thought through the need or value to carry a defensive weapon, they think we sound like idiots for complaining about notification to an officer. Yes, every reason we are complaining about is valid, but those type of people would never in a million years think through the consequences that could happen with the current ambiguity.

Therefore, the reaction is predictable, and they just further strengthen their opinion that gun owners are crazy. I have tested this out on a few people I know that aren't comfortable around firearms, and this response is consistent.

However when I discuss the patchwork of places we're allowed to carry or not, there is far more understanding. Many times telling somebody that the state creates invisible boundaries around otherwise similar places where the same people go to where carry is allowed in one and not the other, like certain buildings at the zoo or fairs, post offices, church parking lots with day cares, etc.

I think going after more uniform laws in regards to statuatory cpz's is a much better argument, and last month the legislature has shown a willingness to enact some laws in that regard.

In no way is this a criticism, I applaud the work this group does, and I'm looking forward to finding some time to figure out why I can't renew my membership. (I did send a support email which was answered, but no luck yet.) thanks to everyone for your efforts!

Ole_grizzly wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with trying to get notification repealed, but I often wonder if the energy poured out on these forums surrounding the issue is a lot of residual anger from the early days of concealed carry.

I've been pulled over a few times in the 6+ years I've had my chl, and because I notified promptly I believe it caused warnings to be generated instead of a ticket, which I would have deserved in every sense.

It seems as if most Ohio police departments understand the law, I haven't heard of notification horror stories in a while, and I just question why that would be the top priority?

To people un-familiar with firearms who have never thought through the need or value to carry a defensive weapon, they think we sound like idiots for complaining about notification to an officer. Yes, every reason we are complaining about is valid, but those type of people would never in a million years think through the consequences that could happen with the current ambiguity.

Therefore, the reaction is predictable, and they just further strengthen their opinion that gun owners are crazy. I have tested this out on a few people I know that aren't comfortable around firearms, and this response is consistent.

However when I discuss the patchwork of places we're allowed to carry or not, there is far more understanding. Many times telling somebody that the state creates invisible boundaries around otherwise similar places where the same people go to where carry is allowed in one and not the other, like certain buildings at the zoo or fairs, post offices, church parking lots with day cares, etc.

I think going after more uniform laws in regards to statuatory cpz's is a much better argument, and last month the legislature has shown a willingness to enact some laws in that regard.

In no way is this a criticism, I applaud the work this group does, and I'm looking forward to finding some time to figure out why I can't renew my membership. (I did send a support email which was answered, but no luck yet.) thanks to everyone for your efforts!

Notification is huge because it's easy for people to get hinged up on it. I've worked in law enforcement for 11.5 years. The biggest law that I see people arrested for is failing to notify. I've never seen an arrest for a statutory CPZ. The only time I've seen an arrest for a business posted CPZ is when the person wanted to argue instead of just leaving. Yet, I've seen people arrested for honking their horn as the patrol officer walks back to their vehicle. The officer states that wasn't "promptly notified" and therefore they issue them a citation.

Statutory CPZs are much harder. We tried with government buildings. The legislature caved to local governments and granted them the ability to allow concealed carry if they pass a local ordinance to allow it. How many cities have you seen wanting to jump on that bandwagon? I bet none and it will be hard to push the legislature to take that law further. Most statutory CPZs are government buildings. They don't infringe on the rights of private businesses. Yet, we don't see them agreeing heavily to change it.

Notification should be a top priority. You don't see major cases because in most cases it's no worse than a traffic ticket. You don't hear many cases of trespass from CPZ because in that case police ask you to leave and you leave. There's not much of a stink one can make. If you do, then you pretty much get arrested, but there are not many that are going to back you. I look at what do most get hinged on now. Those should be the top priority.

The biggest law that I see people arrested for is failing to notify.

Are those ofcc people or the public in general? What is more beneficial to ofcc members? Going after a non-starter so far by the legislature to try to help people too lazy to learn the law? Or go after something that would benefit the membership every day if more cpz's were removed?

This is the best possible climate we will likely ever see, as its very likely there will be a democratic wave, especially nationally, in response to trump the next few elections. I just don't see how worrying about traffic ticket level offenses when people have the opportunity to learn and follow the law versus going after the core tenant of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is still severely compromised in our state.

Would be nice to get both.