Chuck wrote:House concurrence vote:
59-21, with at least 5 more "yes" votes not in attendance due to the late hour.
It appears we have a veto proof margin in both chambers, but no room to spare in the Senate
HB 228 was amended in the Senate to add the contents of HB 208, which allowed more carry for LEOs, and also amended to removed all language concerning duty to retreat. It also removed that unlicensed -carrying-in-a-car-will-be-only-a-minor-misdemeanor thing you guys were complaining about
Still in the bill is ORC 9.68 reform, tort reform No charge for forgetting your CHL at home, moving hands during a traffic stop, and the Mossberg Shockwave will be legal
Well, I am disappointed about duty to retreat but I suppose on balance this is a net positive for us. Still, with republicans holding both houses and the goobernator it shouldn't be so dang difficult.
The problem counting votes this time was the threatened veto
The bill could pass easily 17 - 18 votes, but needs 20 to override the veto.
If it wasn't for the veto threat we could have had everything
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)
xpd54 wrote:So it’s not a sawed off firearm now, but it is a dangerous ordnance? What’s the point of that?
I read it the same way. Under this Shockwave is unquestionably a dangerous ordnance. Unless we're misreading this, this change made things worse as it's now explicitly clear that the thing will be illegal in Ohio without a permit to own dangerous ordnance.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Thanks for the update Chuck. Do you know what happened to HB142? The earlier news report sounded like it may have gotten acted on as well.
HB 142 died in committee. It may still be raised, amended, and voted on, but there isn't enough time to over ride a veto if the governor waits his full ten days before issuing it.
So I'm sitting in a senator's office, standing firm on original language or nothing, and he's telling me that "others" are calling us a little extreme and unreasonable for not taking an incremental approach towards itand I say if HB228 is going to pass it makes failing to notify a minor misdemeanor anyway so 142 didn't really matter.
Chuck wrote:All it would do was change notification to whenever the cop asked for ID, which is more confusing, if you ask me.
That's the story.
My question is, do we try for it again next session, hopefully smarter and more productive?
I appreciate what you've done. I think shifting the burden of proof was very worthwhile. That said, I disagree with you that changing notification to whenever the cop asks for ID would be more confusing. I know instructors and LEOs who currently think people are supposed to inform whenever they have any type of interaction with a cop. They don't have the same understanding of "for a law enforcement purpose" that you and I have. Adolphus Washington of the Buffalo Bills was arrested and had to stand trial because the arresting officers didn't understand that distinction either (luckily the judge found him not guilty).
By contrast when an officer "requests the person's driver's license or state identification card" is a clear and unambiguous standard. Neither the licensee nor the officer can be confused about whether notification is necessary. It's crystal clear.
qmti wrote:So my take on these bills are that they both have crashed and burned this session. And will have to be re-introduced next year. Correct?
The legislative session ends December 31st. Any bill not passed by then is dead and will have to be re-introduced in the next session which starts in January. HB 142 appears dead so the LEO organizations obviously have more sway with the Republicans then the fragmented Ohio gun rights movement.
HB 228 still has a couple good things in it so if Kasich doesn't veto it, we still gain a little bit.
lets gear up for the next session and hope we dont get railroaded, again. just hope the next go around that i can make it down for testimony. think that would be great
xpd54 wrote:So it’s not a sawed off firearm now, but it is a dangerous ordnance? What’s the point of that?
I read it the same way. Under this Shockwave is unquestionably a dangerous ordnance. Unless we're misreading this, this change made things worse as it's now explicitly clear that the thing will be illegal in Ohio without a permit to own dangerous ordnance.
Looks to me like they screwed up, that was supposed to be an exception under 2923.11 (L) as it was in the original HB 228 as passed by the House. Yeah, tell me again why this lame-duck sausage-fest is good? <insert bad words here>
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Facing threats of a veto from outgoing Gov. John Kasich, Ohio's state Senate voted 19-10 to pass a gun rights law that omitted the most controversial portion of the legislation passed by the House: The so-called "stand your ground" provision.
If the House approves the new version of House Bill 228 and Kasich signs it, gun owners in Ohio will still have the duty to retreat from a threatening situation before they reach for a deadly weapon -- something the original law would have eliminated.
However, they would no longer shoulder the burden of proving they were justified if they did claim to have shot another person in self-defense. Instead, as is already law in all 49 other states, prosecutors would be required to prove a crime had been committed.
The final iteration of the law was one that left both gun rights advocates and proponents of greater restrictions exactly "half-happy," Moms Demand Action member Richele O'Connor said Thursday.
I'm not attesting to the truth of the reporting, just posting to demonstrate how it is being reported.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
xpd54 wrote:So it’s not a sawed off firearm now, but it is a dangerous ordnance? What’s the point of that?
I read it the same way. Under this Shockwave is unquestionably a dangerous ordnance. Unless we're misreading this, this change made things worse as it's now explicitly clear that the thing will be illegal in Ohio without a permit to own dangerous ordnance.
Looks to me like they screwed up, that was supposed to be an exception under 2923.11 (L) as it was in the original HB 228 as passed by the House. Yeah, tell me again why this lame-duck sausage-fest is good? <insert bad words here>
Any chance that is just an error in the current version posted on-line, and it's actually not a sawed off firearm and not a dangerous ordnance?
Or was this some kind of poison pill added with all the other last minute amendments?
On December 6th, the Ohio state House of Representatives passed Substitute House Bill 228 by a vote of 59 – 21. It now heads to Governor John Kasich’s desk for his signature.
SNIP
Among the many changes included in Sub. House Bill 228 are:
Placing the burden of disproving a self-defense claim on the prosecution, similar to how it is in every other state in the country
Critical expansion of preemption to ensure that localities do not create a patch work of gun laws throughout Ohio
Language updates to mirror federal law that affects certain types of firearms, such as the Mossberg Shockwave
Clarifies Ohio’s signage law in regards to concealed carry. These important changes simplify what has become a complicated portion of Ohio law
Again, please contact Gov. Kasich and strongly urge him to sign Substitute House Bill 228 into law.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Any chance that is just an error in the current version posted on-line, and it's actually not a sawed off firearm and not a dangerous ordnance?
Or was this some kind of poison pill added with all the other last minute amendments?
However it turns out it wasn't intentional
No way after being down there through four days of hearings would I ever say they poison pilled it intentionally.
By the end I was doubting they even knew what they were doing themselves.
Can someone point me to the PENALTY for failing to notify?
My search-fu doesn't working
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)
Chuck wrote:Can someone point me to the PENALTY for failing to notify?
My search-fu doesn't working
It's not in the new bill at all. The duty to inform is from 2923.12(B)(1) and the penalty is under (F)(3). It's a first degree misdemeanor and also carries a license suspension.
If the officer had "actual knowledge" that the person had been issued a CHL the penalty is a MM, but the licensee has to prove the officer's actual knowledge (not just that a display in his vehicle did or should have included that info, but that the officer actually saw it and knew the driver of the vehicle was the person in question). Good luck with that.
I was trying to find the penalties related to ORC 2923.126 (A)
Is there a penalty associated with this section of code?
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)
So far the list of items removed from HB 228 by the Senate:
All language concerning duty to retreat
Minor misdemeanors for victimless crimes that can only be committed by CHL holders
SBRs
What else?
I want to write to somebody
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)