OFCC agenda for the 133 GA

[Chuck]

What would you guys like to see us try to get passed during the next legislative session?
We managed to stop the weakening of notification repeal, and I want to go for it again this time, but what else?

[Javelin Man]

That's about my only focus, repeal notification.

A lot of the other items we'd like step on property owners' rights, we're doing a nice balance there right now.

[qmti]

That's about my only focus, repeal notification.

A lot of the other items we'd like step on property owners' rights, we're doing a nice balance there right now.

I would also say repeal notification. I still think it's a gray area since LEO are human beings and interpret the law in different views. As far as owners property rights, if they post they are saying they don't want my business and that's fine with me. I think the employee's parking lot has been addressed.

[Chuck]

That's about my only focus, repeal notification.

A lot of the other items we'd like step on property owners' rights, we're doing a nice balance there right now.

One of my favorites last session that we couldn't get life to in the Senate was HB 233, Representatives Becker's DEFEND bill, which decriminalized carrying past most no gun signs unless the actor refused to leave when asked. In other words, one couldn't get the trespassing charge as long as one complied when asked to leave.

Does anyone think that bill would step on property owner's rights?

[bignflnut]

Ban CPZs
Constitutional Permitless Concealed Carry

--simple, no?

[JediSkipdogg]

That's about my only focus, repeal notification.

A lot of the other items we'd like step on property owners' rights, we're doing a nice balance there right now.

One of my favorites last session that we couldn't get life to in the Senate was HB 233, Representatives Becker's DEFEND bill, which decriminalized carrying past most no gun signs unless the actor refused to leave when asked. In other words, one couldn't get the trespassing charge as long as one complied when asked to leave.

Does anyone think that bill would step on property owner's rights?

I don't think it would, but I also think there is pretty strong case law that prevents that from happening. And since we don't have a huge list of cases (I truly can't think of any) where a person was arrested for the violation without acting like a d-bag and refusing to leave, we would use some of our resources on pushing a bill that really gains nothing.


Obviously my first would be to eliminate CPZs and then to remove governmental CPZs except under certain circumstances. Those few places would be those that need the utmost security and have proper security measures in place. For example jails and courthouses and non-public locations of government buildings. On the courthouse part though we need to make sure it's worded appropriately though that it is only when court is in session. Otherwise, the approximately 260 local municipalities that have Mayor's Courts still would have their entire building prohibited under the courthouse CPZ section, 2923.123.

[techguy85]

I would like to see campus carry and removing houses of worship from the CPZ list, but I know campus carry in particular effects a somewhat smaller number of us on a daily basis. That said, around OSU in particular, are some pretty bad neighborhoods and I think the students who live off campus should be able to carry to protect themselves. And for anyone who has forgotten we got really lucky with the fella who attacked OSU last year and there happened to be a cop right there. I doubt we'll get that lucky when it happens again.
In fact, if I think back a little further, we had a workplace shooting in (2010?) or so, another shooting a few years ago by a security guard at Wexner Center for the Arts that thankfully only resulted in property damage...

[dustymedic]

Set at standard for "No Guns Allowed" signs. No more little stickers in the corner of a side window that you can't see if the light conditions aren't perfect. South Carolina has hard standards for their signs:

23-31-235. Sign Requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of
signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign
expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.
(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is
prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:
(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;
(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall
uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal
line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;
(5) a diameter of a circle; and
(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's
entrance door.
(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained
in subsection (A) must be:
(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;
(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall
uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a
diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five
degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two
inches wide;
(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;
(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

I have friends & family in SC that say that the standards have caused some businesses (especially in tourist areas) to think twice about posting, because they felt that some members of the general public would be scared away by the signage. It would also reduce accidental intrusions..

This could probably fly through the GA quickly because some of the Anti-Gunners would think that it would further restrict gun owners rights, while actually it would just clarify things..

[WestonDon]

Notification

Duty to retreat

Eliminate CPZ's in ALL government buildings. My definition of government buildings includes any building that has or ever had taxpayer support in any form. That would include loans, levies, bonds, grants, any taxpayer investment at all.

The above is probably unobtainable so I would settle for requiring buildings to either give up CPZ status or provide secure storage for CHL holders to store their firearms while doing business in that building.

[Chuck]

I see two types of government buildings, secure and non-secure.

Secure being armed guards and metal detectors, limited entrance, etc.

[SMMAssociates]

Notification needs to be "improved" - notify if asked....

Houses of Worship off the prohibited list - some places flat out won't give permission....

(Sidebar: The Rabbi at my Synagogue rather proudly announced that he had gotten one of those Virginia mail-order [can you apply online?] licenses. I don't think our Board has recognized that officially - they wouldn't listen to me, and when I made an in-person pitch a while back, he walked out of the meeting.... I have the feeling that OH will suddenly stop honoring those if something happens.)

Our legislators apparently didn't think enough about this - Non-Catholic Christians (as I understand it) can switch Congregations more less at will, and there are enough of those hereabouts that it's almost a non-issue, of course, you have to want to. And the legislators generally have bodyguards. There are 4 or 5 Jewish Synagogues in Youngstown, and while I could switch between them, AFAIK, all would refuse permission, and all but one are miles away. The one I've been a member of since about 1948 is about four blocks away, and doesn't want to hear it.

(I say "4 or 5" because one's a "Messianic Jewish" facility. "Jews For Jesus" is the more common name. They have admitted that their whole purpose is to urge Jews to convert. I'm not sure where they are - they moved - and were quite a ways from me, too. I'm not sure how to count them .)

/Rant....

"Tree of Life" in Pittsburgh probably changed a few minds here - the board arranged for a Uniformed Township Officer to be present most of the time when there's any activity, but they haven't figured out that he'd be the first one shot.... I just stay away now - my wife doesn't quite understand it....

Regards,

[MrMagoo]

Depends on what happens this week with the veto override of Sub HB 228. If it fails, at the very least we need to go back to get the burden of proof changed to the prosecutor. Beyond that I think we should make another go at getting notification repealed. With the CHL holder who was stopped and notified and still killed by a cop earlier this year plus bringing up the Harless incident where he said he should have put 10 rounds in a CHL holder and gone home and got a good night's sleep we can make another stab at it. The DEFEND bill wold be a good one to go for too.

Gary

[JediSkipdogg]

Oooohhh, thought of another one......


A gun bill passed in the FIRST SIX MONTHS of the new session and not the final six days. Oh wait, I can get unicorns on the endangered species list easier.

[rickt]

LEO organizations successfully stopped HB 142 this session. All the gun rights groups will have to come up with some kind of coordinated strategy to overcome that opposition or the exact same thing will happen next session.

If private property rights stopped HB 233 this time, removing tax payer funded CPZs only would eliminate that problem next session.

[Brian D.]

Set at standard for "No Guns Allowed" signs. No more little stickers in the corner of a side window that you can't see if the light conditions aren't perfect. South Carolina has hard standards for their signs:

23-31-235. Sign Requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of
signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign
expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.
(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is
prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:
(1) clearly visible from outside the building;
(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;
(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall
uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal
line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;
(5) a diameter of a circle; and
(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's
entrance door.
(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained
in subsection (A) must be:
(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;
(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall
uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;
(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a
diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five
degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two
inches wide;
(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;
(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

I have friends & family in SC that say that the standards have caused some businesses (especially in tourist areas) to think twice about posting, because they felt that some members of the general public would be scared away by the signage. It would also reduce accidental intrusions..

This could probably fly through the GA quickly because some of the Anti-Gunners would think that it would further restrict gun owners rights, while actually it would just clarify things..

I like this idea, and know it had some success in Texas as well. But in addition to the signs being large and obnoxious, we should propose they be posted in multiple languages, just to make signage that much more odious. With failure to post PROPERLY at all entrances punishable for the owner, if they truly insist on running a CPZ.