Sub HB 228 problem correction

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by Chuck »

djthomas wrote:I'm certainly not an Ohio Constitutional scholar but I lost an hour of my life reading Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn which addresses Article II Section 28 head on.
THANK YOU for that

I don't see sealing, expunging, or any changes on records as retroactive. That is normal course of business with records, just like changing titles on automobiles.
The reason I think it is in conflict with the constitution lays specifically in the use of the word "retroactive' in the face of the wording in section 28:
The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state.
IANAL, but I think the italicized part says, in layman's terms, "you can do what you want, but not by making it 'retroactive'"

IANAL, again

One way or another this will be fixed. Yes it could suck for someone if a prosecutor tries to get cute during a very short window but I'd like to think that there would be political ramifications for being obtuse against the "average" gun owner. Judges don't like having their time wasted, and trying to charge someone over a typo for which a fix is already signed but not yet effective is a good way to get on their bad side. Yes, I'm aware there are some real chuckleheads in a state as large as Ohio, but I'm really not too worried. Yet.
This, my friend, is plan B

Is it your opinion we should drop plan A?
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)
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by M-Quigley »

Chuck wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:
Chuck wrote: Then we need democrat votes in the House.


**Please**
Give me your opinions on my understanding of this.
If I am wrong in any way, please speak up
How many democratic votes are needed? And in this polarizing environment, is there any Democratic state congress members left?
Five by my count
Thanks for answering that despite my obvious posting error. (I of course meant how many Democrats are willing to vote for the emergency measure, not Democrats in general) If five votes are needed I remain very skeptical.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by Chuck »

M-Quigley wrote: Thanks for answering that despite my obvious posting error. (I of course meant how many Democrats are willing to vote for the emergency measure, not Democrats in general) If five votes are needed I remain very skeptical.
I think it is very possible.
Speaker Householder is an old time wheeling and dealing politician from way back. He got democrat votes to become speaker and gave co-chairs to a couple on committees. I can't say whether he'll use much political capital on getting them, but it is my opinion he has it to use.

IMO, it shouldn't require political capital for dems to vote to correct a clerical error. Anybody with a sense of decency ought to want it fixed, no matter your position about the issue.
This isn't about an issue.
This is about a clerical error.
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)
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by WestonDon »

JustaShooter wrote:
WestonDon wrote:I'm a little confused. There was enough votes to overturn the veto of 228 in the first place and now we can't even fix a typo? Was the election that bad for republicans? I guess I haven't been paying much attention to Ohio politics outside my own corner of the state.
The override took a 3/5 majority (60 votes in the House). An emergency bill takes 2/3 (66 votes). We lost several Republican seats to the Democrats in the recent election, so we now need 5 Democrats in addition to all 61 current Republicans to pass this as emergency legislation so it can take effect immediately and prevent the error from ever taking effect.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by schmieg »

qmti wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
WestonDon wrote:I'm a little confused. There was enough votes to overturn the veto of 228 in the first place and now we can't even fix a typo? Was the election that bad for republicans? I guess I haven't been paying much attention to Ohio politics outside my own corner of the state.
The override took a 3/5 majority (60 votes in the House). An emergency bill takes 2/3 (66 votes). We lost several Republican seats to the Democrats in the recent election, so we now need 5 Democrats in addition to all 61 current Republicans to pass this as emergency legislation so it can take effect immediately and prevent the error from ever taking effect.
I guess I'm just a suspicious type of guy, but how this happened is just suspicious. Could this mistake have been done purposely by someone in that area that has anti-gun feelings. If I were a Democrat I'd say "Gee, that's too bad" and let it ride.

If Nancy Polosi gets wind of this snafu she will put it in her game book. What a end run the DEM's could make on a hastily pushed bill.


Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:18 pm
This is why I felt it would have been a good idea to not override the veto and just redo the bill at the beginning of this session.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by schmieg »

Chuck wrote:
M-Quigley wrote: Thanks for answering that despite my obvious posting error. (I of course meant how many Democrats are willing to vote for the emergency measure, not Democrats in general) If five votes are needed I remain very skeptical.
I think it is very possible.
Speaker Householder is an old time wheeling and dealing politician from way back. He got democrat votes to become speaker and gave co-chairs to a couple on committees. I can't say whether he'll use much political capital on getting them, but it is my opinion he has it to use.

IMO, it shouldn't require political capital for dems to vote to correct a clerical error. Anybody with a sense of decency ought to want it fixed, no matter your position about the issue.
This isn't about an issue.
This is about a clerical error.
Democrats at the federal level seem to lack a sense of decency; hopefully, things are better at the state level.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by djthomas »

Chuck wrote:I don't see sealing, expunging, or any changes on records as retroactive. That is normal course of business with records, just like changing titles on automobiles.
Ah but with changing titles on automobiles you're just adding to the record. With an expunction you're saying "that thing you think happened 25 years ago? Nope, it never occurred." as opposed to oh sorry those records would have been purged in the ordinary course of business.
Chuck wrote:The reason I think it is in conflict with the constitution lays specifically in the use of the word "retroactive' in the face of the wording in section 28:
I get it. But the problem with language is that it is fluid. The word "retroactive" in the constitution has to be construed according to what it meant back in 1851 and in the context that it was used. Back then the term retroactive laws really referred to ex post facto laws, something prohibited by the US Constitution. In the late 1700s the Supreme Court defined four categories of ex post facto laws that are prohibited. The fact that they did so means that there are some ex post facto / retroactive laws that are not unconstitutional. The four no nos are:
1. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed
4. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Note the theme here - punishing people for something that was legal at the time it was done, or punishing them more severely than they would have been. When the term is used in a law in 2019 we have to look at what the word means today and the context in which it is being used. The intent is to ensure that people are not punished. Yes, it's the same word but the intent is entirely different. Kind of like how old laws still refer to "men" in spots but nobody would ever seriously argue that in today's age such clauses do not apply equally to women.
Chuck wrote:This, my friend, is plan B

Is it your opinion we should drop plan A?
As my reply a few messages back indicates: absolutely not. Plan A is the preferred approach, but if the D's want to be obstinate and obstructive out of spite then plan B it is. Something needs to make it into law quickly. My whole point in all of this is that if we're forced to settle for Plan B it's probably not the legal disaster some fear even if they do use the word "retroactive" in it.
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by Chuck »

Today, SB 53 passed out of committee to the Senate floor, where it was passed to the House.

Rumor has it the tomorrow the House is going to vote on their fix-it bill.
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)
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by Chuck »

HB 86 passed the House by a vote of 76-20.
It's on to the Senate now.

I predict the Senate passes the HB 86 as is, and the governor signs it. We got plenty of democrat votes in the house this time, and any other scenario requires we get them again.
The other sections while not needed, do no harm, and if the Senate passes it as is, no concurrence vote is needed.

I think this one is almost home.
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)
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by M-Quigley »

Chuck wrote:HB 86 passed the House by a vote of 76-20.
It's on to the Senate now.

I predict the Senate passes the HB 86 as is, and the governor signs it. We got plenty of democrat votes in the house this time, and any other scenario requires we get them again.
The other sections while not needed, do no harm, and if the Senate passes it as is, no concurrence vote is needed.

I think this one is almost home.
Regardless of their feelings on gun issues, it was basically like a typo. So apparently some Democrats did the right thing, despite the 20 who merely played politics. I'm happily surprised that there is still some decency left in this polarizing environment.

(this is assuming of course the Speaker didn't buy them off somehow with some promise)
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by WY_Not »

Wouldn't put it past any of them to turn around and throw their support behind the 21 to purchase/possess bill as the price of compromise.
M-Quigley wrote:
Chuck wrote:HB 86 passed the House by a vote of 76-20.
It's on to the Senate now.

I predict the Senate passes the HB 86 as is, and the governor signs it. We got plenty of democrat votes in the house this time, and any other scenario requires we get them again.
The other sections while not needed, do no harm, and if the Senate passes it as is, no concurrence vote is needed.

I think this one is almost home.
Regardless of their feelings on gun issues, it was basically like a typo. So apparently some Democrats did the right thing, despite the 20 who merely played politics. I'm happily surprised that there is still some decency left in this polarizing environment.

(this is assuming of course the Speaker didn't buy them off somehow with some promise)
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
xpd54
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Dayton Area

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by xpd54 »

Chuck wrote:HB 86 passed the House by a vote of 76-20.
It's on to the Senate now.

I predict the Senate passes the HB 86 as is, and the governor signs it. We got plenty of democrat votes in the house this time, and any other scenario requires we get them again.
The other sections while not needed, do no harm, and if the Senate passes it as is, no concurrence vote is needed.

I think this one is almost home.
Thanks for the update and your work on this. I’ll be honest. Was quite pessimistic about the whole thing.
".....in the end we must still slosh our way through the factbound morass of reasonableness."
- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Scott v. Harris

The views expressed in this post are my own. They have not been reviewed or approved by my employer.

My Blog
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by rickt »

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Republican Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder took the unusual step this week of meeting privately with the entire Ohio House Democratic caucus.

In doing so, he was able to get enough Democrats to vote on Wednesday in favor of a legislative fix, requested by gun-rights activists, so that it will pass immediately once it’s signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/02/ ... -bill.html
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by M-Quigley »

rickt wrote:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Republican Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder took the unusual step this week of meeting privately with the entire Ohio House Democratic caucus.

In doing so, he was able to get enough Democrats to vote on Wednesday in favor of a legislative fix, requested by gun-rights activists, so that it will pass immediately once it’s signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/02/ ... -bill.html
The article doesn't say what was promised (if anything) in this "private meeting." :|
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: Sub HB 228 problem correction

Post by rickt »

HB 86 is scheduled for its first hearing in the Senate Government Oversight and Reform committee on Tuesday, 3/5. It also says, "possible vote". If they rush it through the full Senate could vote on it Wednesday afternoon.
Post Reply