THANK YOU for thatdjthomas 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.
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:
IANAL, but I think the italicized part says, in layman's terms, "you can do what you want, but not by making it 'retroactive'"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, again
This, my friend, is plan BOne 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.
Is it your opinion we should drop plan A?