H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

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

H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by rickt »

H. B. No. 178 - Representatives Hood (R), Brinkman (R).
Cosponsors: Representatives Vitale (R), Antani (R), Keller (R), Lang (R), Becker (R), Merrin (R), Koehler (R), Butler (R), Blessing (R), Jordan (R), Riedel (R), Schaffer (R), Dean (R), Manchester (R), Manning, D. (R), Carruthers (R), Smith, T. (R), Cross (R), Zeltwanger (R), Baldridge (R), Lipps (R), Smith, R. (R), Wiggam (R), Powell (R), Wilkin (R), McClain (R), Romanchuk (R).

To amend sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41, 311.42, 311.43, 1547.69, 2921.13, 2923.11, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.122, 2923.123, 2923.124, 2923.125, 2923.126, 2923.127, 2923.128, 2923.129, 2923.1210, 2923.1211, 2923.1212, 2923.1213, 2923.16, 2953.37, and 4749.10 and to enact section 2923.111 of the Revised Code to modify the Weapons Law by renaming a concealed handgun license as a concealed weapons license, allowing a concealed weapons licensee to carry concealed all deadly weapons not otherwise prohibited by law, repealing a notice requirement applicable to licensees stopped for a law enforcement purpose, authorizing expungement of convictions of a violation of that requirement, and allowing a person age 21 or older and not prohibited by federal law from firearm possession to carry a concealed deadly weapon without needing a license subject to the same carrying laws as a licensee.
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 133-HB-178
User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 9435
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by AlanM »

If that gets passed I'll have to think about moving back to Ohio.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
ESAFO
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: Hubbard, Oh

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by ESAFO »

Yeah hopefully this isn't a wish in one hand & sh!t in the other kinda deal here......
BOB
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by Brian D. »

AlanM wrote:If that gets passed I'll have to think about moving back to Ohio.
Don't be in a rush to pack, Alan. You know the speed our OGA moves at regarding even minor reforms to gun rights legislation. This one is like jumping to Warp 9 from a standstill. (Thought you'd appreciate the sci-fi nerd reference).
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
SMMAssociates
Posts: 9557
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:36 am
Location: Youngstown OH

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by SMMAssociates »

Too much on one bill, I think, although other than having AlanM move back ( :D ), I like it.

(The "No License" part, IMHO, being the trigger on "NO", at this time.)

It'd also be nice to keep the kids away from the legislators, who can't tell that the guy demanding 3-round magazines (for example) isn't old enough to know what he's talking about. We need an age requirement to push a lot of this stuff.

Regards,

and, waiting to see what damage the OGA manages to inflict,
Stu.

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

(Why do those who claim to wish to protect me feel that the best way to do that is to disarm me?)

יזכר לא עד פעם
Javelin Man
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 7481
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Sandusky County

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by Javelin Man »

This bill is for those who say, "ask for the stars, you might get the moon!" I'm afraid we'll just get overcast skies. But at least we're asking for something. Couldn't they be in separate bills, easier to pass and not amend the whole thing?
Famous last words: "I just drank What?!-Socrates

bruh bruh is slang for "complete and total moron" -sodbuster95

The following is a list of children's books that didn't quite make it to the printing press...
1. What Is That Dog Doing to That Other Dog?
2. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
3. You Were An Accident
4. Bi-Curious George
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by JustaShooter »

There really isn't a lot to this bill to be honest, but I suppose that some of them could be separated - making our CHL a CWL and allowing carry of any deadly weapon could be one bill, unlicensed carry and repeal of notification (and expungement of prior notification convictions) could be another, but that's about as much as they could be split up.

I don't know how much good it would do, though - the "Ohio way" is to combine a bunch of pro-gun bills and run them trough the sausage grinder of lame duck and see what remains, and send a single pro-gun bill up to the governor.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by Chuck »

I think that the bill is great, better than HB 174.
Obviously HHB 174 was written on the presumption that HB 228 wouldn't be fixed in time.
Now that it has, HB 178 was introduced to avoid that needed amendment.

I think we should pick this apart and see if anything needs fixed or added.
The authors of this have worked with us before so our opinions should be welcome.
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: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by WestonDon »

My first thought on this was that there was too much here for various groups to oppose. On second thought it is the same opponents that opposed repealing duty to retreat that are likely to oppose the rest of it so why not just go for it and see where it goes.

One thing I would add would be carry allowed in government buildings. I know some of the Reps would like to see that so that they could carry in their own offices.

I expect opposition to come from the usual suspects; MDA, FOP, Chief's of police, Buckeye Sheriff's, OSP to name a few.

Key to success in my opinion is the support of the governor. I don't where he will stand on this but I can't visualize him going against the desires of LE groups.

It's going to be a heavy lift.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by djthomas »

A few thoughts on this one, admittedly not having read the bill line by line:

1. Let's make sure this bill doesn't introduce any downside to having a CHL/CWL. As an example, years ago Texas legalized carrying a firearm in a personal vehicle without a CHL. This was known as the Motorists' Personal Protection Act (MPPA). It was not necessary to notify if you were carrying under the MPPA. However, the pre-existing CHL law said "No person issued a CHL shall fail to notify..." This lead to a situation where a person with a CHL was being held to a higher standard in that they were required to notify during a traffic stop under penalty of law, whereas Joe-Blow-No-Training-No-Nothing-MPPA-Citizen was not. Are there any similar "gotchas" here?

2. While I like the idea of opening to all deadly weapons, local ordinances regarding non-firearm deadly weapons are, to say the least, an arbitrary mess, especially in northeast Ohio. One city says a pocket knife over 2 inches is bad. Another says 2.25, another outlaws them completely, etc. Some cities ban batons, others don't. In my view the second amendment covers any type of bearable arm, so 9.68 probably needs to be looked at if this law is going to purport a person to carry any such weapon anywhere in the state.

3. Governor DeWine was quoted in one media report as supporting this bill. That's great. Expect all the usual suspects to absolutely hate it. There's no negotiating with the FOP, Mothers, Bloomberg, Ohio Municipal League, etc. Go for broke and remove as many enumerated CPZs as possible, but especially anything having to do with buildings we paid for. Or maybe as an interim step only allow those with a CHL/CWL to carry in enumerated CPZs like some states have done with their enhanced permits. A small benefit to maintaining a CWL beyond reciprocity.

4. I do worry about about what this will do for private CPZs. 15 years later we're finally at the point in Ohio where very few businesses are posted, often in part due to good folks like those here who hand out cards saying things like "you know I've been trained and through a background check ... what do you know about your other customers?" We're not going to find a unified voice among gun owners on this one. For instance my dad has his CHL and likes the fact that he can carry 99% of the time as he goes about his day in Cleveland. He has no problem getting a license every five years and worries far more about how this bill will negatively impact his daily life if places start posting again. Despite being a CHLer, all around gun guy and dyed in the wool Republican he will not be calling his state representatives asking them to support this bill, but he would call if there were other benefits like cutting the CPZs down. Point being, this dynamic is something to be aware of. This is not the time for urination matches among ourselves trying to argue who is the better patriot.

5. Speaking of signs, I would love to see 2923.1212 updated to say something to the effect that if a premises required to be posted under that section is not posted, it is presumed that the entity having control of same has authorized the carrying of concealed weapons. As it stands today If I go to the county building and it's not posted it's on me to make sure that there is some resolution or rule somewhere that allows CCW. Good luck with that. Alternatively, see point 3.

Maybe I'm a burned-out cynic, but I suspect that next December we'll watch this bill get passed and the outcome will be that firefighters are allowed to carry on duty and 30.06 rifles will be erroneously banned.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by rickt »

While I support everything in this bill, none of it will have any kind of positive impact on my daily carry activities. I'm always going to have a license for reciprocity, I haven't been involved in a traffic stop since circa 1986 and I don't feel the need to carry a knife or any other type of weapon currently prohibited.

The one thing that would have a noticeable impact would be fewer CPZs.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by schmieg »

rickt wrote:While I support everything in this bill, none of it will have any kind of positive impact on my daily carry activities. I'm always going to have a license for reciprocity, I haven't been involved in a traffic stop since circa 1986 and I don't feel the need to carry a knife or any other type of weapon currently prohibited.

The one thing that would have a noticeable impact would be fewer CPZs.
Many people carry pocket knives that are obviously not carried as weapons, but I represented several in cases where they were charged for the multifunction or plain old one or two blade pocketknife led to CCW charges back in the old days. That problem still exists in some jurisdictions where a pocketknife is a quarter inch too long (two inch knives are pretty useless in my opinion). The problem comes back to 9.68 and making the pocketknife thing subject to a general law. If that is not done, we may continue to have problems even if this passes.
-- 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
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Chuck wrote:I think we should pick this apart and see if anything needs fixed or added.
The authors of this have worked with us before so our opinions should be welcome.
The 2923.12 portion of the bill has some IMO messed up penalties.

Has CWL + Not in unauthorized place. No penalty [(C)(2)(a) exception applies]
No CWL + Not in unauthorized place. MM [Penalty from (F)(5)]
Has CWL + In unauthorized place. M1 [Penalty from (F)(1) because (C)(2)(a) exception doesn't apply]
No CWL + In unauthorized place. M1 [Penalty from (F)(1)]
Has CWL + Charged for not keeping hands in plain sight. M1 [from (F)(2)]
No CWL + Charged for not keeping hands in plain sight. N/A not required.

So if you're not authorized to have a concealed handgun in public the penalty is no worse than for someone who IS authorized (CWL) unless you're in an 'authorized place' then it's a ticket. Unless you also move your hands out of plain sight, in which case not having the CWL is better again because all you've got is the MM vs the M1 for that.

I guess I'm confused - where are the authorized locations for a person who isn't authorized to have a concealed weapon on their person in public in the first place?

djthomas is right to be concerned - I see 1 of 2 things happening. Either this gets killed because it again tries to reduce the penalty for unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons (including loaded firearms) to a MM (as was attempted last session) or worse it passes, and when business owners realize what it means 90% of businesses will post no gun signs.


2923.16 - The edits here make it legal for a person with a CWL to have a loaded, chambered, shotgun or rifle in the cabin of the vehicle. This is a very dangerous idea as lots of long guns are not drop safe and can (and have) discharge with a good hard strike. Advancing gun rights is one thing. Advancing dangerous weapons handling is a different matter. Or, it should be.
machinegunkelly
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
Location: redmencountry

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by machinegunkelly »

DontTreadOnMe said, 2923.16 - The edits here make it legal for a person with a CWL to have a loaded, chambered, shotgun or rifle in the cabin of the vehicle. This is a very dangerous idea as lots of long guns are not drop safe and can (and have) discharge with a good hard strike. Advancing gun rights is one thing. Advancing dangerous weapons handling is a different matter. Or, it should be.
DTOM
Not sure how old you are, but the facts are when I went to school, every pickup had a shotgun in it, fall and winter. In the spring they were replaced with rifles . No AD's back then , those are over 40 year old guns now, very few of us had new stuff so probably alot older than 40 now.
Not a slam but, I believe unfounded fears on the equipment.
MGK
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

machinegunkelly wrote:Not sure how old you are, but the facts are when I went to school, every pickup had a shotgun in it, fall and winter. In the spring they were replaced with rifles . No AD's back then , those are over 40 year old guns now, very few of us had new stuff so probably alot older than 40 now.
Not a slam but, I believe unfounded fears on the equipment.
MGK
I don't object to long guns in the cabins. I object to chambered long guns in the cabins. Unless you personally checked those weapons you don't know they were loaded and, really, even if they were that doesn't justify the practice.

There's a reason hunter education classes say to set your rifle/shotgun down before climbing over even low fences. It's because even the force from such a short drop can cause them to fire.
Post Reply