H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
- Location: redmencountry
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
Question for all the LEOs/XLEOs on here.
How do/did you carry your long guns in vehicles?
Magazines out chamber empty ? Magazines in chamber empty ? Locked docked and ready to roll ?
MGK
How do/did you carry your long guns in vehicles?
Magazines out chamber empty ? Magazines in chamber empty ? Locked docked and ready to roll ?
MGK
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
Rifle - magazine inserted on a closed, cold chamber. Three extra magazines in cruiser's go kit plus a magazine assigned to each officer to carry as they see fit, with most carrying in a duty bag.
Shotgun - tube loaded with six shells on a closed, cold chamber.
Shotgun - tube loaded with six shells on a closed, cold chamber.
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
What I've seen is exactly as djt described save also in a bolted down electronic weapons locking system w/ remotely placed unlock. I also have seen in a lightweight weapon cover, protect against dust & debris, inside said lock system.
Last edited by WhyNot on Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
- JustaShooter
- 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
Keep in mind the law needs to be changed to the wording in the proposed bill to allow these methods of transporting long guns because they are considered "loaded" under Ohio's definition even though there is no round chambered.djthomas wrote:Rifle - magazine inserted on a closed, cold chamber. Three extra magazines in cruiser's go kit plus a magazine assigned to each officer to carry as they see fit, with most carrying in a duty bag.
Shotgun - tube loaded with six shells on a closed, cold chamber.
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!
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!
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
I recall some other state (Utah?) having what seems to be a reasonable definition of "loaded" when it comes to long guns. Basically a weapon isn't considered loaded if the chamber is empty and three or more overt manipulations of the weapon are required to discharge a round. So for an AR, you could have the magazine inserted so long as you had to 1. Chamber a round, 2. Flip off the safety, 3. Pull the trigger.JustaShooter wrote:Keep in mind the law needs to be changed to the wording in the proposed bill to allow these methods of transporting long guns because they are considered "loaded" under Ohio's definition even though there is no round chambered.
And yes, both our rifle and shotgun are carried in electronic lock racks.
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 11446
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:19 am
- Location: Exit 13 on the ohio Turnpike :-)
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
For a pump shotgun it could be asserted that one must pump the gun open, pump it closed, and pull the trigger.djthomas wrote:I recall some other state (Utah?) having what seems to be a reasonable definition of "loaded" when it comes to long guns. Basically a weapon isn't considered loaded if the chamber is empty and three or more overt manipulations of the weapon are required to discharge a round. So for an AR, you could have the magazine inserted so long as you had to 1. Chamber a round, 2. Flip off the safety, 3. Pull the trigger.JustaShooter wrote:Keep in mind the law needs to be changed to the wording in the proposed bill to allow these methods of transporting long guns because they are considered "loaded" under Ohio's definition even though there is no round chambered.
And yes, both our rifle and shotgun are carried in electronic lock racks.
I am all for loaded long guns in vehicles.
It worries me that something as simple as flipping the safety could take you from "legal" to "felon" in one little flip of a switch though.
Bill
Have a great day today unless you have made other plans .
- JustaShooter
- 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
I've been reviewing the bill in preparation for a meeting to work on improvements and came across this post:
Anyone else would be guilty of an M1 under 2923.12 (F)(1) and likely other charges from other sections of the ORC since they would be a prohibited person.
Anyone else would be guilty of an M1 under 2923.12 (F)(1) and likely other charges from other sections of the ORC since they would be a prohibited person.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(C)(2)(a) exception applies to a person without a CWL who: "is deemed under division (C) of section 2923.111 of the Revised Code to have been issued a concealed weapon s license under section 2923.12 of the Revised Code" so no penalty there.DontTreadOnMe wrote: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)]
Anyone else would be guilty of an M1 under 2923.12 (F)(1) and likely other charges from other sections of the ORC since they would be a prohibited person.
2923.12 (B) also applies to anyone "who is deemed under division (C) of section 2923.111 of the Revised Code to have been issued a concealed weapons license under section 2923.12 of the Revised Code and is carrying a concealed deadly weapon that is not a restricted deadly weapon"DontTreadOnMe wrote: 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.
Anyone else would be guilty of an M1 under 2923.12 (F)(1) and likely other charges from other sections of the ORC since they would be a prohibited person.
The penalties are equivalent for someone with a CWL or who is deemed to have a CWL in each of the situations you mentioned, and penalties are higher in each case for those without a CWL and who are not deemed to have a CWL so I think we are OK here.DontTreadOnMe wrote: 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 don't understand your question or confusion. There are no places where a person who isn't authorized to have a concealed weapon on their person can do so in public. A person who has been issued a CWL or who is deemed to to have been issued a CWL can carry concealed anywhere in the state except those places listed in ORC 2923.126 (B) and 2923.126 (C)(3).DontTreadOnMe wrote: 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?
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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!
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!
- DontTreadOnMe
- 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
Okay JustaShooter you may be right, but then explain to me what Division (F)(5) of 2923.12 is doing because on my read it came across as reducing the penalties for (non-prohibited) people without CWLs for carrying concealed deadly weapons in public.
If that isn't what it does then maybe my reading comprehension is bad. Or maybe it's a very poorly worded, overly entangled piece of legislation. I'm open to either possibility.
If that isn't what it does then maybe my reading comprehension is bad. Or maybe it's a very poorly worded, overly entangled piece of legislation. I'm open to either possibility.
- JustaShooter
- 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
That section (section (F)(7) in current ORC) reduces the penalty for someone with a CHL carrying in a place described in 2923.126 (B)(5) - college and university property - and set up a tiered penalty system for repeat offenders. The changes under this bill extend that reduction and tiered penalty structure to those also "deemed to be licensed" - that is, anyone not a prohibited person.DontTreadOnMe wrote:Okay JustaShooter you may be right, but then explain to me what Division (F)(5) of 2923.12 is doing because on my read it came across as reducing the penalties for (non-prohibited) people without CWLs for carrying concealed deadly weapons in public.
Oh, make no mistake about it, this part of the ORC is becoming more and more poorly worded, tangled, and hard to follow - and having to parse it out from a proposed bill doesn't make it any easier.DontTreadOnMe wrote:If that isn't what it does then maybe my reading comprehension is bad. Or maybe it's a very poorly worded, overly entangled piece of legislation. I'm open to either possibility.
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!
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!
- rickt
- 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
Second hearing (proponent) scheduled for May 1.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:48 am
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Contact:
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
For starters, regarding 2923.1212 there should not be immunity for those who deny the right of self defense to others.djthomas wrote: 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.
Since no individual may deny the right of self defense to another, it is not a "just power" of the State to do so under the pretense that such power has been delegated. One cannot delegate power that one does not have.
I understand the property rights angle, but unless the property owner is willing to protect the occupants of his/her property (hence the need to remove immunity from liability) then firearms must not be prohibited.
So the way I see it, people who are injured after being disarmed should be able to sue when their rights to self defense are curtailed.
GOA Life Member / SAF Life Member / NRA Life Member / AARL Life Member
NRA Instructor (Since 2003): Certified Pistol, Personal Protection in the Home, Certified Home Firearm Safety
Project Appleseed Participant
NRA Instructor (Since 2003): Certified Pistol, Personal Protection in the Home, Certified Home Firearm Safety
Project Appleseed Participant
- JustaShooter
- 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
This has been debated ad nauseam here in the forums and elsewhere. Bottom line, I tend to agree as far as public property goes. You generally have no alternative when dealing with government facilities and as property held in trust for the public, the RKBA as enshrined in both the US and Ohio constitution should reign supreme. But for private property, you voluntarily give up your ability to defend yourself with a firearm when you patronize a business that posts "no guns" signs, so you assume the liability yourself.Noble wrote:For starters, regarding 2923.1212 there should not be immunity for those who deny the right of self defense to others.djthomas wrote: 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.
Since no individual may deny the right of self defense to another, it is not a "just power" of the State to do so under the pretense that such power has been delegated. One cannot delegate power that one does not have.
I understand the property rights angle, but unless the property owner is willing to protect the occupants of his/her property (hence the need to remove immunity from liability) then firearms must not be prohibited.
So the way I see it, people who are injured after being disarmed should be able to sue when their rights to self defense are curtailed.
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!
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!
-
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:05 pm
- Location: Cuyahoga Co, OH
Re: H.B. 178: Similar to HB 174 without 228 fix
To be more direct: You don't HAVE to go there.JustaShooter wrote:This has been debated ad nauseam here in the forums and elsewhere. Bottom line, I tend to agree as far as public property goes. You generally have no alternative when dealing with government facilities and as property held in trust for the public, the RKBA as enshrined in both the US and Ohio constitution should reign supreme. But for private property, you voluntarily give up your ability to defend yourself with a firearm when you patronize a business that posts "no guns" signs, so you assume the liability yourself.Noble wrote:For starters, regarding 2923.1212 there should not be immunity for those who deny the right of self defense to others.djthomas wrote: 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.
Since no individual may deny the right of self defense to another, it is not a "just power" of the State to do so under the pretense that such power has been delegated. One cannot delegate power that one does not have.
I understand the property rights angle, but unless the property owner is willing to protect the occupants of his/her property (hence the need to remove immunity from liability) then firearms must not be prohibited.
So the way I see it, people who are injured after being disarmed should be able to sue when their rights to self defense are curtailed.
- rickt
- 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
Toledo Blade article about yesterday's proponent testimony.
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/polit ... 0190501131
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/polit ... 0190501131
-
- 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
A third hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday May 8 for more proponent testimony and a possible amendment. I don't know what amendment is being contemplated but if history is any indication it could be a deal killer.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member