Constitutional Carry hearing after action report

[MrMagoo]

House Federalism Committee hearing on HB 178 on 6/19. Amendments: 1. Eliminate the requirement that a concealed weapons licensee ust carry a license. Passed but did not get the vote count
2. Brochure on Ohio concealed carry laws. Passed 7 to 4
3. Restore duty to inform. Did not get the final count
4. Require firearm purchaser to carry qualified liability insurance. Failed 8 to 4. The amendment sponsor commented that people have insurance on cars, cars kill. People should have insurance on guns. Joseph Miller, (D) district 56.
5 .Require transfer of firearms for certain persons under weapons disability. Failed 8 to 4
6. Weapons under disability – criminal trespass. Failed 8 to 4
7. Prohibit concealed carry at polling places and the office of the board of elections. Failed 8 to 4
8. Prohibit concealed carry on Ohio transit system vehicles. Failed 8 to 4
9. Restrict firearm transfer; require background checks. Failed 8 to4
10. Prohibit accelerating semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire. Failed 8 to 4 One democrat was absent at the meeting. The defeats seem to be on party lines but I did not record the individual names along with their votes.

Between 9:30 and noon, the committee, along with addressing the amendments, heard testimony from 12 opponents. The committee paused at noon for lunch and session, reconvening shortly before 1 PM where it heard more testimony. I didn’t get a full count of these but it was something like 2 more opponents and 2 proponents (including mine) before I left at 3:15. There were two more people who wanted to testify when I left, I think they were opponents. The most common thread among opponent testimonies today was the elimination of the training requirement in the bill. Several opponents threw out statistics that 90% of Ohioans want people with CHLs to have permits. Maybe in their written documentation there are sources for it, I haven’t checked that out yet.

The room was packed with opponents. There were only handful of proponents, mostly OGA people. There was media there early in the initial testimony. They weren’t there very long, they got their opponent footage and left.

The Chair, Rep. Becker, intended to call for a vote today but that didn’t happen. Possibly because of the length of the meeting. He did make a comment somewhere along the line of a time constraint. Chris Door packed up and left as soon as the chair announced no vote today. There is another hearing scheduled for next week where, as I understand it, he will take more testimony and hear more amendments if submitted and call for a vote.

[Javelin Man]

Thank you for the report. I happened to have been in Columbus yesterday but my mere attendance would not have mattered much. My daughters and I were at Scioto Downs getting ready to race, until the rains canceled the program after the fourth race.

[M-Quigley]

Thanks for the report. Here's a sample of how one member of the news media treated it.

https://www.whio.com/news/local/vote-al ... j1iOFOvUP/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bignflnut]

Later Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Larry Householder said he delayed a committee vote on the gun measure after gun owners expressed concern over the leaflet amendment. Householder said he wants that amendment removed.

Householder cited a drafting error in different gun legislation approved last year that gun rights advocates say could have inadvertently banned several types of legal guns.

Householder said on Facebook he doesn't want such "carelessness" to affect the concealed weapons measure.

The proposed bill eliminates the "duty to report" requirement that says someone carrying a concealed weapon must inform officers during encounters with law enforcement. It also says police would no longer have grounds to search or detain an "otherwise law-abiding person" for carrying a firearm.

Eliminating the training, background checks and the duty to report provisions rankles law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.

Delaware Police Chief Bruce Pijanowski, who represents the police chiefs group, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he wondered whether state representatives who support the bill spoke to anyone in law enforcement.

"Ask an officer if they're OK with this, and they'll tell you they are not," Pijanowski said.

Pijanowski said there needs to be a balance between Second Amendment gun rights, which he supports, and the safety of the public and law enforcement officers — which can be jeopardized whenever firearms are involved.

Pijanowski said there needs to be a balance between Second Amendment gun rights, which he supports, and the safety of the public and law enforcement officers —which is the god/ultimate standard of Pijanowski's system —which can be jeopardized whenever firearms are involved.

Fixed that for you.

The god of our theocracy, the ultimate standard in the American Philosophy, is our Natural Rights. It's not the lives of cops, it's not the lives of verterans, it's not one group or another. While I appreciate that society is scary at this point in history, and that all the body armor and tech advantages given to the thin blue line doesn't dissipate that threat, Pijanowski may need a career change if he's not up to the task of protecting the Rights of the People.

[Aesinsp]

'Eliminating the training, background checks and the duty to report provisions rankles law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.'

- This pains me.. Responsible(read into that -generally law abiding) citizens are no threat to police.

[Bearable]

Back on January 12, 2018 Governor DeWine then AG signed onto an Amici Brief filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, 17-56081. Here is what DeWine said:

The Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right … to carry weapons in case of confrontation”—that is, to “‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584, 592 (2008). Heller stressed that the Constitution elevates law-abiding citizens’ right to use ordinary firearms and “takes certain policy choices off the table.” Id. at 636. “The very enumeration” of the Bill of Rights took “out of the hands of government … the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id. At 634 (emphasis in original).

Did you catch that? Governor DeWine says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to Governor DeWine’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.

On January 18, 2019 the Attorney General, Dave Yost, signed onto an Amici Brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Gurbir Grewal, 18-824. Here is what Yost said:

“Self-defense is a basic right … and ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008)). This Court has held that the Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right… to carry weapons in case of confrontation”—that is, to “wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592, 584. And in McDonald, this Court found the Second Amendment’s protections were incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and binding on the States as “a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.” 561 U.S. at 791.

Again, did you catch that? AG Yost also says that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed. Did anybody point this out to the legislators as to AG Yost’s support for Constitutional Carry? I bet not.

I’ve sent a message to C.D. about this and all I heard was crickets. We have the top law enforcement officials of this state making it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry concealed and the gun community has no interest in pointing this out to the legislators, pathetic.

[schmieg]

Too bad the USSC has not said that the Second Amendment provides the right to carry concealed.,

[Bearable]

Too bad the USSC has not said that the Second Amendment provides the right to carry concealed.,

How did you come to that conclusion? Both DeWine and Yost quoted Heller saying just that, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket. That sounds like concealed carry to me.

[schmieg]

Too bad the USSC has not said that the Second Amendment provides the right to carry concealed.,

How did you come to that conclusion? Both DeWine and Yost quoted Heller saying just that, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket. That sounds like concealed carry to me.

Both argued that in Heller. Heller did not say that. If it had, we wouldn't be fighting some of the fights today.

[Bearable]

Too bad the USSC has not said that the Second Amendment provides the right to carry concealed.,

How did you come to that conclusion? Both DeWine and Yost quoted Heller saying just that, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket. That sounds like concealed carry to me.

Both argued that in Heller. Heller did not say that. If it had, we wouldn't be fighting some of the fights today.

I disagree, but it is irrelevant. What is Relevant is Both DeWine and Yost believe the right to conceal carry in a fundamental protected Second Amendment right. That's what matters.

Why would you not want to point out to the legislators the position of the Governor and AG supporting constitutional conceal carry?

[schmieg]

How did you come to that conclusion? Both DeWine and Yost quoted Heller saying just that, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket. That sounds like concealed carry to me.

Both argued that in Heller. Heller did not say that. If it had, we wouldn't be fighting some of the fights today.

I disagree, but it is irrelevant. What is Relevant is Both DeWine and Yost believe the right to conceal carry in a fundamental protected Second Amendment right. That's what matters.

Why would you not want to point out to the legislators the position of the Governor and AG supporting constitutional conceal carry?

Have you read Heller? What law school did you graduate from?

[schmieg]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Let me provide you the syllabus of the published opinion.

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Petitioners,

v.

Dick Anthony HELLER.

No. 07-290.

United States Supreme Court

June 26, 2008

Argued March 18, 2008.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07-290.

Syllabus

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The [128 S.Ct. 2786] District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 576-626.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 567-595.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 595-600.

554 U.S. 571

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 600-603.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 603-605.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 605-619.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 619-626.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 626-628.

You can read the rest of it online.

[Bearable]

Both argued that in Heller. Heller did not say that. If it had, we wouldn't be fighting some of the fights today.

I disagree, but it is irrelevant. What is Relevant is Both DeWine and Yost believe the right to conceal carry in a fundamental protected Second Amendment right. That's what matters.

Why would you not want to point out to the legislators the position of the Governor and AG supporting constitutional conceal carry?

Have you read Heller? What law school did you graduate from?

Typical attorney technique, deflect and not answer the question, law school 101. The question is "Why would you not want to point out to the legislators the position of the Governor and AG supporting constitutional carry?"

Please don't insult the public by playing the attorney card, the "you are not an attorney and you don't understand." How about you just answering the question.

Have a read https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 2_4hd5.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The courts don't give a damn about your rights.

[Bearable]

schmieg, as an attorney, you know that the syllabus has zero legal value.

Do you deny that the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

And, more importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

[schmieg]

schmieg, as an attorney, you know that the syllabus has zero legal value.

Do you deny that the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

And, more importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

The dicta contained within the case has no legal value either. Read the opinion and then tell me that the syllabus is incorrect. As a result of Heller and its progeny, Illinois and several other states modified their laws to allow residents to obtain licenses to carry. Heller does not say that concealed carry is guaranteed under the Second Amendment. It says that the people cannot be deprived of their right to own firearms or carry them, but the manner of carry can be regulated. It further limits the right to reasonable restrictions by by the State. After a few years of liberalization of firearms laws in the various states and the Supremes not taking any more Second Amendment cases after McDonald, the various States did some careful reading and determined that reasonable restrictions can be expanded to the point where the Supremes would once more be forced to rule. So far, we are waiting for that declaration from above and fighting in the various circuits to try to protect our rights as best we can until the gods rule. I wish that Heller and McDonald had said what Yost and DeWine argued it did. As I said, had they done so, we wouldn't be fighting some of these fights today. Of course, we'd probably be fighting others as the forces of darkness never rest.

I believe Scalia would have written the opinion as we would like, but he had to get four other justices to agree to the decision. From what I have read, it was touch and go until he scaled it back.