Page 1 of 1

S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:06 pm
by rickt
S. B. No. 221 - Senator Dolan (R).
Cosponsors: Senators Lehner (R), Hoagland (R).

To amend sections 2151.34, 2317.02, 2317.022, 2317.422, 2903.213, 2903.214, 2919.26, 2923.13, 2923.18, 2923.20, 2923.21, 2923.31, 2929.14, 2935.01, 2935.10, 2941.141, 2941.145, 3113.31, 5119.01, 5119.61, 5119.90, 5119.92, 5119.93, 5119.94, 5119.96, 5119.97, 5119.99, 5122.10, 5122.11, 5122.13, 5122.141, 5122.15, 5122.31, 5122.311, and 5122.99 and to enact sections 311.51, 2923.133, 2945.403, 5119.901, and 5502.71 of the Revised Code to provide for the issuance in specified circumstances of a Safety Protection Order to apply regarding a person who a court determines is under a drug dependency, chronic alcoholic, or mental health-related firearms disability; to specify LEADS and NCIC reporting and removal procedures for current types of protection orders; to require the submission to the Attorney General for inclusion in LEADS of findings of IST or NGRI; to modify some of the prohibitions under the offense of "unlawful transactions in weapons" and add new prohibitions and exemptions under the offense, including a new exemption if a state background check mechanism the bill enacts is used and does not indicate that the prospective transferee is barred from firearms possession; to provide in specified circumstances for the issuance of a seller's protection certificate under the new state background check mechanism; to increase the penalty for certain firearms-related offenses in specified circumstances; to modify the law governing the entry of arrest warrants into
LEADS as extradition warrants; to expand the law regarding the provision of drug and alcohol test results to law enforcement personnel; and to provide a new exception to the testimonial privilege for specified medical and dental personnel regarding certain probate court proceedings.


https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-SB-221

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:03 pm
by bignflnut
Hard Pass

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:54 am
by rickt
DeWine's Gun Violence Bill Gets Many Questions At First Hearing

Democratic state senators had lots of questions for the sponsor of Gov. Mike DeWine’s proposed gun violence bill at its first hearing.

They wanted details about the private gun sales background check system it creates as well as the version of the red flag gun seizure law it includes.

Democrats on the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee fired various scenarios at sponsor Sen. Matt Dolan (R-Chagrin Falls), and asked why the bill doesn’t include mandatory background checks or a stronger red flag law.


https://www.statenews.org/post/dewines-gun-violence-bill-gets-many-questions-first-hearing

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:45 am
by WhyNot
...system it creates as well as the version of the red flag gun seizure law...


But, but...he said he wasn't supporting that anymore :twisted:

Oh ok , he said he wasn't supporting it (but if it comes in front of him, will he sign it :?: )

This is NOT a change of position!!! I am simply modifying my original position :P

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:10 pm
by Mustang380gal
I don't think it has a chance of passing, based on what I was hearing yesterday. Liberals and conservatives both hate the bill, for opposite reasons.

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:31 am
by Bruenor
STRONG Ohio bill will make a difference in controlling gun violence: Matt Dolan
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/ ... dolan.html
I agreed to be the sponsor of Gov. Mike DeWine’s gun reform bill because it is constitutional, effective and, most importantly, will save lives.

I have heard the criticism from both sides and I suggest that they take the time to read Senate Bill 221. What this bill does not do is violate the Second Amendment, and it is certainly not a tepid or watered-down response to Ohioans’ demands for action.


Under current law, a seller can be charged if he acted “recklessly,” which is a difficult legal hurdle. The bill changes that to “negligence,” meaning the seller must exercise ordinary and reasonable care to determine the buyer is not subject to a legal disability. For a modest $10 fee, charged to the buyer, the seller can be assured that is not the case and will not be held liable for the sale.


What's this $10.00 fee, who is it paid to, and do we then have access to run background checks ourselves without a FFL ?

Not saying I like any part of this bill, just curious about this $10.00 'fee' to remove liability.

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:45 am
by schmieg
Bruenor wrote:STRONG Ohio bill will make a difference in controlling gun violence: Matt Dolan
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/ ... dolan.html
I agreed to be the sponsor of Gov. Mike DeWine’s gun reform bill because it is constitutional, effective and, most importantly, will save lives.

I have heard the criticism from both sides and I suggest that they take the time to read Senate Bill 221. What this bill does not do is violate the Second Amendment, and it is certainly not a tepid or watered-down response to Ohioans’ demands for action.


Under current law, a seller can be charged if he acted “recklessly,” which is a difficult legal hurdle. The bill changes that to “negligence,” meaning the seller must exercise ordinary and reasonable care to determine the buyer is not subject to a legal disability. For a modest $10 fee, charged to the buyer, the seller can be assured that is not the case and will not be held liable for the sale.


What's this $10.00 fee, who is it paid to, and do we then have access to run background checks ourselves without a FFL ?

Not saying I like any part of this bill, just curious about this $10.00 'fee' to remove liability.

More likely, another politician explaining something about which he has no clue.

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:58 pm
by JustaShooter
Bruenor wrote:What's this $10.00 fee, who is it paid to, and do we then have access to run background checks ourselves without a FFL ?

Not saying I like any part of this bill, just curious about this $10.00 'fee' to remove liability.


Fee is paid to a sheriff of any county, who will then contact the department of public safety to perform a background check and provide a "seller's protection certificate" if the check comes back clean.

Lots of issues with this part of the bill. New bureaucracy which will of course insert delays in the transaction. Certificate is described as optional, but the seller can require it, and the change to "negligence" from "recklessness" essentially means if you don't require one, you are screwed.

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:16 pm
by WhyNot
"seller's protection certificate"
''condom wasn't supposed to break certificate''
''I never intended to drink all 12 beers certificate''
''That's the truth so help me or my name isn't William Jefferson Clinton certificate''

etc.

Sir Dolan (Politician' Extraordinaire Magnifique) could possibly find yet OTHER things for gov to do ''please save us from ourselves''

Re: S.B. 221: DeWine's bill

PostPosted: Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:54 am
by walnut red
When I was in Haiti there was what we called a "pedestrian permit" on our vehicles. It was insurance we bought and if you hit a pedestrian it was a $50 fine for body disposal and that was it. If you hit a pedestrian without the sticker you were liable to the victims family for whatever income that person was expected to make, or something like that. This "Sellers Protection" is sounding similar.