Page 1 of 1

HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons control

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:17 pm
by Mal R
I've seen some chatter online about amendments being added to H.B. 248 that might add some freedoms for 2A Rights*, but I haven't seen seen a full list. Does anyone have a full list of the proposed amendments?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/17/ohio-bill-overhaul-would-expand-concealed-carry-stand-your-ground/6316991002/

COLUMBUS – A proposed major overhaul to Ohio gun laws would allow concealed guns in more places, 18-year-olds to buy firearms and people to "stand their ground" when firing in self-defense.

Dozens of changes could soon be added to House Bill 248. A 33-page analysis of those amendments, obtained by The Enquirer, reveals dozens of ways lawmakers hope to expand access to guns in Ohio.


Another hotly contested concept – stand your ground** – makes an appearance in proposed changes. With an amendment, the bill would eliminate a duty to retreat before firing in self-defense while at a business.


Another change would allow Ohioans to have their guns while drinking in bars again. The proposed changes would only ban someone from having a gun in a bar if the person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs**.


*Rules and regulations may apply
**Cries of "blood in the streets"

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:06 pm
by FormerNavy
I really can't help but wonder if trying to jam all this in one bill - especially the more controversial things (i.e. lowering handgun purchase age, allowing drinking while having a gun) - is going to result in the whole thing getting killed.

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 5:04 pm
by Mal R
FormerNavy wrote:I really can't help but wonder if trying to jam all this in one bill - especially the more controversial things (i.e. lowering handgun purchase age, allowing drinking while having a gun) - is going to result in the whole thing getting killed.


That was my first thought. It also gives them a way to pass the buck. "Look, we tried to do something to expand rights. It isn't our fault they killed the bill."

It also gives them ground for "compromise." We'll take out drinking while having a gun if we expand stand your ground. Or, they just kill the whole thing and stick with option 1 of "we tried."

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 3:18 am
by SMMAssociates
Not totally germane:

My brother-in-law got married in Ft. Lauderdale (FL) 'bout 22 years ago. Customary, within the family, at least, his mother packed up a very nice knife to be used to cut the wedding cake.

She stuck it into a cardboard box, and tried to board somebody's plane. DHS folks freaked, but giving it to a flight attendant satisfied everybody. (I think, were she still living, she'd probably have gotten a visit to the greybar.)

Cousin got seriously smashed, and wanted to play with my camera tripod. That was the major issue of the day. Some wobbly frames.... He and his dad took care of the alcohol consignment.

(I drove down there - no problems being armed, and no signs.)

I suspect that the knife may have been loosely categorized as an antique.

Regards,

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:46 am
by JEaton
One good thing this session is that with HB6, COVID and executive authority fights finally gun bills won't be the 'most controversial' bills being considered.

JLE

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:50 am
by JustaShooter
Mal R wrote:I've seen some chatter online about amendments being added to H.B. 248 that might add some freedoms for 2A Rights*, but I haven't seen seen a full list. Does anyone have a full list of the proposed amendments?

Here is my analysis of the changes in the proposed substitute bill:

First, let me say that this is more than a Christmas Tree bill, it’s an entire *farm*. I have serious doubts any significant portion survives first encounter with the enemy – erm, legislature… But onward with my observations after a first reading:

9.68 protections are extended to deadly weapons and accessories, attachments, etc.
9.68 protections are also clarified to prohibit quasi-governmental entities and public entities other than the general assembly from adopting rules more strict than state law.

I *really* don’t like the additions in lines 480-482 and 498-499 giving sheriffs the ability to use:
and all money collected
from civil penalties assessed under sections 2923.12 to 2923.16
of the Revised Code.

and any
money collected from civil penalties
like they use the CHL license fee. I believe those additions will incentivize law enforcement to strictly enforce the new civil infractions of 2923.12 and 2923.16.

Interesting – the addition in lines 674-681 extends Castle Doctrine to owners of small business (20 full-time employees or fewer), their family, employees, and vendors.

Not a fan of the additions in lines 1029-1036 that make weapons prohibited under Federal law automatically restricted under Ohio law… I know others don’t share that opinion, but I dislike that it cedes authority to the Feds, *and effectively gives Ohio LEAs the ability to enforce Federal firearm laws*.

(S) "Restricted firearm" means a firearm that is a
dangerous ordnance or that is a firearm that any law of this
state or the United States prohibits the person from possessing,
having, or carrying.

(T) "Restricted deadly weapon" means a deadly weapon that
is a restricted firearm or that is a deadly weapon that any law
of this state or the United States prohibits the person from
possessing, having, or carrying.

The changes extend the CHL to be a CWL and cover any deadly weapon except “restricted firearms” and “restricted deadly weapons”.

I like that the changes remove the requirement to have the physical license with you if you are carrying valid identification so that if you lose or forget your CWL you can still carry (assuming you haven’t also lost your DL/State ID).

I like that it reduces many violations of 2923.12 and 2923.16 to M4 for persons with a CWL (but, would prefer it to be a universal reduction…) *and* no longer requires you to produce the CWL and provide it to the LEA to reduce penalties.

It appears the penalty for violating 2923.12 (B)(1) and 2923.16 (E)(1) & (2) (failure to notify) is removed completely.

Violating 2923.12 (B)(2) and 2923.16 (E)(3) (knowingly fail to remain in the vehicle or keep your hands in plain sight during a stop) becomes a citation and $100 civil penalty (see my first comment above). License is suspended if you fail to pay the penalty within thirty days, and remains suspended until payment.

Violating 2923.12 (B)(3) and 2923.16 (E)(4) (knowingly have contact with a loaded firearm during a stop) is reduced to an M4.

Penalty for 2923.12 (B)(4) and 2923.16 (E)(5) (knowingly disregard a lawful order during a stop) is unchanged – F5 and license suspension.

Lines 1322-1324 include the (IMO, silly) provision that a knife isn’t considered a deadly weapon unless it is used as one…

2923.121 is changed to specify ”knowingly” possessing a firearm in a Class D establishment. Interestingly, the restriction is still specific to firearms, so carrying any other deadly weapon into a Class D is not restricted…

2923.121 is also changed to remove the “consuming alcohol” provision, so only the prohibition against being “under the influence” remains a violation when carrying with a CWL in a Class D.

Violations of 2923.121 for a person with a CWL are reduced to M4.

In 2923.122, if I read it right, the changes allow carrying a concealed weapon into an unsecured portion of a school safety zone (including buildings) as long as it is part of a public school district (or a chartered nonpublic school that is not posted) *and* you are either active duty or retired military/LEO *or have taken a CWL class* - odd that it doesn’t specify you must have a CWL.

Violations of 2923.122 are also reduced to M4 for persons with a CWL.

Employees and contractors are given protection against retaliations if they comply with the restrictions on carry into unsecured school safety zone areas.

2923.123 is changed to only restrict courthouses and courtrooms, not the rest of a building that contains a courtroom, but is also expanded to include “official proceedings involving a judge or magistrate”.

Violations of 2923.123 (courthouse carry) are reduced to M4 for persons with a CWL.

The age restriction for a CWL is reduced to 18… (That literally made me sit up straight in my chair lol!)

CWL classes can now be done with a firearm other than a handgun – tactical carbine classes, anyone? Defensive shotgun classes?

Colleges and universities are removed from the statutory no-carry list.

Churches are removed from the statutory no-carry list (about bloody time).

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES ARE REMOVED FROM THE STATUTORY NO-CARRY LIST! (Of course now the County Agricultural Societies will fight all the harder to be considered private instead of political subdivisions.)

Persons posting private property (or leased public property) can be held liable in civil actions for injury, death, or loss resulting from the restriction against lawful carry.

Knowingly violating a no-guns sign on private property becomes a citation and $100 civil penalty (see my first comment above). License is suspended if you fail to pay the penalty within thirty days, and remains suspended until payment.

Public employees and contractors are given protection against retaliations if they comply with the restrictions on carry into government facilities.

2923.1212 signage law update appears to make it not a violation if signage is not present.

Standard for violation of 2923.20 (A)(1) (sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to a prohibited person) is changed from recklessly to knowingly.

Prohibition against making or selling switchblades/springblades/etc. to non-LEO is removed.

An exception to the largely ignored 2923.21 (A)(2) & (3) (furnishing handguns to persons under 21 but over 18) is added for those over 18 but under 21 who have a CWL.

A similar exception is added to 2923.211 (b) (purchasing / attempting to purchase a handgun by persons under 21).

2923.27 is added to prohibit destruction of deadly weapons other than restricted deadly weapons by government entities or officials unless purchased at public auction by the government entity or official.

3345.90 is added to give protections to students with a CWL against reprisals.


Wow. I think that’s everything. Other than noted above, I don’t see any issues with it – besides its sheer size and complexity, that is. It is, of course, entirely possible I’ve overlooked something, so I encourage others to review the bill carefully as well.

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:36 am
by WhyNot
Churches are removed from the statutory no-carry list (about bloody time).


UNFORTUNATELY...

my church will forever still be included, it's a building separate from the school proper but still within the deeded boundaries of...the school's school zone

ORC is convoluted, it says it isn't, but it is. NO, unless all A) B) C) is met...

...3 paragraphs later says no again.

Least ways how I read it.

I don't like bouncing a ball & seeing how many jacks I can pick up when dealing with my rights, after the fact during a SD incident.

I think I M going to talk to the local county Prosecutor. ANY self defense on / in a school zone and especially a church, AUTOMATICALLY becomes high - profile / national


THNX JustaShooter for your analysis, always enlightening :) !

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 5:30 pm
by Mal R
JustaShooter wrote:Here is my analysis of the changes in the proposed substitute bill:
<snip>
.
.
.
</snip>
Wow. I think that’s everything. Other than noted above, I don’t see any issues with it – besides its sheer size and complexity, that is. It is, of course, entirely possible I’ve overlooked something, so I encourage others to review the bill carefully as well.


Thanks, JustaShooter. I appreciate it. Aside from a few items you mentioned, it sounds like there's a lot to like here.

Side note, I (obviously) found the original bill, but I can't seem to track down the substitute. Am I just not looking in some super obvious location?

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 9:14 pm
by schmieg
A potential problem with the age reduction to 18 will be reciprocity. Many states that currently allow Ohio to carry will not do so if the age is reduced. A better solution would be to have two levels of CWL which would allow the foreign jurisdictions to recognize the one for 21 and above.

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:14 am
by Mal R
schmieg wrote:A potential problem with the age reduction to 18 will be reciprocity. Many states that currently allow Ohio to carry will not do so if the age is reduced. A better solution would be to have two levels of CWL which would allow the foreign jurisdictions to recognize the one for 21 and above.


I suppose, there's enough in the bill already it wouldn't hurt to create a tiered CWL unless that potentially kills the entire bill.

There are a few items in here I've wanted to see for a while...true CWL, expanding "Castle Doctrine," fewer statutory no carry locations, etc.

Re-reading it, I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Persons posting private property (or leased public property) can be held liable in civil actions for injury, death, or loss resulting from the restriction against lawful carry.


It says they "can be" held liable not that they will, but should we hold private entities liable for the actions of someone else? If a person posts their private property/business, I don't think they should be held liable due to the actions of someone else. Assuming I have other options, it's still my choice to go there. Perhaps, there's a piece I'm not thinking about though.

Re: HB 248 Exempt antique firearms from certain weapons cont

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:17 am
by Javelin Man
I'm still holding my breath for notification to be repealed. :|