POLL: 2015-2016 Legislative session What does OFCC want?

[radiotron]

HB 420, (parking lot carry) would have the greatest positive effect on how frequently I carry concealed. I drive about 300 miles / week, and around 250 of it is for my work commute. Since I'm prohibited from having my firearm in the car when I arrive at work, I'm without it more than 80% of the time.

-radiotron

[Sevens]

I don't have any kids and never will so school fix doesn't really affect me at all. Go after them all.

It promotes more legal good guys with guns in their cars at school. That is a win win win for the entire country, if even only needed once.

[Chuck]

I added employee parking lots storage to the poll.
Go change your votes if it's important to you,,,,

**ON EDIT**
Oh no!
Adding an item to the poll took away everybody's vote!
I won't do that again,
Sorry, please vote again, everyone,,,,

[JediSkipdogg]

Yes, but BUSINESSES are ALREADY REGULATED !! What's one more law?

I usually support the 'property rights' side, but when I look at just how many laws and regulations I have to adhere to just to start and run a business, I really don't have a compelling argument against a pro-gun parking lot law. There are a TON of laws that are enacted to "protect the public". If our legislators (next session, of course) feel that allowing employees, customers and visitors to secure their guns in their cars is better for our safety than being forced to leave them at home, so be it.

But it should include EVERYWHERE that even resembles a business (including schools and government property).

But don't call it a "commuter safety" law because the anti's will just link "commuter' with "road rage" in their arguments.

What's one more infringement of our rights? Let's just align with federal law. After all, it's just one more law.

The thing I worry about is obviously the new method is large bills that encompass a lot. Is it worth putting the battle up when 50% of the firearm community can't even agree that it's good? It could cost a large bill it's chance of passing unless it happens to get stripped out, which I think it would.

I think John Benner said it best when I was talking to him at TDI earlier this year about this. He said when you start mixing private property rights with constitutional rights, you start playing with fire. You lose some support when you start telling businesses how they can conduct their business.

Must not be a lot of church goers in the forums. Fine then go after enumerated CPZ as a whole. I don't have any kids and never will so school fix doesn't really affect me at all. Go after them all.

I wanted to pick that but it wasn't on my priority list. I think it should be included in a list of fixing statutory CPZs though. 1-4 should all be in the same bill as a whole.

[JediSkipdogg]

I added employee parking lots storage to the poll.
Go change your votes if it's important to you,,,,

**ON EDIT**
Oh no!
Adding an item to the poll took away everybody's vote!
I won't do that again,
Sorry, please vote again, everyone,,,,

I was just going to post that. You found out the secret (bad secret) of polls.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

They dropped the part of Sub. HB 234 that would have allowed a military ID to qualify as a CHL in Ohio, mainly because not everyone with a military has gone through firearms training (yet).

But how about our current problem with 18-20 year old military members?

R.C. 2923.211 "Underage purchase of firearm or handgun" allows police officers, armed service members and veterans, aged 18 to 20, to PURCHASE a handgun IF the individual has received police or military firearms training.

HOWEVER

R.C. 2923.21"Improperly furnishing firearms to minor" still fails to allow the sale or furnishing of a handgun to the armed service members and veterans listed in 2923.211.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS that, while properly trained 18 to 20 year old military members are allowed to BUY and POSSESS a handgun...

...no one is allowed to SELL or FURNISH them one.


I have to believe that the 127th GA made their intent clear by passing HB 450, which made many changes for our armed service members and veterans.

This should be considered a "technical fix" and sail through, right?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yes, but BUSINESSES are ALREADY REGULATED !! What's one more PRO-GUN law?

What's one more infringement of our rights? Let's just align with federal law. After all, it's just one more law.

I clarified my sentiment.

[pleasantguywhopacks]

I think you have a better chance of getting rid of church CPZ than schools. I think you have a good chance at giving 9.68 teeth and getting loaded long guns in cars for licensees. The rest I don't think you have a chance at getting.

[JustaShooter]

Oh no!
Adding an item to the poll took away everybody's vote!
I won't do that again,
Sorry, please vote again, everyone,,,,

Shame you didn't add an option for removal of the duty to retreat and affirmative defense for self-defense claims while you were in there.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

I'd love to vote for constitutional carry, but after seeing what did NOT make it into HB 234, there is zero chance (IMHO) of that getting done in the next session.

Anything related to the MILITARY has an ABOVE AVERAGE chance of being passed, as December 7, 2016 will be the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor.

It will also be about the time the legislators are coming back to work.

Start looking for Pearl Harbor survivors now to speak in front of any committees in 2016.

[Klingon00]

I'm suffering from buffet indecision syndrome, I want it all but realize my eyes are bigger than my stomach.

While I'd love to get constitutional carry, I realize moving too quickly can get the frog to jump. Little steps turning up the heat slowly is what's getting the job done and I see little reason for change.

I'd really like to see repeal of requirements to inform and repeal of any restrictions on carrying on public property, including schools and college campuses.

If that's too heavy a lift, putting teeth in 9.68 would also be a welcome addition.

[fyrfytr310]

I'd love to vote for constitutional carry, but after seeing what did NOT make it into HB 234, there is zero chance (IMHO) of that getting done in the next session.

I agree. It is on the very distant horizon IMO but there are a lot of valleys and forests that must be traversed before we get there.

Start looking for Pearl Harbor survivors now to speak in front of any committees in 2016.

The pickings are getting very sadly slim there. No?

[WayneB]

I'm suffering from buffet indecision syndrome, I want it all but realize my eyes are bigger than my stomach.

While I'd love to get constitutional carry, I realize moving too quickly can get the frog to jump. Little steps turning up the heat slowly is what's getting the job done and I see little reason for change.

I'd really like to see repeal of requirements to inform and repeal of any restrictions on carrying on public property, including schools and college campuses.

If that's too heavy a lift, putting teeth in 9.68 would also be a welcome addition.

Pretty much where I'm at. Get rid of informing -- although personally, not a huge problem at the moment. I've successfully notified with no issue several times.

Biggest irony to me is that we have to disarm in public buildings. Something owned by US, that WE are not allowed to exercise OUR rights in. I don't use them much, but it just makes no sense to me that the 2A specifically restricts the .gov from making these very laws in the first place. This would include schools for me, although it's listed separately. The fact that kids are there is only an emotional add-on. "Buildings have to be off limits 'cuz .gov people work there.". So? "Schools have to be off limits 'cuz kids are there.". So?

Didn't go for church as CPZ (for now) since there is a possible solution for the individual. They can petition the church to have permission. Even if this were enacted, there would be some group mailing all the churches that they had to post signs to keep all the wild gun people out. Then we'd have to spend five more years contacting all of them to get their signs down (much like restaurant carry). Doesn't seem to be enough bang for the buck.

[JediSkipdogg]

Pretty much where I'm at. Get rid of informing -- although personally, not a huge problem at the moment. I've successfully notified with no issue several times.

I've never had the issue either, but out of all the arrests with CHL holders at my small department, this is the biggest one I see. Heck, I even saw one (well, read it) where the officer cited for failure to notify because he returned to his vehicle and had sat down when the subject honked his horn to remember to notify. So since he did what the law said to do, but didn't do it "promptly" he was arrested for it. That's just one example. I'm sure we could find over 100 cases if we put some record requests together.

[mrbone]

We've had the gun rights vs property rights argument too many times here and could never reach a consensus. In Ohio if they can't fire you for your gun they can fire you for your haircut.

How about this to settle it. If the firearm remains in my car then the firearm remains in *my property*. It never physically touches anything that belongs to my employer nor (assuming an open air lot) ever enters any edifice owned by my employer. Ergo property rights are not violated unless the employer has a ban on vehicles touching its parking lot property. It's like an airplane that flies over the land without touching it nor entering anything owned by my employer, my firearm also remains above the actual property without touching nor entering anything owned by my employer.