Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

miker wrote:So they pulled all the verbiage in that section of the bill?

No. They outlawed any firearm longer than 26 inches that does not have a sporting purpose.

What did HB 228 finally say? I lost track with all the proposed amendment and substitutions.

miker wrote:So they pulled all the verbiage in that section of the bill?

No, even worse - they moved the language from the list of exclusions into to the definition itself...

Sigh.

dustymedic wrote:What did HB 228 finally say? I lost track with all the proposed amendment and substitutions.

The big one for Ohio gun owners: It shifts the burden of proof onto to the prosecutor in self-defense cases, as is the case in all 49 other states.

It strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption (I need to dig into the details of this one...)

Eliminates the requirement to post no-gun signs in statutory locations which have authorized the carrying of firearms. (In other words, fixes the screw-up from the last session that allows government facilities and other statutory locations to permit carry, but still required them to post no-guns signs...) As a side-effect, it requires churches and other houses of worship that do not allow carry to post signs - just like every other business in Ohio. I like this one...

Essentially makes "straw" purchases illegal and prosecutable under Ohio law.

What it does *NOT* do:
Remove the duty to retreat. <Insert bad words here>
Legalize Shockwaves and similar firearms. The Senate screwed up the language and instead of removing them from the definition of Dangerous Ordnance, they will now be explicitly defined as Dangerous Ordnance under Ohio law unless a fix can be put in place before the new law takes effect in 90 days.

JustaShooter wrote:
Eliminates the requirement to post no-gun signs in statutory locations which have authorized the carrying of firearms. (In other words, fixes the screw-up from the last session that allows government facilities and other statutory locations to permit carry, but still required them to post no-guns signs...) As a side-effect, it requires churches and other houses of worship that do not allow carry to post signs - just like every other business in Ohio. I like this one...

I like that one too, and I missed it. Now, R.C. § 2923.126(b)(6) makes it an F4 for anyone, even CHL holders, to carry a firearm in a "Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, unless the church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship posts or permits otherwise." The questions is, since these entities will be required to post a sign if they prohibit carrying firearms, does failure to post a sign constitute permitting otherwise? Under standard rules of statutory interpretation, yes, but those rules usually go out the window when it comes to the second amendment. Anyone willing to be a test case?

What happened with notification requirement?

Cruiser wrote:What happened with notification requirement?

After being completely watered down, the bill died.

JustaShooter wrote: It strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption (I need to dig into the details of this one...)

As far as I can tell, this means that, under the new 9.68, if an entity that is being sued removes their ordinance before the issue goes to trial, the plaintiffs STILL are awarded costs. This means that as soon as OFCC does anything more than ask politely, they can get awarded costs even if the municipality gives in without a court battle.

Sounds like a decent fix to me.

JonasM wrote:

JustaShooter wrote: It strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption (I need to dig into the details of this one...)

As far as I can tell, this means that, under the new 9.68, if an entity that is being sued removes their ordinance before the issue goes to trial, the plaintiffs STILL are awarded costs. This means that as soon as OFCC does anything more than ask politely, they can get awarded costs even if the municipality gives in without a court battle.

Sounds like a decent fix to me.

They do this quite a bit too.
It was very much needed.

JustaShooter wrote:It strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption (I need to dig into the details of this one...)

Municipalities will no longer be able to avoid legal fees by changing their laws to comply with preemption after lawsuit is filed and claim no attorney fees are due because the suing party did not prevail. With the change, legal fees are due upon filing against the municipalities even if they change their laws to comply with preemption after a lawsuit is filed.

Gary

MrMagoo wrote:

JustaShooter wrote:It strengthens ORC 9.68 preemption (I need to dig into the details of this one...)

Municipalities will no longer be able to avoid legal fees by changing their laws to comply with preemption after lawsuit is filed and claim no attorney fees are due because the suing party did not prevail. With the change, legal fees are due upon filing against the municipalities even if they change their laws to comply with preemption after a lawsuit is filed.

Gary

Thanks Gary - I thought I remembered something like that but hadn't taken the time to go back and re-read it.

djthomas wrote:

miker wrote:So they pulled all the verbiage in that section of the bill?

No. They outlawed any firearm longer than 26 inches that does not have a sporting purpose.

I don't recall seeing it in the legislation, but how is "sporting purpose" defined or who gets to decide which firearm has a sporting purpose and which one doesn't? Or even to define what activites constitute a "sporting purpose"? Or is it like the definition of art?

M-Quigley wrote:

djthomas wrote:

miker wrote:So they pulled all the verbiage in that section of the bill?

No. They outlawed any firearm longer than 26 inches that does not have a sporting purpose.

I don't recall seeing it in the legislation, but how is "sporting purpose" defined or who gets to decide which firearm has a sporting purpose and which one doesn't? Or even to define what activites constitute a "sporting purpose"? Or is it like the definition of art?

There is no definition of "sporting purpose" in Ohio law that I've seen. So, I'm guessing either they will mirror Federal regulations, or the courts will make it up as they go. If they mirror Federal regulations, then we are likely in a world of hurt - the 20-year-old "sporting purpose" guidelines the Feds use are why importers can't bring AKs, etc. and certain types of ammunition into the country.

M-Quigley wrote:

djthomas wrote:

miker wrote:So they pulled all the verbiage in that section of the bill?

No. They outlawed any firearm longer than 26 inches that does not have a sporting purpose.

I don't recall seeing it in the legislation,

On page 15, addition to ORC 2923.11(K)(7), which is items declared to be dangerous ordnance:

"Any firearm with an overall length of at least twenty- six inches that is approved for sale
by the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives under the "Gun Control Act of
1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), but that is found by the bureau not to be regulated under
the "National Firearms Act," 68A Stat. 725 (1934), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a). "