Weakened SB 215 (unlicensed carry) sent to Governor DeWine

[M-Quigley]

So I have been looking around on the forums and maybe I have missed it.. But The media keeps blowing this up about how people will no longer have to notify an officer unless the officer asks. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I do enjoy a good bit of law reading. what concerns me is I do not recall the original bill having stated the word BEFORE. Seems like this may have been part of a last minute amendment? To me that means that even if a cop does not question you about a firearm, you would need to disclose that you have a firearm at some point before the stop ended or risk criminal arrest? does anybody else see the concern with this and how news articles may be leading people to believe oh a cop NEVER asked me well I do not ever have to tell them... I have snipped the code below from the as enrolled document off the Ohio legislature website. It's ORC 2923.12 B(1) page for of the enrolled bill.


before or at the time a law enforcement officer asks if the person is carrying a concealed
handgun, knowingly fail to disclose that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun

I don't share your concern, but then I'm not a lawyer either. Here's how I see it If you disclose before they ask, fine. If they ask, and you disclose, fine. If they don't ask, and you disclose, you are fine. If they don't ask, you can't fail to disclose before they ask because they didn't ask...

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.

One of the problems with the current law is how notifying promptly has at times been misused by a few bad apples in LE who make it difficult for a CHL holder to notify at the beginning of an encounter, actually creating the condition of making it difficult for the license holder to promptly notify and then charging or threatening to charge someone for not notifying at the beginning of the stop.

I know many on here know who the infamous Officer Harless is, but for the benefit of those who don't know here's some background. He's not the only LEO to do this tactic, just the most blatant example.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ohio-cop ... r_n_910367" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Canton, Ohio, police officer remains on administrative leave this week as video of the officer yelling, cursing and threatening a citizen during a routine traffic stop goes viral online.

"The video shows, frankly, a bad cop combined with bad law," Doug Deeken, a coordinator for the organization Ohioans for Concealed Carry, told The Huffington Post.

The controversy centers on a dash cam video that was obtained by OCC through a public records request. The video, which is about 18 minutes long, shows patrolman Daniel Harless, 45, berating William E. Bartlett, 52, of Brewster.

After questioning the woman and the passenger, Harless approached Bartlett, who was still behind the wheel.

"I have a carry...," Bartlett can be heard saying before he is cut off and ordered out of the vehicle. Bartlett can be seen holding a card in his hand. When asked what it is for, he replied, "Because I have a concealed carry."

After taking Bartlett's .38-caliber Ruger pistol, Harless placed him into the back of the patrol car and began yelling at him for not notifying him he was armed.

Bartlett was charged with a traffic violation and failure to notify a police officer about a concealed weapon, according to Deeken. Both charges are misdemeanors. Bartlett is contesting the case and is scheduled to go to court sometime next month.

OCC is raising money for to pay for Bartlett's defense. It is also trying to reform concealed carry laws in the state of Ohio.

"This is not the first or only instance of notification gone wrong," Deeken said. "There have been several other cases where notification was attempted to be made and charges were still brought against lawful concealed carry holders, so this is something we really need to reform."

[Corys0022]

Thanks Ya'll! I do agree with your thoughts on this justashooter. and I love most of your inputs on the topics on this site. My concern was an officer considering the language as ambiguous and continuing with a citation if for some unknown reason after everything is said and done it were to come out that you were carrying a loaded firearm.. I think the law has broke ground on gun infringements for carrying, but definitely has room for improvements and hopefully future legislation comes back around to revise it shortly! Stay safe and God Bless!

[Glock Rock]

To take advantage of state reciprocity one still needs an Ohio CHL, correct?

[JustaShooter]

To take advantage of state reciprocity one still needs an Ohio CHL, correct?

For states without constitutional carry that allows nonresidents to carry, and that honor an OH CHL yes. There are currently 22 constitutional carry states that allow nonresidents to carry without a license - including KY and WV. The only one that does not is North Dakota.

[drc]

To take advantage of state reciprocity one still needs an Ohio CHL, correct?

For states without constitutional carry that allows nonresidents to carry, and that honor an OH CHL yes. There are currently 22 constitutional carry states that allow nonresidents to carry without a license - including KY and WV. The only one that does not is North Dakota.

W.Va has this in their document

Finally, there are states like West Virginia that allow anyone who can legally possess a
firearm to carry a concealed firearm without a CHL subject to the restrictions defined
in the respective state’s law, as well as local restrictions, regardless of that person’s
state of residence.8
This is commonly referred to as “permitless concealed carry” or
“constitutional carry.” Currently, those states that have adopted this framework are
Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Some of these states also recognize West Virginia CHLs, which may provide benefits
to the licensee that are not available to persons carrying without a license. Please
check with the state’s proper authority for more information prior to any attempt to
carry a concealed handgun without a license in those states.

https://ago.wv.gov/gunreciprocity/Docum ... 20Mark.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So based on what their document says, "respective state", meaning Ohio <in this case, I believe, but I am not a lawyer>, it would not be legal to carry without a reciprocal CHL for an Ohio resident, until this new law comes into effect. Then an Ohio resident, who would pass the Ohio requirements smell test, would be able to carry permitless in W.Va.

[JustaShooter]

To take advantage of state reciprocity one still needs an Ohio CHL, correct?

For states without constitutional carry that allows nonresidents to carry, and that honor an OH CHL yes. There are currently 22 constitutional carry states that allow nonresidents to carry without a license - including KY and WV. The only one that does not is North Dakota.

W.Va has this in their document

Finally, there are states like West Virginia that allow anyone who can legally possess a
firearm to carry a concealed firearm without a CHL subject to the restrictions defined
in the respective state’s law, as well as local restrictions, regardless of that person’s
state of residence.8
This is commonly referred to as “permitless concealed carry” or
“constitutional carry.” Currently, those states that have adopted this framework are
Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Some of these states also recognize West Virginia CHLs, which may provide benefits
to the licensee that are not available to persons carrying without a license. Please
check with the state’s proper authority for more information prior to any attempt to
carry a concealed handgun without a license in those states.

https://ago.wv.gov/gunreciprocity/Docum ... 20Mark.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So based on what their document says, "respective state", meaning Ohio <in this case, I believe, but I am not a lawyer>, it would not be legal to carry without a reciprocal CHL for an Ohio resident, until this new law comes into effect. Then an Ohio resident, who would pass the Ohio requirements smell test, would be able to carry permitless in W.Va.

I think you may be misreading that. In any case, your understanding disagrees with how their law actually reads:

(c) Any person may carry a concealed deadly weapon without a license therefor who is:

(1) At least twenty-one years of age;

(2) A United States citizen or legal resident thereof;

(3) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of this section; and

(4) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of 18 U. S. C. §922(g) or (n).

https://code.wvlegislature.gov/61-7-7/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[M-Quigley]

…I know there used to be a downloadable booklet the Ohio AG had online for people taking a CCW course. Maybe I'm wrong, IDK, but someone once told me that the laws on gun usage related to self defense and carrying in Ohio were also online in a easily understandable format for people who want to be informed but don't have the time or money to pay an instructor $$$$ like the guy mentioned above, to take a CCW course. Anybody know where that online source is?

I think you mean this: <https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Fil ... (PDF).aspx>

Yes, thanks, I just printed out a copy in case in case someone here locally wants the info and is new to CC. I get questions from time to time, most of which can be answered with this.

[drc]

I realize that the document does not match the actual text of the law. However, that document is on the attorney general of W.Va's website, and conflicting language can cause headaches for decent law abiding folks as we all know too well.

The law is pretty straight forward, black and white, while they AG's text is a bit ambiguous, reflecting back to the laws in the subject person's state.

[schmieg]

I realize that the document does not match the actual text of the law. However, that document is on the attorney general of W.Va's website, and conflicting language can cause headaches for decent law abiding folks as we all know too well.

The law is pretty straight forward, black and white, while they AG's text is a bit ambiguous, reflecting back to the laws in the subject person's state.

Just remember, the AG's statement on the website does not have the force of law and poorly written statements there should not be construed in court.

[M-Quigley]

I realize that the document does not match the actual text of the law. However, that document is on the attorney general of W.Va's website, and conflicting language can cause headaches for decent law abiding folks as we all know too well.

The law is pretty straight forward, black and white, while they AG's text is a bit ambiguous, reflecting back to the laws in the subject person's state.

Just remember, the AG's statement on the website does not have the force of law and poorly written statements there should not be construed in court.

Do you mean the statement on page one about SB 175 ? ( 4th paragraph)

Prior to this change, the law required that those claiming self-defense show that they had no way to safely retreat from the confrontation before using deadly force. Senate Bill 175 eliminates this “duty to retreat.” However, all the other restrictions on use of deadly force in self-defense still apply, as detailed on pages 16-21

[xpd54]

https://www.ar15.com/forums/hometown/Co ... 91/&page=9

Bottom of page 9 is a memo from the Ashtabula Co Sheriff to his employees about SB215.

[Glock Rock]

[JustaShooter]

Point 3 on this page is somewhat inaccurate. If a person is *currently* unable to pass the background check to get a CHL, they may not legally carry under the new law. However, a previous denial does not necessarily mean they are *currently* prohibited. Many of the items that prevent a person from getting a CHL no longer apply after certain amount of time passes. (And, of course, there are improper denials that would not prevent a person.)

[Javelin Man]

A very nice letter from the sheriff, that memo should be sent to all state law enforcement offices.

[JustaShooter]

A very nice letter from the sheriff, that memo should be sent to all state law enforcement offices.

Once the misinformation is corrected, sure. Unfortunately, this has already been spread, both in written and video formats. SMH