Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

I found the following on another forum. Basically, this poster is saying the Ohio General Assembly screwed up by not changing the definition of CHL in HB 234 which will affect which licenses Ohio will recognize. I'm probably not allowed to post the entire thing, so here is the link:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=776147

Here is the crux of his argument.

“Concealed handgun license” or “license to carry a concealed handgun” means, subject to division (N)(2) of this section, a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun issued under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code.

The argument would be that a person who is not an Ohio resident has a “valid concealed handgun license” that was issued by another license-issuing state only if the license was issued by a state with a reciprocity agreement. This would entirely defeat what appears to be the intended purpose of the new provision. It would also render that provision a nullity.

There's a well established principle against interpreting statutes to render them null if another interpretation is available. The fact that RC 109.69(B)(3) explicitly calls out an exception for out of state licenses "regardless of whether the other license-issuing state has entered into a reciprocity agreement". The legislative intent is crystal clear.

There's also a well established principle that when two statutes do conflict, the more recently enacted is controlling.

But yes it would've been a good idea to modify the definition from 2923.11(N)(1) .

As one lawyer told me, those who get elected to write the laws aren't necessarily those who were top of the class in law school. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather have citizen legislatures than a state house full of lawyers. But so long as courts recognize this and interpret law accordingly we shouldn't have much of a problem.

Keep in mind that not every legislator is a lawyer. In fact, many are not. Furthermore, legislators don't usually write their own bills. They are drafted by the Legislative Services Commission, which includes lawyers but also paralegals, law students, etc. Frankly with all the cross references that exist throughout the ORC I'm surprised that they usually manage to catch all of them.

So are our friends from states that do not require a license, like Vermont, just hosed?

WestonDon wrote:So are our friends from states that do not require a license, like Vermont, just hosed?

Presumably, just like they are in most other states (unless they have a non-resident license of course).

WestonDon wrote:So are our friends from states that do not require a license, like Vermont, just hosed?

No. A non-resident can carry on any other state's license. They are not required to be licensed by their home state nor a state with whom we have reciprocity.

I don't see a significant problem:

1. The rule of lenity will apply; any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of the accused.
2. While seemingly contradictory in terms of strict, technical definitions, the two types of out-of state licenses must be separately defined because licenses which have reciprocity by agreement are good without regard to residency for the duration of the license period, while licenses without a reciprocity agreement are good only on a temporary basis: while the licensee is a non-resident, or only for six months if the licensee is a resident.