Page 1 of 1
HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:24 am
by rickt
This looks like HB 147 with proper references to existing law. For instance, The definition of "automatic firearm" is now correct.
H. B. No. 152 - Representatives Hood, Brinkman.
Cosponsors: Representatives Retherford, Thompson, Becker, Vitale, Brenner, Blessing, Maag, Roegner, Young, Buchy, Johnson, T., Boose, Kraus, Antani,
Amstutz, Hill, Schaffer, Koehler, Zeltwanger, Conditt.
To amend sections 109.69, 109.731, 1547.69, 2923.11, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.122, 2923.123, 2923.124, 2923.125, 2923.126, 2923.128, 2923.129, 2923.1213, 2923.16, and 4749.10 and to enact section 2923.111 of the Revised Code to allow a person who has a concealed handgun license to carry
concealed all firearms other than dangerous ordnance or firearms that state or federal law prohibits the person from possessing and to provide that a person
21 years of age or older and not legally prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm by federal law does not need a concealed handgun license in order to carry or have concealed on the person's person or ready at hand a firearm and is subject to the same laws regarding carrying a concealed firearm as a person who has a concealed handgun license
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 131-HB-152
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:30 pm
by ArmedPatriots
What I cant figure out is how Vermont has had this forever and yet apparently the rest of us are just too damned dumb and irresponsible....somehow.
To those who claim that we have to have training and licensing maybe you can explain why Vermont is one of the lowest violence states in the Union and yet since at least the early 1900's has had freedom to carry at will just about everywhere without permits OR training and doesnt seem to have ANY issue with permitless carry.
Do Ohioans really have IQs lower than residents of Vermont?
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:48 pm
by JediSkipdogg
ArmedPatriots wrote:What I cant figure out is how Vermont has had this forever and yet apparently the rest of us are just too damned dumb and irresponsible....somehow.
To those who claim that we have to have training and licensing maybe you can explain why Vermont is one of the lowest violence states in the Union and yet since at least the early 1900's has had freedom to carry at will just about everywhere without permits OR training and doesnt seem to have ANY issue with permitless carry.
Do Ohioans really have IQs lower than residents of Vermont?
Hmmm, I was just looking at some presidential voting history there and found something interesting. Ohio generally flips every 8 years (2 election cycles) for a democrat or republican president. Prior to 1992, Vermont had always been republican every election except one year. Since 1992, they have voted democrat and mostly by a landslide.
So, not sure if that makes them smarter or dumber than us.
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 9:32 am
by MyWifeSaidYes
So HB 152 gives us permit-less concealed carry of non-full-auto
firearms except in a vehicle. You can still only carry a
handgun in a vehicle, so I don't know how many people will take advantage of concealing a rifle or shotgun while out walking. Those are the things I would already open carry.
This bill introduces a new "restricted firearm" definition that expands beyond just a 'dangerous ordnance' and again links us to federal laws. We don't need a new definition adding more confusion to the ORC, let alone giving away state powers.
The bill also defers to the federal list of prohibited persons, giving the federal government a quick way to eliminate concealed carry for Ohioans.
Permit-less carry is a good idea but this bill isn't the way to get there.
I was for it before I was against it.
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 4:36 am
by walnut red
Not sure I understand the concern over linking to Federal laws. Can you give me an example of someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, yet would be allowed to posses a firearm in Ohio under Ohio law?
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 7:30 am
by djthomas
walnut red wrote:Not sure I understand the concern over linking to Federal laws. Can you give me an example of someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, yet would be allowed to posses a firearm in Ohio under Ohio law?
Technically, you are correct, there is no such situation. If you're a federally prohibited possessor there is no legal exemption that your conduct would be lawful under state law. The argument I've heard made, and which I have mixed feelings over comes down to one of states' rights and enforcement. Do we want local (i.e. non federal) law enforcement to be allowed, and perhaps obligated, to enforce a federal prohibition? Or should we require that if the feds want to have their prohibitions they must provide the manpower to do so?
Even that ideal isn't as clear cut as it used to be with many local LE having federal deputization or a dozen feds on their speed dial.
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 11:05 am
by JediSkipdogg
djthomas wrote:walnut red wrote:Not sure I understand the concern over linking to Federal laws. Can you give me an example of someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, yet would be allowed to posses a firearm in Ohio under Ohio law?
Technically, you are correct, there is no such situation. If you're a federally prohibited possessor there is no legal exemption that your conduct would be lawful under state law. The argument I've heard made, and which I have mixed feelings over comes down to one of states' rights and enforcement. Do we want local (i.e. non federal) law enforcement to be allowed, and perhaps obligated, to enforce a federal prohibition? Or should we require that if the feds want to have their prohibitions they must provide the manpower to do so?
Even that ideal isn't as clear cut as it used to be with many local LE having federal deputization or a dozen feds on their speed dial.
There's also the issue of interpretation. It would be no different than saying if you kill someone in Kentucky, but live in Ohio, your case should be heard by an Ohio judge. Would you really want an Ohio judge interpreting a law that wasn't written by people of the same state? I've also heard that federal courts haven't agreed on their interpretation of federal law. So how could we expect 88 counties in Ohio to agree on it?
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 1:15 pm
by Werz
djthomas wrote:walnut red wrote:Not sure I understand the concern over linking to Federal laws. Can you give me an example of someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, yet would be allowed to posses a firearm in Ohio under Ohio law?
Technically, you are correct, there is no such situation. If you're a federally prohibited possessor there is no legal exemption that your conduct would be lawful under state law. The argument I've heard made, and which I have mixed feelings over comes down to one of states' rights and enforcement. Do we want local (i.e. non federal) law enforcement to be allowed, and perhaps obligated, to enforce a federal prohibition? Or should we require that if the feds want to have their prohibitions they must provide the manpower to do so?
Even that ideal isn't as clear cut as it used to be with many local LE having federal deputization or a dozen feds on their speed dial.
In theory, that sounds impressive. In reality, if it cannot be prosecuted under Ohio law, there is a very low likelihood that it will be prosecuted at all. And there will be a
lot more of those cases if they can be scraped off on local law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts.
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 4:01 am
by MyWifeSaidYes
Werz wrote:... In reality, if it cannot be prosecuted under Ohio law, there is a very low likelihood that it will be prosecuted at all. And there will be a lot more of those cases if they can be scraped off on local law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts.
Okay. I'm for it, again.
Re: HB 152: HB 147 with proper ORC references
Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 11:08 am
by Atilla
ArmedPatriots wrote:What I cant figure out is how Vermont has had this forever and yet apparently the rest of us are just too damned dumb and irresponsible....somehow.
To those who claim that we have to have training and licensing maybe you can explain why Vermont is one of the lowest violence states in the Union and yet since at least the early 1900's has had freedom to carry at will just about everywhere without permits OR training and doesnt seem to have ANY issue with permitless carry.
Do Ohioans really have IQs lower than residents of Vermont?
Vermont just never enacted any gun laws, outside of hunting regulations and those mandated by the Feds. That goes back to before the USA exsisted and before the Vermont Republic joined the United States in 1791. Vermont allows all NFA firearms, but not suppressors (which seems weird ). Recently, antis got a mental health gun restriction bill passed, and tried for universal background checks. The (D) governor has not signed the mental health bill, yet, and may not. Burlington, Rutland, and Bennington look a lot more like Aspen or Portland with all the (liberal) urban boomers and hipsters moving in.