Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Ohio HB 387 - Constitutional Carry introuduced

  1. #1
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728

    Ohio HB 387 - Constitutional Carry introuduced

    This was just posted over on OFCC:

    Introduced in the Ohio House yesterday.

    H. B. No. 387
    -Representatives Hood, Lynch.
    Cosponsors: Representatives Thompson, Adams, J., Brenner, Young, Becker, Roegner, Maag, Retherford.

    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, 2923.1210, 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;
    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;
    and to amend the versions of sections 2923.124 and 2923.126 of the Revised Code that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014, to continue the provisions of this act on and after that effective date
    http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/b...?ID=130_HB_387

    I haven't had a chance to read the actual text of the bill yet, but the summary is at least encouraging.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    73
    I'm confused. Maybe it's the legalese wording.
    It allows those with a CHL to carry without a CHL???

  3. #3
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    It took me a couple of times reading it as well, but here's the important part:

    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;
    Again, still need to read the actual bill text.
    Last edited by JustaShooter; 12-12-2013 at 11:12 AM.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    What about in a car?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I don't have time for a thorough examination at this moment, but it looks like carry in a car is still prohibited. I will absolutely oppose this bill unless that changes or I am wrong about what the bill is saying.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    73
    Wouldn't it still be 'on your person' when you sit down in your auto?
    Last edited by samkent; 12-12-2013 at 11:48 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    Its sounds more like its saying... you no longer need a CCW permit, and can carry concealed following all the same rules as the CCW permit would have let you do.

    Its basically giving everyone a blanket free CCW license if they are over 21 and can legally have a gun.

    Does Ohio CCW permit not allow car carry?
    Last edited by cjohnson44546; 12-12-2013 at 11:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    73
    Does Ohio CCW permit not allow car carry?
    Yes it does.
    This will kill the business of a few of those CHL class's.

    But on the other hand if you want state reciprocity you would still need the papers.

  9. #9
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't have time for a thorough examination at this moment, but it looks like carry in a car is still prohibited. I will absolutely oppose this bill unless that changes or I am wrong about what the bill is saying.
    The part of the summary that appears to cover this is "and is subject to the same laws regarding carrying a concealed firearm as a person who has a concealed handgun license".

    As with you I've not yet had a chance to read and analyze the bill text itself to know if that is the case or not.

    However, I'm intrigued - you would oppose a bill that makes progress toward constitutional carry in Ohio if it doesn't get us all the way there?
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Chuck!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by samkent View Post
    but on the other hand if you want state reciprocity you would still need the papers.
    ^^this^^

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    The part of the summary that appears to cover this is "and is subject to the same laws regarding carrying a concealed firearm as a person who has a concealed handgun license".

    As with you I've not yet had a chance to read and analyze the bill text itself to know if that is the case or not.

    However, I'm intrigued - you would oppose a bill that makes progress toward constitutional carry in Ohio if it doesn't get us all the way there?
    I don't care a whit about constitutional carry. I care about unlicensed carry. We've pretty much got that except in a car. Not including car carry would be a fatal flaw.

    The rules about unloaded carry are still in the code. I don't get why if a license is no longer needed for loaded carry in a car.

    Like I said, though, I haven't had time to read the bill thoroughly. I have the PDF on my iPad, so I will get to it in the next day or so.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I don't care a whit about constitutional carry. I care about unlicensed carry. We've pretty much got that except in a car. Not including car carry would be a fatal flaw.

    The rules about unloaded carry are still in the code. I don't get why if a license is no longer needed for loaded carry in a car.
    I've done an initial read and it looks like it provides for unlicensed carry, not constitutional carry (if the distinction between the two is what I think it is). It appears to cover vehicle carry and provides all other protections and limitations to anyone over 21 who is not a prohibited person (and has not had such license revoked) as are offered a person with a concealed handgun license issued under 2923.125.

    After I've had a chance to let it sink in and re-read it a few times, and read & studied other people's analysis, I'll be in a better position to comment but for now I'm optimistic.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    To me (others may argue) the difference is that UC allows carry pretty much everywhere except extremely secure areas and private property (without permission of the owner/agent) without the requirement for a license, but may restrict CC. ConC allows the choice of OC/CC without a license, but may yet have more restrictions on where. I don't care if a license is required to conceal; I just won't conceal. I do care very much if a license is required to carry in a car as automobile travel is ubiquitous. I shouldn't need a license to carry in a bar, but that is a battle I'd be willing to fight later.

    Still haven't studied the bill yet.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I have not read it all yet, but have read enough to glean this:

    The law is essentially as it was before. All that really happened, besides some tweaking that I don't yet fully understand, was that a provision was added that essentially says that folks who are not otherwise prohibited can exercise all the privileges of a CHL holder in the State without actually getting the CHL. That is potentially a huge improvement and would include loaded carry in a car.

    Here is why I won't support this bill and may even advocate against it: All the crap is still in there. If they wanted to do away with licenses, just yank the crap from the law and be done with it. A game is being played; I just don't know what that game is. Anyway, the net effect is that so-called "constitutional carry" is a law being a substitute for the CHL. You are still exercising a privilege with the permission of the State. The form of the permission slip and its ease of obtention have changed. I will avail myself of this law if enacted, but cannot support its passage.

    The proper way to implement true "constitutional carry" is to remove from the law any prohibition or licensure of CC. The proper way to implement UC would be to eliminate any prohibition (most notably, loaded carry in a vehicle) or licensure of some reasonable form of carry, such as open carry.

    One really bright spot in the bill is the specific prohibition against LE detaining a carrier merely for carry.

    Can anyone give me a good reason for the way they did this other than game-playing?

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Oh, and one more thing of note:

    The authors included some affirmative defenses. Language about the law not applying to certain groups of people remains. Clearly the lawmakers think there is a difference between an affirmative defense and nonapplicability (a discussion we have had at length in other threads).

    To me, and this bill seems to support my opinion, an affirmative defense allows for PC (and, of course, RAS) to be developed even if the officer knows of your ability to produce the defense. He can force you to produce that defense as you go through the legal mill. Nonapplicability means that the officer cannot assume that the law is applicable to you unless his RAS or PC includes RAS or PC of that applicability, i.e., he must start from the assumption the the law is nonapplicable.

  16. #16
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The proper way to implement true "constitutional carry" is to remove from the law any prohibition or licensure of CC. The proper way to implement UC would be to eliminate any prohibition (most notably, loaded carry in a vehicle) or licensure of some reasonable form of carry, such as open carry.

    One really bright spot in the bill is the specific prohibition against LE detaining a carrier merely for carry.

    Can anyone give me a good reason for the way they did this other than game-playing?
    I thought much the same, and wondered at the rationale behind it as well. Hopefully someone with inside knowledge will reply, but I suspect all we will get is uninformed conjecture.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    73
    Perhaps you are attempting to read too much into this change.
    If they were to remove all restrictions to all forms of carry that would allow mentals to carry.

    To me this seems to be a balanced approach between mentals not being allowed and (so called) normals to carry without hassels.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Who said anything about removing restrictions to carry? Those restrictions are independent of CC law and already apply to unlicensed carry, such as it is.

    To create unlicensed CC, all they need do is yank any wording that prohibits any act that requires the license. Done. Something weird is up. We just don't know what.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    --snipped--

    The proper way to implement true "constitutional carry" is to remove from the law any prohibition or licensure of CC. The proper way to implement UC would be to eliminate any prohibition (most notably, loaded carry in a vehicle) or licensure of some reasonable form of carry, such as open carry.

    One really bright spot in the bill is the specific prohibition against LE detaining a carrier merely for carry.

    Can anyone give me a good reason for the way they did this other than game-playing?
    Quote Originally Posted by samkent View Post
    Perhaps you are attempting to read too much into this change.
    If they were to remove all restrictions to all forms of carry that would allow mentals to carry.

    To me this seems to be a balanced approach between mentals not being allowed and (so called) normals to carry without hassels.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Who said anything about removing restrictions to carry? Those restrictions are independent of CC law and already apply to unlicensed carry, such as it is.

    To create unlicensed CC, all they need do is yank any wording that prohibits any act that requires the license. Done. Something weird is up. We just don't know what.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Would appear that there are those who see removing restrictions as being very different from removing prohibitions - strange. One post would seem to contradict the other.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Chuck!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    I thought much the same, and wondered at the rationale behind it as well. Hopefully someone with inside knowledge will reply, but I suspect all we will get is uninformed conjecture.
    I can just about guarantee it
    An inside knowledge explanation would result in personal attacks and trolling

    That's why there is no activism here anymore
    Folks would rather bitch and moan about the activism of others than do any activism themselves,,,,

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    203
    The Bill appear to give Ohioans the right to carry conceal with any permit or license and still retain a license for those who want to qualify to carry in other states that accept reciprocity.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Would appear that there are those who see removing restrictions as being very different from removing prohibitions - strange. One post would seem to contradict the other.
    I was trying to draw a distinction between prohibitions that impair someone from ownership or carry at all, as opposed to a generalized restriction of carry without a license. I just did so badly.

    I don't care about certified wackos and violent felons being prohibited (yeah, I know many here do care). My concern in this thread is the removal of generalized restriction that apply to all, such as the requirement to have a license to carry loaded in a car.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Ohio HB 387 - Constitutional Carry introuduced

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    The Bill appear to give Ohioans the right to carry conceal with any permit or license and still retain a license for those who want to qualify to carry in other states that accept reciprocity.
    And I don't mind that they make possible the license for reciprocity while not requiring it in Ohio. It's a good way to protect its citizens in other States. I am just afraid that the way they needlessly went about it in a complicated way opens the door from shenanigans from somebody.

    Simple law is easy to follow. Complicated law is easy to accidentally break. KISYDAL!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-13-2013 at 09:30 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    203
    It appears that I dropped the "OUT" n my previous post. It should read:

    "The Bill appear to give Ohioans the right to carry conceal withOUT any permit or license and still retain a license for those who want to qualify to carry in other states that accept reciprocity.


    Of course I feel sure that the Bill was written by lawyers to insure job security.
    Last edited by American Patriot; 12-13-2013 at 10:42 PM.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I knew what you meant. My mind even filled in the "out" to make you sentence make perfect sense!

    There oughtta be a law against overcomplicated law. Just write in a sentence or two what you think we should be barred from doing and vote on it! Use plain English, as understood by everyone, and avoid all the definitions.

    When laws need that many definitions, lawmakers are doing something they have no business doing.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •