Ohio: Bill to loosen regulations for concealed-handgun licenses Passes

Ohio: Bill to loosen regulations for concealed-handgun licenses

House Bill 234 Which passed the House and Senate now heads to Governor John Kasich

Reduce classroom requirements from 12 hours to 8. Two of those hours in person training. The rest online or in person.

Scrap residency rules that require 45 days as a Ohio Resident before getting a permit.

Automatically recognize concealed licenses from other states that recognizes Ohio licenses. This would bypass the requirements that the attorney general would have to enter in agreement.

It would enable Ohio Concealed Carry licenses bypass NICS checks.

Six month grace period for members of the military and other organizations and their families.


(This bill also included allowing silencers to be used for hunting which I did a separate post on)

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index...ense_changes_pass_final_legislative_vote.html

"The Ohio House voted 69-16 to concur with the concealed-handgun changes, which were added Tuesday by the state Senate. The measure now heads to Gov. John Kasich's desk for his signature."

It also gets rid of the long standing goofy language in Ohio law that somehow made any semi-automatic center fire firearm into an "automatic weapon" if a magazine capable of holding 31 or more rounds was inserted.

Midwest said:

Ohio: Bill to loosen regulations for concealed-handgun licenses

House Bill 234 Which passed the House and Senate now heads to Governor John Kasich

* * *

Automatically recognize concealed licenses from other states that recognizes Ohio licenses. This would bypass the requirements that the attorney general would have to enter in agreement.

Click to expand...

That one needs a qualifier. Full reciprocity still requires a reciprocity agreement. The out-of-state licenses/permits of non-residents will be honored temporarily, so they are good for an extended visit, implicitly as long as six months. However, at the end of six months, an Ohio resident must have an Ohio license or a license/permit from another state with which Ohio has a reciprocity agreement.

Just thought I'd share that with you.

I see that as passed the changes to §2917.11 Disorderly conduct & §2917.31 Inducing panic, which would had added the following line to both statues, " The exercise of a constitutional or statutory right is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." did not make it into the final bill after the several were condensed.

RCall said:

I see that as passed the changes to §2917.11 Disorderly conduct & §2917.31 Inducing panic, which would had added the following line to both statues, " The exercise of a constitutional or statutory right is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." did not make it into the final bill after the several were condensed.

Click to expand...

That statement was so broad that it was never going to make it into law. If they really wanted to address the issue, it would have read: "The lawful and open carry of a firearm is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." The problem with those words is that they are too specific, clearly describing what we are talking about. Many people would have fought tooth and nail to prevent that from becoming law, including, unfortunately, many people who claim to support gun rights but do not favor open carry.

It might become law someday, but not during a last-minute rush to enact legislation.

Werz said:

That statement was so broad that it was never going to make it into law. If they really wanted to address the issue, it would have read: "The lawful and open carry of a firearm is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." The problem with those words is that they are too specific, clearly describing what we are talking about. Many people would have fought tooth and nail to prevent that from becoming law, including, unfortunately, many people who claim to support gun rights but do not favor open carry.





It might become law someday, but not during a last-minute rush to enact legislation.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but would you also speculate that as proposed it would be determined too broad by a court as well?

RCall said:

Werz said:

That statement was so broad that it was never going to make it into law. If they really wanted to address the issue, it would have read: "The lawful and open carry of a firearm is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." The problem with those words is that they are too specific, clearly describing what we are talking about. Many people would have fought tooth and nail to prevent that from becoming law, including, unfortunately, many people who claim to support gun rights but do not favor open carry.

It might become law someday, but not during a last-minute rush to enact legislation.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but would you also speculate that as proposed it would be determined too broad by a court as well?

Click to expand...

As originally proposed, I think a court would find it too vague and overbroad for the purpose of limiting enforcement. It might work as an affirmative defense, but that would place the burden on the person charged.