State Preemption Veto Override

reefteach · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Gone are the bans in parks. Gone are the magazine capacity limits. . Gone are city permits to carry. Gone are all of the 80 worthless local ordinances throughout Ohio which could make criminals out of decent citizens. In about 90 days this will take effect. This includes:

1. Statewide preemption of all local gun laws

2. Legal fee reimbursement for succesfull challenges to local ordinances

3. "Plain Sight" requirement removed while in car (Must have CCW to carry in car still)

VApatriot · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Congrats!

lockman · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Congradulations to the citizens of Ohio! The new law is effective in 91 days!

longwatch · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Looks like preemption will prevent stuff like the Sayers case, so this is good open carry too.

Mike · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Ohio legislature jams sweeping gun carry liberalization down Governor Taft's throat!

***************************************
OpenCarry.org Press Release –12 December 2006
***************************************

In an unprecedented action in the history of gun control, the Ohio Legislature overturned HB 347 by voting by a 3/5 margin to re-pass it over Governor Taft's veto!

HB 347 is truly sweeping reform. The bill fully preempts all localities on all gun control and removes the open carry requirement while in vehicles. Americans will be pleased to know that in 90 days they may openly carry handguns, without any permit, through the streets, sidewalks, and public parks of all of Ohio.

Ohio's gun carry laws are now in simply synch in general with those of neighboring Pennsylvania and most other states which typically:

1. Fully preempt localities.

2. Require a permit only to "conceal" carry - not open carry.

But HB 347 unnecessarily however retains the requirement that openly carried handguns may not be carried in vehicles without a concealed handgun permit. The majority rule across the 50 states is that citizens may carry guns in vehicles without a permit - 16 states go further, allowing guns to be concealed in vehicles without any permit on the theory that the vehicle is an extension of your home.

Accordingly, and unfortunately, OpenCarry.org cannot extend to Ohio "Gold Star Open Carry State" status just yet - we look forward to working with groups in Ohio to bringing vehicle carry reform to Ohio in the coming months.

Ohio Gun Group Announcements:

[url]http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3432.html[/url]

[url]http://www.ohioccw.org[/url]

###########
Contact:
Mike Stollenwerk/John Pierce
http://www.OpenCarry.org
(703) xxx-xxxx
###########

reefteach · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

When do we get our well deserved F rating from the Brady Bunch?

Gray Peterson · Dec 12, 2006

imported post

Despite the fact that open carry in a car still requires a permit, HB347 is a great leap forward. No more Oregon, Ohio ban. No more open carry harassment or the cities and counties face the consequences.

reefteach · Dec 13, 2006

imported post

Mike wrote:

Accordingly, and unfortunately, OpenCarry.org cannot extend to Ohio "Gold Star Open Carry State" status just yet

Yes, you need a permit to carry in your car. But we do get upgraded to GREEN right? I'll take it!

Mike · Dec 13, 2006

imported post

reefteach wrote:

Mike wrote:

Accordingly, and unfortunately, OpenCarry.org cannot extend to Ohio "Gold Star Open Carry State" status just yet

Click to expand...

But we do get GREEN right? I'll take it!

Uh, well, no - under our current evaluation scheme to be a Gold Star Open Carry State, state preemption must be very strong, and no p[ermit can be required to carry opernly in public, including vehicles; you remain orange (anomolous open carry state) statuslike PA.

Green is not a step up for Ohio - it would be a step down b/c it would indicate a license needed to open carry on foot.

44Brent · Dec 13, 2006

imported post

under our current evaluation scheme to be a Gold Star Open Carry State, state preemption must be very strong, and no p[ermit can be required to carry opernly in public, including vehicles; you remain orange (anomolous open carry state) statuslike PA.

Mike, in that case you might want to consider revoking the gold star for Montana. Here's your own description on Montana:

Montana is a traditional open carry state. Localities are substantially preempted, but have limited power to prevent and suppress the carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons to a public assembly, publicly owned building, park under its jurisdiction, or school, and the possession of firearms by convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, illegal aliens, and minors.

From your own description you have shown that Montana has weak pre-emption.

reefteach · Dec 13, 2006

imported post

OK I see what my problem is.

The definition for green states:

Fully preempted open carry permitted on foot and in vehicles with a license;localities fully preempted.

I was answering the question"permitted where" with "on foot" and "in vehicles"

I was answering the question "which vehicles" with "with a license". The license part goes with the entire clause, including the part about being on foot. I thought it was just for being in a car.

Perhaps "With a license, fully preempted on foot and in vehicles; localities fully preempted." is more appropiate. IANAL, but I appear to be acting like one

Mike · Dec 14, 2006

imported post

I think that HB 347 does provide full preemption, even for open carry on foot without license. Anybody disagree?

See OFCC Summary at http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3777&Itemid=83:

---------------------------

- Statewide preemption of firearms law was enacted as follows:

The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

Local laws that Statewide preemption will NOT invalidate:

- A zoning ordinance that regulates or prohibits the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses.

- A zoning ordinance that specifies the hours of operation or the geographic areas where the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms may occur, provided that the zoning ordinance is consistent with zoning ordinances for other retail establishments in the same geographic area and does not result in a de facto prohibition of the commercial sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for commercial, retail, or industrial uses.

reefteach · Dec 15, 2006

imported post

No. I agree totaly. It seems to fit green exactly to me because we have:

Fully preemted open carry permittedin the following places:

1. On foot.

2. In vehicles with a license.

If green is to suggest that that a license is needed for both then what we would have is a situation where:

With a license, fully preemted open carry permitted in the following places:

1. On foot.

2. In a car.

Maybe there needs to be another color.

Green- With a license, fully preempted open carry on foot and in a car. Localities fully preempted.

Blue- Fully preempted open carry on foot and in a car with a license. Localities fully preempted.

Its your system though. I was justhoping thatafter 347 passes, we could do away with "anomolous".

reefteach · Dec 15, 2006

imported post

oops, double post. delete.

lockman · Dec 24, 2006

imported post

Under the new act, does a passenger in a motor vehicle have the duty to notify the LEO of his armed status even though he is not the subject of the stop?

reefteach · Dec 26, 2006

imported post

lockman wrote:

Under the new act, does a passenger in a motor vehicle have the duty to notify the LEO of his armed status even though he is not the subject of the stop?

Yes. Everybody in the vehicle who has a firearm must inform the officer and hand over their licence to carry concealed. Good question.

vermonter · Dec 26, 2006

imported post

Ya better hope someone distributes a memo to all the PD's so they know the new law of the land......

State Preemption Veto Override

reefteach

Regular Member

VApatriot

Regular Member

lockman

State Researcher

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Mike

Site Co-Founder

reefteach

Regular Member

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

reefteach

Regular Member

Mike

Site Co-Founder

44Brent

Regular Member

reefteach

Regular Member

Mike

Site Co-Founder

reefteach

Regular Member

reefteach

Regular Member

lockman

State Researcher

reefteach

Regular Member

vermonter

Regular Member