(FYI, the effective date of HB 228 is March 28th, not March 4th or 24th as stated in the OP.)
The issue that is concerning is the wording in HB 228 that was originally to be included as 2923.11 (L)(7) as an exclusion from the definition of "dangerous ordnance", that was, in the last edit of the final draft, mistakenly moved to 2923.11 (K)(7), the actual definition of "dangerous ordnance":
(K) "Dangerous ordnance" means any of the following, except as provided in division (L) of
this section:
...
(7) Any firearm with an overall length of at least twenty- six inches that is approved for sale
by the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives under the "Gun Control Act of
1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), but that is found by the bureau not to be regulated under
the "National Firearms Act," 68A Stat. 725 (1934), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a) .
Based on this wording, after the Act takes effect as I read it any long gun not regulated under the NFA becomes "dangerous ordnance". As I understand it, that would include pretty much every long gun. However, there is an exclusion in existing Ohio law that changes things somewhat:
codes.ohio.gov
(L) "Dangerous ordnance" does not include any of the following:
...
(2) Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable for sporting purposes, including a
military weapon as issued or as modified, and the ammunition for that weapon, unless the firearm is
an automatic or sawed-off firearm;
In my opinion there is no doubt that the "sporting purposes" exception would cover standard shotguns and typical bolt or lever action rifles. What is unclear is whether that would also apply to AR or AR pattern and other similar rifles. I've seen opinions that go both ways (and for what it's worth I believe that the exception under (L)(2) applies but IANAL, etc.). Since "sporting purposes" is not defined under Ohio law, there are a couple of directions I could imagine this going should overzealous LEOs & prosecutors decide to mess with owners of such rifles (there are probably many more, but I think these two are the most likely).
First, each Ohio court could come up with their own interpretation of "sporting purposes" so more liberal jurisdictions might be more likely to hold that it does not apply to AR/AK and similar rifles, and more conservative jurisdictions find the opposite, etc. Chaos ensues, and ultimately a case gets decided by the Ohio Supreme Court that settles the matter.
Second, the courts could look to other sources for guidance on the meaning of "sporting purposes" and most likely would rely on the ATF published guidance from 1998 (
https://www.webharvest.gov/peth04/2...gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/complete.pdf) which is used to limit imports of such rifles. Even though this guidance is 20 years out of date and has only ever been used to limit imports under Federal law, it is the only official guidance for "sporting purposes" I've seen. If so, this would mean that any semi-automatic rifle with one or more of the following "military" characteristics would be considered "dangerous ordnance": folding/telescoping stocks, separate pistol grips, ability to accept a bayonet, flash suppressors, bipods, grenade launchers, and night sights, or the ability to accept a detachable large capacity magazine that was originally designed and produced for the military assault rifles from which they were derived.
No matter which direction this takes, there is significant risk to owners of AR/AK and similar rifles if this takes effect as written. As I understand it the only way to fix this is through another piece of legislation, and the OGA seems ready and willing to pass such a bill. Normally a bill doesn't take effect until 91 days after being passed and signed by the Governor, which is too late to prevent a window in which the flawed law would be in effect. OFCC and other groups are working with legislators in both the Ohio House and Senate to attempt to push emergency legislation through to correct this error which could be set to take effect along with HB228 to prevent such a window. However, passage of emergency legislation requires a 2/3rds majority of both houses for passage, and it does not seem certain that enough Democrats would vote in favor of an emergency bill to correct the error. There may be other avenues to prevent enactment or enforcement of this flawed law, and several of these are being explored as contingency plans in case an emergency bill cannot be passed.