• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ohio HB 387 - Constitutional Carry introuduced

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
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/bills.cfm?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.
 

samkent

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
73
Location
ohio
I'm confused. Maybe it's the legalese wording.
It allows those with a CHL to carry without a CHL???
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

samkent

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
73
Location
ohio
Wouldn't it still be 'on your person' when you sit down in your auto?
 
Last edited:

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
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:

samkent

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
73
Location
ohio
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.
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
728
Location
NE Ohio
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.
 

samkent

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
73
Location
ohio
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--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?

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.

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.
 

Chuck!

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
142
Location
, Ohio, USA
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,,,,
 
Top