Substitute Legislation an ‘About-Face’ on OH Gun Notification Bill
[SEE UPDATE ON BUCKEYE FIREARMS ASSOCIATION’S POSITION AT END OF ARTICLE]
“House Bill 142 sponsored by Rep. Scott Wiggam was on its fifth hearing when Representative Glenn Holmes put forward a substitute piece of legislation and became a co-sponsor of the bill,” WKBN First News 27 reported Thursday. “The original HB 142 allowed for concealed carry permit holders to withhold that information from a police officer if they are pulled over and eliminated the penalty for doing so.”
The legislature has posted the bill’s text as a .pdf document. Relevant mandates of the current duty-to-notify law and permitee conduct are included in Ohio Revised Code Sec. 2923.126, “Duties of licensed individual.”
“The new bill is an about face on that stance,” the story continues. Claiming traffic stops like the one in which Philando Castile was shot and killed will be prevented, Holmes says “police officers will appreciate being notified of this.” He’s also included a $25 fine for failure to self-report.
“Rep. Holmes makes it clear that this law isn’t for ‘officer safety’ no matter how many times the FOP says so,” Ohioans for Concealed Carry notes in a Facebook alert. “They are saying that threatening us with a $25 fine will keep them from shooting us!”
Other problems with the repurposed bill OFCC notes in an email alert:
Current precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court (City of Niles v. Howard, 12 Ohio St. 3d 162) says that municipalities can increase an offense listed in the ORC as a minor misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, even in the case of general laws which are exempted from Home Rule.
Said another way: Even if this passes and becomes law, all the anti-gun areas of the state can simply write their own statutes using the same language, but change the penalty from “minor misdemeanor” to “first degree misdemeanor”. Once they figure out they can do that, you can bet they will do that.
Upon demand for ID, CHL holder must still interrupt officer and tell him they are armed. Still no right to remain silent. Further, if CHL holder doesn’t have is license on his person, it is an arrestable offense.
It will be nearly impossible to get rid of
The name of the crime for failing to notify is “carrying concealed weapons”
*Page 5, ORC 2923.12 (F)
This “$25 ticket” has to potential to impact employment in many fields.
It costs more to fight than the penalty. This will encourage more tickets and fewer people to challenge them.
Adds confusion in that if an officer asks a person for their ID the person must give more than ID or get a ticket. How are out of state drivers to know? How will more than half a million Ohioans know?
The SUPPOSED purpose of this law is “officer safety”. Why is it that NO ONE can explain how notification makes officers safer? Unless law enforcement groups can explain logically how this law makes them safer, leaving it on the books shouldn’t even be considered.
The TRUE purpose of notification is to make it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a gun for self-defense. Why else would they fight so hard for something they can’t explain? Their track record speaks for itself; they have never supported expanding our freedoms, NEVER.
Yet, they have no problem with their continuing efforts to expand their own rights, rights they refuse to allow we normal citizens. Carrying into CPZs [Criminal Protection Zones] and drinking while armed are two that come to mind quickly.
Add to this various Ohio police incidents that have shown either ignorance of or contempt for the very firearms laws being enforced, with accounts of police in years past illegally harassing, bullying, drawing guns on and endangering the lives of citizens who weren’t breaking any laws. That includes officers contemptuously “joking” on social media about “double tapping” citizens openly carrying firearms.
This has resulted in intimidation of lawful open carriers, a threatening meltdown directed at a concealed carrier for self-reporting to an angry officer who hadn’t let him get a word in edgewise (see video below), and the fatal shooting of a Walmart customer handling a BB/pellet air rifle he picked up in Sporting Goods. And several successive state attorneys general have shown deliberate indifference to requests to ensure proper training on the law. (See this link to one of my old Gun Rights Examiner articles from the Internet Archive along with “Suggested Links” at the end of that article for documentation supporting these contentions.
Then, noting a potential in all such encounters for criminal charges, note the advice and the reasons why a law professor and a police officer agree not to talk to the police:
[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE”]
And let’s not forget a more fundamental reason Rep. Holmes’ contention that his change makes things safer may not hold water – at least for citizens exercising their rights (WARNING—The following video contains language that is inappropriate for children and that you or others overhearing it may find offensive):
[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://youtu.be/2zdLctr7Bo8″]
The cop in question ended up with a $40,000 settlement from the city, a neutral recommendation and a retired officer ID.
And the fact remains, permits are still being required to exercise a right, but that’s another argument.
The plan is to vote the bill out of committee on Tuesday, so immediate advocacy action is needed:
OFCC urges everyone to contact Rep. Wiggam:
Phone (614) 466-1474
Or contact House Federalism and Interstate Committee Chairman Kristina Roegner:
Phone at (614) 466-1177
Urge them to adopt, vote and pass HB 142 IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE!
I also recommend conveying expectations to politicians via their Twitter feeds:
If you’re not an Ohio resident, you can forward that message to friends who live there and/or make sure you know what the law is in your state and what efforts are being made to advance the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
UPDATE: Buckeye Firearms Association considers the substitute bill “a reasoned balance,” dismisses “all or nothing” opposition as unrealistic, and is testifying in favor of its passage.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”