Legislative Guide

This recap is an effort to provide those of you who don't want to read through 138 pages of legal language with an idea of what the conference committee was trying to accomplish (in terms of a compromise) on Wednesday evening prior to passing this legislation.

Here is our effort at recapping the major issues:

CARRYING IN A CAR:

First, and most importantly, it must be said that the "younger than 18 years" Carjacker Protection language was removed from House Bill 12. OFCC considers this a signficant victory for HB12.

The compromise language is far from perfect, but will allow people to have a firearm ready at hand in their vehicles:

"A permit holder would be able to carry a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle if the handgun is in a holster on the permit holder’s person and in plain sight or the handgun is securely encased in a locked compartment or case. Different standards for carrying a loaded handgun if a child under age 18 is in the motor vehicle are eliminated."

This language suggests that you CAN carry a firearm in your car, and you CAN keep it on your person, it CAN be loaded, but that you must have it in a holster and it must be visible.

Once again, we are reviewing this language further, but from some interpretations this is much better than current law and much better than the lockbox requirement in the Senate version of HB12.

"If a permit holder is transporting or has a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle, the permit holder may not knowingly remove or attempt to remove the loaded handgun from the holster, glove compartment, or case or knowingly grasp or hold the loaded handgun or knowingly have contact with the loaded handgun while operating the motor vehicle on a street or highway (unless given instructions to do so by a law enforcement officer). Contacted is defined as touching with your hands or fingers. The penalty for violating these prohibitions would be a F-5. "

If you "knowingly" touch your firearm during a traffic stop with hands or fingers, you can be charged with a felony, and if you're convicted, you can't own a firearm, vote, or do anything a convicted felon can do. This is something that we're really unhappy about. We believe this was a political compromise, aimed at pleasing the Ohio State Highway Patrol. It worked. The OSHP is neutral on this bill, and Gov. Taft has no LEO cover.

"If a permit holder is the driver or occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as a result of a traffic stop or another law enforcement purpose and if the person is transporting a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle, the permit holder must follow the directions of a law enforcement officer."

"In addition, the permit holder must remain in the motor vehicle and must keep their hands in plain sight at any time after the law enforcement officer begins approaching the vehicle, while the vehicle is stopped and before the law enforcement officer leaves. The penalty for violating these provisions would be a M-1 for the first offense and a F-5 for any subsequent offenses."

PUBLIC RECORDS

This is the biggest problem with Governor Bob Taft right now. OFCC learned that the Ohio House "stuck to its guns" and refused to budge on this when Governor Taft offered a last minute compromise late in the evening Wednesday night. The Ohio Senate went along with the decision, and the bill moved forward.

Anti-gun newspapers and anti-gun extremists (Governor Bob Taft included) insisted that the private information of all license holders be readily available for anyone to acquire at will. The solution that was proposed and succeeded was a fair balance between the non-existant "problems" raised by the Ohio Newspaper Association and the Governor.

Instead of giving out the names of EVERY license holder in a county the lawmakers respected the privacy rights of the applicants and created a system that is nearly identical to that which a newspaper must use to get information on police officers or fire fighters. If its good enough to protect the identify of these officials, why isn't it good enough for Governor Bob Taft?

"Similar to the exemption in OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 149. 43(B)(5) for journalists to obtain peace officer and firefighter personal information, upon written request made and signed by a journalist, the sheriff must disclose to the journalist permit holders’ names, counties, townships or cities of residence and date of issuance of the license. The request must include the journalist’s name and title, the name and address of the journalist’s employer and shall state that the disclosure of the information sought would be in the public interest. Journalist is defined as in § 149.43."

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
(The existing laws that allow you to defend yourself in court)

The proposed compromises and what they actually enacted in the bill are slightly confusing, and still not clear. Changes include:

* A temporary "emergency permit" (this should read license) would be available from every Sheriff, without the mandatory training, for a period of 90 days. The applicant can only do this once in a four year period, meaning if you really need the license you have 90 days to get the training and apply for your license.

* A person seeking a temporary permit must submit an affidavit in which the person swears they have reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack or the person may submit a written document prepared by a government entity or public official describing the facts that give rise to this concern (these documents may include, but are not limited to protection orders). In addition, the person must swear that the person would have qualified for a concealed handgun permit but for not receiving training requirements established in H.B. 12.

Note: Penalty for falsifying this affidavit is a felony four, just like lying on the application for a concealed carry license.

The Sheriff puts the applicant into LEADS immediately and runs a background check on the applicant.

For those of you who have not read the bill, some areas of the Affirmative Defense system have been retained, some have been removed.