Senator Keith Faber (R, District 12) introduced Senate Bill 318 (status page) before the Criminal Justice Committee; the bill is another in a series of incremental efforts to restore the proper recognition of the rights of Ohio’s citizens. Faber’s bill had been described as a “Firearms Modernization” package due to the number of corrections it contains to some of the more technical areas of the Ohio Revised Code. 

Areas addressed by the bill include: (be sure to follow the jump)

• The documentation to be destroyed by the Sheriff after the completion of the application process is more concisely defined. The remaining documentation is explicitly considered to be not a matter of public record, except for the narrow journalist exception defined in SB 347 (2007).
  
  
• Firearms carried in a motor vehicle in compliance with 2923.16 (and not on the person) would not need to be declared to law enforcement in the event of a stop. The prior affirmative defense would be replaced with a complete exception to the notification requirement.
  
  
• Concealed carry in non-liquor-dispensing D permit locations would be specifically allowed. Although most commentators have argued that the original language in this area was sufficient, this revision would make it virtually impossible to misinterpret. This exception would be, unfortunately, limited to concealed carry only. This section would also add the very clear statement that “beer, wine, and intoxicating liquor have the same meanings as they do in 4301.01,” leaving one less possible trap for the law-abiding citizen.
  
  
• An exception to the prohibition against carry on school premises would be established for school drop-offs. This addition includes language that protects holders of licenses from reciprocal states, which was a major deficit in the original text.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee held the fifth hearing on Senate Bill 184 (Castle Doctrine) and revealed a substitute bill.  OFCC Member Gary Witt was in attendance and Jeff Garvas arrived following the Ohio Supreme Court hearing in time to hear the final witness testify against the legislation.

It is expected that the committee will hold another hearing to vote on the substitute bill next week or in the coming weeks.  Senators Grendell and Seitz aggressively defended the legislation against opposition testimony.

Ohioans For Concealed Carry has received a copy of the substitute bill that can be found here .  It should be noted that this draft language may not represent the final results of the committee when the substitute is adopted.

Live Video Stream Wednesday @ 9:00am (OFCC Scheduled 9:30am)  Requires Real Player!

The seven justices that fill these seats will soon hear oral arguments in Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde.  On Wednesday April 9th at 9:30am attorneys from Attorney General Marc Dann's office and Ohioans For Concealed Carry will take sides on behalf of Ohio's law abiding gun owners.

This case began in 2004 when the City of Clyde passed an emergency ordinance and enacted a gun ban against concealed handgun license holders in their city parks.  After the city flat out ignored our requests to discuss the situation OFCC was forced to sue.  Due to another criminal case (Beatty) in the same district our judge held our case back before oral arguments ever began.  When Beatty lost his case and the appeals court ruled against him our judge ruled against us based on Beatty precedent.  We appealed, and thanks to HB347 becoming law, we advised the court of relevant changes to Ohio law in HB347 that impacted our case.  They concurred and ruled in our favor, prompting Clyde to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In a rare move Ohioans For Concealed Carry agreed that the Ohio Supreme Court should take up the case and decide the issue on a statewide basis.  Since we started this case the issue was about park bans, but it has evolved into a much greater issue.  We believe that the issue of firearms laws are so significant and must be so consistent that they have become an issue of statewide concern. 

The weather couldn't have been nicer at 70 degrees with no noticeable humidity and the very rare breeze in the late afternoon.

John Benner's staff at the Tactical Defense Institute and the IDPA volunteers couldn't have been more prepared for what was about to take place either. 

All told about 90 people converged on the facility Sunday and shot in excess of 20,000 rounds in IDPA styled self-defense scenarios as well as TDI designed shooting instruction involving steel plates.  To top the live fire courses off TDI instructors put participants through a live fire house with soft air pistols and simulated two real-work shooting situations, leaving the student to react with no prior guidance.  Many people continue to comment on how well this taught them how much more training they wish to pursue.  All proceeds went to OFCC's Political Action Committee.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Gary Witt and I am here today speaking on behalf of Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Incorporated. OFCC is a proponent of this long overdue legislation and has asked me to address the committee today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this.

Recently we received a submission from OFCC supporter B. Clark showing just how powerful well written letters can convince public officials of their innocent mistakes.

Thanks for Mike Kinsey's article Hamilton Township Removing Illegal "No Guns" signs!  I used this same letter to inform the Tallmadge City law Director of Public Service to relocate the gun signs in our parks to the building locations.

It's always great to hear when others can reproduce success with the same initial effort.  This isn't the first time OFCC or someone who has recreated what OFCC had done has been successful in this very same manner.  If your local government is posting illegal signs that prohibit concealed carry where they shouldn't pick up the phone and start making noise -- just do it professionally and calmly, making your point without threatening to sue or seek OFCC's involvement. 

When presented with the facts most officials will realize what they or others in their community have done wrong and rectify the situation.  The individual from Tallmadge further asked:

If these signs get posted on open air type picnic pavilions (a roof covering picnic tables with no enclosed sides), are these considered buildings?

The unfortunate answer is we just can't tell you.  In some cases or legal definitions these structures are considered buildings.  In other cases they require four walls to be deemed a building.  The unfortunate problem here is that if they are posted or not, if a court considers them to be government buildings, you have no excuse for being within them.  The way Ohio's sign law works you must "know" that you entered a posted private business to be guilty, but when it comes to government buildings the lack of a conspicuous sign is irrelevant.  Enter community picnic shelters at your own risk.