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.

• License renewal procedures received a great deal of attention: competency certificates would be valid for one renewal, no matter when that renewal takes place. Pictures and fingerprints would no longer be required for renewals, nor would a copy of your competency certificate. Your valid license would be considered prima-facie evidence that you possessed a certificate at one time. For your second and subsequent renewals, you’d need a renewed competency certificate; this certificate would not “expire” or require further renewal. The renewal “window” would be changed to 90 days prior to license expiration, and anytime after expiration. In other words, a licensee could always renew his/her license, instead of having to apply for a new one once thirty days had passed since the expiration date.
  
  
• The requirements for a renewal competency certification would change to “person has demonstrated range competency.” The law is virtually silent in this area, and this section is worthy of revision. However, some definition of “range competency” might further limit our instructors’ liability.
  
  
• Buildings that we paid for in state parks and rest areas would no longer be off-limits, as well as other public buildings that are not used for a “primary executive, legislative, or judicial function.” Yes, Virginia – you really could use the restroom at the rest area without having to first compromise your safety!
  
  
• Residential landlords would be unable to prohibit licensed tenants or their guests from carrying or possessing handguns on residential premises, regardless of lease constraints. Unfortunately, properties owned or operated by a university or college would be excluded from this limitation.
  
  
• The law covering carry benefits for retired law enforcement officers would have the strangely restrictive language requiring them to have “a right to retirement benefits” stricken from the code. Firearms requalifications would be valid for a five-year period instead of the current one-year window.
  
  
• Licensees would be allowed to carry unloaded and cased handguns in colleges, churches, daycares, and public buildings. This isn’t the best solution, but it’s better than what we have to live with under the current statute.
  
  
• The term “unloaded” would finally have a statutory definition instead of the twisted interpretation we’ve arrived at via case law: “With respect to a firearm not described in division (K)(5)(a) of this section, no ammunition is in the firearm without regard to where any ammunition for the firearm is otherwise located in the motor vehicle.”
  
  

Sec. 5502.371. No law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official shall confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm in this state during a declared state of emergency or disaster.