Ohio Gov. Dewine signs constitutional carry

[CCT125US]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220314/ohio-gov-dewine-signs-constitutional-carry

Personal feelings aside regarding the Governor, I'm glad he did this.

[Lon]

I really wish the author of the bill had gotten some intelligent input from someone in LE when he wrote it. Parts of it are gonna be a nightmare.

And before anyone starts yelling at me, I support Constitutional Carry. This bill is anything but that. Permit-less carry, yes. It’s a step in the right direction. They once again passed a gun law without mandating that LE be trained on what the changes are.

[CGA]

Yep, step in the right direction. I'm sure clean-up bills will eventually be introduced.

[joshs]

I really wish the author of the bill had gotten some intelligent input from someone in LE when he wrote it. Parts of it are gonna be a nightmare.

And before anyone starts yelling at me, I support Constitutional Carry. This bill is anything but that. Permit-less carry, yes. It’s a step in the right direction. They once again passed a gun law without mandating that LE be trained on what the changes are.

Lots of people, many in LE, provided input. Sausage making isn't pretty.

There's no definition of "constitutional carry" that differentiates it from "permitless carry." They're two terms used to describe the same types of laws in various states that all differ from each other. This is the 20th one that I've worked on that has been signed into law (all but VT, AK, and AZ), and none are optimal (this one is a fair bit uglier than most when it comes to drafting elegance due to a lot of exiting stuff in Ohio law). We at least also changed the duty to inform to make it on demand. So, no more trying to determine how to interrupt someone to tell them that you are carrying.

[Whirlwind06]

Glad it has passed, I think I'll keep renewing my CHL though.
Worth it to me to avoid the hassle of a NICS background check.

[gtmtnbiker98]

... They once again passed a gun law without mandating that LE be trained on what the changes are.

I was just having this conversation this morning, with one of my supervisors. It's going to be a headache.

[CCT125US]

Lon gtmtnbiker98

Looked through the bill, much of it made my head spin.

Maybe take a moment and address 1 or 2 points of what you think are the biggest missteps in the bill.

On the surface it sounds simple..... anyone who is legally allowed to posses a handgun, may do so in a concealed manner. There, just saved 33 pages of legal speak.

I do understand it is more complicated.

[octagon]

Ohio LEOs what are the problems you foresee? I retired from MI LE and remember the concerns when we first got concealed carry as shall issue. Nothing ever came of it. As for training/education we got ours in In Service training and roll calls so the transition was smooth and uneventful.

I personally am pleased the governor signed it instead of just letting it pass without his signature but I expect that has to do with upcoming elections as much as anything. It doesn't affect me at all because I will keep my permit for no NICS checks and out of state use and LEOSA offers more coverage where an OH CPL doesn't have reciprocity.

[Lon]

Lots of people, many in LE, provided input. Sausage making isn't pretty.

There's no definition of "constitutional carry" that differentiates it from "permitless carry." They're two terms used to describe the same types of laws in various states that all differ from each other. This is the 20th one that I've worked on that has been signed into law (all but VT, AK, and AZ), and none are optimal (this one is a fair bit uglier than most when it comes to drafting elegance due to a lot of exiting stuff in Ohio law). We at least also changed the duty to inform to make it on demand. So, no more trying to determine how to interrupt someone to tell them that you are carrying.

Josh, I’d really like know what input the LE folks gave. And I do appreciate all the work that was done one this.


Lon gtmtnbiker98

Looked through the bill, much of it made my head spin.

Maybe take a moment and address 1 or 2 points of what you think are the biggest missteps in the bill.

On the surface it sounds simple..... anyone who is legally allowed to posses a handgun, may do so in a concealed manner. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE BILL SAYS There, just saved 33 pages of legal speak.

I do understand it is more complicated.

Here are the issues as I see them:
1. Just because someone can legally own a pistol does not mean they will automatically be allowed to now carry concealed. They must meet the definition of a “qualifying adult” that’s defined in 2923.111.
2. A qualifying adult is basically someone who would pass a background check necessary to get a concealed handgun license. Certain criminal convictions don’t prevent you from owning a firearm, but would prevent you from getting a concealed handgun license, which also disqualifies you from being a “qualifying adult”.
3. They have incorporated federal law (18USC922g) into this law when determining whether or not someone meets the qualifying adult definition. Very few OH cops have ever received training on 922g.
4. They have also added language from 2923.125 into the definition of qualifying adult. That section of law isn’t taught to police officers in the academy. It deals with the disqualifying offenses that prevent someone from getting a concealed handgun license. I know more about the CCW law than 99.9% of cops and I don’t know all of that because it hasn’t mattered in my job. It really matters to the Sheriff and his Office because they are responsible for doing the background check necessary for a concealed handgun license.
5. Officers/Troopers/Deputies are now going to have to figure out whether someone meets the definition of qualifying adult on the side of the road. The only way to do that is run their criminal history. And that isn’t easy to do on the side of the road. Laws that are in place prevent the dissemination of that information over the radio by dispatch or by phone. So someone is going to have to go to the station and interpret the criminal history and then tell the officer either yes they are or no they are not a qualifying adult.
6. Those criminal histories sometimes don’t clearly say whether or not someone is a qualifying adult. For example, someone who pleads a domestic violence to a disorderly conduct may or may not be under a federal disability. It depends on the subsection of DC that they are actually convicted of. A misdemeanor DV conviction does not prevent someone from legally owning a firearm under STATE law. There are other issues with the criminal histories, but that gives you the idea.

And that’s just to name a few off the top of my head.

But I am glad the notification law changes. It was stupid and unnecessary.

Another problem is that the original bill was amended. The amended bill removed an important part of 2923.111.


(C) The mere carrying or possession of a handgun that is
not a restricted firearm pursuant to the right described in
divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, with or without a
concealed handgun license, does not constitute grounds for any
law enforcement officer or any agent of the state, a county, a
municipal corporation, or a township to conduct any search,
seizure, or detention, no matter how temporary in duration, of
an otherwise law-abiding person.

Hopefully that helps.

[joshs]

Josh, I’d really like know what input the LE folks gave. And I do appreciate all the work that was done one this.



Here are the issues as I see them:
1. Just because someone can legally own a pistol does not mean they will automatically be allowed to now carry concealed. They must meet the definition of a “qualifying adult” that’s defined in 2923.111.
2. A qualifying adult is basically someone who would pass a background check necessary to get a concealed handgun license. Certain criminal convictions don’t prevent you from owning a firearm, but would prevent you from getting a concealed handgun license, which also disqualifies you from being a “qualifying adult”.
3. They have incorporated federal law (18USC922g) into this law when determining whether or not someone meets the qualifying adult definition. Very few OH cops have ever received training on 922g.
4. They have also added language from 2923.125 into the definition of qualifying adult. That section of law isn’t taught to police officers in the academy. It deals with the disqualifying offenses that prevent someone from getting a concealed handgun license. I know more about the CCW law than 99.9% of cops and I don’t know all of that because it hasn’t mattered in my job. It really matters to the Sheriff and his Office because they are responsible for doing the background check necessary for a concealed handgun license.
5. Officers/Troopers/Deputies are now going to have to figure out whether someone meets the definition of qualifying adult on the side of the road. The only way to do that is run their criminal history. And that isn’t easy to do on the side of the road. Laws that are in place prevent the dissemination of that information over the radio by dispatch or by phone. So someone is going to have to go to the station and interpret the criminal history and then tell the officer either yes they are or no they are not a qualifying adult.
6. Those criminal histories sometimes don’t clearly say whether or not someone is a qualifying adult. For example, someone who pleads a domestic violence to a disorderly conduct may or may not be under a federal disability. It depends on the subsection of DC that they are actually convicted of. A misdemeanor DV conviction does not prevent someone from legally owning a firearm under STATE law. There are other issues with the criminal histories, but that gives you the idea.

And that’s just to name a few off the top of my head.

But I am glad the notification law changes. It was stupid and unnecessary.

Another problem is that the original bill was amended. The amended bill removed an important part of 2923.111.



Hopefully that helps.

I agree with all those points. Our basic model is if someone can possess in a state, then they can carry. Often, we end up with the additional disqualifications for a permit being put back in (usually at the request of LE or prosecutors groups).

As for the RAS provision, we certainly didn't want it to get amended out. Even without it, if an officer doesn't have RAS that a person fits one of the prohibited categories, how would they justify an investigatory detention based on the presence of the firearm?

[Lon]

I will also add that there are some sheriffs who have interpreted the bill to mean that you must have a concealed handgun license to carry a loaded gun in a vehicle (2923.16). I’ve seen the email chain from Sheriff to Sheriff about it. They are currently asking their prosecutors about it. I don’t read it that way. I think it’s fairly straightforward in 2923.111 that that isn’t the case, but what do I know.

Had the original 2923.111(C) not been removed, I don’t think most of the issues would exist.

joshs mentioned that this process was uglier due to Ohios preexisting laws. I get that. Ohio law is stupid and needs a complete rewrite.

If you ever want to shake your head about a stupid law, read 2923.16K5a and see if you can easily understand what unloaded means in a vehicle:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2923.16

[CCT125US]

Lon

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it, next time you're up this way, lunch is on me.

The amount of BS that folks have to navigate is unbelievable. Learning has occured.

[Lon]

Lon

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it, next time you're up this way, lunch is on me.

The amount of BS that folks have to navigate is unbelievable. Learning has occured.

You’re welcome. Sounds like a plan.

[Totem Polar]

If you ever want to shake your head about a stupid law, read 2923.16K5a and see if you can easily understand what unloaded means in a vehicle:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2923.16

LoL! That really is word salad. Thanks for making my day; now I don’t feel so entirely bad about WA state law.

Which is saying something at this point.

:)

[Lon]

LoL! That really is word salad. Thanks for making my day; now I don’t feel so entirely bad about WA state law.

Which is saying something at this point.

:)

I always chuckle when I see the look on my cadets faces after we talk about that particular section. Then I whip out a briefcase, a rifle case and a shooting bag and show them what that means in the real world.

[Lon]

joshs Just thought of something else. Wouldn’t 18USC922q still apply (school zone carry) to someone carrying a gun that has travelled via interstate commerce if they don’t have a CHL? Because the exception in 922q requires a license with a background check:
86144

So if you don’t have a CHL, and carry your loaded pistol into the school lot to drop off your kid (which would be legal under OH law), are you still in jeopardy of a federal case? Seems like it to me, but I’m not as well versed w fed law.

[joshs]

joshs Just thought of something else. Wouldn’t 18USC922q still apply (school zone carry) to someone carrying a gun that has travelled via interstate commerce if they don’t have a CHL? Because the exception in 922q requires a license with a background check:
86144

So if you don’t have a CHL, and carry your loaded pistol into the school lot to drop off your kid (which would be legal under OH law), are you still in jeopardy of a federal case? Seems like it to me, but I’m not as well versed w fed law.

Yes, assuming one of the other exceptions to 922(q) don’t apply. That’s technically ATF’s view of the GFSZA’s application to nonresident permits as well. I’m not sure that a US Attorney’s office would want to take a simple possessory violation of the GFSZA now though. The current composition of SCOTUS may not think that the simple jurisdictional hook added to the GFSZA addresses the Court’s concerns laid out in the Lopez case.

[Lon]

Yes, assuming one of the other exceptions to 922(q) don’t apply. That’s technically ATF’s view of the GFSZA’s application to nonresident permits as well. I’m not sure that a US Attorney’s office would want to take a simple possessory violation of the GFSZA now though. The current composition of SCOTUS may not think that the simple jurisdictional hook added to the GFSZA addresses the Court’s concerns laid out in the Lopez case.

Understood. Thx.

[Sanch]

Regarding provisions of CCW laws requiring people to notify LE about carrying, here’s my perspective as a dirty civilian:

Just because someone doesn’t tell a cop he’s concealing a gun, doesn’t mean he’s not concealing a gun. Imagine a law requiring patients to inform EMTs if they had HIV. Does that mean EMTs should treat patients any differently that don’t inform them they have HIV? Seems like cops should treat all people as potentially armed regardless of whether they inform or not.

There’s been many instances of anti-gun patrol cops, where a CCW holder informs they are carrying, during a routine traffic stop, and the cop freaks out, puts the guy at gunpoint, to “secure” the gun, freaks the fuck out, risks the life of the CCW holder by putting their muzzle on them, and by removing the gun from the CCW persons holster, in a potentially unsafe way.

So on one hand, I see the perspective of the cop if they notice the bulge or gun midway through an encounter that causes them to get concerned if they weren’t notified. I also see the other side where anti-gun cops can freak out and escalate a situation unnecessarily because they don’t like guns.

My personal opinion is if it’s the law to inform in a state, I will inform. If it’s not the law, then I choose not to inform unless the situation evolves that they’re likely to see it. For example if I am pulled over for speeding, if not required, I won’t inform. If they asked me to get out of the car, I’d politely inform at that point since they’d likely notice as I got out of the car and ask if they want me to do anything special before or as I exit the vehicle. I’ve never been asked to exit my vehicle during any of the 5 total traffic stops I’ve had in my adult life.

If I havnt informed, but if the cop asks if I’m carrying a gun/weapon, I will answer honestly. I was only asked once and I was under 21 and did not own a handgun at the time, a trooper in Virginia on I95 asked if I had any guns, knife, or hand grenades on me. I thought that was clever because the hand grenade comment broke some tension. And I guess it’s a test of sorts because if it doesn’t break the tension, maybe the person the cop pulled over is a criminal.

My opinions are based on my limited civilian context. I’m very open to hearing from actual working LE here who disagree and have specific reasons for why proactive notification of carrying a gun is good or should be required in ALL situations. I’ve only had 5 brief polite interactions with cops in over 20 years of driving. Professional LE have 5x to 10x that number or interactions on the other side of that coin, on a daily basis so your opinion matters more than mine due to my limited perspective.

[Craig_AR]

For both Ohio and Alabama, are these new laws effective immediately, or at some future date? The news reports I have read on both states do not say.

Thanks.

[Lon]

For both Ohio and Alabama, are these new laws effective immediately, or at some future date? The news reports I have read on both states do not say.

Thanks.

Ohio is June 12th, I believe.

[Lon]

I just watched the training video that the state put out. Sigh, what a train wreck. Not a whole lot of info. And the end of the video they referred everyone to their legal departments. Still waiting for the updated lesson plan for the Basic Academy.

gtmtnbiker98, you should jump on the OPOTA online portal and watch it.

[gtmtnbiker98]

I just watched the training video that the state put out. Sigh, what a train wreck. Not a whole lot of info. And the end of the video they referred everyone to their legal departments. Still waiting for the updated lesson plan for the Basic Academy.

gtmtnbiker98, you should jump on the OPOTA online portal and watch it.

I'm afraid.

[Lon]

I'm afraid.

You should be.

[BN]

gtmtnbiker98, you should jump on the OPOTA online portal and watch it.

I wonder if that will count toward the hours of online training I need to do before the end of the year?

[Lon]

I wonder if that will count toward the hours of online training I need to do before the end of the year?

It’s in the 2022 CPT approved online classes, so I’d say yes. But it’s only a half hour so you’ll need to combine it with other videos in the legal update block to get your 4 hours.

[Lon]

I wonder if that will count toward the hours of online training I need to do before the end of the year?

Oh, yeah. IIRC there’s no way to get the 4 hours of legal videos without watching a couple hours of public records laws. Have fun.