Ohio Gov. Dewine signs constitutional carry

[CCT125US]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022...tutional-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?