Substitute Legislation an ‘About-Face’ on OH Gun Notification Bill

Notify a cop you’re carrying concealed, have him scream at you like a ‘roid-raging lunatic, threaten to kill you, and then retire with a settlement. (Canton Police Department)

[SEE UPDATE ON BUCKEYE FIREARMS ASSOCIATION’S POSITION AT END OF ARTICLE]

 

“House Bill 142 sponsored by Rep. Scott Wiggam was on its fifth hearing when Representative Glenn Holmes put forward a substitute piece of legislation and became a co-sponsor of the bill,” WKBN First News 27 reported Thursday. “The original HB 142 allowed for concealed carry permit holders to withhold that information from a police officer if they are pulled over and eliminated the penalty for doing so.”

The legislature has posted the bill’s text as a .pdf document. Relevant mandates of the current duty-to-notify law and permitee conduct are included in Ohio Revised Code Sec. 2923.126, “Duties of licensed individual.”

“The new bill is an about face on that stance,” the story continues. Claiming traffic stops like the one in which Philando Castile was shot and killed will be prevented, Holmes says “police officers will appreciate being notified of this.” He’s also included a $25 fine for failure to self-report.

“Rep. Holmes makes it clear that this law isn’t for ‘officer safety’ no matter how many times the FOP says so,” Ohioans for Concealed Carry notes in a Facebook alert. “They are saying that threatening us with a $25 fine will keep them from shooting us!”

Other problems with the repurposed bill OFCC notes in an email alert:

Current precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court (City of Niles v. Howard, 12 Ohio St. 3d 162) says that municipalities can increase an offense listed in the ORC as a minor misdemeanor to a first degree misdemeanor, even in the case of general laws which are exempted from Home Rule.

 

Said another way: Even if this passes and becomes law, all the anti-gun areas of the state can simply write their own statutes using the same language, but change the penalty from “minor misdemeanor” to “first degree misdemeanor”. Once they figure out they can do that, you can bet they will do that.

 

Upon demand for ID, CHL holder must still interrupt officer and tell him they are armed. Still no right to remain silent. Further, if CHL holder doesn’t have is license on his person, it is an arrestable offense.

 

It will be nearly impossible to get rid of

 

The name of the crime for failing to notify is “carrying concealed weapons”

*Page 5, ORC 2923.12 (F)

 

This “$25 ticket” has to potential to impact employment in many fields.

 

It costs more to fight than the penalty. This will encourage more tickets and fewer people to challenge them.

 

Adds confusion in that if an officer asks a person for their ID the person must give more than ID or get a ticket. How are out of state drivers to know? How will more than half a million Ohioans know?

 

The SUPPOSED purpose of this law is “officer safety”.  Why is it that NO ONE can explain how notification makes officers safer? Unless law enforcement groups can explain logically how this law makes them safer, leaving it on the books shouldn’t even be considered.

 

The TRUE purpose of notification is to make it more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to legally carry a gun for self-defense. Why else would they fight so hard for something they can’t explain? Their track record speaks for itself; they have never supported expanding our freedoms, NEVER.

 

Yet, they have no problem with their continuing efforts to expand their own rights, rights they refuse to allow we normal citizens. Carrying into CPZs [Criminal Protection Zones] and drinking while armed are two that come to mind quickly.

Add to this various Ohio police incidents that have shown either ignorance of or contempt for the very firearms laws being enforced, with accounts of police in years past illegally harassing, bullying, drawing guns on and endangering the lives of citizens who weren’t breaking any laws. That includes officers contemptuously “joking” on social media about “double tapping” citizens openly carrying firearms.

This has resulted in intimidation of lawful open carriers, a threatening meltdown directed at a concealed carrier for self-reporting to an angry officer who hadn’t let him get a word in edgewise (see video below), and the fatal shooting of a Walmart customer handling a BB/pellet air rifle he picked up in Sporting Goods. And several successive state attorneys general have shown deliberate indifference to requests to ensure proper training on the law. (See this link to one of my old Gun Rights Examiner articles from the Internet Archive along with “Suggested Links” at the end of that article for documentation supporting these contentions.

Then, noting a potential in all such encounters for criminal charges, note the advice and the reasons why a law professor and a police officer agree not to talk to the police:

And let’s not forget a more fundamental reason Rep. Holmes’ contention that his change makes things safer may not hold water – at least for citizens exercising their rights (WARNING—The following video contains language that is inappropriate for children and that you or others overhearing it may find offensive):

The cop in question ended up with a $40,000 settlement from the city, a neutral recommendation and a retired officer ID.

And the fact remains, permits are still being required to exercise a right, but that’s another argument.

The plan is to vote the bill out of committee on Tuesday, so immediate advocacy action is needed:

OFCC urges everyone to contact Rep. Wiggam:

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/scott-wiggam/contact

Phone (614) 466-1474

Or contact House Federalism and Interstate Committee Chairman Kristina Roegner:

http://www.ohiohouse.gov/kristina-roegner/contact

Phone at (614) 466-1177

Urge them to adopt, vote and pass HB 142 IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE!

I also recommend conveying expectations to politicians via their Twitter feeds:

If you’re not an Ohio resident, you can forward that message to friends who live there and/or make sure you know what the law is in your state and what efforts are being made to advance the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

UPDATE:  Buckeye Firearms Association considers the substitute bill “a reasoned balance,” dismisses “all or nothing” opposition as unrealistic, and is testifying in favor of its passage.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. tk 18 September, 2017, 19:47

    that cop doesn’t deserve a retired ID, Death threats, Intimidation? He needed to go to jail himself, him and his partner, disgrace to the uniform and profession.

    Reply this comment
  2. Cal 18 September, 2017, 22:21

    ALL (yes ALL) legislation that has any effect on the American people, such as a law, code, statute, etc MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. We still are a constitutional republic. Having quite a few domestic enemies and traitors who serve within our government does not change that fact.

    The US Constitution IS the supreme LAW of this land; the supreme contract for ALL who serve within government – state or federal (with the state Constitution being the highest LAW in the state except in the very few instances where the US Constitution being supreme in any conflict. This is all in writing.

    Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

    What does this have to do with this article? Read on and find out.

    Richard Henry Lee, 1788: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (He was the Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate which passed the Bill of Rights so he has first ahnd knowledge of what it means.)

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    What this says is that there is NO ONE who serves within our government that has any LAWFUL authority over the people, what weapons the people carry, how many of them they own, how they carry them, etc, that the power over that decision how to carry, what type and how many to own, etc is an “absolute”, that decision is the persons own not those who serve wtihin our governments. It is a power RETAINED by the people, not delegated to the governments.

    Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

    Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

    Any person who serves within our governments that enforces any of that color of law is working AGAINST our legitimate government. You are NOT supposed to ‘just follow orders”, “just do your jobs”, you are required to KNOW the US Constitution and what protections the PEOPLE have. It is the job and the reason that OUR governments were created, to PROTECT the people’s natural rights.

    “A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority.” Ellingham v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250.

    Once again, the decision is yours, but understand that the NWO, or One World Government, I/we are going to rule the world, whatever you want to call it requires that NO PERSON WILL OWN anything – not the clothes on your back, where you get to sleep at night, not a car, not a home, not a pet, you may not even breed unless they decide to breed you for a purpose; they will decide what you will do, when you will die. You will not have to deal wtih deciding what you will eat, they will distribute the food as is warranted. That is the world they are working to create. Go read it all for yourselves.

    Is it not better to fight for our LEGITIMATE government? Yes, today it will take a bit of learning what it means for many because much false information has been distributed. Take voting as an example, it is NOT the duty of the political parities to select a person for us to vote for – go read it for yourselves. Etc.

    “permits are still being required to exercise a right…”

    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

    Rights are a persons property, as are their thoughts, etc.

    “As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C.
    502.

    John Adams: “Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty”. (very sort of property that a person has)

    James Madison: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

    Reply this comment
  3. NY Oathkeeper 19 September, 2017, 06:09

    Cal,
    Thats fine and dandy for a Constitutional Republic but thats no longer what we have here in the good ol USA..We have a tyrannical system in place that most of us can see but through fear and intimidation and don’t forget ignorance not many can or will fight against it.To be honest this cop is lucky he wasn’t shot or that he didn’t shoot someone.And you can bet if a law abiding citizen would have defended himself and his rights he would have life in prison as a cop killer and if the cop would have shot the law abiding citizen he would have a nice pension and living free.Go figure??? Someone tell me i’m wrong…LEO’s???

    Reply this comment
  4. 1RealAmerican 19 September, 2017, 10:28

    The whole thing that everyone seems to be missing in this conversation is the fact that the minute the officer runs your tag he knows if you haves a CCW – this has always been a problem here with the FOP pushing this notify clause even though they already know the minute they pull you over – I was looking forward to not having to deal with this anymore but I guess I’ll just keep telling them up front to avoid the problem……..and buy a dash cam……we have some really good cops here in Ohio but there are places I avoid to this day because of problems I’ve had in the past…..

    Reply this comment
  5. Crotalus Maxximus 19 September, 2017, 16:18

    Cop claims PTSD Defense. Fine, now he will never carry or posses a firearm legally due to obumma batf prohibition. as a mental defective. Which he obviously is because of his behavior on camera.

    Reply this comment
  6. Vanman 21 September, 2017, 07:45

    Gustapo tactics. The officer should have been screened out of service years ago. He believes he is the judge and jury. Realize the degree of difficulty of dealing with some jerks, but this man was not a jerk……the officer was.

    Reply this comment
  7. James 21 September, 2017, 08:45

    This is all just another of one of a plethora of boiling frogs!

    Reply this comment
  8. 5WarVeteran 21 September, 2017, 14:24

    It is nice to see old acquaintances I worked with the VA Beach PD back in the mid 90s. He had hair then.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*