Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author
Message
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:22 pm
Brian D. wrote:
BFA spokesperson Joe Eaton (username jeaton)was on WLW700 AM last night during Rocky Boiman's call in talk show. Joe did the best he could putting a positive spin on SB 199, and as a longtime friend of his I tip my hat.

On the other hand I wanted to call in myself and lay out "The rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say.
Rocky Boiman is an opportunist and untrustworthy. I learned this very early on when he got into politics.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2647
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:34 am
I've heard these from other sources... (B) (C) and (D) below are not in the law.

Quote:
This section does not apply to a person...if...all of the following apply:
(a) The person is carrying a valid concealed handgun license or the person is an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States...
(b) The person leaves the handgun in a motor vehicle.
(c) The handgun does not leave the motor vehicle.
(d) If the person exits the motor vehicle, the person locks the motor vehicle.


Read the law again, many of the nuances above are not true, and many left out.

[1] it doesn't say handgun in the law, it says firearm or ammunition. Shotgun and rifle are included in the law as permissible, if they're in a locked container when you're not in the vehicle.
[2] the firearm and ammunition has to remain in the vehicle while you are in the vehicle, but it can leave the vehicle so you can lock it in a compartment ON the vehicle (an important wrinkle for those of us who ride motorcycles),
[3] you can't leave ammo on your person, so spare magazines/moon clips/speed loaders/etc locked in/on vehicle,
[4] it has to be in a LOCKED container in or on the vehicle, and left in unlocked glove compartment doesn't meet the requirement,
[5] the law doesn't say your vehicle has to be locked,
[6] the private vehicle has to be owned by the person, so no rental car or carpooling,
[7] park carefully, because it has to be where it is permitted to be - so parking in a no-parking zone, or taking the visitor's only spot if you're not a visitor.

Lots of wrinkles, I'm sure I missed several!

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sola ... format=pdf
lines 1429 - 1451
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:50 am
Posts: 4
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:42 am
Quote:
...
I believe you are mistaken. Not only is 2923.1210 repealed, "privately owned" can be my spouse's, my roommates, or my friend's privately owned vehicle. It does not state that it must be the person's personally owned vehicle.


Not sure where you're getting this, the law says:

Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person's privately owned motor
vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the
ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within
or on the person's privately owned motor vehicle;

So, no carpool, ride sharing, or being dropped off by someone who then transports the firearms away. If two of you want to go to lunch, and both want to be armed, then you'll have to drive separately, or be ON a vehicle (i.e. motorcycle).

ddh
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:50 am
Posts: 4
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:05 pm
Of the law says "person's" rather than "persons" you might be able to argue the point. Persons is possessive, person's is not.
Top
Offline
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:00 am
Posts: 166
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:02 pm
cryptoknight wrote:
I've heard these from other sources... (B) (C) and (D) below are not in the law.

Quote:
This section does not apply to a person...if...all of the following apply:
(a) The person is carrying a valid concealed handgun license or the person is an active duty member of the armed forces of the United States...
(b) The person leaves the handgun in a motor vehicle.
(c) The handgun does not leave the motor vehicle.
(d) If the person exits the motor vehicle, the person locks the motor vehicle.


Read the law again, many of the nuances above are not true, and many left out.

[1] it doesn't say handgun in the law, it says firearm or ammunition. Shotgun and rifle are included in the law as permissible, if they're in a locked container when you're not in the vehicle.


Not for transporting into a school zone under 2923.122, which is what sd790 was referring to. The exemptions under (D)(3) and (D)(4) specifically apply only to handguns.

Quote:
(3) This section does not apply to a person who conveys or attempts to convey a handgun into, or possesses a handgun in, a school safety zone if, at the time of that conveyance, attempted conveyance, or possession of the handgun, all of the following apply:

Quote:
(4) This section does not apply to a person who conveys or attempts to convey a handgun into, or possesses a handgun in, a school safety zone if at the time of that conveyance, attempted conveyance, or possession of the handgun all of the following apply:



cryptoknight wrote:
[2] the firearm and ammunition has to remain in the vehicle while you are in the vehicle, but it can leave the vehicle so you can lock it in a compartment ON the vehicle (an important wrinkle for those of us who ride motorcycles),

No that's wrong. There's no provision in the law allowing you to exit your vehicle with the firearm while in a school zone.

The exemption in 2923.122(D)(3) only applies if (among other things) you are not "onto school premises" (aka in this case, the parking lot).

The exemption in 2923.122(D)(4) only applies if (among other things) "The handgun does not leave the motor vehicle."


cryptoknight wrote:
[3] you can't leave ammo on your person, so spare magazines/moon clips/speed loaders/etc locked in/on vehicle,

Please identify what law you think prohibits you from having ammunition on your person in a school zone.


cryptoknight wrote:
[4] it has to be in a LOCKED container in or on the vehicle, and left in unlocked glove compartment doesn't meet the requirement,

Again, the section of the law on having a firearm in a school zone doesn't say that. It sounds like you're confusing the parking lot protection portion of the law with the school zone changes.


cryptoknight wrote:
[5] the law doesn't say your vehicle has to be locked,

It explicitly says that, as noted above. Again I think you didn't realize that sd790 said he was talking about the school zone changes in the new law.


cryptoknight wrote:
[6] the private vehicle has to be owned by the person, so no rental car or carpooling,

Please identify where it says that, as far as school zones. I don't think it does.
Top
Offline
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:13 pm
Posts: 112
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:59 am
Brian D. wrote:
It seems to me until us grassroots organizations combine our efforts (and way more importantly, advocacy a/k/a PAC bribe) money into one stack for the House and Senate Republican leadership, this sort of shoddy lip service is about the best we can hope for. Maybe if the Top Brass of OFCC, BFA, etc. could be gathered into one room at the same time and forced to tell us members how much money they have, we could hire a full time lobbyist to hang out in the Statehouse regularly and bug hell out of the legislators.

For all the traffic we have at the OFCC forums we can't get our President to post up more than three or four times a year, usually it's when he's got a gun or something for sale. Says he's too busy but yet has time to play around on Facebook, Twitter etc. The forums here at BFA are equally ignored by the suits nowadays.


I have to agree. I posted after having joined with some basic questions and not one answer. I contacted a couple mods and still no answer even from them. What's the point in joining an "association" if they don't seem to be doing much of anything?
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 6
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:40 pm
Wow a lot of disappointment here! CHL holder used to be subject to dismissal by having a handgun locked in personal owned vehicle in CHL employer's parking lot. Is this no longer true as of 03/21/2017?
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 3:34 pm
Posts: 2
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:57 pm
Glock Rock wrote:
Wow a lot of disappointment here! CHL holder used to be subject to dismissal by having a handgun locked in personal owned vehicle in CHL employer's parking lot. Is this no longer true as of 03/21/2017?
True. Employers cannot discharge you for storing your firearm in your car parked on company property. BUT, Ohio is an at will state. Meaning your employer can let you go for no reason. However, if they attempt to disallow unemployment benefits the company could easily find themselves in a jam.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2647
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:47 am
Then that's an issue with Ohio's at will employment law, not what our 2A advocates worked on. Employment at will appears to be a separate battle not directly correlated to 2A?

How can we get 2A on par with other defenses for "at will" like skin color or sexual orientation? I believe one cannot be fired for being an African American lesbian. But an African American lesbian can be fired surreptitiously for having a handgun locked in her personally owned vehicle's glove box at her employer provided parking lot.

Ain't fair.
Top
Offline
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 3:34 pm
Posts: 2
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:21 am
Glock Rock wrote:
But an African American lesbian can be fired surreptitiously for having a handgun locked in her personally owned vehicle's glove box at her employer provided parking lot.

Not today they can't. They would have to find a different reason to fire the African American lesbian - that is, as long as she had a CHL. Although gun owners are not considered a protected class like race, gender, and sexual preference, in this particular way they are given some modicum of protection.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 671
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 12:43 pm
JustaShooter wrote:
Although gun owners are not considered a protected class like race, gender, and sexual preference, in this particular way they are given some modicum of protection.


The original proposed bill language DID HAVE gun owners as a protected class!!!! BFA did work hard and very long hours to get what has been discussed here on the forum into law. The BFA language had the ideal language pertaining to bldgs & carrying CHLs. It got nixed. Nobody is perfect but I can tell you that BFA was working very hard for us!!! Somethings ended up completely out of BFA's hands so if you really want to place blame here......thank our Representatives for cowering to the lobbyists and associations who were against it.

I ask the following question for you to think about (DON'T Reply back with CRAP).....how many of us were on the phones to our State Reps during the days that this bill was being negotiated back in December (2016)??? It was originally HB48 but was switched & piggybacked onto SB199. How many of us were asking our like-minded friends & family to call our State Reps & Senators to share their thoughts on why the bill should have been passed as originally drafted by the BFA???

In light of Kirkersville, we now have more evidence that gun control laws don't work. Please get busy and call your State Rep and your State Senator and let them know you want the DEFEND bill (HB 233) & HB 228 Self Defense Burden of Proof law to pass. Not only call, email too!!! Then, email your like-minded friends & family here in Ohio to call and email (provide them the phone # & email address). Our legislators do understand & get it when the phones ring off the hook and the emails pour in!!!!

Lets strike while the iron is hot!!!
Top
Offline
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 24
Location: SW Ohio
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 3:59 pm
gkh7890, since you quoted my post I have to wonder if you were replying to me. If so, I never said the blame belongs anywhere other than at the legislators' feet. And, at the risk of being accused of "Reply[ing] back with CRAP", I was on the phones to, wrote emails to, sent letters to, and generally harassed, my Senator and Representative about the various gun bills in the OGA at the time (and encouraged family and friends to do likewise) - and have continued to do so with new bills since, and have even gone to Columbus to advocate in person.

Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Top
Offline
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:36 am
Posts: 671
Location: Akron/Canton
Post subject: Re: SB199 - Such a disappointment
Post Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 7:57 am
gkh7890 wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
.....(DON'T Reply back with CRAP).....

24 posts in four years and we get "DON'T Reply back with CRAP." Do I know you? I'm going to bet not. How many open carry walks at universities have you participated in? How many cities, towns or townships have you contacted and carried out to the end forcing them to take no gun signs down in their parks? How many times have you put yourself in a position of possibility being arrested to advance the cause?

Asking people to make phone calls is one thing, but lecturing? Take it somewhere else.
Top
Offline
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:45 am
Posts: 2647
Location: Too close to Cincinnati
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: