Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any improvements to Ohio carry law this year?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • junglebob
    started a topic Any improvements to Ohio carry law this year?

    Any improvements to Ohio carry law this year?

    If Ohio is like Illinois the spring legislative session is over. I'm wondering if there was any change in carry law in Ohio? I carry in Ohio on my Utah CHL when I visit my daughter and family, so I have a vested interest. I appreciate that rest area buildings are no longer CPZs like in Illinois.

    Nothing has changed for the better here in Illinois that I recall. Looking on the bright side there was some crappy legislation introduced by Chicago area antis that went nowhere. It wasn't expected that any changes would be made to the carry law that just passed last year. We'll have to prove that blood won't run in the streets first, I guess.

  • brian d.
    replied
    Where I have a problem is with instructors that try to teach the law. My experience is many of these instructors don't have a clue as to what the law says. And if you don't know what the law actually says you will, without a doubt, misunderstand many parts of the AG's handbook.

    Some instructors (and this is part of human nature when teaching) fall into a mindset that they MUST NOT leave a student's question unanswered. Obviously when dealing with law-related topics, there are certainly instances where no definitive answer is possible. It can be tough on a teacher's ego to say "That part of the ORC is not clear", "I don't know", "Nobody knows for sure", "There's no case law on that yet" or "It's been ruled differently from one court to another" and so forth.

    I learned that the first time I volunteered to work an OFCC table at a gun show. You want to help people who come to you with questions but sometimes it's flat out gray area. Or, the question isn't specific enough for a one-size-fits-all response.

    Then again there are the instructor types YOU made mention of, color of law.

    Leave a comment:


  • joe sixpack
    replied
    And if you don't know what the law actually says you will, without a doubt, misunderstand many parts of the AG's handbook.

    I totally agree with this point.
    I read the book before I attended my class and still had what now seems like idiotic questions.

    There is so much ambiguity in the written law it's essentially a pile of rope at your feet.
    The instructors in my class I think did a fair job covering "the book" but I agree it's a far cry from the full legal language.

    Leave a comment:


  • color of law
    replied
    Well personally I'd like to see the requirement eliminated altogether..
    But anyway.. most instructors are teaching a NRA basic handgun course.

    There is no way you need 12 hours to teach that.. it will easily fit in 8, in fact that's probably longer then you need also.

    when you boil it down most of that class can be taunt in a good 60mins by someone who's listening.

    That's not to say they can't pad the class with other useful stuff.

    I think if you can't learn basic gun safety in four hours you don't need to be carrying a gun. Teaching gun safety in four hours is reasonable.

    Where I have a problem is with instructors that try to teach the law. My experience is many of these instructors don't have a clue as to what the law says. And if you don't know what the law actually says you will, without a doubt, misunderstand many parts of the AG's handbook.

    Leave a comment:


  • joe sixpack
    replied
    Well personally I'd like to see the requirement eliminated altogether..
    But anyway.. most instructors are teaching a NRA basic handgun course.

    There is no way you need 12 hours to teach that.. it will easily fit in 8, in fact that's probably longer then you need also.

    when you boil it down most of that class can be taunt in a good 60mins by someone who's listening.

    That's not to say they can't pad the class with other useful stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • smmassociates
    replied
    jgs5607:

    For the most part, the students in my CHL class (in 2004) had some experience. I certainly did.... But there was this gal who's boyfriend gave her one of those "starter pistol" variants in .22LR. It actually shot, but a good deal of lead went out the sides....

    We also had a young fellow who was using a friend's semi-auto (can't think of what kind). He managed to disassemble it, and had a heck of a time getting it back together.

    I brought an old S&W M10HB revoler in .38spl. I had two "larger" semi's at the time, but considered the .38 more reliable. No idea if that was a good choice, but it did shoot well, and reliably ....

    The Sheriff, btw, wouldn't accept my OPOTA certification. From 1968....

    I don't think I learned anything about firearms and shooting, but the goofy laws we live with were extremely goofy then, and the classroom time covering that stuff was worth the cost. Things are a lot better now, but there are still some serious winners lurking about to bite us.

    Welcome Aboard, too! There's a sticky at http://forums.buckeyefirearms.org/vi...hp?f=6&t=10097 that you should have a look at. It's not mandatory, and may be sleep inducing, but you should learn a bit about who's here, and how this place works. Or at least who the little dog in my avatar is....

    Regards,

    Leave a comment:


  • color of law
    replied
    203 has other issues, see the other post(s) here discussing the problem. Honestly, I see no problem with the reduction in training. I can open carry without training, why do I have to get 12 hours of training to drape a piece of cloth over my gun?

    You're just being logical...

    Leave a comment:


  • justashooter
    replied
    Although the hours were shortened from 12 to 8, the new law still requires 2 hours of range time.

    Leave a comment:


  • jgs5607
    replied
    My only comment (If I recall what the law read) was that it changed from 12 to 8 hours and did NOT require any range time as part of the course.

    When I took my CHL class, probably 1/4 of the people there did not have a handgun and had never fired one before. The class had an assortment of weapons to try and use and the range time was an opportunity to have supervised firearms safety demonstrated. Eliminating that portion, if I interpreted it correctly, is a mistake IMO.

    I had 30+ years of handling firearms before I took the course and it is always good to get a refresher; those with no experience could harm themselves or others.

    Leave a comment:


  • joker
    replied
    As far as my comment about the hours, I look at it this way, if the class is only four hours and you have "the" student that is taking alot of time on the range or the classroom, you can work with them and keep everyone on track with a 12 hour class. Now with a four hour class, some people will miss alot or you keep a person for extra time, not what I consider a confidence builder. Yes I know that you can open carry with zero hours of training, but the state has mandates for the class, again I think it can be done in 8 hours. Honestly I think the Personal Protection in the Home Class is a good class, but it doesn't meet the requirements and requires a LEO or lawyer for one lesson, that is not something I can afford and keep my class at a low cost.
    Again just my 2 cents.

    Leave a comment:


  • jediskipdogg
    replied
    HB231 sounds good.
    HB203 there are some good parts but in my opinion one really bad one, the reduced training hours, 12 hours is to long four hours is to short, but that's just me.

    And with the recent changes to the NRA going to Online for part of their class it throws a huge wrench into the mix. While I'm not sure if the online is required, if the class stays 12 hours, expect to see a lot more instructors indicted next year for short classes. The Sheriff's may question how an instructor determines the student spent 30 minutes vs 4 hours doing the online portion at home before doing 8 hours with the actual instructor.

    NRA Instructors are not required to use the "blended" training - at least, not yet. And any that do, given how Ohio law is written, should be indicted. I may not like the training requirement, but it is the law and must be followed until and unless it is changed.

    The problem is shotgun punishment. I'm actually surprised with the increasing number of carriers being indicted over the past year there hasn't been some other mandates placed on instructors or at least a legislative attempt to.

    I don't like being thought that I may be running a shoddy training course because I don't have a nice facility with an indoor gun range and a firearm shop attached such as Point Blank that is popping up all over the state and offering CHL classes quite often. As a student, they may be slightly more, but who appears more reliable? The major store or the guy running out of the back of his SUV and a the basement of his house? Don't think from a gun owner perspective, think general public.

    Leave a comment:


  • justashooter
    replied
    HB231 sounds good.
    HB203 there are some good parts but in my opinion one really bad one, the reduced training hours, 12 hours is to long four hours is to short, but that's just me.

    And with the recent changes to the NRA going to Online for part of their class it throws a huge wrench into the mix. While I'm not sure if the online is required, if the class stays 12 hours, expect to see a lot more instructors indicted next year for short classes. The Sheriff's may question how an instructor determines the student spent 30 minutes vs 4 hours doing the online portion at home before doing 8 hours with the actual instructor.

    NRA Instructors are not required to use the "blended" training - at least, not yet. And any that do, given how Ohio law is written, should be indicted. I may not like the training requirement, but it is the law and must be followed until and unless it is changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • justashooter
    replied
    HB231 sounds good.
    HB203 there are some good parts but in my opinion one really bad one, the reduced training hours, 12 hours is to long four hours is to short, but that's just me.

    203 has other issues, see the other post(s) here discussing the problem. Honestly, I see no problem with the reduction in training. I can open carry without training, why do I have to get 12 hours of training to drape a piece of cloth over my gun?

    Leave a comment:


  • jediskipdogg
    replied
    HB231 sounds good.
    HB203 there are some good parts but in my opinion one really bad one, the reduced training hours, 12 hours is to long four hours is to short, but that's just me.

    And with the recent changes to the NRA going to Online for part of their class it throws a huge wrench into the mix. While I'm not sure if the online is required, if the class stays 12 hours, expect to see a lot more instructors indicted next year for short classes. The Sheriff's may question how an instructor determines the student spent 30 minutes vs 4 hours doing the online portion at home before doing 8 hours with the actual instructor.

    Leave a comment:


  • joker
    replied
    HB231 sounds good.
    HB203 there are some good parts but in my opinion one really bad one, the reduced training hours, 12 hours is to long four hours is to short, but that's just me.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X