Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where does BFA stand on Republicans Plummer and Swearingen’s back door expansion of gun control in HB 354, that would result in the biggest gun grab in Ohio history?

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

  • Where does BFA stand on Republicans Plummer and Swearingen’s back door expansion of gun control in HB 354, that would result in the biggest gun grab in Ohio history?

    The result of enacting HB 354 would be that thousands of people in Ohio who had previously been convicted of non-violent crimes, that both the federal government and Ohio currently do not view as warranting depriving those people of their Second Amendment Rights, (many of whom have valid concealed handgun licenses) would automatically be prohibited, placed on a newly created list and be subject to immediate arrest for a felony in Ohio and a federal felony for each firearm and each cartridge and have and have all of their firearms and ammunition confiscated. For many, it could amount to a life sentence.

    Whoever worded HB 354 is very sneaky, just like whoever drafted HB 203 in 2013, which appeared right after DeWine became attorney general and targets the same gun owners. Here is how it works:

    Republicans Plummer and Swearingen introduced HB 354 on October 1, 2019, that would take the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (i.e., federal firearms prohibitions for those convicted of any crime for which the possible sentence exceeds one year, i.e., any felony) and add it to R.C. § 2923.13, Ohio’s firearms prohibition statute. See HB 354 line 929, page 32 et seq.

    Federal law operates to prohibits firearms possession by persons who have been convicted of any crime for which a sentence of more than one year could have been imposed (see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) except for persons who have had his/her civil rights restored by the convicting state, unless said restoration specifically prohibits firearms possession. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). The purpose of the federal prohibition was to prohibit people who were convicted of violent and other very serious crimes. Historically, violent crimes and other very serious crimes were classified as felonies, but they sometimes were labeled differently by states—as in Ohio.

    In Ohio, many minor and/or non-violent offenses are classified as felonies and subject persons convicted of them to the possibility of a sentence of more than a year (such as passing bad checks, having a hidden compartment in a car (thanks to BFA), misuse of credit cards, unauthorized use of a vehicle, playing unlicensed bingo, etc…), but very, very few people so convicted are ever sentenced to more than a year—most get probation. This is due, in part, to many misdemeanors being reclassified over the years as felonies by legislators who were claiming to get tough on crime—a practice that continues today. Therefore, Ohio has its own definition of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms (R.C. § 2923.13) and provides automatic restoration of rights (including firearms possession rights) upon final release (via: R.C. §§ 2961.01(A)(2) and 2967.16(C)(1)) for those convicted of non-violent felonies not listed in R.C. § 2923.13.

    What is BFA’s position on this?
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

  • #2
    Opposed
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

    Comment


    • #3
      We are communicating our concerns to sponsors/leadership.
      Neither bill will pass as introduced.
      There is a process, and we are working through it, same as we always do.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jirvine View Post
        We are communicating our concerns to sponsors/leadership.
        Neither bill will pass as introduced.
        There is a process, and we are working through it, same as we always do.
        What process is saying NO, NOT ACCEPTABLE?

        Funny, just got your weekly outdated news letter today and you have a fight going on in NEW JERSEY, but NOTHING about these anti- 2nd Amendment laws being proposed and your stance on ANY OF THEM. What kind of Org are you exactly? Please explain all the procedures and special treatment you give our employee politicians, that we are too stupid to understand in what you are actually doing?

        Evidently, you do support some gun control laws to continue to give you endorsement to a traitor and back stabbing Dewine. Which laws do you support? Stop beating around the bush and hiding your true intent of compromising on more gun control laws in Ohio.
        I carry a firearm because a cop is too heavy and takes too many breaks.

        Montani Semper Liberi - (Mountaineers Are Always Free)

        Comment


        • #5
          THANK YOU for the well written front page article opposing this horrible legislation.
          "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms**disarm only those who [don't] commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides." - Thomas Jefferson.

          Comment


          • #6
            Right on liberty! We are all in the same fight brother...
            Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

            Comment

            Working...
            X