Take a look how everyone votes for the heartbeat bill and you will have your answer

If there aren't the votes to override a veto, nothing gets passed this year because there isn't time left. Was there anything in the bill moving things backwards? I don't think so. Progressives ruin government a little at a time. Reversing it takes time, too.

Politicians are just gate keepers, they never give you everything you want all at once, if they did then we wouldn't have any use for them.

If we can get any improvement in the laws then that's good.  We have to keep fighting offense and defense, it's tiresome but that's reality.

I'm confused.........they passed a SYG law but took the SYG part out?

What was in it then?

What exactly did Buckeye Firearms do in this?

I've been following but I'm not getting the details.

Ohio was the only state where in  a self defense shooting the defendant had to prove it was self defense instead of the prosecution having to prove it wasn't.  The bill puts us in line with the other 49 states.

however yes they removed the stand your ground from the stand your ground bill.  so we still have a duty to retreat.

Irvine form buckeye firearms agreed with the senators to remove the stand your ground.  If they did not have enough votes to override a veto form kasich they should have let it die and brought it back in january because dewine said he would sign it.

So what was in there that passed?

That was a terrible idea.

Buckeye should have known better.

Why would they let a good bill die? That's idiotic. Pass what you can this session. Next year bring up a new bill and hold DeWine to signing it.

So what do we gain in this bill?

Here's the Ohio Legislative Services version of what's in the bill:

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/download?key=9370&format=pdf

Here's BFA's version of what's in the bill:

http://www.capwiz.com/buckeyefirearms/issues/alert/?alertid=80580626&PROCESS=Take+Action

Take Action
Please use the talking points below to write an email message and email subject line in your own words. Be respectful but firm.

Talking Points:

H.B. 142 - Wiggams/Holmes - Duty to Notify
H.B. 228 - Johnson/LaTourette - CCW Modernization
These are both bipartisan bills that should receive the support of every member of the Senate.

H.B. 142:
This bill specifically defines when a Concealed Handgun License holder must notify law enforcement that he or she has a firearm. When asked for a driver's license or ID, the citizen MUST also present his or her Concealed Handgun License.

This bill does NOT eliminate the duty to notify. It merely eliminates the confusing and subjective standard in current law that says you must "promptly notify." No one knows exactly when "promptly" is. But with this bill, both citizen and law enforcement will have no doubt.

H.B. 228:
This bill cleans up several aspects of Ohio law to protect the rights of citizens.

Brings Ohio into alignment with all 49 other states and shifts the burden of proof back to the state where it belongs so that Ohioans forced to defend their life are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Eliminates the confusing and dangerous "duty to retreat" for victims of violent crime. However the standard for use of lethal force does NOT change.

Provides people relief who are not able to maintain their hands in plain sight during a law-enforcement stop.

Removes the absurd requirement to post "no guns" signs in buildings where firearms have been specifically approved.

Eliminates the requirement to carry multiple forms of I.D. A Concealed Handgun License is already an official document.

Bars denying civil rights to people living in assisted housing. Every citizen should be treated the same regardless of age or financial means.

Provides new penalties for people buying guns for those who are prohibited from possessing them (straw purchases).

Aligns Ohio's definition of "shotgun" with the Federal definition. Currently, Ohio law is vague and there is confusion about what firearms are legal or illegal.

--

Part in red above is what was removed, the rest is still present as far as I know.

From my reading, only the "duty to retreat" was removed.  The "burden of proof" and everything else was kept in.  I haven't found an official text yet though so I could be wrong.

Thank you.

The part about the signs is confusing.

Does that mean that stores that do not want CC no longer need to put them up and we are all supposed to just know that they don't want them?
Or am I really reading that wrong?

You're right about the burden of proof shift!

Here's the Columbus Dispatch summary of what happened:

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181206/ohio-senate-moves-gun-bill-without-stand-your-ground-provision

Ohio Senate moves gun bill without stand-your-ground provision

Facing internal resistance to a stand-your-ground bill, Ohio Senate Republicans on Thursday instead passed a stripped-down version of the controversial measure, which no longer would eliminate current state law’s duty to retreat or significantly reduce penalties for improperly carrying a concealed handgun.

House Bill 228 was amended Thursday and now focuses on shifting the burden of proof in self-defense cases to prosecutors. Supporters of the change say Ohio is the only state in the nation that requires a defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence — a lower standard than reasonable doubt — that they acted in self-defense.

“We listened to the testimony and tried to incorporate a lot of those items,” said Sen. Bill Coley, R-West Chester, chairman of the Government Oversight Committee. Republican Gov. John Kasich had said he would veto a stand-your-ground bill.

The House voted 59-21 to approve the changes, sending it to Kasich.

The burden-of-proof change “would ensure that those who are accused of a crime in a self-defense case receive a fair and just trial,” said John Commerford, deputy managing director of the National Rifle Association.

County prosecutors have opposed the change, arguing that gun-rights advocates have failed to show where current law has resulted in miscarriages of justice.

“Prosecutors aren’t charging people who justifiably are using force in self-defense right now,” said Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. “This makes it harder to prosecute people who are using force that is not justifiable.”

Three Senate Republicans, including Sen. Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard, voted against the bill.

Sen. John Eklund, R-Chardon, said the only reason he’s heard for making the change is because other states have done it. “So what?” he said, adding that he knows of no proliferation of improper prosecution of those asserting self-defense.

Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, noted the many shooting deaths in Ohio.

“So far the response of this body has been to do nothing about that,” she said. “Even the most simple, common-sense measures have been rejected by this body. Instead the only piece of legislation ... is designed to protect the gun owner.”

A number of provisions in the House-passed bill backed by the NRA and other gun-rights organizations were stripped out of the bill, including its key element — a stand-your-ground provision eliminating state law’s duty to retreat, which requires someone involved in a conflict to leave the scene, if possible, before using lethal force.

“While an avenue of escape will naturally be sought if safe and available, it should not be the only option required under the law,” Commerford said.

But critics, including law enforcement and prosecutors, argued that the provision was unnecessary and could lead to more firearm deaths if people are emboldened to think they no longer need to try to deescalate a confrontation before using force.

“Studies have shown that this legislation makes communities increasingly dangerous and less safe,” said Rep. Stephanie Howse, D-Cleveland, president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus.

The bill also would no longer reduce penalties for improperly carrying a firearm to minor misdemeanors. Critics said that would encourage people to not bother getting a concealed-carry license.

The bill as passed also requires a concealed-carry license holder to show law enforcement officers that license when approached, and it bans straw-man purchases, where someone buys a firearm for a person who otherwise would not be able to obtain it. It gives cities nine months to remove local gun ordinances off their books.

“I don’t think there has ever been a time when we’ve gotten everything we wanted,” said Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association. “We will be back to work on duty-to-retreat next session. It’s a priority.”

Chris Dorr, director of Ohio Gun Owners, a group that has pushed for even stronger stand-your-ground provisions, said, “gun owners just got stabbed in the back.” He blamed Irvine. In an email with the subject line BETRAYED, the owners group said “we’re gearing up for war in the 133rd General Assembly.”

The Senate also added a provision to the bill allowing off-duty law enforcement officers to carry a gun into restaurants, retail businesses or sports venues. Supporters say it would allow for faster responses to active shooter situations.

Senate Democrats unsuccessfully tried to add a “red-flag” amendment, allowing law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from a person who is considered an immediate danger to himself or others. A frustrated Kasich had sought the adoption of such a law and other gun safety measures.

Rep. Sarah LaTourette, R-Chagrin Falls, a prime sponsor, said it remains good legislation.

“They removed some of the provisions that the House felt very passionately about, but they left in one of the most important pieces, which is the burden shift,” she said.

Unbelievable how they gutted the heart of the bill. If 49 states have a SYG provision, why can’t Ohio?

The preemption and shockwave provisions are positives.

The three Rs voting against, Lehner, Eklund, and Kunze.

Over at BFA nothing but crickets.

49 states don't

You are reading it wrong.

...folks, ...in seeing some of the derogatory (and seemingly kneejerk and grossly mis-informed) criticisms posted in this thread today, ..i'm going start by saying that i started this thread for one purpose - getting OH gunowners/pro-2A involved to help "move the ball forward" w/ regard to a big pro-gun bill w/ chance of passage...   this thread is NOT meant for derogatory attacks on allies!!!!   if it keeps up, I'm going to ask the mods to lock the thread...   you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ok, ..now a few bullet points (pardon the pun), ..and then I'll get back to the topic of what's going to have to happen to get it across the finish line, ...and of course there's the kasich veto threat...

1.  none of our allies "sold us down the river"...   i for one, wasn't there in the room (and i also assume most everyone on the thread as well) to know what transpired in terms of decisions to amend, ...but this is a very common practice in a legislative process... i.e. ...the "sausage being made", ...ain't always pretty, ...that's just normal...   Now, having known a couple folks in BFA, ...i can assure you that they are working their butts off, countless hours of their time and dime to be at the capitol, meet w/ legislators, and counter the crazy opposition, be it in the media or on the street...  We've had more than a decade of "moving the ball forward", ...thanks to our pro-gun grassroots groups, the NRA, etc.


2. the amended bill, as passed by the senate today, has the much-desired "burden of proof" change, ..and also strengthens the statewide preemption law...  Bills oftentimes get amended, ...that's the nature of politics...


3. members of pro-gun groups, or any lobby/advocacy group, do not make the decisions, ..i.e. they aren't the ones who have specific constituencies, ..and don't cast votes - that's the elected officials...  elected officials have much broader ranges of considerations than single-issue groups...


4. it's common for amendments to be "proposed" during the final floor debate of a bill (which we saw today)...  it's commonplace for the opposition to whip up ridiculous amendments designed to torpedo the bill (because they don't want it to pass)... we saw that today, ..those amendments were "tabled", meaning they wouldn't alter the bill...  


5. it's rare, if ever, that you always get 100% of what you want in a bill... that's politics...  us gunowners/pro-2A are only a segment of the population, ...it's our activism, and showing up for elections, is what helps us achieve "moving the ball forward"...  we got that today, ...getting 75%, 50%, 25%, 10% of what you want, ..is still a win... a win is a win!


6. regarding things that we may not have gotten, ..well there's always tomorrow!.. remember, ..this was a last minute attempt to get a win (moving the ball forward) before the session closes...  so far, that is happening, ...but, guess what - we get to come back and take more swipes at the apple in the next session, which will start early 2019, ...and we'll have a new legislature w/ pro-gun majorities in both houses...  asking for something "tomorrow" will be a smaller "bite", than it was in this large bill today...  by and large, ..this has been the method of moving it forward that has been successful for many years now!


7. Amd Sub HB 228, as passed today, still isn't over the finish line... the bill will have to be passed by the House (so that both houses will have passed the same exact language), ..and then it goes to kasich...   so, from here on out, i hope we can get back to the task of doing what we need to do in order to get a bill "enacted into law"...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181206/ohio-self-defense-legislation-heads-to-gov-kasichs-desk-after-house-concurrence

The revised version passed the House and is headed to the mailman’s son’s desk.

that was quick, ...well done!!!

Any guess if the mailman's son will sign it since the SYG part was removed?

...waiting for the house concurrence vote to show up on the bill status...   i'll check back a bit later, ..and will post vote tallies from today for both the senate and house... always good to know "who" did "what"!


https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-votes?id=GA132-HB-228

...here's the final bill, as passed today, ...for those who are legal enthusiasts, or just love reading pages of "legalese"...   i'm hoping the experts put out a synopsis soon, to bet a better feel on it... but, bottom line - changes "burden to proof" to presumed innocent, ..and strengthens preemption!  


http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_132/bills/hb228/EN/05?format=pdf

well, ..if i understand the process right, ..there are three potential outcomes:

1. gov veto (then, the legislature has the option to override - this requires both bodies voting again, each w/ 3/5 majorities (someone fact check me on this figure)

2. gov signs -

3. gov doesn't sign, ..but law still gets enacted by such inaction...

...so, what will kasich do?...  well, ...we know he's threatened "1" (veto), ..but if he perceives it as softened by retaining the status-quo duty-to-retreat, will that be enough for a lame-duck w/ only weeks left in office to say, hell w/ it, ...i'll just won't sign it (#2)?...  which would mean it gets enacted w/out his signature...?

...here's the video from today's senate floor vote (skip to 20:00 for start of HB 228 debate)...

http://www.ohiochannel.org/video/ohio-senate-12-6-2018-part-2

49 states had burden of proof, that is what was kept in the bill after they stripped stand your ground.

Also didn't hear if the provision for redefining shotgun was lef tin or not.

http://assets.nraila.org/articles/20181206/ohio-self-defense-legislation-heads-to-gov-kasichs-desk-after-house-concurrence

from the article:
Among the many changes included in Sub. House Bill 228 are:  

• Placing the burden of disproving a self-defense claim on the prosecution, similar to how it is in every other state in the country
  


• Critical expansion of preemption to ensure that localities do not create a patch work of gun laws throughout Ohio
  


• Language updates to mirror federal law that affects certain types of firearms, such as the Mossberg Shockwave
  


• Clarifies Ohio’s signage law in regards to concealed carry.  These important changes simplify what has become a complicated portion of Ohio law
  

Again, please contact Gov. Kasich and strongly urge him to sign Substitute House Bill 228 into law.

ok, ..we've got vote tallies now:

20181206 senate floor vote:

yea:
Kevin Bacon (R)Bill Beagle (R)
Dave Burke (R)Bill Coley (R)
Matt Dolan (R)Randy Gardner (R)
Bob D. Hackett (R)Frank Hoagland (R)
Jay Hottinger (R)Matt Huffman (R)
Kris Jordan (R)Gayle Manning (R)
Rob McColley (R)Larry Obhof (R)
Scott Oelslager (R)Bob Peterson (R)
Lou Terhar (R)Joe Uecker (R)
Steve Wilson (R)

nay:
John Eklund (R)Stephanie Kunze (R)
Peggy Lehner (R)Joe Schiavoni (D)
Michael J. Skindell (D)Vernon Sykes (D)
Charleta B. Tavares (D)Cecil Thomas (D)
Sandra R. Williams (D)Kenny Yuko (D)

20181206 house (concurrence vote):

yea:
Marlene Anielski (R)Niraj J. Antani (R)
Steven Arndt (R)John Becker (R)
Louis W. Blessing III (R)Andrew Brenner (R)
Tom Brinkman (R)Jim Butler (R)
Rick Carfagna (R)Jack Cera (D)
Robert R. Cupp (R)Anthony DeVitis (R)
Bill Dean (R)Jonathan Dever (R)
Jay Edwards (R)Keith Faber (R)
Theresa Gavarone (R)Timothy Ginter (R)
Anne Gonzales (R)Doug Green (R)
Dave Greenspan (R)Christina Hagan (R)
Stephen D. Hambley (R)Brian Hill (R)
James M. Hoops (R)Stephen A. Huffman (R)
Jim Hughes (R)Terry Johnson (R)
Darrell Kick (R)J. Kyle Koehler (R)
Sarah LaTourette (R)Al Landis (R)
Laura Lanese (R)P. Scott Lipps (R)
Nathan H. Manning (R)Riordan T. McClain (R)
Derek Merrin (R)John Patterson (D)
Thomas F. Patton (R)Dorothy Pelanda (R)
Rick Perales (R)Bill Reineke (R)
Wes Retherford (R)Craig S. Riedel (R)
Kristina Roegner (R)John M. Rogers (D)
Mark J. Romanchuk (R)Scott K. Ryan (R)
Tim Schaffer (R)Gary Scherer (R)
Kirk Schuring (R)William Seitz (R)
Marilyn Slaby (R)Ryan Smith (R)
Todd Smith (R)Dick Stein (R)
Andy Thompson (R)Shane Wilkin (R)
Ron Young (R)

nay:
John Barnes (D)Kristin Boggs (D)
Janine R. Boyd (D)Richard Brown (D)
Hearcel F. Craig (D)Mike Duffey (R)
Teresa Fedor (D)Tavia Galonski (D)
Glenn W. Holmes (D)Stephanie Howse (D)
Catherine D. Ingram (D)Brigid Kelly (D)
Bernadine Kennedy Kent (D)David Leland (D)
Adam C. Miller (D)Michael J. O'Brien (D)
Michael Sheehy (D)Kent Smith (D)
Fred Strahorn (D)Bride Rose Sweeney (D)
Emilia Strong Sykes (D)Thomas West (D)

Sent thankyou messages to my state rep and senator.

It's time to apply more pressure.  Sent message to Governor Kasich urging his signature on HB 228.

https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=2103

Contact Gov with above link.

If this link does not work, go to nra ila act. Page down to left and choose Ohio and then it will come up on left.

To clarify, Ohio has SYG in your home, this was about SYG outside the home.

I hate how laws require something in all circumstances when it only makes sense in some circumstances.

...ok, here's a synopsis of the current bill and some details of the events from yesterday - very interesting and good read!

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/update-hb-228-goes-governors-desk


now's the time to get on kasich, ...see if we can convince him to let it become law!!!

https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=2103

Governor John Kasich
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6117
Phone: (614) 466-3555

email:
https://www.governor.ohio.gov/Contact/Contact-the-Governor

I don’t think they “fixed” the Shockwave issue. If anything they fucked it up even more. It’s now a dangerous ordnance.

If you haven’t done so, I suggest reading the substitute bill here:
Substitute bill

Is it referring to the liquor establishment signs that had to be posted?  Those are confusing.

yup buckeye firearms sold us out again. can't wait to read their response. they are just as bad as the NRA

So now firearms like the shockwave are no longer "dangerous ordinance" because they are "sawed-off firearms", rather they are simply defined under "dangerous ordinance" directly.

What a joke, why make any change at all if that's the outcome.  It almost reads like they wanted to put that added line under the subsection for what does NOT constitute dangerous ordinance but screwed it up...

All they had to do was add a definition of "shotgun" to our law and make it mirror the federal wording.  The BFA "notes" even word it as such that this is the outcome when "shotgun" still remains ambiguous in OH law after this...

I can’t search that pdf on my phone; can someone please post all the changes having to do with shotguns.  Thanks

With SYG being removed and apparently the shockwave language screwed up - would the best option be not override a veto and start fresh next year?

This is all in the "definitions" subsection of the weapons control law.  Parts underlined and blue are the added wording. It looks like to me (K)(7) should have been added as (L)(7), otherwise what was the point?

Exactly. Looks like an editing error to me.

My question too.

...folks, ...i could be wrong, ..but when i read the literal words in the bill:

• "shotgun" appears only 3 times in  2923.11.   It appears this is where things are defined/clarified/categorized


• ...Item "F" goes on to defined what is AND isn't "Sawed-off firearm":
  
  (F) "Sawed-off firearm" means a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches long, or a
  rifle with a barrel less than sixteen inches long, or a shotgun or rifle less than twenty-six inches long
  overall. "Sawed-off firearm" does not include any firearm with an overall length of at least twenty-
  six inches that is approved for sale by the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives
  under the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), but that is found by the
  bureau not to be regulated under the "National Firearms Act," 68A Stat. 725 (1934), 26 U.S.C.
  5845(a).



• (K) "Dangerous ordnance" means any of the following, except as provided in division (L) of
  this section:
  ...



• (L) "Dangerous ordnance" does not include any of the following:
  (1) Any firearm, including a military weapon and the ammunition for that weapon, and
  regardless of its actual age, that employs a percussion cap or other obsolete ignition system, or that is
  designed and safe for use only with black powder;
  (2) Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable for sporting purposes, including a
  military weapon as issued or as modified, and the ammunition for that weapon, unless the firearm is
  an automatic or sawed-off firearm;
  ...
  

...so, again, i may be wrong (i'm not well versed in the mossberg shockwave stuff), ..but if i read it right, what they did was add a new class of a firearm in one sentence, ...then they
excempted that class from being "sawed off firearm" (Section "F"), ...then they exempted it from being classified as dangerous ordnance (Section "L"(2))..., which reading in sequential order, would appear to me to "trump" what is stated above it...   so it looks to me like they were squeezing this in there w/out having rewrite massive sections of language in the current ORC...  so, if i'm reading it right, ..the important thing is to read every word, and it would seem that the exception language is the final say...

so, with the premise being that this mossberg is over 26" OAL AND legal according to the feds, and not regulated as NFA, then it's "A-ok" in OH... ????

If i'm interpreting this wrong, let me know!

Problem is, the shockwave does not meet the definition of (L)(2) because it is not a "pistol, rifle, or shotgun" under OH law (because ORC does not define the term "shotgun" anywhere, so would have to be determined by case law) nor under federal law (because it's not designed to be shoulder fired).

Hell, IF the shockwave fell under the (L)(2) exemption, that was already in the law before this bill, and means the shockwave was always legal and never in question.  Of course, that is not the case.

Additionally, none of this explains the addition of (K)(7) with this bill...

Previously, the shockwave was considered "dangerous ordnance" because it met the definition of a "sawed-off firearm", and (K)(1) puts those as a "dangerous ordnance" unless it's registered per the NFA.

Now the edit to (F) means the shockwave is no longer a "sawed-off firearm", and had they stopped there all would be good, but then they also added (K)(7) which would make the shockwave "dangerous ordnance" directly.  The end result is the same as it was before.  Hell it's more black and white now even, the shockwave and other firearms like it are dangerous ordnance in Ohio after this...

ETA: Another thing to note, if it weren't for the presence of the (L)(2) exception, the (K)(7) addition would have made every firearm over 26" in overall length into dangerous ordnance in OH, that includes all standard long guns, everything over 26".  I cannot fathom why they added (K)(7)....

D_man, ... is see what you're saying about (K)(7)... but, again, the way i interpret it (i'm not a legal expert or a firearms expert, or even close...) by logical deduction, and examining the use of words and definitions comprehensively:

- section (L)(2) would "trump" (K)(7), ...the use of "pistol", "rifle", "shotgun", in the subject of (L)(2) would have to be all-encompassing (..are there any other kinds of guns being discussed here?), ..AND, because it would otherwise make no sense to have the clause "unless the firearm is an automatic or sawed-off firearm", ...if one of these "special classes" couldn't be part of the population of "pistols/rifles/shotguns"...  thus, the mossberg shotgun, having to be one of the three, and is excempted from the special classification of "sawed-off", ...is excempted by (L)(2)...

...at this point, ..that's my rationale, ..hopefully we can get an expert to chime in on this thread to clarify all of this!!!   ...my "assumption" is that they put the new one-sentence designation into (K)(7) as a means of normalizing language in the ORC, ...and then in keeping w/ the way the ORC language gives subsequent broad-based excemptions in (L)...  not being privy to what went on in the drafting of the language, ..that's my best "guess" at this point...

Again, doesn't apply.  The mossburg shockwave and Remington TAC-14, and all similar items do not meet the federal definition of "rifle", "pistol", or "shotgun".  They do meet the basic definition of "firearm" in federal law, and that is what they are legally considered.  They do not fit into any of those three sub-categories of a "firearm"

Edit, I see now where you're going, let me stew on this a bit, it's a bit circular but it might work.

(L)(2) did not exempt the mossberg (prior to this bill) because in section (F), it would have been classified as "sawed-off firearm" because of its barrel length:

(F) "Sawed-off firearm" means a shotgun with a barrel less than eighteen inches long, or a
rifle with a barrel less than sixteen inches long, or a shotgun or rifle less than twenty-six inches long
overall.

...so the status quo is the ORC classifiying the mossberg as a "shotgun w/ barrel < 18" AND thus being a "sawed-off firearm"...

section (F) was modified in HB 228 to include this, meaning, regardless of the barrel length, it's exempted if the following conditions are met:

"Sawed-off firearm" does not include any firearm with an overall length of at least twenty-
six inches that is approved for sale by the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives
under the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), but that is found by the
bureau not to be regulated under the "National Firearms Act," 68A Stat. 725 (1934), 26 U.S.C.
5845(a).

...so, now section (L)(2) "trumps" whatever is in (K), and the mossberg is no longer illegal shotgun w/ barrel under 18" (i.e. no longer "sawed-off firearm", and not dangerous ordnance)...

Alright, so this becomes muddy mainly because of discrepancy between OH and federal law.  Federally, the shockwave in legally just a "firearm", it does not meet the federal definition of "pistol", "rifle", or "shotgun".

Now in Ohio, there is the issue were terms like "shotgun" are used in law, but are not explicitly defined anywhere.  Prior to HB228, many felt the legal status of the shockwave was questionable in ohio.  However, the prevailing thought was they are illegal as "dangerous ordnance" because of this passage:

The key to this being true, is the assumption that OH law would consider the shockwave a "shotgun".

It would have to be considered a shotgun, in order to be considered an sawed-off firearm, in order to be considered dangerous ordnance.

If you then apply the logic that the shockwave is a "shotgun" in Ohio, then HB228 does in fact remove it from being a "sawed-off firearm" with the edit to (F), AND it would also be exempt from being "dangerous-ordnance" due to the language of (L)(2) exempting, essentially, "shotguns that are not also sawed-off firearms".

So yes, HB228 would make the shockwave legal and no longer dangerous ordnanace under the presumption that Ohio law considers the shockwave to be a "shotgun".  I still don't love this way of doing it because "shotgun" is still ambiguous in OH law, and should future case law ever establish a definition for "shotgun" and have it not include the layout of the shockwave, we're right back to the beginning.

yes, this is how i'm interpreting it...  it would have to be one of the three broad based classifications of either ("pistol/rifle/shotgun"), because in a court of law, ..i don't think any reasonable person would categorize it as anything other than one of the three (cannon, field artillery, flame-thrower etc..)...  i don't think the federal definitions matter here, ..all that matters (to Ohio) is that the gun in question is considered "legal" by fed law (regardless of what they call it)...

...actually, i think under the current ORC section (F), the gun in question met the test for being "shotgun w/ barrell less than 18", ...and thus, a "shotgun"...   the new HB228 language added to (F), which first designated it as an illegal shotgun, trumps the former by saying, hey this weird set of conditions from the feds makes this NOT a "sawed-off firearm" as far as Ohio is concerned...   and thus, (L)(7) exempts it (a now legal shotgun) from being dangerous ordnance...

clear as mud, right?   ...i think this all sounds pretty convoluted to normal folks like you and i, but my guess is that the legislators (and the state legislative service, which drafts much of this language) probably expertly did this to keep the ORC as cleanly as possible w/out having to re-organized massive sections of the code...  we can probably thank the feds for the necessary confusion!

Yup, that's where I'm now at.  It had to be considered a "shotgun" in order for the law that made it illegal previously to apply.  So now with the edits and continuing to consider it a "shotgun", it's kosher.

But yes, clear as mud and not the way I would have liked to do it, but for now I guess it works.

yep, ..seems circuitous and messy, ...but that seems to be quite the norm in how laws are written these days, ..probably because changes always have to be spliced into code that was drafted generations ago, ...it's got to be a tricky thing to do!!!

...my guess is that there is good reason for how they chose to modify the ORC here, given what they had to work with...  sometimes it makes sense to make broad categorizations, and then come in with exceptions that slice-and-dice what eventually is X and Y and Z...

...i think w/ HB228, this bill is a big "gain" for us, and we lose nothing with regard to the status quo ORC...

I certainly feel much better now than I did this morning about the bill.

Still a shame we lost SYG, but I also understand the reality that it would not have passed if it wasn't removed.  Hopefully the new legislature can re-address that and get it done after next year.

ok folks, ...there's been a lot of contention about the mossberg shockwave, and what HB228 does w.r.t. it...

here's my (non-legal, non-expert) rationalization:

- the status quo (current ORC) defines it as a "sawed-off firearm", which is further categorized as dangerous ordnance
- HB228 makes an exception to this definition, under the conditions of (a) OAL > 26" AND (b) federal legal AND (c) not otherwise regulated by NFA.  so, HB228 says it would no longer be considered a "sawed-off firearm" per Ohio law...
- then, an existing section of the ORC essentially exempts the gun in question from being considered dangerous ordnance...

so, bottom line, here's Wiley's synopsis (i.e. subject to change, as my interpretation could be proven wrong by experts!):

without HB 228 (i.e. if you keep the status quo ORC):
- ...the mossberg shockwave is federal legal, but considered dangerous ordnance in Ohio..

with HB 228:
- ...the mossberg shockwave, being federal legal, is no longer considered dangerous ordnance, ...i.e. could be purchased in your local gun shop just like other shotguns with > 18" barrels and OAL > 26"...  the barrel length of the shockwave, being less than 18", isn't a factor here, given the special exemption language (...you can thank the feds for the confusion)...
- with HB228, the mossberg shockwave would be legal in Ohio, ...so long as the feds consider it legal (legal for sale and not regulated under NFA)...

now, ...keep in mind HB 228 is not over the finish line, ...it won't become law unless kasich allows it to become law, or the legislature organizes a successful veto override (requires supermajorty in both houses)...   the latter is always a risk, ..so it makes the most sense at the current junction to try to convince kasich to let it become law, avoid having to override...