The preview version looks pretty good, check it out at buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2699

Edit to make link hot. Thanks for the post.

If only they would properly distinguish between bars and restaurants,  that new bill would solve all of the problems with Ohio CCW,  while still screwing over OSHP.

Does this bill have an HB number yet?

TAG- Wow , after reading that I now have hope for Ohio. any idea when this bill will be looked at and or take effect?

The bill has not been introduced yet.  Buckeye Firearms Association received an advance copy of what Representative Jim Aslinides plans to intoduce soon.   It's not official, and can change before introduction, and *will* change after introduction, but at least we have an idea of the direction they are heading.


Pete.

That is some "feel good legislation" if I ever saw it.

1. Firearms preemption is added to address the myriad of local firearms ordinances.

Is this what I think it is?

Im hoping and praying that this passes before I turn 21. Ive got till April 2007, keeping my fingers crossed.

There are a lot of good things in that.

One that I would like to see added is removal of the 30 round mag limit. Is there some way we could recomend that be added?

Quoted: Is this what I think it is?

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like this would preempt the Columbus AWB.  Retyped from www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/preemption.pdf:

"Sec. 9.68 (A) Except as otherwise provided in the Revised Code, any person may own, posses, purchase, otherwise acquire, transport, carry, sell, or otherwise transfer a firearm, a firearm component or ammunition for a fireman. This section, sections 2923.11 to 2923.23 of the Revised Code, and all other sections of the Revised Code dealing with ownership, possesion, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition within the state are general laws of the state.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition is a matter of statewide concern, and this section, sections 2923.11 to 2923.23 of the Revised Code, and all other sections of the Revised Code dealing with those matters preempt and supersede any local laws dealing with ownership, possesion, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Nothing in this section prohibits a municipal corporation from enacting an ordinance pertaining to matters other than the ownership, possesion, purchase, other acquisition, transport, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, or their ammunition. Nothing in this section preempts or supercedes any local zoning regulations that limit, but do not prohibit, the sale of firearms, firearm components, or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for commercial, retail, or industrial use."

Quoted: One that I would like to see added is removal of the 30 round mag limit. Is there some way we could recomend that be added?

I'd like to see them add a clause requiring CLEOs to sign a ATF Form 1 is there's no reason not to.

I'd like to see them add a clause requiring CLEOs to sign a ATF Form 1 is there's no reason not to.

LOL!  I bet you do after your ordeal.  But why stop at Form 1s?  It should be like TN where they have a shall sign law for any ATF forms.  I'm all for it, but I won't hold my breath.  Too many dark areas of Ohio saddling us with freedom-hating lawmakers.

I'd like to see the bill address the problem of all different type no-carry signs being posted and being posted other places than the doors. To me a place being posted must have the "ghost buster" sign and also be large enough to see at a distance.  The signs need to be placed on all doorways or they don't count (except LEO stations, courts, schools, etc).

I've seen signs with the no carry part in small letters in the middle of a bunch of text (such as shirts and shoes needed before entry etc). That's why I see a need for the sign being large enough to see from a distance and have the easily seen "ghost buster" symbol  displayed. Also is the places that post their sign where it's hidden or where you cannot see it until you've entered already.

The other things I'd like to see changed is the open carry when traveling and not being able to carry in restaurants that serve adult drinks (not bars). I don't drink and would like to carry in places where only a small amount of the profit comes from drinks. I can understand not allowing carry in bars though.

Quoted: I can understand not allowing carry in bars though.

I can't. They don't ban cars at bars.
Violent crimes don't occur at bars?

Anyway, I just stay away from them, for the most part, and avoid that hassle.

Quoted: Quoted: I can understand not allowing carry in bars though. I can't. They don't ban cars at bars. Violent crimes don't occur at bars? Anyway, I just stay away from them, for the most part, and avoid that hassle.

I don't have a problem with carrying in a bar if you don't drink. It will be hard to get that passed because the media and anti's will be screaming about a bunch of armed drunk fools running around shooting each other. Even if you only had one drink and used your gun in self defense, it would be very hard to convince a jury that the drink you had didn't cloud your judgement somehow.

I'd rather get more important things fixed in the law before trying the hardest ones such as legal bar carry. It will be hard enough to get the above bill passed. We all have differing viewpoints which makes for great debate .

Quoted: I'd rather get more important things fixed in the law before trying the hardest ones such as legal bar carry. It will be hard enough to get the above bill passed. We all have differing viewpoints which makes for great debate .

I don't really think that bar carry is all that great of an idea.  I can see it being a problem even if you aren't drinking,  specifically retention issues.  Enough dumb stuff happens in bars and we are probably better off not having bar carry.  The last thing we need is Joe Blow CCW holder losing control of his weapon while out at a bar .  

What we do need is for the law to clearly distinguish between a bar and a restaurant that serves alcohol.  

The way the law is written now you can't carry and have a decent meal.  

I agree with both of you.
I'm not putting down the efforts on the new bill in any way.  
If we get most of it passed, we will be much improved.

I don;t think the bar thing is a good idea.  Way too much stupid shit happens at bars.  Also if you start making alcohol even a small part of the issue you will just invite the anti-alcohol crowd (like MADD) to chime in.  They will only work against you on this issue.

Quoted: If only they would properly distinguish between bars and restaurants,  that new bill would solve all of the problems with Ohio CCW,  while still screwing over OSHP.

The law is crystal clear, any place with a D class permit.

Quoted: Quoted: If only they would properly distinguish between bars and restaurants,  that new bill would solve all of the problems with Ohio CCW,  while still screwing over OSHP. The law is crystal clear, any place with a D class permit.

Actualy thats semi false. krogers has a D class permit to allow them to sell on Sundays but they do not SERVE  therefor its legal .....

Quoted: I don;t think the bar thing is a good idea.  Way too much stupid shit happens at bars.  Also if you start making alcohol even a small part of the issue you will just invite the anti-alcohol crowd (like MADD) to chime in.  They will only work against you on this issue.

+1