SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby rickt » Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:20 am

S. B. No. 278 - Senators Schiavoni, Williams.
Cosponsors: Senators Thomas, Skindell, Yuko, Brown, Tavares.

To amend sections 109.57, 2923.125, 2923.128, and 2923.13 and to enact sections 2923.26, 2923.27, 2923.28, 2923.29, 2923.30, and 2923.99 of the Revised Code to enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to allow family members, household members, and law enforcement officers to obtain a court order that temporarily restricts a person's access to firearms if that person poses a danger to themselves or others.


https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-SB-278
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby rickt » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:24 am

The bill says

(2) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm.


"Hey Judge, I am really not crazy, violent or suicidal!"

How do you prove a negative?
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby JustaShooter » Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:22 pm

rickt wrote:The bill says

(2) The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm.


"Hey Judge, I am really not crazy, violent or suicidal!"

How do you prove a negative?

By showing you are sane, stable, and nonviolent.

FWIW, this is in the section where you are allowed to appeal the ERPO *once a year*.

Sec. 2923.29 . (A) The respondent may submit one written
request for a hearing to terminate an extreme risk protection
order issued under sections 2923.26 to 2923.30 of the Revised
Code every twelve-month period that the order is in effect,
starting from the date of the order and continuing through any
renewals.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby TSiWRX » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:20 pm

^ Once a year? Are they serious (rhetorical)? :x :cry:

And this is really why I take the side of the ACLU on the current ERPO proposals....

There's a lot of danger in the way these things can be written. I get the idea, and I actually can see the benefit of the idea - but the language of these laws need to be very, very, very carefully gone over. There's a lot of potential for abuse or misuse, here. There's a reason that the ACLU is against the ERPO.
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
User avatar
TSiWRX
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby WY_Not » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:02 pm

Yeah, for starters put the onus on the State to prove their case valid every 30 days otherwise the order expires. If the State wants to take my rights away then the State needs to prove its case not me. :evil:
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.

Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby dl1911 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:12 pm

So, we're going to start off by punishing you by restricting your rights before giving you any chance to defend yourself. After that you have to prove that you're innocent to get them restored? WTF! How could anyone expect that to pass Constitutional muster?
Dale
11101110111
1911 & IDPA Fan(atic), SIG Fan, and fan of less common calibers
User avatar
dl1911
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby JediSkipdogg » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:35 pm

dl1911 wrote:So, we're going to start off by punishing you by restricting your rights before giving you any chance to defend yourself. After that you have to prove that you're innocent to get them restored? WTF! How could anyone expect that to pass Constitutional muster?


It won't. But 5 states already have done this this year. And before it gets high enough, expect about two to three years to pass. All while you hope your firearms stay in a decent condition in police custody. Hahahaha on that one.
Carrying Concealed Handguns - Signage Answers

Ohio Concealed Carry Classes in S/W Ohio
http://www.ProShootersTraining.com

I am not a lawyer. My answers are based on research, knowledge, and are generally backed up with facts, the Ohio Revised Code, or the United States Code.
User avatar
JediSkipdogg
 
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: Batavia

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby schmieg » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:08 pm

TSiWRX wrote:^ Once a year? Are they serious (rhetorical)? :x :cry:

And this is really why I take the side of the ACLU on the current ERPO proposals....

There's a lot of danger in the way these things can be written. I get the idea, and I actually can see the benefit of the idea - but the language of these laws need to be very, very, very carefully gone over. There's a lot of potential for abuse or misuse, here. There's a reason that the ACLU is against the ERPO.

You are absolutely correct. I have seen this in the domestic violence statutes. While such statutes do address real needs, the domestic violence statutes are among the worst I have seen for abuse during my law career. Vindictive spouses, partners or family members can make a person's life a living heck. There have been several cases where I was lucky and able to either disprove the allegations or find witnesses to whom the vindictive spouse bragged about the intent and results, but I'm sure there were many others who were railroaded.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby TSiWRX » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:21 pm

^ That was the other example that's been lingering at the back of my head that I couldn't put finger to. Thank you, schmieg! :)
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
User avatar
TSiWRX
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby rickt » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:55 am

Schiavoni (D)
Williams (D)

Thomas (D)
Skindell (D)
Yuko (D)
Brown (D)
Tavares (D)
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby WhyNot » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:45 am

assigned to committee
Acquisitions thus far:

Slingshot
Butter knife
sharpened pencil
Newspaper roll
water balloon (diversionary)

Yeah, I'm that good
WhyNot
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby kcclark » Thu May 17, 2018 2:09 am

SB 278 and the similar SB 288 had hearings yesterday.

As activist groups rallied outside the Statehouse to call on lawmakers to pass legislation, the Government Oversight and Reform Committee took its first crack at pushing something through with less than two weeks remaining before a summer break that could extend into November.


Another proposal, the more-comprehensive Senate Bill 288, sponsored by Sens. John Eklund, R-Chardon, and Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard, includes nearly identical “extreme risk” protection synonymous with “red flag” laws.

That bill also calls for banning the purchase of firearms by third parties, expanding data-sharing between law enforcement agencies, and outlawing armor-piercing bullets.


Both bills are supported by the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, part of Everytown for Gun Safety, which had several members outside the Statehouse during the committee hearing.


http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180516/ohio-senate-takes-up-2-gun-bills-backed-by-gov-kasich
kcclark
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: SB 278: Restrict access to firearms if person dangerous

Postby dustymedic » Thu May 17, 2018 4:09 pm

It would be interesting to see if this holds up in federal court. It's counter to the "presumption of innocence" thing.
Somewhere, Darwin is crying...

Just remember, the largest mass murder in US history was committed with box cutters...
User avatar
dustymedic
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:21 pm
Location: Just east of Columbus....


Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests