Ohio HB 160 Over reach of gun ownership rights.
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Ohio HB 160 Over reach of gun ownership rights.

  1. #1

    Ohio HB 160 Over reach of gun ownership rights.

    Site shows the proposed law as a Legislation Overview
    ~
    Proposed Ohio Gun Law HB160 - American Gun Owners Alliance
    ~
    Link show the proposed law text.
    ~
    http://www.amgoa.org/gun-law-texts/O...013-05-08.html
    ~

    To amend sections 2919.26 and 3113.31 and to enact sections 2919.261 and 3113.311 of the Revised Code to require a person who is subject to a civil or criminal domestic violence temporary protection order to surrender all firearms in the person's immediate possession or control to a law enforcement agency or to a federally licensed firearms dealer.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I contend that gun ownership rights should not be terminated because of temporary injunctions being served. The number of times innocent individuals have had charges levied out of revenge for slights in marital and non-marital relationship is too great for legislation of this nature to exist.
    ~
    Necessary safe guards are not in place in this legislation to provide protection to the alleged aggressor protecting them from unfounded claims. This law is requiring the surrender and/or sale of all firearms under their control immediately if served in person by LE or within 24 hours if served otherwise.
    ~
    Domestic violence and abuse of another are serious matters and need addressed, those involved need to be protected from further actions by the aggressor. That goes without saying as far as I am concerned and steps can be taken to accomplish that legally. That shouldn't require an individual that has not been given due process regarding the charges to sell his weapons in order to satisfy the courts need to ensure the victims safety.
    ~
    Be vocal and let your legislators know how you feel and non Ohio residents need to be watchful for this type of legislation in their own backyard.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Here is where I have the problem.
    (E) A law enforcement agency may charge the defendant a fee 346
    for the storage of any firearm surrendered pursuant to this 347
    section. This fee shall not exceed the costs incurred by the 348
    agency that are directly related to taking possession of and 349
    storing the firearm and either returning the firearm to the 350
    defendant or selling it to a federally licensed firearms dealer.
    No provision was made to make the defendant whole at the cost of the accuser. Why should the defendant have to pay to get back what shouldn't have been impounded in the first place if they aren't guilty?
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast