Ohio CCW question [Archive] - Glock Talk


View Full Version : Ohio CCW question

12-08-2007, 19:07
Hi Guys,
Been awhile since I visited. Have been taking a break from highpower and am getting back into pistols. Anyway, my question concerns getting a CCW with the new regs. I went to apply in July, and of course I found out that the course I took was good for 3 years (I was a week late-I understood it to be 6).
I took the course right at the time the CCW passed. Once I found out the particulars of the law, I was ticked and never applied for the permit. Also, every place around here posted the "carry not allowed" sign.
Once the law was "improved", I figured I`d apply, but my certificate is expired-I guess.
Do I have to take the same initial course again? It was kind of a joke.
Is there "refresher courses" that aren`t as long or expensive?
Do I have to start from scratch?
Thanks for any help,

12-08-2007, 21:43
The certificate you were given at your original class was good for 6 years, as long as you applied for your license in the first 3 years. So yes, your certificate is no longer good and you will have to take the 12 hour course over again. Sorry!

I instruct classes in central Ohio if that's where you're located. Just got done instructing a class 2 hours ago.:faint:

12-09-2007, 05:13
You should have gotten your license the first time and then worked to get the parts of the law that you didn't like, changed. Especially at the beginning when the number of people applying for a license was being watched very closely.

12-09-2007, 09:01
Thanks for the info, although a bummer. The 12 hour course I took was so basic as to be boring. The most informative part was when the Sheriff came in and explained the law as he understood it. And he didn`t know much.
BTW, I`m in NW Ohio.

Yeah, your proably right. Guess I used plenty of excuses. Leave it to Ohio politicians to screw up something so simple. The worst (to me) was the regs for carrying in a vehicle, the "publicizing permit holders", and the fact that 80% of everywhere around here posted no carry signs.

Yep, in hindsite, I should have gotten the permit right away and not used it `till the law was "improved".
Thanks for the help,

12-09-2007, 10:52
and the fact that 80% of everywhere around here posted no carry signs.


A big portion of the signs were sent out with workmans comp info, minimum working age info, and the minimum wage info. This being said many businesses thought they had to post the signs as they were required to do with the others mentioned above. If you talk to the business owners and inform them they are not required to post the signs I was suprised at how many have taken them down. As far as your class goes. In the near future I am sure they will come up with a refresher type class that will vary slightly from the original class you took. This is already done with police and security so won't be that hard to adapt to CCW holders. Unfortunately it might not make it out until a year after there is a big requirement for it. Many of us are now teaching a more advanced CCW class that still meets the basic requirements but covers a lot more tactics for threat resolution and carry options. As well as more range drills associated with concealed carry. See if you can find a class in your area that is familiar and ask the instructor if it will give you the CCW sign off.

12-09-2007, 18:10
Hask is right. As imperfect as the law was/is, I'd rather have the right to legally defend myself than to not.

Strength in numbers folks! We now have over 104,000 CHL's out there. The higher that number, the higher the clout we have with the Legislature to get things improved.

12-10-2007, 00:01
You said "I`d rather have the right to legally defend myself than not".
I have a question, and correct me if I`m wrong;
Before the CCW, wasn`t it legal to carry concealed for self defense IF you could prove you were in danger, threatened, in fear for your life, etc.?
(Prove to a judge that is).
Now, with the CCW, if you didn`t go thru the hoops to get a permit, but are in fear for your life and get caught packing (a women being stalked by an ex for example), you have no defense and will be prosecuted?
In other words, the only way you can LEGALLY defend yourself now is to have the permit, and no permit means jailtime?
Did we "kinda " lose a right with the Ohio CCW law?

12-10-2007, 06:01
You don't have to prove anything now, except that you are a law abiding citizen.
How is that a step backwards?
Also I can't imagine an NRA instructor signing off on anything.

12-10-2007, 06:43
7shooter: Affirmative defense is what you speak of. You are right in that when HB21 was passed, affirmative defense was inadvertently stripped away by the legislature. Buckeye Firearms has brought that to their attention to their shock and dismay. Affirmative defense could be claimed before if for example you carried large sums of $$$ to the bank. That was still left to the judge's decision whether or not you were quilty of concealed carry or not.

In other words, the only way you can LEGALLY defend yourself now is to have the permit, and no permit means jailtime?

I know what you meant here, you just worded it slightly wrong. We ALWAYS have the right to defend ourselves. With or without a license. But, we can not use a greater force to defend ourselves than the perceived threat. And, if you are carrying a concealed gun without a license, you know that you are in violation of the law. I believe that is a felony. Get charged with that, you never will legally carry or own a gun.

See if you can find a class in your area that is familiar and ask the instructor if it will give you the CCW sign off.

I hope he doesn't find an instructor who will just sign him off! :steamed:That would be a violation of the law. I know I certainly would not put my NRA instructors certification and part of my livelyhood on the line for someone who did not go get their CHL in the first 3 years. Over 104,000 did it within 3 years!

12-10-2007, 17:31
Well, I guess I wasn`t too far off in my understanding of the law. The unacceptable thing to me is that NOW, if someone defends themself with a "concealed firearm" that has not been "permitted by the State", they are screwed-even if it saved their life or someone else. They will be convicted of a felony and their life is ruined....all because of a bill that started out fine, but was ruined because of the State Patrol, Taft, politicians, and other idiots.
I am 46, lived in this state all my life, have no record (not even a speeding ticket), 30 + years experience with firearms, classified NRA competitor,member of NRA (Endowment), ORPA, GOA, etc. I should be able to carry a firearm anywhere I want anytime I want.
I know this has probably been hashed out (ad nauseum), but IMO, if you`re a law abiding citizen, you can be armed if you want (2nd Amendment). No State approval, State course, State fee, State permit, etc.
If you screw up, you`ll do time-their are already plenty of laws/ penalties on the books.
I`ve done the pro-gun stuff for years ("lobbying" and financially), and really pushed for the original Ohio CCW, but I am still undecided if the present law is worth the trouble. Whew, rant over!

12-10-2007, 19:06
I feel your pain while you're preaching to the choir!:crying:

12-11-2007, 06:38
No license requirement would be ideal, unfortunately that's not the way it works, at least not right now. So it's either get your license or don't get it, but stop making excuses for not getting it. Like Linda said, 104,000 have decided this is well worth it and the numbers continue to steadily go up.
I'm not quite sure what the whole point of this was, since the longer we go on the more obvious it becomes that once again you have no intention of getting your license. Three years have gone by and you still can't make up your mind.

12-11-2007, 07:53
Back when Ohio first became a 'shall issue' state for ccw and I got my license, I debated this very thing with a good friend of mine. He is a true outdoorsman, gun owner, bow owner, deer/turkey hunter and travels each year to hunt in Montana as well. He fishes all over the US and Canada, camps, hikes and knows weapons of all sorts quite well. You can imagine my surprise when he stated that the CC laws of Ohio were too restrictive for him to get a license. He vehemenetly despised the law pertaining to vehicle carry (at that time).
I could not persuade him to get the license and be patient as the law would change. Change not only with vehicle carry but, also with other silly requirements. He had no interest in the fact that the more ccl's issued gave greater political voice to those of us believing in the entire Constitution. It appeared that this was his personal way of boycotting Ohio's restrictive carry laws. He wouldn't be convinced that having a license, even with those restrictions, was the smarter choice. It still would put a SD weapon in his hand most of the time and that would be better than never.
Some people (and I respect their earlier decision), are changing their minds now. If you believe in the 2ND Amendment, if you believe your political voice is stronger in numbers, if you believe in being able to carry most of the time; then PLEASE get your license. Even if you do not carry. Even if you still have problems with the restrictions.

12-11-2007, 08:06
Great post firedog!

I instructed a class Saturday. Had a married couple in it, both in their 50's. They were upfront with me in that the main reason they were there was because they had bought a snubbie revolver and wanted to learn about firearm safety.

At the end of the night, when we were done with the class and everyone was departing, this gentleman and I were talking. He again said, "we probably won't carry". I told him, "go get your license, just in case there is that time that you want to carry, then you can do so. And the higher we get the numbers up, the easier it is for those of us who are trying to change the law, can do so". He said that made sense. He emailed me that night when he got home as he was printing off the application form from the sherriff's website! He got it!!!

12-11-2007, 09:06
Thank you Linda.

I know you teach classes and do alot of other work for Ohio CCW. It's nice to hear that about the couple. Good job in informing them. Law abiding citizens that believe the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional gaurantee (whether they intend to carry or not), need to be licensed to save the 2ND Amendment and preserve our Constitution.

As I like to say; A driver's license has restrictions too! However, every kid that turns 16 in Ohio wants one on their birthday!

12-11-2007, 10:23
As I like to say; A driver's license has restrictions too! However, every kid that turns 16 in Ohio wants one on their birthday!

I like that. I hope someday they are lining up at 21 or 18 or 12 to get their CHL also.

Ronald Reagan - Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

12-11-2007, 17:40
Hask 12,
As stated in my first post, I went to get my permit at the Sheriff`s office and found out I was a week late with the 3 year limit, which I mis-understood to be 6 years-or the new law was changed to six years-don`t know.
I will admit to making some excuses as I thought (still think) the CCW law is lousy, and time sorta flew by.
Actually, had I done more research back then, I probably wouldn`t have even taken the course -would have just waited.
I also will admit to getting hung up on principal sometimes.
Firedog 978,
That IS a great post.
Will respectfully add to the the driver`s license restiction point you made though...
A driver`s license is a privledge, having a firearm is a Right.

12-12-2007, 10:14
Just think, there are enough CCW permit holders in Columbus to fill the "Shoe." Maybe there'd be 1000 seats still available, but it would be a great many people. Let's keep those permits coming. I can't believe mine is due for renewal next year, can you believe it's been that long since they passed that law? Wow, how time flies!

12-12-2007, 17:27
See if you can find a class in your area that is familiar and ask the instructor if it will give you the CCW sign off.

Great idea.

Unless, of course, you dont want the instructor to be facing legal charges and to have your CCL revoked by the Sheriff who issued it, once it's discovered that the instructor did not make you meet the laws requirements. ;)

In Ohio - this HAS happened.

A driver`s license is a privledge, having a firearm is a Right.

Driving a car was a right, until the Govt made it a privilege.


12-13-2007, 08:09
Just think, there are enough CCW permit holders in Columbus to fill the "Shoe."

Also remember that still 4 years later, every business day, M-F ~75 more people get licensed in Ohio. This is almost one new license per county per day. Still very high demand for a law "no one wanted".

12-13-2007, 08:35
A great law, there is now 8 reasons an LEO can charge you for a weapons violation where there was only one before the law was enacted! Like two conflicting laws on weapons in our cars! (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3646)

I haven't opened the manuals since the beginning and did read about any of the changes I was so P.O.ed!

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/images/topics/ohioflag.gif (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article-topic-5.html) http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/images/friend.gif When you're done reading this story, please send it to a friend! (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article-friend-3646.html) <!-- AddThis Bookmark Button BEGIN --><!-- AddThis Bookmark Button END -->

By Ken Hanson

Ohio gun owners are well aware of our antiquated, backwards laws relating to gun ownership and usage. One thing area gun owners of every stripe – hunters, clay shooters, handgun shooters, competitive shooters and self-defense advocates – uniformly agree upon is that our laws regulating unloaded transportation of firearms in a motor vehicle have been twisted well beyond the understanding of the average person.

Quite a few gun owners have heard the horror stories - anti-gun jurisdictions arresting people transporting unloaded firearms in a car simply because there was a bullet in the gun case, shotgun shells in the vest next to the gun case or a magazine with ammunition in it somewhere in the range bag.

Most Ohio gun owners don’t realize just how bad it is in Ohio, and won’t know until they get arrested and charged with a felony they had no idea they were committing.

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

Much of the problem with Ohio’s law regulating firearms in motor vehicles stems from the fact that two different statutes regulate this conduct. Revised Code 2923.12 (carrying concealed weapons) and Revised Code 2923.16 (improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.)

Just because a firearm is in a motor vehicle does not mean that R.C. 2923.16 is the statute that controls. Several Ohio Courts have ruled that the concealed carry statute still applies to firearms in a motor vehicle, even though we have a specific statute regulating that same conduct. See, for example, State v. Morgan 2004 WL 257619, State v. Bowman 79 Ohio App.3d 407, State v. Croomes 1984 WL 5777, State v. Calamari 1977 WL 200475 and State v. Mellinger 1986 WL 3659.

So in Ohio, we have two statutes to contend with when attempting to transport a firearm in a motor vehicle. The General Assembly has attempted to address this by providing that if someone is complying with R.C. 2923.16, that is an affirmative defense to a charge under R.C. 2923.12. Unfortunately, this measure has fallen well short of the intended result.

The first problem is that Ohio Courts have perverted the meaning of a gun being “loaded” due to the language of “ammunition readily at hand” contained in R.C. 2923.12(G)(1). In the cases above, as well as other cases, trial courts have considered guns loaded because of bullets in the same bag as the unloaded gun (see State v. Higgins 1994 WL 55525), bullets on the floor board behind the driver, loaded magazines in gun cases, shotgun shells in pockets, etc., etc. To gun owners, the plain meaning of “unloaded” means no ammunition in the gun, not some kind of “loaded by construction” trap for the unwary.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is attributed with the idea that words should not be strained for interpretation, and we should not labor to determine what the writer of the words meant. “(We should not worry)… what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used.” To a normal user of English, “unloaded” means no ammunition in the gun, not worrying about whether ammunition in a back seat or trunk with pass through partition can be construed to be “readily at hand.”

Beyond the “loaded” trap, the General Assembly created a doozie of a trap for the unwary when they passed HB12. Unbeknownst to the General Assembly, the Senate stripped your ability to transport an unloaded handgun when they tinkered with HB12 to satisfy former Governor and convicted criminal Bob Taft.

I am saying it plainly, and I am supremely confident of this assertion: Under current Ohio law, there is no lawful way to transport an unloaded handgun in a motor vehicle. I challenge to a public debate any attorney or other quasi-authority who states otherwise.

Previously, I stated that the General Assembly attempted to address the two-statute situation by making lawful transportation of an unloaded firearm an affirmative defense to a charge of concealed carry. Well, unfortunately the Senate changed this in 2004. Now it is only an affirmative defense that you transported the firearm “other than a handgun” properly. I give you the plain wording of statute:
R.C. 2923.12

(D) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(1) of this section of carrying or having control of a weapon other than a handgun and other than a dangerous ordnance that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon and that any of the following applies:

* * *

(4) The weapon was being transported in a motor vehicle for any lawful purpose, was not on the actor's person, and, if the weapon was a firearm, was carried in compliance with the applicable requirements of division (C) of section 2923.16 of the Revised Code. In case the plain wording of the statute is not enough to convince you, consider that two people in Ohio have already been convicted of transporting an unloaded pistol in a motor vehicle under this Senate modification (State v. Derenda L. Borham, Delaware Municipal Court # 06-CRB-969 and State v. Davis 166 Ohio App.3d 37). In Davis, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court, upholding the conviction. That case is currently pending in front of the Ohio Supreme Court, and is expected to be upheld with a similar ruling. (See http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/clerk_of_court/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2006&number=0826&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp)

As if the above is not bad enough, the final insult is that the Senate has been aware of this problem for more than two years, and has failed to take even the most limited action to correct the situation. The House version of HB347 contained a “fix” for this trap. The Senate stripped it out, and refused to reinstate it through proffered amendments. More recently, a "fix" was prepared as an amendment to the Transportation budget. It was presented and subsequently rejected.

It is well past time to fix this felony trap for gun owners in Ohio. It simply is not credible, in light of the overwhelming case law on this issue, to say “there is not a problem” with current law. There is a problem, it has been clearly identified, and it is not a case of “rogue judges” deciding the law incorrectly.

Every day the Senate continues to reject a fix to this trap is another day someone unknowingly risks a felony conviction for driving to the gun range with an unloaded handgun in their car.

Until the Senate is willing to step up and fix this known problem, the reader is urged to transport their firearms in accordance with Federal law, which preempts state law. 18 USC 926A
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3581.html).