A slate of new bills in the Ohio General Assembly aims to tighten firearm regulations, reigniting the state’s ongoing debate over gun policy.
The Buckeye Firearms Association recently sounded the alarm on a gun control legislative package that could set Second Amendment rights back in Ohio.
Several bills stand out:
House Bill 45:
This bill seeks to amend section 2923.11 and enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code. This bill is focused on prohibiting federally licensed firearms dealers from transferring a firearm to an individual unless the transferee passes a background check. Specifically, it requires a waiting period of at least ten days after the dealer contacts the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and receives a unique identification number before transferring the firearm.
For gun rights advocates, a waiting period could be seen as an unnecessary delay for lawful citizens seeking to buy firearms. Further, another layer of background checks represents an unnecessary regulatory hoop for prospective gun buyers.
House Bill 46:
This bill, titled the “Extreme Risk Protection Order Act,” proposes amendments to existing sections of the Ohio Revised Code and enacts new sections to establish a legal framework for issuing red flag gun confiscation orders. The purpose of the bill is to allow certain individuals, such as family or household members and police, to petition courts for orders that temporarily confiscate a person’s firearms if they believe said individual poses a significant danger of causing injury to themselves or others by possessing firearms.
Red flag legislation raises concerns about basic civil liberties, especially if the orders are issued without the respondent’s prior knowledge (ex parte orders) or chance to defend themselves beforehand. This is commonly perceived as a lack of due process, as individuals may lose their firearms based on flimsy allegations without immediate recourse.
House Bill 337:
This bill puts forward an amendment to section 2923.25 of the Revised Code. It requires federally licensed firearms dealers to provide and attach gun trigger locks, gun locks, or gun locking devices to firearms at the time of sale. Dealers are also required to offer other suitable gun locking devices for sale, if available.
Like most gun control regulations, the requirement for federally licensed firearms dealers to provide and attach gun trigger locks or other locking devices to firearms at the time of sale represents an unnecessary burden on gun ownership. This mandate could increase costs for firearms dealers, which might be passed on to consumers, thereby pricing out prospective buyers of humbler economic stature.
House Bill 348:
This bill introduces amendments to various sections of the Ohio Revised Code related to concealed handgun licenses, thereby repealing the state’s Constitutional Carry law. This new proposal repeals changes made by Senate Bill 215 of the 134th General Assembly regarding a concealed handgun licensee’s duty to carry the license and notify law enforcement if they are carrying a concealed handgun. In effect, gun owners will have to beg the government for permission to exercise an otherwise God-given right to carry a firearm.
House Bill 350:
This bill looks to amend sections 2923.13 and 2923.14 and enact section 2923.133 of the Revised Code. The bill aims to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of bump-fire devices, trigger cranks, and other items that accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm without converting it into an automatic firearm. HB 350 represents another attempt to infringe on gun ownership by placing restrictions on firearms accessories and people’s ability to modify firearms in a peaceful manner.
Dean Rieck, executive director of Buckeye Firearms Association, expressed his frustration with this latest slate of gun control bills. He described them as a repeated effort to undermine gun rights.
“Democrats are like Dr. Frankenstein,” Rieck said. “They keep trying to resurrect the dead. We killed these bills in past legislative sessions. But here they are lumbering and groaning their way back to life. But we’ve seen this movie and we know how it ends.”
“We’ll fight these bills same as always and will continue protecting the rights of Ohio’s 4 million gun owners,” he concluded.
Whether these proposals gain traction remains uncertain in a Republican-controlled legislature. After all, Republicans hold decisive 65-34 and 24-9 advantages in the State House and State Senate, respectively.
Nevertheless, the introduction of these bills and other anti-gun measures signals a persistent push to undermine gun rights in the Buckeye State. This will require gun owners to constantly keep tabs on their elected officials to prevent any unexpected surprises from arising during the legislative season.
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
