Court ruling; Past drug minor misdemeanor drug convictions takes away right to carry

[Hopyard]

Here is an outline of what current Ohio law says;

Ohio Concealed Carry
Qualifying/Disqualifying Factors
Age: 21 years or older
Residency: Legal Resident of United States & Ohio resident for 45 days in county of application or
adjoining county for 30 days
Training: Completion of 12 hour certified firearm program UNLESS waived because of law
enforcement employment or military service (Within past SIX years).
DISQUALIFYING Criminal History/Legal Background:
PENDING Indictment or Criminal charges for:
• Any FELONY offense
• Any DRUG offense (Felony OR Misdemeanor)

Well, that clear it up. It is Ohio law and not the judge that makes any drug offense a disqualification.

As the school teachers always tell the kiddos--- "it goes on your permanent record."

A bit harsh indeed, and personally I wouldn't applaud the harshness, but I suppose the Ohio legislature at least thought they were doing right when they passed it. What will be interesting, in the future, is whether or not such a provision will prove constitutional based on the supremes utterance that it is ok to restrict gun possession of felons. Does that mean it is also ok to restrict gun possession for folks who have done misdemeanors or does that mean only felons can have their right restricted? Time will tell.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIXTO]

Well, that clear it up. It is Ohio law and not the judge that makes any drug offense a disqualification.

As the school teachers always tell the kiddos--- "it goes on your permanent record."

A bit harsh indeed, and personally I wouldn't applaud the harshness, but I suppose the Ohio legislature at least thought they were doing right when they passed it. What will be interesting, in the future, is whether or not such a provision will prove constitutional based on the supremes utterance that it is ok to restrict gun possession of felons. Does that mean it is also ok to restrict gun possession for folks who have done misdemeanors or does that mean only felons can have their right restricted? Time will tell.

...and there is this in Ohio law; 2923.14 reads;

2923.14 Relief from weapons disability.

(A) Any person who, solely by reason of the person’s disability under division (A)(2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, is prohibited from acquiring, having, carrying, or using firearms, may apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the person resides for relief from such prohibition.

(B) The application shall recite the following:

(1) All indictments, convictions, or adjudications upon which the applicant’s disability is based, the sentence imposed and served, and any release granted under a community control sanction, post-release control sanction, or parole, any partial or conditional pardon granted, or other disposition of each case;

(2) Facts showing the applicant to be a fit subject for relief under this section.

(C) A copy of the application shall be served on the county prosecutor. The county prosecutor shall cause the matter to be investigated and shall raise before the court any objections to granting relief that the investigation reveals.

(D) Upon hearing, the court may grant the applicant relief pursuant to this section, if all of the following apply:

(1) The applicant has been fully discharged from imprisonment, community control, post-release control, and parole, or, if the applicant is under indictment, has been released on bail or recognizance.

(2) The applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely to continue to do so.

(3) The applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring, having, or using firearms.

(E) Costs of the proceeding shall be charged as in other civil cases, and taxed to the applicant.

(F) Relief from disability granted pursuant to this section:

(1) Applies only with respect to indictments, convictions, or adjudications recited in the application;

(2) Applies only with respect to firearms lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used by the applicant;

(3) Does not apply with respect to dangerous ordnance;

(4) May be revoked by the court at any time for good cause shown and upon notice to the applicant;

(5) Is automatically void upon commission by the applicant of any offense set forth in division (A)(2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, or upon the applicant’s becoming one of the class of persons named in division (A)(1), (4), or (5) of that section.

(G) As used in this section:

(1) “Community control sanction” has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) “Post-release control” and “post-release control sanction” have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.

[morintp]

Agreed 100%. However, what scares me is the fact that a minor infraction years ago will take away a right.

What scared me about the whole thing is that this could very easily be the first step in removing 2A altogether. Felons and domestic violence offenses are no-brainers. Now lets get rid of 2A for other misdemeanors like drug offenses. That's a huge amount of people right there. Next we can go after the 2A rights for any crime. Jaywalking, anyone? Who will speak up for them? They've all broken the law.

IMO, we should pick the laws that we really want to keep, vigorously enforce them, and ditch the rest. Murder, theft, rape, fraud, tax evasion, drunk driving, plus a whole bunch of others would obviously remain illegal. Other crimes that don't affect anyone but the "criminal" like drug use would go the way of prohibition.

[QKShooter]

Not intending to make any sort of religious argument here save to make a simple "statement of known fact" that America was founded based Judea/Christian principle and if both of those religions teach anything it's that human beings sometimes make mistakes and then redeem themselves to become valuable, contributing, and worthwhile members of society.
This law would seem to smack that teaching right across the face especially for a long past minor misdemeanor.

[Hopyard]

Not intending to make any sort of religious argument here save to make a simple "statement of known fact" that America was founded based Judea/Christian principle and if both of those religions teach anything it's that human beings sometimes make mistakes and then redeem themselves to become valuable, contributing, and worthwhile members of society.
This law would seem to smack that teaching right across the face especially for a long past minor misdemeanor.

QK, I'm all for redemption and second chances, but too often that isn't how things work. About 25 years back I knew a young man who desperately wanted to become a police officer. He couldn't get hired because he was honest about having once stolen a street sign as a kid. I don't know which one I rate as the more serious matter, taking that street sign or buying and using a substance such as weed. Who do we gift with the decision on such matters? I see rather clearly why the affected officers Sixto mentions are upset, but then perhaps they'd not have been hired in the first place if thoroughly vetted at the time they were hired.

If I were King I'd have a tough decision and I don't know how I would come down on this one.

[n3ss]

street sign is someone elses property, marijuana is a plant. there shouldn't even be such thing as a misdemeanor for drug possession.

[Hopyard]

street sign is someone elses property, marijuana is a plant. there shouldn't even be such thing as a misdemeanor for drug possession.

"Shouldn't" is a value judgment. Bottom line here is that folks have engaged in minor criminal activity and we should not be hiring or retaining as officers individuals who have deliberately broken our criminal law.

So, it really doesn't matter much to me if the crime was misdemeanor theft or misdemeanor drug use or public intoxication or disorderly conduct. I want officers with clean records.

[dukalmighty]

Wait until they go after people that take anti-depressants,or have chronic pain and take legally prescribed pain meds