OH: Lawmakers hung up on hiring restrictions in Second Amendment "sanctuary" bill
A measure eliminating federal firearm provisions from Ohio law is facing a skeptical audience in the Statehouse. Drafters modeled the so-called Second Amendment Preservation Act on a recent Missouri law currently tied up in federal court.
Supporters are particularly angry about regulations proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They’ve repeatedly raised an upcoming regulation on pistol braces. By removing any reference to federal law and dangling significant fines, they argue, local agencies will not be able to assist federal agencies.
Opponents throughout the law enforcement community contend those changes would be disastrous. Not only would it threaten participation in federal task forces, it would also hamper investigations by closing off access to federal databases like one tracking ballistics.
Since introducing the proposal in March, supporters argue they’ve tailored the bill to address concerns. Tuesday, they expected to introduce that new version in committee. But at the outset, chairman Rep. Bob Peterson, R-Sabina, told the panel they would not be considering the substitute bill or taking up the measure for a vote.
Supporters’ reception didn’t get much better from there.
Easily the biggest sticking point is a provision that seemingly restricts local agencies from hiring former federal employees. Former Missouri state representative Jered Taylor spoke on behalf of the group Ohio Gun Owners. The Republican sponsor of Missouri’s version of the law argued if someone is going to “enforce federal tyranny on the Ohio citizens, why would we want them to come over and continue to enforce that on our citizens if we believe that it’s unconstitutional?”
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/05/24/lawmakers-hung-up-on-hiring-restrictions-in-second-amendment-sanctuary-bill/
= new reply since forum marked as read
