vanagon40
Member
I did not see anything posted on this since January. Ohio Bill 234 amends Ohio Revised Code Section 109.69 to provide the Ohio will recognize concealed carry permits from all other states:
Section 109.69(B)(3).
However, there is a Catch-22 in the language. This was likely an unintentional omission by the legislature.
Section 109.69(B) provides: “If, on or after the effective date of this amendment, a person who is not a resident of this state has a valid concealed handgun license that was issued by another license-issuing state . . . .”
However, “valid concealed handgun license” is defined. Section 109.69(D)(1) provides that “valid concealed handgun license” has the same meanings as in section 2923.11. Section 2923.11(O) states that a “‘valid concealed handgun license’ or ‘valid license to carry a concealed handgun’ means a concealed handgun license that is currently valid . . . .” Section 2923.11(N)(1) provides:
The argument would be that a person who is not an Ohio resident has a “valid concealed handgun license” that was issued by another license-issuing state only if the license was issued by a state with a reciprocity agreement. This would entirely defeat what appears to be the intended purpose of the new provision. It would also render that provision a nullity.
However, under a strict reading of the statute, by definition, a person has a “valid concealed handgun license” only if the license was issued by a state with a reciprocity agreement.
Am I missing something here?
If, on or after the effective date of this amendment, a person who is not a resident of this state has a valid concealed handgun license that was issued by another license-issuing state, regardless of whether the other license-issuing state has entered into a reciprocity agreement with the attorney general under division (A)(1) of this section, and the person is temporarily in this state, during the time that the person is temporarily in this state the license issued by the other license-issuing state shall be recognized in this state, shall be accepted and valid in this state, and grants the person the same right to carry a concealed handgun in this state as a person who was issued a concealed handgun license under section 2923.125 of the Revised Code.
Section 109.69(B)(3).
However, there is a Catch-22 in the language. This was likely an unintentional omission by the legislature.
Section 109.69(B) provides: “If, on or after the effective date of this amendment, a person who is not a resident of this state has a valid concealed handgun license that was issued by another license-issuing state . . . .”
However, “valid concealed handgun license” is defined. Section 109.69(D)(1) provides that “valid concealed handgun license” has the same meanings as in section 2923.11. Section 2923.11(O) states that a “‘valid concealed handgun license’ or ‘valid license to carry a concealed handgun’ means a concealed handgun license that is currently valid . . . .” Section 2923.11(N)(1) provides:
“Concealed handgun license” or “license to carry a concealed handgun” means, subject to division (N)(2) of this section, a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun issued under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code.
The argument would be that a person who is not an Ohio resident has a “valid concealed handgun license” that was issued by another license-issuing state only if the license was issued by a state with a reciprocity agreement. This would entirely defeat what appears to be the intended purpose of the new provision. It would also render that provision a nullity.
However, under a strict reading of the statute, by definition, a person has a “valid concealed handgun license” only if the license was issued by a state with a reciprocity agreement.
Am I missing something here?
Last edited: