Though the House Government Oversight Committee delayed action on a substitute version of HB51 (Loychik-Schmidt), the Second Amendment Preservation Act, the sponsor of the similar Missouri legislation now making its way through federal court told Ohio lawmakers Tuesday that it is imperative to act sooner than later, noting a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) rule that will go into effect in just over a week that will limit pistol braces.

Committee Chair Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) opened the hearing by saying they would not be accepting the latest substitute version of the bill nor voting on it this week.

Jered Taylor, who recently termed out of the Missouri House of Representatives and sponsored that state’s version of the bill, returned to speak to the Government Oversight Committee on behalf of Ohio Gun Owners after testifying on the bill in early March. (See The Hannah Report, 3/7/23.) He said during that testimony, a federal judge had just struck down the Missouri law and he had not had a chance to review the ruling. Now that he has, he said that the judge completely failed to recognize the main constitutional principle the bill was founded on, the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Missouri attorney general has appealed the ruling, and Taylor said the decision has been stayed so the law is still in effect.

He noted that the substitute bill that would have been accepted by the committee Tuesday trimmed down the previous version and eliminates a few sections he said weren’t necessary for enforcement. He also said the sub bill removed a section that listed the specific rules, laws, and taxes that the General Assembly deemed unconstitutional, as this section wasn’t necessary and caused a potential sticking point under legal challenge.

He also outlined various exemptions in the bill that he said would still give law enforcement tools to cooperate with federal authorities while providing protections for law abiding citizens.

Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) said there are concerns about language in the bill that would prevent local law enforcement agencies from hiring a former federal law enforcement officer. Taylor said that the bill does have a prohibition on an officer that has enforced federal tyranny in Ohio, asking why Ohio citizens would want to have local law enforcement hire individuals who have violated their rights. Seitz said the language doesn’t specifically apply to an individual found to be guilty of tyranny of any person’s rights and asked Taylor if the language goes too far. Taylor said he doesn’t think it does.

Seitz also said that while he appreciates the clarification of exemptions in the yet-to-be accepted sub bill, he noted that often when there is cooperation with federal agencies, the local or state agency does not know the extent of the investigation and said he is interested in safe harbors for permissible cooperation that does not constitute providing material aid or support.

Taylor responded to Seitz, saying that after the Missouri bill passed, there was a “knee-jerk reaction” among law enforcement agencies who removed themselves from federal task force, but now are going back to those agreements. He said the exemptions in the bill are very broad, and he believes a blanket safe harbor rule would be abused.

Other lawmakers also sought clarification on the federal law enforcement hiring ban. Taylor said that it would apply to individuals who previously acted under the color of federal law within the borders of Ohio.

Rep. Tavia Galonksi (D-Akron) asked Taylor if there would be a “litmus test of tyranny” before federal employees could be employed by the state and questioned how they would know if the individual has violated that test. Taylor said it would be based on the guidelines in the legislation and how the General Assembly views the particular federal law that was enforced.

Rep. Dani Issacsohn (D-Cincinnati) argued with Taylor over the appropriateness of the federal regulation on pistol braces, saying that the Dayton mass shooter had used such a device. Taylor said the braces do not change rate of fire, but are instead designed for an individual with a disability to use a weapon. Issacsohn said it can stabilize a shooter’s arm and allow for an increased rate of fire.

Rep. Jim Hoops (R-Napoleon) asked Taylor if local law enforcement supported the Missouri law. Taylor said there were many local law enforcement officers who testified in support, though there was opposition from those appointed to higher up positions. He said he isn’t aware of any sheriffs’ or police chiefs’ associations that have supported a Second Amendment rights bill. He also said they worked with law enforcement on the language, leading many agencies to become neutral.

Hoops said he knows some local sheriffs that are Second Amendment supporters but are concerned about the bill, and asked Taylor what it would take to get them on board. Taylor said they want to remove the enforcement piece of the bill that holds them accountable.

“If you are willing to gut the bill, which Ohio gun owners don’t want to do, then you can get them on board,” he said. He added that since the law took effect in Missouri, police have not spoken out against it and have still been able to do their jobs with the exemptions.

He told Rep. Elliot Forhan (D-South Euclid) that he does not agree with prosecutors that the bill would make their job harder, noting that prosecutors could still prosecute an offender under Ohio law, and that there are broad exemptions to work with federal partners to enforce federal law.

The committee also heard from about 10 opponents and received written opposition testimony from more than 40 more. Witnesses called the bill dangerous and said it will make the jobs of law enforcement more difficult. Ann Shroyer of Moms Demand Action said it could also allow those convicted of domestic violence to be able to carry a concealed weapon.

Attorney Douglas Rogers said the bill would resurrect the discarded notion of nullification, which he said was rejected in 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution required the integration of public schools in the South. He said the bill “attempts to resurrect such attitude of defiance and nullification by unilaterally nullifying and declaring invalid certain federal gun laws and regulations.”

He argued that if lawmakers believe a federal gun law is unconstitutional, it should bring action in federal court, which he said is the way it has been done for more than 200 years.

Rep. Richard Brown (D-Canal Winchester) asked Rogers if he reviewed the decision striking down the Missouri law. Rogers said he had, and believes it is a good decision.

Andrea Yagoda argued that the bill will allow someone to come from out of state and file a lawsuit even though they have not been injured. Even if the defendant prevails, she said there is no provision to award attorney fees and compensation. She said she objects to making Ohio courts complicit in violating federal law.

She also objected to the use of the term “law abiding citizen” by the sponsors and supporters, saying everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they reach the point that they break the law.