To amend sections 2923.123 and 2923.14 of the Revised Code to allow a concealed handgun licensee to carry a handgun in a building or structure that is not a courthouse but in which a courtroom is located in specified circumstances and to permit a nonresident of Ohio to obtain statutory relief from firearms disability based on an Ohio conviction, guilty plea, or delinquent child adjudication.
HB68 would revise Ohio’s firearms laws in two main ways. First, it creates a new exception to the state’s courtroom weapons ban for concealed handgun licensees, allowing them to carry or possess a handgun in a government building or structure that contains a courtroom, so long as the building is not a courthouse, the court and clerk’s office are not operating, and the local governing body has adopted a statute, ordinance, or policy allowing concealed carry in that building. The bill also preserves the existing ability of licensees and certain active-duty military members to surrender a handgun to the officer in charge of a courthouse or courtroom building when that service is offered.
Second, HB68 expands who may seek relief from firearms disability under Ohio law. It would allow a nonresident of Ohio to apply for statutory relief in the county where the relevant Ohio indictment, conviction, guilty plea, or delinquent child adjudication occurred, rather than limiting applications to residents filing in their county of residence. The relief process itself remains subject to court review, prosecutor investigation, and findings that the applicant has been fully discharged, has lived lawfully since then, and is not otherwise barred from possessing firearms.
The bill would amend Revised Code sections 2923.123 and 2923.14 and repeal the existing versions of those sections. In practical terms, it would narrow the reach of the courtroom weapons prohibition in certain local government buildings and broaden access to firearms-rights restoration for people with Ohio-based disqualifying records who live outside the state. It would also continue to recognize court and local-rule authority to impose stricter weapons restrictions in courthouses and courtroom buildings.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative sentiment to measure from floor action. Based on the bill’s content, it appears to reflect a pro–Second Amendment approach, especially by expanding concealed-carry access in certain government buildings and by making firearms-disability relief available to nonresidents with Ohio cases.
The main point of contention is likely the courtroom-carry provision. Supporters would likely view it as a limited, conditional expansion of lawful carry rights in buildings that are not courthouses, while opponents may argue it increases safety risks in government facilities where court operations occur. The nonresident relief provision could also draw scrutiny over whether Ohio should extend firearms-rights restoration to people who do not live in the state, though the bill keeps judicial screening and prosecutor review in place.
HB68 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 2923.123 and 2923.14. Section 2923.123 would be revised to create a new exception allowing concealed handgun licensees to carry in certain non-courthouse government buildings containing courtrooms when the court and clerk are closed and local policy permits it, while leaving the general prohibition on weapons in courthouses and courtroom buildings intact. Section 2923.14 would be amended to let nonresidents seek relief from firearms disability in the Ohio county tied to the underlying Ohio indictment, conviction, guilty plea, or delinquent child adjudication, expanding eligibility for restoration of firearm rights beyond Ohio residents.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to be generally favorable to firearm rights and concealed carry, suggesting support from lawmakers who favor broader lawful carry and restoration of rights. At the same time, the courtroom-location exception likely raises public-safety concerns for those who favor stricter weapons restrictions around courts and government buildings.
The most notable controversy is the new allowance for concealed handgun licensees to carry in a building or structure that contains a courtroom but is not a courthouse. Critics may view this as weakening courtroom security, while supporters may emphasize that it applies only when the court and clerk’s office are not operating and only if local authorities have affirmatively allowed it. A second area of possible contention is the expansion of firearms-disability relief to nonresidents, which may be seen either as a fair way to address Ohio-based convictions or as an unnecessary broadening of access to firearm rights for people who live elsewhere.