To amend sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41, 311.42, 311.43, 1547.69, 2921.13, 2923.11, 2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.122, 2923.123, 2923.124, 2923.125, 2923.126, 2923.127, 2923.128, 2923.129, 2923.1210, 2923.1211, 2923.1213, 2923.16, 2953.35, and 5502.411 and to repeal section 2923.111 of the Revised Code to repeal the changes made by S.B. 215 of the 134th General Assembly to the laws regarding a concealed handgun licensee's duty to carry the license and notify law enforcement if the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun and to rename concealed handgun licenses as basic competency licenses.
HB348 would revise Ohio’s concealed-carry laws by repealing the changes made by S.B. 215 of the 134th General Assembly and renaming concealed handgun licenses as “basic competency licenses.” The bill updates a broad set of Revised Code sections to replace the current terminology throughout Ohio’s firearms laws, including provisions governing license applications, renewals, temporary emergency licenses, reciprocity with other states, law-enforcement notification duties, prohibited places, suspension and revocation procedures, records confidentiality, and related criminal penalties. It also makes conforming changes to statutes covering firearms in vehicles, vessels, schools, courthouses, liquor permit premises, and emergency powers.
In practical terms, the bill would restore the pre-S.B. 215 rule that a licensee must promptly inform law enforcement when carrying a concealed handgun during a stop, and it would continue to require licensees to carry valid documentation in certain encounters. The bill also preserves the existing licensing framework administered by county sheriffs, including background checks, training requirements, fee structures, reciprocity, and temporary emergency licensing, while changing the label of the license itself across the code. It additionally maintains confidentiality protections for license records and keeps the current system of suspensions, revocations, and expungement eligibility tied to firearms-related offenses.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant but largely technical in structure: it would not create a new licensing system, but it would rewrite Ohio’s firearms statutes to reflect the new terminology and to undo the specific concealed-carry notification and license-carry changes enacted by S.B. 215. It would affect sheriffs, the attorney general, the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, license applicants and holders, law enforcement officers, employers, property owners, schools, courts, and other entities subject to firearms restrictions or immunity provisions. It also includes emergency-powers language limiting government restrictions on lawful firearms activity during declared emergencies.
The general sentiment reflected in the available context is limited because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s sponsors and the nature of the changes, the measure appears to be a pro-gun-rights rollback of a prior concealed-carry requirement, with an emphasis on simplifying terminology and reducing obligations on license holders. Because there is no recorded debate here, no formal support or opposition is documented in the supplied history.
The main point of contention is likely the repeal of the duty to carry the license and promptly notify law enforcement during a stop, which would be viewed by supporters as reducing burdens on lawful gun owners and by opponents as weakening officer safety and situational awareness. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s broader expansion and codification of firearms-related protections, including restrictions on government emergency regulation and liability protections for private and public entities. The bill also touches on sensitive areas such as school zones, courthouses, liquor permit premises, and employer/property-owner policies, which are common flashpoints in firearms legislation.
HB348 would amend a wide range of Ohio firearms and licensing statutes to replace “concealed handgun license” with “basic competency license,” while preserving the existing county-sheriff licensing system, background checks, training standards, reciprocity, suspension/revocation rules, and confidentiality provisions. It would also repeal section 2923.111 and undo the S.B. 215 changes related to a licensee’s duty to carry the license and notify law enforcement during a stop, affecting license holders, sheriffs, law enforcement, employers, property owners, and institutions subject to firearms restrictions.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the supplied history. The bill’s sponsors and text indicate a favorable posture toward concealed carry rights and a desire to roll back prior notification requirements, suggesting support from gun-rights advocates. At the same time, the changes would likely draw opposition from those concerned about officer safety, public safety, and the expansion of firearms-related protections.
The most notable controversy is the repeal of the duty to carry the license and promptly notify law enforcement when armed during a stop, which supporters would characterize as reducing unnecessary burdens and opponents would likely view as reducing officer awareness. Additional likely points of contention include the bill’s emergency-powers restrictions on government firearms regulation, its liability protections for private and public entities, and its treatment of firearms in sensitive locations such as schools, courthouses, liquor permit premises, and government buildings. The bill also changes terminology throughout the code, which is largely technical but tied to the broader policy dispute over concealed-carry regulation.