To amend sections 2923.11, 2923.111, 2923.122, and 2923.17 and to enact section 2923.50 of the Revised Code to enact the Second Amendment Protection Act to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms.
HB382, titled the Second Amendment Protection Act, would substantially revise Ohio’s firearms statutes to expand lawful carrying rights and limit state cooperation with federal firearms regulation. The bill redefines several terms in the criminal code, including “handgun,” “dangerous ordnance,” and “qualifying adult,” and it creates a new framework under which adults age 21 and older who are otherwise legally eligible to possess firearms may carry a concealed handgun without first obtaining a concealed handgun license. Under the bill, such qualifying adults would be treated, for most legal purposes, as if they held a valid concealed handgun license when carrying a non-restricted handgun, while remaining subject to the same restrictions that apply to license holders.
The bill also changes school-zone and dangerous-ordnance provisions. It preserves the general prohibition on bringing deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance into school safety zones, but it updates exemptions and clarifies when licensed adults, active-duty military members, school-authorized personnel, and certain others may possess handguns or training objects in those zones. In addition, it revises the dangerous-ordnance definition to expressly exclude handguns with braces or stabilizing devices and certain firearms approved by federal authorities, while maintaining criminal penalties for unlawful possession, conveyance, or manufacture of prohibited weapons and explosives.
A major feature of HB382 is a new section barring state and local public offices, officers, and employees from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of federal laws, orders, rules, or regulations concerning firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. The bill would also create civil liability and a $50,000 penalty per occurrence for violations by government employers of law enforcement officers, while allowing limited exceptions for certain violent felony prosecutions, ballistic-information investigations, inter-jurisdictional task forces unrelated to firearms, and other narrow circumstances. The measure includes legislative findings asserting state authority over firearms regulation and rejecting federal measures that restrict firearms within Ohio.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant: it would repeal and replace portions of Ohio’s firearms definitions and concealed-carry framework, reduce the practical need for concealed handgun licenses for eligible adults, and impose a state-level noncooperation rule toward federal gun enforcement. It would also affect schools, law enforcement agencies, public employers, firearm owners, concealed-carry licensees, and prosecutors by changing who may carry, where firearms may be possessed, and how state and local officials may interact with federal firearms policy.
Because HB382 was only introduced and has no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text itself, the measure is strongly pro-gun-rights and anti-federal-enforcement in orientation, so support would likely come from Second Amendment advocates and opponents would likely focus on public-safety, school-safety, and federal-state conflict concerns. The main points of contention are the permitless concealed-carry expansion, the school-zone exceptions, and the prohibition on state and local cooperation with federal firearms enforcement.
HB382 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 2923.11, 2923.111, 2923.122, and 2923.17 and add new section 2923.50, changing firearm definitions, concealed-carry rules, school safety zone exceptions, and dangerous-ordnance offenses. It would effectively create permitless concealed carry for qualifying adults carrying non-restricted handguns, while also restricting state and local participation in federal firearms enforcement and creating civil penalties for violations. The bill would directly affect firearm owners, concealed-carry licensees, schools, law enforcement agencies, and public offices across the state.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented public debate or roll-call sentiment in the materials. The bill’s text reflects a strongly pro-Second Amendment position, emphasizing individual gun rights, state sovereignty, and resistance to federal firearms regulation. Any support would likely come from gun-rights advocates, while opposition would likely come from public-safety advocates, school officials, and those concerned about limits on federal-state cooperation.
The most likely points of contention are the permitless concealed-carry provisions, the broadened treatment of qualifying adults as if they held concealed handgun licenses, and the bill’s restrictions on state and local enforcement of federal firearms laws. Critics would likely argue that the measure weakens licensing safeguards, complicates school-safety enforcement, and creates conflict with federal authorities. Supporters would likely defend it as a protection of constitutional rights and a rejection of federal overreach. The school-safety-zone provisions and the civil liability/penalty scheme for government noncooperation are also likely to be controversial.