To amend section 2923.126 of the Revised Code to allow members of the General Assembly, statewide elected officials, judges, and magistrates to carry a concealed handgun in a government facility of the state or a political subdivision.
HB 460 would amend Ohio’s concealed carry law, section 2923.126 of the Revised Code, to create a narrow exception allowing certain public officials to carry concealed handguns in government facilities. Specifically, the bill would permit members of the General Assembly, statewide elected officials, judges, and magistrates to carry in a state or local government building, so long as they have a valid concealed handgun license and carry validating identification. The bill also defines “government facility” and “validating identification” for this purpose.
Beyond that targeted change, the bill largely restates and reorganizes existing concealed carry provisions. It continues to list prohibited locations such as police stations, jails, courthouses, schools, certain airport areas, and places where federal law bars firearms. It also preserves rules allowing private property owners, employers, colleges, nonprofits, and political subdivisions to regulate firearms on their premises, while maintaining liability protections for those entities in many circumstances.
The bill would directly amend Ohio Revised Code section 2923.126, expanding where a limited class of concealed handgun license holders may lawfully carry by carving out an exception for legislators, statewide elected officials, judges, and magistrates in government facilities. It would not broadly change concealed carry rights for the general public, but it would alter the restrictions applicable to public buildings owned or leased by the state or political subdivisions. The bill also retains and restates existing immunity and trespass provisions affecting private employers, political subdivisions, institutions of higher education, nonprofits, landlords, and property owners.
The bill appears to have been introduced without recorded committee testimony or votes in the available materials, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the text, the proposal is framed as a security and access measure for certain public officials rather than a broad firearms expansion. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided history means the overall sentiment cannot be determined from votes, but the bill’s narrow scope suggests it is intended to be a targeted policy change.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s creation of a special concealed-carry privilege for a select group of elected and judicial officials inside government facilities, while leaving the general prohibition in place for other license holders. Supporters would likely view this as a safety and self-protection measure for officials who work in public buildings, while opponents may see it as an unequal exception that weakens firearm restrictions in government spaces. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with local control and building security policies, since it allows carrying in government facilities unless a governing body adopts a contrary policy, but also creates an automatic exception for the listed officials.