Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate hears bill to bar entities from discouraging off‑duty officers from carrying; sponsor cites precautionary rationale
Loading...
Summary
Senator Johnson introduced SB279 to prevent businesses, state agencies and political subdivisions from discouraging off‑duty law enforcement officers from carrying firearms, adding civil penalties and punitive damages; committee members probed the evidence base, accountability for misuse and whether stakeholder groups were consulted.
Senator Johnson told the Senate General Government Committee that SB279 would remove references to restrictive local or agency policies from the Ohio Revised Code and add civil penalties and punitive damages against businesses and political subdivisions that "discourage" off‑duty officers from carrying.
Johnson described the measure as "preventive in nature," saying that "when time is of the essence, when lives are on the line, I want our off duty police force empowered to act decisively." He also told the committee that the Ohio Attorney General had previously stated that public establishments cannot legally prohibit or restrict officers from carrying under Ohio law.
Committee members pressed Johnson for evidence and details. Senator Blackshear asked whether there is any data showing that off‑duty carrying reduces crime or increases public safety; Johnson answered he did not have specific data at hand and described the policy as "common sensical." Blackshear also raised hypothetical accountability scenarios — for example, an off‑duty officer acting inappropriately — and asked how investigations or liability would be handled. Johnson replied that existing Ohio laws addressing negligence and misconduct would apply.
Senator DeMauro asked whether the sponsor had consulted law‑enforcement organizations (the FOP or the Buckeye Sheriffs Association) before introducing the bill; Johnson said he had not but that he was open to stakeholder conversations going forward. Members also questioned whether SB279 would override police department policies that restrict off‑duty carrying; Johnson defended the bill’s purpose and argued for challenging policies he characterized as "archaic."
A questioner raised a concern that the bill, as read, could impose fines (a $10,000 figure was raised during questions) on businesses that post "no firearms" signage; Johnson said that qualified officers should not be stopped by signage and that existing law on carrying would apply to properly qualified law‑enforcement officers.
What happens next: SB279 received sponsor testimony and extended questioning; the committee did not vote on the measure at this hearing.
