Rep. Patmon's HB 119: NO, it doesn't ban BB guns or airsoft guns (or really do much of anything)

Earlier this month, headlines screamed the news that Ohio Rep. Bill Patmon (D-Cleveland) had introduced a bill that seeks to ban "any BB gun or gun replica that a 'reasonable person' would confuse with a real firearm."

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Newly introduced legislation in the Ohio House would prohibit the manufacture, sale, or public display of toy guns designed to look like the real thing.

Under House Bill 119, authored by Democratic state Rep. Bill Patmon of Cleveland, the ban would apply to any BB gun or gun replica that a "reasonable person" would confuse with a real firearm.

The Plain Dealer first reported it. Hours later, the Associated Press picked up on the Plain Dealer article, and from there it was repeated across Ohio by news outlets such as Dayton's Fox affiliate WRGT, and by national outlets including FoxBusiness.com and the Washington Times.

The trouble for these media outlets is, the bill doesn't appear to ban BB/pellet guns.

It's pretty obvious that the reporters who got this story going, or who picked it up off of the AP wire, didn't bother to read the bill, but after having read it myself, and having compared it to Rep. Alicia Reece's (D-Cincinnati) HB 16, I'm honestly wondering if the legislators themselves have even read their bills, because they seem to think the bills will do things they clearly will not do.

Patmon has been quoted as saying Reece's bill "doesn't go far enough," but a comparison of the two bills reveals that the differences aren't much more than cosmetic. In fact, the bills are so similar that it can be reasonably concluded that if Patmon had only been interested in making a few small changes to the bill, he could simply have proposed them as amendments in committee, instead of introducing his own version of the bill. But amending the bill wouldn't have earned him the attention he so clearly seeks.

Like Reece's HB 16, Patmon's HB 119 seeks to define all paintball guns, all BB/pellet guns, and all airsoft guns as "BB devices." The language used in the two bills is identical.

Also like Reece's bill, Patmon seeks to define an "imitation firearm" as a "device that is so substantially similar in overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm." The "imitation firearm" definition differs only in one respect: Reece's bill excludes "toy guns" that aren't BB devices and takes color into consideration, while Patmon's bill contains no exemption for "toy guns" and specifically states that the definition applies "regardless of color."

After defining the terms, both bills then state that the sale (and, in the case of Patmon's bill, the manufacture) of "imitation firearms" should be banned after January 1, 2016. Again, the language is nearly identical. Reece's bill bans sales "for commercial purposes," while Patmon's does not include the commercial purposes language.

I'm pretty sure this is where the reporters and legislators stopped reading, because immediately following this prohibition on sales of "imitation firearms," both bills contain a lengthy and most interesting list of exceptions.

From Patmon's HB 119:

Sec. 2923.52 . (A) No person shall knowingly manufacture an imitation firearm in this state on or after January 1, 2016.
(B) No person shall knowingly sell an imitation firearm in this state on or after January 1, 2016.
...
(D) Division (A) of this section does not apply to the manufacture, and division (B) of this section does not apply to the sale, of any of the following:

(1) A nonfiring collector's replica that is historically significant and is offered for sale in conjunction with a wall plaque or presentation case;
(2) A BB device that is a spot marker gun that expels a projectile that is greater than 10mm caliber;
(3) A BB device that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that is other than 6mm or 8mm caliber;
(4) A BB device that is an airsoft gun that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that is 6mm or 8mm caliber, if the device complies with the requirements of federal law;
(5) An imitation firearm that contains, or has affixed to it, a marking that complies with the requirements of federal law that apply to that imitation firearm.

And from Reece's HB 16:

Sec. 2923.52 . (A) No person, for commercial purposes, shall knowingly sell an imitation firearm in this state on or after January 1, 2016.
...
(C) Division (A) of this section does not apply to the sale of any of the following:
(1) A nonfiring collector's replica that is historically significant and is offered for sale in conjunction with a wall plaque or presentation case;
(2) A BB device that is a spot marker gun that expels a projectile that is greater than 10mm caliber;
(3) A BB device that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that is other than 6mm or 8mm caliber;
(4) A BB device that is an airsoft gun that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that is 6mm or 8mm caliber, if the device contains the blaze orange ring on the barrel required by federal law, has a trigger guard that has fluorescent coloration over the entire guard, and meets either of the following:
(a) If the airsoft gun is configured as a handgun, there is a two centimeter wide adhesive band around the circumference of the protruding pistol grip that has fluorescent coloration and the adhesive band is applied in a manner not intended for removal and is in place on the airsoft gun prior to sale to a customer;
(b) If the airsoft gun is configured as a rifle or long gun, there is a two centimeter wide adhesive band with fluorescent coloring, applied in a manner and in place as described in division (C)(4)(a) of this section, around the circumference of any two or more of the following:
(i) The protruding pistol grip;
(ii) The buttstock;
(iii) A protruding ammunition magazine or clip.
(5) A device the entire exterior surface of which is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern;
(6) A device that is entirely constructed of transparent or translucent materials that permits unmistakable observation of the device's complete contents.

Do both bills allow the sale of BB/pellet guns, such as the one being brandished by John Crawford in that Dayton-area Walmart last summer?

YES. Neither Reece's nor Patmon's bans apply to the sale of "a BB device that expels a projectile, such as a BB or pellet, that is other than 6mm or 8mm caliber." The BB/pellet guns are commonly used to train safe gun handling skills, and that have appeared prominently on the Christmas wish lists of American children for generations, are .177 caliber (4.5mm).

What about airsoft guns, which are typically 6mm or 8mm, such as the one Tamir Rice can be seen drawing from his waistband when confronted by police in a Cleveland park last fall?

YES. They're exempted too. Patmon's bill allows the sale "if the device complies with the requirements of federal law" (i.e. no change from current law). Reece's bill also allows the sale "if the device contains the blaze orange ring on the barrel required by federal law," (NOTE: no such ring is required by federal law. See Title 15 (B)(II)(H) §272.1.), and "has a trigger guard that has fluorescent coloration over the entire guard" as well as a 2cm flourescent band on the grip of the airsoft handgun or, for airsoft long guns, on at least two of the following: the pistol grip, the buttstock, or the ammunition magazine. (Note: No provision is made in Reece's bill for airsoft long guns that do not contain two of these three components, so if her bill became law, ALL airsoft long guns would necessarily need to be manufacturered to more closely resemble modern sporting rifles.) Reece's bill also allows airsoft guns if their entire exterior is brightly colored or translucent - something that we've pointed out before would do nothing to help law enforcement distinguish it from a firearm.

Are paintball guns also still allowed under these bills?

YES. Neither Reece's nor Patmon's bans apply to the sale of "a BB device that is a spot marker gun that expels a projectile that is greater than 10mm caliber." Although paintballs come in various sizes, the most common caliber, considered to be the standard, is .68 (17.2mm). Even paintball guns chambnered in specialized calibers are still large enough to be exempted - .43 (10.9mm) and .50 (12.7mm).

Moving on, both Patmon's and Reece's bills seek to prohibit modification of the imitation firearm to make it look more like a firearm. Reece's exempts manufacturers and theatrical productions, while Patmon's does not include the manufacturer exemption.

Both bills seek to prohibit modification of an actual firearm to look like an "imitation firearm."

Both bills seek to prohibit the "public display of an imitation firearm," and both contain identical definitions of "public places." Reece's bill would exempt an "imitation firearm" from the ban on public display "if it is packaged or concealed so that it is not subject to public viewing" and also exempts "imitation guns" from the ban on public display if they meet the requirements for color or translucence as mentioned above. Patmon's bill contains no such exemption or mention of color.

Finally, both bills seek to mandate that warning labels be included with the sale of imitation firearms, warning that the device may be mistaken by law enforcement for a real firearm, that it may be against the law to alter the device's appearance to look more like a real firearm, etc. Reece's bill enforces this mandate only on manufacturers, importers or distributors and contains increasingly harsh fines for multiple convictions, while Patmon's bill seeks to enforce it on all "persons" but contains no language about the gradient fines.

So what do we really have here? When it comes right down to it, it is difficult to determine much of anything these bills actually accomplish by way of a ban. But they sure do help Bill Patmon, who has already re-introduced three pieces of failed legislation, continue his apparent goal of becoming known as Ohio's top anti-gun rights legislator, and that's really what this seems to be all about.

It most definitely is NOT, as Patmon claims, about the guns John Crawford and Tamir Rice were holding when they were shot by police last year, since neither type would be banned under his bill.

From WRGT, Dayton's FOX affiliate:

Avid shooter and gun rights advocate Joe Eaton...is also the Treasurer on the Board of Directors for the Buckeye Firearms Association.

"It (the bill proposal) is looking to solve a problem that is unsolvable with legislation. New laws are not going to change any of these horrific and tragic events that we've seen," said Eaton.

Eaton says police are not focused on whether someone is holding a toy or BB gun and that they are forced to make split second decisions.

"Is the person complying with their instructions? Is the person acting in an aggressive or a threatening manner? The way to solve these situations is for people to comply and work with the police so they can slow down the situation," said Eaton.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.