Ohio has recently joined a growing list of states taking steps to address the financial tracking of firearm purchases and impose limits on liability insurance requirements for gun owners. With Governor Mike DeWine’s approval of Senate Bill 58, known as the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, significant changes are now in effect that aim to strengthen gun owners’ privacy and protect Second Amendment rights.
In this article, we explore the details of the bill, its implications and offers perspectives of both supporters and opponents.
Key Provisions of SB 58
SB 58 prohibits financial institutions in Ohio from using a specific merchant code to track gun shop transactions, like those at AimHi Family Firearms Center. The bill also prevents state and local governments from maintaining lists of gun owners or requiring liability insurance for firearm ownership. These measures are part of a larger effort to counter perceived threats to gun rights and privacy.
Financial Tracking Ban
The new law blocks banks and other financial entities from assigning a merchant category code (MCC) that distinguishes firearms retailers from other types of businesses. This move comes in response to a 2022 rule proposed by major credit card companies to classify gun retailers with a unique MCC. Although this rule has been on hold, Ohio lawmakers viewed it as an infringement on gun owners’ privacy and a potential avenue for government overreach.
Prohibition of Liability Insurance Requirements
The law also bars municipalities from requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance. While no Ohio jurisdiction currently mandates such insurance, proponents of the bill argue preemptively banning those requirements safeguards against future financial burdens on lawful gun owners.
Supporters’ Perspective
The bill has garnered praise from gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association and the Buckeye Firearms Association. Supporters argue that the legislation addresses attempts to undermine Second Amendment rights through financial and bureaucratic means.
Protecting Privacy
Senator Terry Johnson, a sponsor of the bill, highlighted concerns about “leftist international organizations” potentially infringing on constitutional rights, according a report from The Center Square. The Buckeye Firearms Association echoed this sentiment, with Executive Director Dean Rieck stating the bill fights efforts to make gun ownership “more expensive and less private” for law-abiding citizens.
Financial Equity for Gun Owners
The Center Square reports John Weber of the NRA noted liability insurance requirements would impose unnecessary financial burdens, especially on responsible gun owners who already face significant costs in purchasing and maintaining firearms. He emphasized such insurance would not cover criminal acts and argues existing legal mechanisms already hold offenders accountable.
Opposition to SB 58
Despite its passage, the bill has faced criticism from gun control advocates and organizations such as the Ohio Mayors Alliance and the Ohio Municipal League. Opponents argue the legislation prioritizes ideological goals over public safety.
Missed Opportunities for Gun Safety
Alison Shih, Senior Counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, criticized the bill for failing to address Ohio’s gun violence crisis, a report from The Ohio Capital Journal stated. She pointed out lawmakers focused on hypothetical threats to gun rights while ignoring proposals that could promote responsible gun ownership and reduce violence, such as waiting periods for gun purchases or tax exemptions for safety equipment such as gun locks.
Potential Risks to Law Enforcement
Critics also raised concerns about the implications of similar legislative proposals. For example, an amendment proposed late in the legislative session sought to prevent local police from assisting federal agencies in enforcing firearm laws. While this amendment was ultimately rejected, opponents warned such measures could undermine cooperation on critical issues such as drug and human trafficking,
The Road Ahead
With the enactment of SB 58, Ohio’s pro-gun organizations have signaled their intent to continue pushing for expanded Second Amendment protections. Ohio Gun Owners, a prominent advocacy group, expressed satisfaction with the new law but emphasized their ongoing efforts to advance additional legislation, including expanded “stand your ground” protections and broader rights to carry and transport all lawful weapons.
At the same time, gun control advocates remain steadfast in their criticism, urging lawmakers to focus on measures that promote public safety and responsible gun ownership. Proposals such as reinstating permit requirements for concealed carry and implementing waiting periods for firearm purchases are likely to resurface in future legislative sessions.
SB 58 reflects a broader national trend of states enacting laws to preempt perceived threats to gun ownership. While AimHi Family Firearms Center and other supporters celebrate the bill as a victory for privacy and constitutional rights, opponents see it as a missed opportunity to address Ohio’s pressing gun violence issues. As the debate continues, the focus will likely remain on finding a balance between safeguarding Second Amendment rights and maintaining public safety.