In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The Senate Judiciary Committee today voted Substitute SB 184 out of committee. the full Senate heard the bill this afternoon where it was passed 31 to 0. The bill analysis is up on the legislature web site here. Senator Grendell's office advised OFCC that the actual text of the bill should be posted by the end of the day Thursday.

The bill provides relief from tort when a justifyable use of deaadly force occurs wherever that happens. If the use of force happens in the home or vehicle, there is a rebutable presumtion of self defense and the burden of proof otherwise is on the prosecution. If the use of force happens anywhere else the burden of proof of self defense is on the accused (person who used self defense0 to prove it.

Senator Grendell, on the Senate floor, said this bill sends 3 messages. #1 - A home is a castle, if you break into someone's home you do it at your own peril, #2 - you're not going to be able to collect damage if something happens to you, and #3 - if you use a gun you won't get a "volume discount".

Ohio law currently allows only one gun specification if more than one felony occurs. Sub SB 184 allows multiple gun specifications thus increasing prison time.  The bill now heads to the Ohio House to be assigned to a committee for consideration.

Senator Keith Faber (R, District 12) introduced Senate Bill 318 (status page) before the Criminal Justice Committee; the bill is another in a series of incremental efforts to restore the proper recognition of the rights of Ohio’s citizens. Faber’s bill had been described as a “Firearms Modernization” package due to the number of corrections it contains to some of the more technical areas of the Ohio Revised Code. 

Areas addressed by the bill include: (be sure to follow the jump)

• The documentation to be destroyed by the Sheriff after the completion of the application process is more concisely defined. The remaining documentation is explicitly considered to be not a matter of public record, except for the narrow journalist exception defined in SB 347 (2007).
  
  
• Firearms carried in a motor vehicle in compliance with 2923.16 (and not on the person) would not need to be declared to law enforcement in the event of a stop. The prior affirmative defense would be replaced with a complete exception to the notification requirement.
  
  
• Concealed carry in non-liquor-dispensing D permit locations would be specifically allowed. Although most commentators have argued that the original language in this area was sufficient, this revision would make it virtually impossible to misinterpret. This exception would be, unfortunately, limited to concealed carry only. This section would also add the very clear statement that “beer, wine, and intoxicating liquor have the same meanings as they do in 4301.01,” leaving one less possible trap for the law-abiding citizen.
  
  
• An exception to the prohibition against carry on school premises would be established for school drop-offs. This addition includes language that protects holders of licenses from reciprocal states, which was a major deficit in the original text.