| Castle Doctrine to House Floor |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Wednesday, 28 May 2008 | |
|
Update: After consideration in the Ohio House, Sub. S.B. No. 184 has passed 73-23! The bill now returns to the Senate for concurrence, which we expect to happen. See the end of this story for voting record. Sub. S. B. No. 184 is scheduled for third consideration on the House floor today in a session starting at 1:30pm. As noted in an earlier story, both houses adjourn for the summer on Friday 5/30 and will reconvene in September. OFCC has been told that this is a high priority bill and that legislative members could “stick around” to make sure this gets to the governor. Expect action on this quickly, as sources tell us the Senate is prepared to concur with the changes should this pass the House today. Sub. S. B. No. 184 — Senator Buehrer Local news outlets are railing against the bill, misinterpreting and flat out lying about several provisions. The provision clarifying the carrying of firearms in a vehicle doesn't make it more unsafe for law enforcement, it merely protects law abiding citizens (such as hunters and people on their way to the gun range) from inadvertently violating the law when transporting their unloaded firearm in their vehicle if they don't have a concealed handgun license. This will not lead to an increase in officer shootings, as those who would be inclined to harm an LEO will already have an illegal firearm, illegally carried and illegally loaded. The section prohibiting landlords from banning firearms, a right protected by both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, is not more a violation of their property rights (pitted up against the rights of the tenant) than a prohibition on them banning certain newspapers or specifying what church you can attend. The provision requiring sheriff's to ignore expunged or sealed records during background checks allows for a judge ordered "second chance" to actually be granted to an individual who made a mistake in his or her past and has had their gun rights restored by a court. Castle Doctrine, one of the most misunderstood concepts in the legislation, merely returns the presumption of innocence to a person forced to defend themselves from a violent criminal attack. No longer will they be guilty until proven innocent. Opponents claim the provision would allow criminals involved in gang wars to claim self-defense for their actions. They already can, only now the onus is on the state to prove their case, which is the way our legal system was set up in the first place. Gang bangers are not going to be getting away with murder if this provision passes. All in all, the bill is "a step forward in protecting law-abiding citizens who are getting jammed up in the legal system, as well as making the current concealed-carry statute more user friendly," said John Hohenwarter, an NRA state liaison. Votes for the bill (73) Adams Aslanides Bacon Batchelder Blessing Bolon Book Brady Brinkman Carmichael Coley Collier Combs Core Daniels DeBose DeWine Dodd Dolan Domenick Driehaus Dyer Evans Fende Fessler Flowers Gardner Garrison Gerberry Gibbs Goodwin Goyal Hagan J. Harwood Heydinger Hite Hottinger Huffman Hughes Jones Lundy Mandel McGregor J. McGregor R. Mecklenborg Miller Newcomb Oelslager Okey Otterman J. Patton Peterson Raussen Redfern Reinhard Sayre Schindel Schlichter Schneider Sears Setzer Stewart J. Szollosi Uecker Wachtmann Wagner Webster White Widener Wolpert Yuko Zehringer Husted Votes against the bill (23) Beatty Boyd Brown Budish Celeste Chandler DeGeeter Foley Heard Koziura Letson Luckie Mallory Skindell Slesnick Stebelton Stewart D. Strahorn Sykes Ujvagi Williams B. Williams S. Yates |