View Full Version : Castle Doctrine Legislation Finally Introduced in Ohio
Castle Doctrine Legislation Introduced
Written by Mike Kinsey
Thursday, 14 June 2007
On June 14, both bodies of the Ohio General Assembly introduced necessary legislative bills that clarify self-defense laws and when it is justified for someone to protect their life or the lives of others.
Senator Steve Buehrer has put forth Senate Bill 184 and Representative Lynn Wachtmann has introduced House Bill 264. Both aim to bring a version of the nationally known Castle Doctrine to Ohio that self-defense rights activists have long worked towards. You may recall that very similar "Stand Your Ground" legislation was in the Ohio Assembly last year before the calendar expired and it was not moved upon.
The Castle Doctrine as introduced would bring two very important and necessary clarifications to Ohio law:
First, it states that the victim of a violent attack that was forced to defend himself/herself with justified means can not be pursued in civil court for any injuries suffered by the violent attacker. HB264 as written says:
A person who properly establishes the affirmative defense of self-defense or defense of another is not liable in damages to any person in a tort action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by the person while acting in self-defense or defense of another.
This is a long overdue attempt to legislate common sense in saying that someone who is about to kill or cause grave bodily harm can not sue for damages if they are injured while being stopped.
Second, both bills recognize a victim's right to self-defense if a violent attacker is forcibly breaking into your home or is about to cause death or serious injury anywhere the intended victim has a right to be. HB264 as written says:
Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused. If the accused raises self-defense or defense of another as an affirmative defense and the accused or the person defended by the accused was suffering or was about to suffer an offense of violence that is a felony or was suffering or was about to suffer a forcible trespass upon the home of the accused or the home of the person defended by the accused, there is a rebuttable presumption that the accused acted properly in self-defense or in defense of the person defended by the accused.
For too long, Ohio's judicial system has ignored the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty" and placed the burden of proof of justifiable self-defense on the attack victim that was forced to stop a would-be murderer. HB264 and SB184 will bring Ohio law back in line with a sensible understanding of victim's rights.
Florida passed the first legislation of this kind in 2005 and anti-self-defense zealots immediately attacked the law by labeling it as a "Shoot First" law. However, they have been proven wrong once again as no state with Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground provisions has turned into the Wild West atmosphere that they continually (and incorrectly) predict. You would think they would try a different tactic after failing for so long.
OFCC Vice President Bryan Torok comments, "This legislation rolls back years of liberal court precedents where judges in revising law from the bench, have eroded law abiding citizens right of self defense. Castle Doctrine is long overdue in Ohio and we will continue to fight for it as we have for many years."
"At the end of the day what we're trying to do is make sure that people feel safer in their home, safer in their community, and take the affirmative steps necessary to protect themselves and their families," said sponsoring Sen. Steve Buehrer (R-Delta).
Ohioans For Concealed Carry asks our members and supporters to please contact their representatives in Columbus in support of HB264 and SB184. It is very important for our voices to be heard. Ohio law needs to be changed so that the burden of proof in our courts is where it should be, on the violent attacker, and not on the hands of a law-abiding citizen that was forced to defend themselves with a knife or a rock on the ground.
Remember that this is not a "gun bill". Any opposition to this legislation needs to be reminded that they are against self-defense and the common sense rights of their constituents to protect their family.
(C) 2007 Ohioans For Concealed Carry
What other States have the Castle Doctrine and or the liability law.
U.S. States with Castle Doctrine Laws in Effect
• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Florida (Adopted March, 2005)
• Georgia
• Indiana (No duty to retreat. Statute.)
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Michigan (Signed by Gov. Granholm on July 20, 2006)
• Mississippi (Signed by Gov. Haley Barbour on March 29, 2006)
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• North Dakota (HB 1319 introduced in January 2007 by ND Representatives Porter and Carlisle; passed House; passed Senate with amendments; sent back to House)
• Oklahoma
• Rhode Island (11-8-8)
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas (Signed by Gov. Rick Perry(Rep.) on March 27, 2007 - effective only after 9-1-2007)
• Washington
• West Virginia
Goggles Pizano
06-14-2007, 11:33
Interestingly NH and RI are the only Northeast states to have adopted this. Paticular to this lack of adoption is the I-95 corridor of urban areas (DC, Baltimore, Wilm. De, Philly, New York, etc) and their amount of Democrat/Liberal politicians and judges who are shall we say, left leaning. Sometimes I wonder how much more I can take before I pop smoke and head south! :D
U.S. States with Castle Doctrine Laws in Effect
• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Florida (Adopted March, 2005)
• Georgia
• Indiana (No duty to retreat. Statute.)
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Michigan (Signed by Gov. Granholm on July 20, 2006)
• Mississippi (Signed by Gov. Haley Barbour on March 29, 2006)
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• North Dakota (HB 1319 introduced in January 2007 by ND Representatives Porter and Carlisle; passed House; passed Senate with amendments; sent back to House)
• Oklahoma
• Rhode Island (11-8-8)
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas (Signed by Gov. Rick Perry(Rep.) on March 27, 2007 - effective only after 9-1-2007)
• Washington
• West Virginia
Rough, thanks. Cant believe SC has it and not NC. They usally follow each other with things like this. The one that most concerns me is the law the Blocks criminals from suing. Is that info available State to State? You can just point me to where you got this from if thats easier.
I wonder how much more I can take before I pop smoke and head south! :D
Ya'll come....We'll leave the light on fer ya!
On Saturday my wife and I were confronted by a neighborhood man who pulled a 6" blade on us. Presently in jail, charged with a 3rd degree assault, the local police called to tell me we'll be notified upon his release.
I took that opportunity to inform them, that I would like to know my rights to have a weapon in my place of business, as the castle doctrine allows, to protect myself, wife and clients, should he decide to enter and crate havoc.
I was informed that I have no right to protect myself, that is what the police are for, and without a firearms card, (I have a PA DL) that any weapon in my possession would guarantee my arrest.
PedOncoDoc
10-15-2014, 14:09
On Saturday my wife and I were confronted by a neighborhood man who pulled a 6" blade on us. Presently in jail, charged with a 3rd degree assault, the local police called to tell me we'll be notified upon his release.
I took that opportunity to inform them, that I would like to know my rights to have a weapon in my place of business, as the castle doctrine allows, to protect myself, wife and clients, should he decide to enter and crate havoc.
I was informed that I have no right to protect myself, that is what the police are for, and without a firearms card, (I have a PA DL) that any weapon in my possession would guarantee my arrest.
Since that is "what the police are for", are they obligated to assign law enforcement protection to you for 100% of your time in the state of NJ at their cost given you approached them with valid concerns for your safety safety from a named threat and you have no right to protect yourself? :mad:
...I was informed that I have no right to protect myself...
That quoted portion is one of the saddest things I have ever heard.
Even sadder, is the fact that we have to have threads like this one.
One's right to defend themselves is a "birth right".
Truly sad....
The Reaper
10-15-2014, 14:50
I hate to say it, but it might be time to lawyer up and get them to clarify their position. It would seem that your local LEOs have not taken note of recent Supreme Court decisions.
The LEOs are not to defend you, but to investigate crime.
Ask them if they will guarantee your security.
Is there no CCW in PA?
TR
TR, there is no reciprocity between PA and NJ, as NJ does not honor PA CCW. NJ has this act, mailed to me, by a member here. Read in its entirety. I am a bit confused. It's a Castle Doctrine in every way, but you better make certain that you had no recourse, but to act with force. In my mind, the act reads as a cautionary note, not to arm yourself in case of, not of right to.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bi...500/159_I1.PDF
The Reaper
10-15-2014, 18:40
Hmm.
Looks like some people in PA can carry concealed.
Can you not get a PA non-resident carry permit?
TR
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/15/statehouse-shootout-pa-lawmaker-exchanges-gunfire-with-alleged-robber-near/
Statehouse Shootout: Pa. lawmaker exchanges gunfire with would-be robber
Published October 15, 2014
FoxNews.com
State Rep. Marty Flynn, right, and Rep. Ryan Bizzarro were accosted while they walked home near the Capitol on Tuesday night. (AP)
They messed with the wrong lawmaker.
Two Pennsylvania state representatives escaped unharmed Tuesday night after they were involved in a shootout with a gunman who attempted to rob them near the state Capitol in Harrisburg.
State Rep. Marty Flynn, a former prison guard who's licensed to carry a handgun, fired the shots after he and Rep. Ryan Bizzarro were accosted by the would-be robber. Flynn told the Associated Press he thinks he might have been killed if he had not been carrying a concealed pistol.
"We are used to fighting for the people in our districts every day," Flynn said in a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We certainly are going to stand up for ourselves and not become victims."
According to the Inquirer, the lawmakers were leaving a dinner with colleagues when a teen suspect approached them, demanded their wallets and pointed a gun at them. Another suspect reportedly shouted instructions at the gunman from across the street.
Flynn drew his handgun and exchanged shots with the gunman. The lawmakers and the suspects both fled and no one was injured.
"Bizzarro and Flynn expressed relief that nobody was struck by gunfire, and they thanked the Harrisburg police for the remarkably quick response," the House Democratic Caucus said in a statement to the Inquirer.
(Cont. at link above)
We really need to get away from the "white male" stereotype, race, and similar prejudices, that limit our ability to converse and engage the left.
Regardless of your political affiliation, I believe we are all Americans, and at the end of the day, regardless of position, we understand what that responsibility is, and what we must do to protect it.
If that seems overly idealistic, so be it! I am an American, supported, or not, by you, I well defend you to the best of my ability, even, if doing so is fruitless.
I was informed that I have no right to protect myself, that is what the police are for
And yet, the courts say that they are NOT there to protect you:
In two separate cases, Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, Joan Taliaferro, and Wilfred Nichol sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints. In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that Warren, Taliaferro, and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. In an unanimous decision, court also held concluded that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of her complaint. The case was reheard by an en banc panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Warren vs District of Columbia (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&q=warren-v-district-of-columbia&hl=en&as_sdt=2006)
Hopefully you have the ability to "vote with your feet" and move somewhere that one's rights to defend one's self from criminals does not guarantee them to wind up in the same place as the criminals.
DIYPatriot
10-16-2014, 08:42
There was a young black woman recently who has a Pennsylvania concealed carry license. She accidentally drove into New Jersey with the gun in her car however. She got pulled over, upon which she remembered about the gun, so she took it out and showed it to the police officer. She was promptly arrested. Recently she was let off I believe. However, the DA in the case happened to be the same DA who had let that athlete go who beat up his wife, and it wouldn't look good to have let go a wife beater but prosecute a young single working black gun-owning mother who quite obviously by accident drove the gun into the state and didn't try to hide it or anything. Plus also she doesn't meet the stereotype of the gun owner that the leftists have (racist fat white guy).
I guess it's a good thing that she didn't live in Florida and fire a warning shot. Race doesn't always have everything to do with it. IMHO the spin doctors want folks to believe it, but that's not always the case.
Just check this out:
Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall in 2010 when she felt her estranged husband was threatening her, a move she described as a “warning shot.” She had already filed a restraining order against him.
Nobody was hurt, but in May a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.
The 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, Alexander claimed self-defense and tried to invoke Florida’s “stand your ground” law, rejecting plea deals that could have gotten her a much shorter sentence. But a jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And because she fired a gun while committing a felony, Florida’s mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.
State Attorney Angela Corey, who also oversaw the prosecution of shooter George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, stands by the handling of Alexander’s case. She maintains the bullet could have ricocheted and hit Alexander’s children, and told the Huffington Post back in May she didn’t believe the woman fired the shot in fear, but in anger.
Full Article (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/is-it-fair-that-a-florida-mom-received-a-20-year-sentence-for-firing-warning-shot/)
---End of hijack---
Hmm.
Looks like some people in PA can carry concealed.
Can you not get a PA non-resident carry permit?
TR
All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
U.S. States with Castle Doctrine Laws in Effect
• ....
• Nebraska
• ...
My understanding is Nebraska has a really limited castle doctrine. Outside your home (even in your yard), there's a duty to retreat. There's no duty to retreat when you're inside your home, but just having an intruder in your home isn't carte blanche permission to shoot the intruder. It'll still be reviewed by a prosecutor to ensure it's justified (basically you felt threatened). Not an lawyer, but IIRC having an intruder in your house is considered an affirmative defense if you shoot them.
It seems like we've been having a home invasion every couple weeks in Omaha. When the home owner has shot the intruder, the long-time local prosecutor's stand has been... "breaking into a home where a person owns a gun doesn't seem very wise" and dropped it at that.
If you do shoot an intruder in your home, you are still liable for civil suit. I haven't heard about one, but it's possible.
The Reaper
10-16-2014, 12:35
It doesn't really matter.
If you get a bad LEO, a bad DA, a bad grand jury, a bad judge, or a bad jury, you can have done everything right, and still lose a lot of money or your freedom.
TR
Badger52
10-16-2014, 17:14
Assuming understanding of residence in PA, biz in NJ. And getting a PA carry permit is easy, hell I had a non-res one for years when it was necessary to play "collect the baseball cards to travel" game.
I just read through NJ's Title 2C Sec 3-4. That kind of language makes me vomit.
In their eyes, if you live, you're screwed. And, oh by the way, did you use those evil deadly "hollow-nose" bullets? Another enhancer, just for possession at other than range or residence. And you didn't try to retreat? Whoops, there's another one.
Frack!
I've taken TR advise and lawyer up. The reason I have a PA DL is access to my constitutional rights. That said, the current five systems in house are all NG's in NJ.
Tomorrow, with my attorney, I will meet with the local LE's, to make certain, that under the NJ castle doctrine, a homeowner, or business owner is entitled to have a firearm on premise. My wife possesses a NJ DL. As a NJ resident she is, according to our collective read of the statute, entitled to secure her home and business.
This was also rather interesting. When they called to inform me that he would be released, I had forgotten that they said they would call me to notify me of that event. Today I asked, if he is not of serious concern, why are you calling me to notify me of his release? "It's protocol", I was told. Is he dangerous? No reply. Does he have prior arrest, I asked, after a long pause, yes he does. For what? It was then suggested that I come to the office tomorrow. I guess it complicated....
But here's something I learned here. This man, who lives 25 feet to the rear of the business, has always been a strange. I had an SA about this guy subconsciously. Through conversation on SM like this, and in general, I paid attention. When he pulled that blade, 3 feet from my wife and I, rather than freak, I look at her and said to him, this doesn't look like a good conversation so we going back inside. A distance of 10 feet. I think it took him off guard enough for us to retreat. We locked the door and called LE. He stood outside until the LE arrived.
When they pulled up, he reached inside his pocket and handed them the knife, offering no resistance.
We are voting with our feet in the very near future.