Ohio's “Castle Doctrine” Legislation Passes Out of Senate!

[Samuel Adams]

Friday, April 18, 2008

Please Contact Your State Senator Today!​

On Wednesday, April 16, Senate Bill 184, Ohio’s “Castle Doctrine” bill passed out of the State Senate unanimously. SB 184 now heads to the Ohio House for consideration. SB 184, sponsored by State Senator Steve Buehrer (R-1), would help restore the fundamental right of self-defense. This legislation would restore the right of individuals to respond with force in defense of their lives and family, and immunize the victim from civil lawsuits by criminals or the criminal’s family.

Please contact your State Senator TODAY and thank them for voting for this important piece of legislation. To contact your State Senator please click here.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3845

 

[Linda]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5602

UNANIMOUS: Ohio Senate Passes Castle Doctrine!

 

[FieroCDSP]

"When I stopped thinking about guns and started thinking about the baseball bat I keep by my bed … it puts a whole different light on the question

This was an interesting line from the Columbus Dispatch article. I think too often people associate castle doctrine with shooting someone in your home.

When they realize that even if you don't have a gun, and you defend yourself in your home, dead or not, that intruder might sue you for injury (family for death), and you might be found civily liable, they change their tune. That's a less likely thing in Ohio, but other states aren't as forgiving about such things. Glad things are on the right track here. Maybe it's pre-election politics so people can stay in office, maybe it's actual intelligence cascading through the land, regardless, it's a step in the right direction.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Just curious, did the Ohio doctrine include stipulations to protect people from civil lawsuits caused by them defending themselves like Florida did?

 

[FieroCDSP]

That is the only real thing in the legislation, which is why it seems to have traction. Nothing in it about guns or anything else, from what I see. If more legislation was put forth without riders and earmarks, things would probably get done quicker and we'd be able to keep better track of it.

oh...maybe you meant outside of a car or home? Hmm... I'm not sure. I would think it is, but I'd have to read closer.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I have long maintained that the "Castle Doctrine" laws that have been proposed and passed in the last few years have nothing directly to do with guns and the more we can do to dissassociate then with "gun owners" and "gun organization," the better. Some states have a common law "duty to retreat" while others do not. Some states already recognize no duty to retreat in one's home (and in some cases, car). The valuable reform common in these bills is the liability shield. Some are better than others (some have loopholes), but all are improvements.

 

[k_dawg]

I often wish they divorce "guns" from these issues. For example, the recent bill signed into law in Florida "guns locked in your vehicle while at work".

They should have just made it for any legal items, be it a bible, stuffed animals or a gun.


In this case, many people react negatively if they think it is just about a gun. But if you point out, a basebal bat, a frying pan etc.. then they see the _underlying_ issue: bein gable to defend yourself, without their emotional blindage of "evil guns".