Recordpub.com - Gun law change draws fire Proposal would ease self-defense rules in Ohio

By Mike Hixenbaugh

Record-Courier staff writer

A proposal that seeks to change Ohio's policy regarding self-defense has a few anti-gun organizations up in arms.

Currently in Ohio, if you shoot an intruder in your home, by law you must prove self-defense to avoid charges.

State Sen. Steve Buehrer wants to change that. If someone threatens you and you kill them, Buehrer said police could investigate and prosecute. In order to avoid prison time and lawsuits, you would be forced to prove your life was in implicit danger - a policy that the senator said "is outrageous."

"People want to feel comfortable in their homes and in their communities," said Buehrer, a Republican from Delta. "This is about allowing people to take the necessary steps in a potentially life-threatening situation."

Buehrer hopes to pass a bill similar to laws in 19 other states, which give residents an automatic right to attack when feeling threatened. Anyone who claimed self-defense would be shielded from charges in criminal and civil courts, barring overwhelming evidence against them.

"When someone commits an act of self-defense, they can have civil charges brought against them by the attacker," Buehrer said. "That leads to thousands of dollars in court costs for innocent people. We want to end that."

Supporters refer to the bill as the "Castle Doctrine," but it is not limited to in-home altercations. Anyone who claims self-defense anywhere -- from personal cars to public venues -- would be protected by the law.

The National Rifle Association quickly pledged support for the bill, as did several other gun-rights activists.

However, resistance has come from the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, along with other advocacy groups that candidly refer to the bill as the "Shoot First Law." Officials from the OCAGV believe the bill gives people more freedom to shoot each other, a measure that would be "a step backward in civility."

"We're not against self-defense like gun lobbyists will say," said Toby Hoover, OCAGV Executive Director. "They are telling people, 'Thanks to this bill, when someone breaks into your home and rapes your wife and your daughter, you will now, for the first time, have a right to defend your family.'

"But it's nonsense. You already have that right. They are playing on people's fears in order to gain support. This is just a free pass to kill without thinking."

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association has declared opposition to the bill. Portage County Prosecutor Victor Viguicci isn't sure, but at first glance the proposal seems too broad, he said.

"Something like this comes up every year," Viguicci said. "But usually they don't seek this broad of coverage. I'd have to research it more, but it seems like too much."

Members of the Buckeye Firearms Association disagree with his preliminary assessment. The group has worked closely with legislators to push for the so-called right-to-shoot bill, although the organization's chairman, Jim Irvine, said the law has little to do with firearms.

"This isn't about guns, it's about self-defense," Irvine said. "If someone attacks you and brutally tries to kill you or rape your wife, do you not have the right to defend your family? If you do defend your life, should you be treated differently than someone else who suffers some other crime?

"In school, we all learned that you are innocent until proven guilty. This bill makes that a reality."

Still, with the growing number of personal gun owners, there are legitimate fears about abuses of the law, Hoover said. Just three years after concealed weapons were legalized in Ohio, more than 87,000 Ohioans have been issued carrying concealed weapon permits. In Portage County alone, there are more than 620 active CCW permits, according to the sheriff's department.

For that reason, local law enforcement officials tend to side with Hoover, who believes the bill creates more opportunity for reckless gun use.

"And besides, it's not like we have a whole bunch of people sitting in jail because they tried to defend themselves," Hoover said.

Regardless of whether the bill clears committee, it seems gun advocates and anti-violence groups will never see eye-to-eye on the issue.

"People like Toby Hoover think you shouldn't defend yourself - that if you're attacked, you should just die," Irvine said. "Plain and simple, they are against self-defense."

It's a claim that Hoover said is, "a blatant manipulation of the facts."

As is the case with any rhetoric that supports the proposed bill, she said.

Committees in both the House and Senate are in the process of evaluating the legislation, but early indicators suggest that the bill is garnering support in both houses.

8.	Posted by wasamattau July 24, 2007
	Posted by patmcroyn 4 hours ago this law would only defend the cowardly. everybody is so afraid now, their first reaction to a threat is to murder. do you not see the potential for disaster here. anybody that would support this is obviously psychotic. if you people are so blood thirsty why don't enlist and get over to iraq? yeah thats what i thought What is your reaction plan if an armed intruder enters your home ole brave one? I bet you don't have one. You are probably one that thinks nothing will ever happen to me, and I hope you are right. If not what would you do, hide under your blanket, under your bed in the closet in hopes the threat just leaves you alone? If you would have taken the time to read my earlier post, you would have noticed my statement " The decision to fire a weapon at another human isn't that easy" it is not shoot first evaluate the situation later. It is an option if an armed intruder is present and chooses not to get out when confronted. I really don't think an intruder would stick around long with a upset dog barking at them, then the laser beam on their chest would make them come to their senses if not then it is time for them to get shot.

5.	Posted by supergomer July 24, 2007
	Here is the problem with the current law...A person breaks into your home...your first duty is to attempt to retreat. If you don't attempt to retreat and then shoot or harm the intruder, you are in violation of the law. There are several cases in Ohio in which a person with a gun broke into a home, and was shot. However the home owner was found guilty because he did not attempt to retreat. The proposed law intends to do away with the "duty to retreat" component of self defense. There is actually a case in Ohio, in which a gentleman was sentanced to jail because the judge decided that when an intruder broke into his home he failed to retreat. Even though he had already had a broken leg, and his only escape was a closed window. I think the case is under appeal at the moment. If someone knows more about the case pleas write! But as is stands now you have to prove that you didn't have the duty to retreat, in your own home, and that your life was in danger. To me, that is too much burdon on you when someone breaks into your home. Out in public the same principle applies...that is when threatened, you have have the duty to retreat. Again, that duty is open to intrepretation by a judge. The proposed law will state that if you have the right to be somewhere and your life is threatned, you have the right to defend yourself first rather than to retreat first. It is not a shoot first law. You have to have a clear threat on your life. Not a threat to get a black eye, or a bloody nose. That is why this law is so important. It is designed to help potential victims rather than give rights to the agressors.