Want the facts concerning the proposed change to Ohio's ‘duty to retreat'? Don't look to the media or opponents of HB 203.

Submitted by cbaus on October 9, 2013 - 8:00am. 

• Ohio Legislation
 
• Ohio Politics
 
• Education

by Chad D. Baus                    

In the lead-up to the return of the Ohio General Assembly from their summer break and the opening of hearings on several pro-gun rights bills, certain individuals and groups, along with their media accomplices, have ramped up their efforts to paint one particular provision in Rep. Terry Johnson's House Bill 203 as a "Stand Your Ground" bill. These groups, which have always opposed Second Amendment rights, think they might have finally stumbled on a way to stop what has for them become loss after loss after loss as Ohio has slowly worked to restore gun rights over the past decade.

Despite their loss in a Florida court room, these groups believe they may have achieved one victory in Zimmerman-Martin media saga: re-branding so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws as racist. It is now apparent that these groups are seeking to export this tactic to other states, including Ohio.

HB 203 seeks to make many improvements, but the one change that has these anti-gun rights advocates the most incensed is the removal of the legal "duty to retreat" before using lethal force to defend against a life-threatening attack. According to the individuals getting so much attention recently in the Ohio media, the following legislative change would make Ohio into a racist "shoot first" state:

Sec. 2901.09 (B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person's residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another if that person is in a place that the person lawfully has a right to be.

Even with this change, a person claiming self-defense must still be able to prove both that he or she was not at fault in creating the situation, that they had reasonable grounds to believe (objective facts) and an honest belief (a subjective belief that the objective facts amounted to) an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, and that the only way to escape this imminent danger was using lethal/deadly force. Period.

Pretty obvious why the media have not and will not publish these facts, isn't it?

This simple little paragraph what these anti-gun rights extremists are erroneously calling a "Shoot First", "License to Kill," "Stand Your Ground" provision. That's it. That's all. Easy to publish in articles to put some perspective on the claims like the following:  MORE FROM BFA

Ohio and the concealed carry process

The bill was voted out of committee Tuesday, but another bill has been introduced that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, day care facilities and other places and would eliminate the concealed carry permit process altogether.

The pro-gun lobby argues that Ohio has more restrictions on concealed carry permit holders than most other states and that easing the restrictions to bring Ohio more in line with others simple makes good sense.

With the proposed changes to the concealed carry process, there would be no paperwork or training required to carry a concealed weapon.  It would allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon as long as they were legally permitted to purchase a gun.

“It’d be no different, to some degree, than the current constitutional right that we have right now to carry a gun on your hip right now, as long as it’s exposed. The only different would be this is concealed carry and you don’t have to go through training,” Adams said.

But Rothenberg said the current permit process ensures eligibility and he said the training requirement is critical.

“I would think if you wanted to shoot a firearm, it’s a small price to pay to do what you’re doing rather than make a mistake and kill somebody,” Rothenbergsaid.

But the pro-gun lobby believes the climate may now be right for the legislation.

“If someone is going to meet all the qualifications, a whole bureaucracy to oversee telling you you’re a good person doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association.more

 

CDC + Passing the HCB = Gun Control

Healthcare reform is a brilliant way to regulate/ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment.

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don’t matter to the Obama administration.

CDC: First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They’re not researching guns; they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. “These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances,” wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.More
As an attorney, part of my job is risk management – sit around and think big thoughts on how things could go wrong, and then plan accordingly. (Some of my less charitable friends describe it as “being paid to think of ways to screw things up.”)

Healthcare reform, which seems completely innocuous to gun rights at first blush, is a Trojan Horse. Of that, there can be no doubt. The only real question is whether our enemies will choose to use it as such. Given the string of court and legislative defeats the anti-gun groups have suffered, is there any doubt whether the Brady Bunch will pass up an opportunity to regulate firearms in this oblique manner?More