Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

This bill was introduced in May.

To amend sections 307.932, 2307.601, 2901.05, 2901.09, 2923.12, 2923.126, 2923.16, and 2953.37 and to repeal section 2923.1212 of the Revised Code to assign to the prosecution the burden of disproving a self-defense or related claim, to expand the locations at which a person has no duty to retreat before using force under both civil and criminal law, and to modify the Concealed Handgun Licensing Law regarding a licensee's duty to keep the licensee's hands in plain sight, the penalties for illegally carrying a concealed firearm or improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, and the posting of warning signs regarding the possession of weapons on specified premises.

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 132-HB-228

There will be a second hearing on this bill Wednesday 12/13/2017 and the agenda states possible amendments or substitute bill.

Guys, you may want to go take a look at the substitute posted here. Among other things it's putting some pretty big teeth into 9.68.

djthomas wrote:Guys, you may want to go take a look at the substitute posted here. Among other things it's putting some pretty big teeth into 9.68.

I may be cynical, but I tend to believe at this point that all these pro-gun bills are pointless.... I don't believe Kasich will sign any of them.

FormerNavy wrote:I may be cynical, but I tend to believe at this point that all these pro-gun bills are pointless.... I don't believe Kasich will sign any of them.

I share that concern but that's a bridge to be crossed in due time. First and foremost, Kasich can't veto a bill that doesn't get to him. Republicans do enjoy veto-proof majorities in both houses and 2A bills haven't been kind to lame duck Republican governors waffling at the 11th hour.

One thing I could see happening - let's say a 2A bill gets to him in February and he vetoes it. The legislature has until the end of its session to override the veto, otherwise the only time limits are with respect to the governor's time to act. A veto override in the post-election lame duck is a possibility when the R's would be less concerned about the optics of crossing a governor of the same party. Hopefully it doesn't come down to that.

Folks, I'd like your considered rebuttals to this testimony:

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/cm_p ... little.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well there's the fundamental fact that under our Constitution, both state and federal, the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in any prosecution. The defendant is entitled to sit there fat, dumb, and happy through the whole trial and at the end say "that's it?" Would that make it harder to convict some hypothetical person who might murder me in a hypothetical situation? I guess ... maybe, but maybe not.

By the author's own admission we're talking about a very small number of cases that would actually be impacted by this change. Surely, given that, one can see a strong deference to siding with what is constitutionally sound rather than a rule that turns those principles on their head. Furthermore Ohio is hardly blazing trails here. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and CHLers seem to get on just fine with the proposed rule in every other state in the USA.

The Ohio Public Defender offered a good rebuttal for what I believe was today's HB228 hearing. You might check that one out.

Two rebuttals come immediately to mind:

1. Of course prosecutors would be against this, as it will make their jobs slightly harder. That in and of itself isn't reason to oppose it anymore than it would be an argument for repealing the fourth, fifth or sixth amendments.

2. The state of Ohio, and only the state of Ohio, requires the accused to prove their innocence by reason of self-defense. It's a burden that is contrary to basic tenants of American justice, for this reason:

In order to even claim self-defense the accused must enter some facts (burden of production) or the jury will not even be instructed on self-defense. It won't even be up for consideration. By entering these facts into evidence (as they must to be able to claim self-defense) the accused has just admitted to the facts necessary for their conviction.

Thus Ohio deprives victims of crime, who have used force to protect themselves, from a key concept of American justice: "innocent until proven guilty".

Not directly a rebuttal to the offered testimony, but I feel it's important to understand just how un-level the field is.

Self-defense isn't a single claim, it hinges on several legal principles (ability, opportunity, intent, met duty to retreat, was not initial aggressor, etc.) . When the accused bears the burden of proof, they must prove every element, and failure to do so means they have failed to prove their self-defense claim. When the prosecution bears the burden of proof, they only need to prove the accused failed a single condition, and doing so means they've disproven the self-defense claim. So the bar is inherently lower for the prosecution than for the defense.

I notice that one of the complaints in the testimony is that this change would demand that the state prove a negative . . . the "state" doesn't seem to mind making us prove a negative if we are found carrying in a posted place (i.e. proving that we didn't know the place was posted). How do you prove you didn't know something?

As is, we are the ones who have to prove some negatives -- for example, we have to prove we didn't start the confrontation. With the change, the state could (for example) attack the self-defense claim by proving we did start the confrontation; this is proving a positive.

Zeko

The third hearing on this bill is scheduled for next Tuesday.
Following is from my email:

COMMITTEE: The House Committee on Federalism and Interstate Relations
CHAIR: Kristina D. Roegner
DATE: February 13th, 2018
ROOM: Statehouse Room 115
TIME: 4:00PM

They are accepting ALL testimony, and written testimony may be submitted by emailing the committee chair at:
Kristina.Roegner@ohiohouse.gov<Kristina.Roegner@ohiohouse.gov>;

A link to the bill is a few posts higher in this thread.
We need all the support we can get on this, so please consider submitting testimony in favor of passage

Thank you

Testimony submitted.

Reading through the opposition testimony Chuck mentioned, it would seem that Ohio's "affirmative defense" treatment of self defense is all that is standing between Ohio cities and gangland-level murder rates. To check this out, I looked at the murder rates for the 20 largest US cities (Columbus is 15th). If the opposition speaker is right, Columbus should have among the lowest murder rates in this group (because only Ohio has this "enlightened" view of self defense).

Actually, of the 19 other cities, seven have higher murder rates than Columbus, but the other 12 are all lower. (Cleveland and Cincinnati didn't make it into the top 20 list, but they are both higher than Columbus, which doesn't help Ohio's reputation concerning murder rates.) So, somehow these 12 cities don't seem to be suffering from not making self defense an affirmative defense. Some of them are in blue states and some in red states, so that characteristic by itself isn't definitive. This data is a bit old (coming from 2009), but Ohio has had the "affirmative defense" specification for far longer than that.

Zeko

BFA posted an article about the bill but it totally skips the fact that a substitute bill has been accepted by the committee and contains new language for ORC 9.68. They link to the bill as introduced which is no longer the bill being considered.

rickt wrote:BFA posted an article about the bill but it totally skips the fact that a substitute bill has been accepted by the committee and contains new language for ORC 9.68. They link to the bill as introduced which is no longer the bill being considered.

In fairness to them, the bill is listed as introduced on the House website.
I had to make sure of that before I could write my testimony

Just sent a email to my representatives Huffman and Vitale to support this bill. Both are Republicans so I'm sure they will.