S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5798
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by JustaShooter »

zeko wrote:it looks like all depends on the exact day the Senate-passed bill was delivered to the governor's office.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to find out exactly when, or even if, the bill was delivered to the governor's office. It shouldn't be this difficult -in fact, it should be one of the entries on the Status page of the bill's entry on the OGA website. But, that isn't the case and I've not been able to find out from any other sources.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
kcclark
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by kcclark »

Columbus Dispatch posted about two hours ago that DeWine has until midnight tonight to do something about 175.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/pol ... 008228001/
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by FormerNavy »

kcclark wrote:Columbus Dispatch posted about two hours ago that DeWine has until midnight tonight to do something about 175.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/pol ... 008228001/

Does anyone really doubt he's going to veto this? He's all kinds of butthurt over not getting his gun legislation passed... of course he's going to veto it.
valian
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:26 pm

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by valian »

News from that other GRO says Dewine signed this Bill this morning!
scorchedtrumpet
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:55 pm
Location: West Mansfield

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by scorchedtrumpet »

The article actually says he signed the bill. He had until midnight. Buckeye Firearms has it on their front page as well.
While voicing disappointment that the state’s Republican-controlled legislature did not move other gun reform he sought, Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law “stand your ground” legislation, broadening instances when firearm-carrying residents can defend themselves.

With DeWine’s signature, Senate Bill 175 will take effect in 90 days.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5798
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by JustaShooter »

valian wrote:News from that other GRO says Dewine signed this Bill this morning!
Well, there you go.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5798
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by JustaShooter »

With DeWine’s signature, Senate Bill 175 will take effect in 90 days.
And unfortunately, since there are no protections in the bill (like we were pushing for in the legislation we helped write that was a true "Stand Your Ground" bill), you are still subject to the whims of an overzealous prosecutor and to civil suits after the fact. Other than making it clear that there is no duty to retreat (and the civil immunity given to non-profits), the only change is to insert the following provision in ORC 2307.601 (C) and 2901.01 (C):
A trier of fact shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not a person who used force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.
Text of the bill: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sol ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, it is progress - and with the scandal involving Speaker Householder in the Ohio House, it is more than I was expecting to be honest.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
Cosmos
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:27 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by Cosmos »

A late Christmas present even though it is not perfect.
NRA Benefactor
If the police are not present to stop a crime they are just armed historians.
A 1911 beats 9-1-1 every time.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's razor
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by FormerNavy »

FormerNavy wrote:
kcclark wrote:Columbus Dispatch posted about two hours ago that DeWine has until midnight tonight to do something about 175.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/pol ... 008228001/

Does anyone really doubt he's going to veto this? He's all kinds of butthurt over not getting his gun legislation passed... of course he's going to veto it.

I stand corrected... and shocked...
kcclark
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by kcclark »

FormerNavy wrote: I stand corrected... and shocked...
Husted said he would keep DeWine in line.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5798
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by JustaShooter »

kcclark wrote:
FormerNavy wrote: I stand corrected... and shocked...
Husted said he would keep DeWine in line.
:lol:

Well that would explain why he's pushing for his STRONG Ohio bill that further infringes on Ohioan's rights. Oh, wait...
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
cashman966
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Delaware, Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by cashman966 »

JustaShooter wrote:
With DeWine’s signature, Senate Bill 175 will take effect in 90 days.
And unfortunately, since there are no protections in the bill (like we were pushing for in the legislation we helped write that was a true "Stand Your Ground" bill), you are still subject to the whims of an overzealous prosecutor and to civil suits after the fact. Other than making it clear that there is no duty to retreat (and the civil immunity given to non-profits), the only change is to insert the following provision in ORC 2307.601 (C) and 2901.01 (C):
A trier of fact shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not a person who used force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.
Text of the bill: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sol ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, it is progress - and with the scandal involving Speaker Householder in the Ohio House, it is more than I was expecting to be honest.
Civil protection should already be covered under 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.
2307.60
2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:

(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
If self defense is ruled as justified, any injury to the aggressor would have to be due to their conduct that would meet the elements of a felony, misdemeanor offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanor offense of violence correct? 2307.60 doesn't specify location.
Ignorant or Stupid, I'm not sure which is worse. If someone were stupid, at least they'd have an excuse for all the dumb things they say.

Pass the Peace Pipe I need another hit

IANAL and neither are most people on this board, its just shows more with some than others.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

JustaShooter wrote:
With DeWine’s signature, Senate Bill 175 will take effect in 90 days.
And unfortunately, since there are no protections in the bill (like we were pushing for in the legislation we helped write that was a true "Stand Your Ground" bill), you are still subject to the whims of an overzealous prosecutor and to civil suits after the fact. Other than making it clear that there is no duty to retreat (and the civil immunity given to non-profits), the only change is to insert the following provision in ORC 2307.601 (C) and 2901.01 (C):
A trier of fact shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not a person who used force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.
That's an important provision though. In some SYG states without such a provision prosecutors get around SYG in their closing arguments by arguing that a reasonable person would have just backed off, and X could have done so safely but instead chose to kill. That isn't what a reasonable person would have done, etc.

It has worked in other states to water down SYG without that provision.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5798
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by JustaShooter »

cashman966 wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
With DeWine’s signature, Senate Bill 175 will take effect in 90 days.
And unfortunately, since there are no protections in the bill (like we were pushing for in the legislation we helped write that was a true "Stand Your Ground" bill), you are still subject to the whims of an overzealous prosecutor and to civil suits after the fact. Other than making it clear that there is no duty to retreat (and the civil immunity given to non-profits), the only change is to insert the following provision in ORC 2307.601 (C) and 2901.01 (C):
A trier of fact shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not a person who used force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.
Text of the bill: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sol ... format=pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, it is progress - and with the scandal involving Speaker Householder in the Ohio House, it is more than I was expecting to be honest.
Civil protection should already be covered under 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.
2307.60
2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:

(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.
If self defense is ruled as justified, any injury to the aggressor would have to be due to their conduct that would meet the elements of a felony, misdemeanor offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanor offense of violence correct? 2307.60 doesn't specify location.
While I agree, you would think that should cover it, there are those whose opinions I respect that believe it must be strengthened.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: S.B. 175: NonProfit civil immunity for carrying handgun

Post by bignflnut »

Cosmos wrote:A late Christmas present even though it is not perfect.
I guess I'll be that guy, again. (*sigh*)

Is this the price DeWhine had to pay to keep SB311 in the grave?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply