Public Defenders trying Pro-Gun appeal to Ohio Supreme Court

[wwiifirearms]

My sister is a Public Defender and one of her associates is trying to get the Ohio Supreme Court to take up a case related to Self-Defense in a car.
They are making a strong constitutional (Heller) argument that could result in an important extension of our rights. They could really use some Amicus Briefs (friend of the court) from credible pro-gun Organizations and/or attorneys. I believe they need briefs to the court in just a few days, by April 29th, for them to be considered before the court decides if they will take the case.

Case: State of Ohio vs. William E. Williams

If you are interested I can provide more details or contact information.

[bignflnut]

Is this the case?
pg3

{¶4} The jury found Williams not guilty on the felonious assault charges and on Count 4, endangering children. The jury found Williams guilty on Count 3, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. Williams was sentenced on Count 3 to one and one-half years of community control sanctions and five days in jail, with credit for time served.

{¶6} In his first assignment of error, Williams contends that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on self-defense on Count 3, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, along with the other counts. Williams essentially argues that under the castle doctrine, he was entitled to protect himself with a firearm when he was attacked in his vehicle.

pg4

{¶8} On cross-examination, Williams testified that he does not have a concealed carry license. He also conceded that his loaded firearm was in the vehicle’s center console. The firearm at issue is a 9 mm handgun. {¶9} We note initially that the state contends that Williams failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he did not object to the jury instructions specifically relating to Count 3.

[wwiifirearms]

RSounds like it. My understanding as a non-lawyer. As understand it he was attacked while dropping his child off at school. He successfully defended himself and his child and was acquitted on all charges related to the shooting, but still found guilty on these counts because he had a loaded gun in a car without a CCW. The issue they want to appeal is that your right to defend yourself in your own car has not been tested since the Heller ruling.
If successful, it could potentially extend the self-defense rights established by Heller from your home to your car.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Sounds like Williams had a loaded firearm in the center console of his vehicle AND did not have a CHL. Well, it doesn't just sound that way...he concedes those points.

He wants 'self-defense' to apply to his Improper Handling charge, but that's unlikely to happen.

When we got "concealed carry", we lost "prudent person", which is what Williams needs.

Why? Because he was transporting that loaded gun BEFORE he needed to use it in self-defense. If he was eligible for a CHL, he should have obtained one. If he wasn't eligible, he should not have been transporting the gun.

That's my IANAL perspective, but I wish Williams and your sister luck!

[wwiifirearms]

I think you are looking at it based on the law and the appeal that was already ruled on. The case seeking writ at the Ohio Supreme Court is based on Constitutional grounds. It isn’t questioning if he broke the law, it is questioning if the law violates the constitution post Heller.
If it was about this guys fate it wouldn’t really impact the rest of us if they get a bad decision.
I think they are seeking an Amicus brief on constitutional issues.

(PS my sister is just in the same office, not on the appeal the Supreme Court.)

[DontTreadOnMe]

I actually have sympathy with this position, but I doubt the Ohio Supreme Court will even take up the case. My guess is the client will have to prepare a federal appeal on 2A grounds. My thinking is along these lines:

- Heller establishes a 2A right exists outside the home (not explicitly but inferred, and multiple circuits have held this so there's a good chance the sixth would as well).
- Although Ohio law doesn't require a person to get a concealed handgun license to exercise their 2A rights in general outside the home, current Ohio law makes it impossible for a person to exercise their 2A rights in their own vehicle (a place in which Ohio law otherwise recognizes under its "Castle" law) without getting a concealed handgun license (paying money in order to exercise the right).

It isn't the strongest argument, but I think the Sixth Circuit could be sympathetic to it.

[wwiifirearms]

I agree the case would need to make it to Federal Court, but as I understand it you cannot do that without first appealing to the State Supreme Court, then the Federal District Court, and then the Federal Supreme Court. That is why they are seeking an amicus brief from pro-2a groups. If they cannot even get an amicus brief to a state Supreme Court, what are the odds they will get support for taking it to Federal Court?

[willbird]

Sounds like Williams had a loaded firearm in the center console of his vehicle AND did not have a CHL. Well, it doesn't just sound that way...he concedes those points.

He wants 'self-defense' to apply to his Improper Handling charge, but that's unlikely to happen.

When we got "concealed carry", we lost "prudent person", which is what Williams needs.

Why? Because he was transporting that loaded gun BEFORE he needed to use it in self-defense. If he was eligible for a CHL, he should have obtained one. If he wasn't eligible, he should not have been transporting the gun.

That's my IANAL perspective, but I wish Williams and your sister luck!

We only lost "prudent person" for handguns, we still have it for anything but handguns. Of course we cannot get a license to carry loaded guns other than handguns on our person or in our vehicle.............

Personally I think Prudent Person should be restored.

Bill