The Akron Legal News

Lawmakers mull local self-defense statutes

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 23, 2018

House lawmakers this week considered further testimony both for and against a bill that would codify an affirmative claim of self defense for Ohioans who own and use guns.

Both the Ohio Municipal League and League of Women Voters of Ohio came out against House Bill 228 for different reasons.

Kent Scarrett, executive director of the Ohio Municipal League, challenged the constitutionality of the bill championed by Republican Reps. Terry Johnson of McDermott and Sarah LaTourette of Chesterland.

The bill, "which began as 'stand-your-ground' legislation, now contains a series of local preemptions due to the recent adoption of a substitute bill," he told members of the Civil Justice Committee. "In direct violation of municipal Home Rule authority, the bill prohibits a city or village from passing a local ordinance dealing with firearm regulations - regardless of what local leaders deem is best and most safe for their local community."

Further, HB 228 would allow an individual who feels his right to bear arms has been violated to sue the municipality and be awarded actual damages and relief, Scarrett said.

"These 'rights' are expanded to include the right to 'acquire, carry, sell, and manufacture' firearms," he added. "This legislation now effectively prohibits municipalities from enforcing restrictions that make sense within their jurisdictions."

Current law permits municipalities to pass firearm restrictions so long as any restrictions do not contradict general law or are not addressed by general law at all.

Scarrett characterized the status quo as giving municipalities a limited scope to enact certain firearm restrictions they deem best.

Rose Craig, the League of Women Voter's gun control specialist, said the bill as it is now written is more "get off the hook" than "stand your ground."

She cited the nearly 9,000 Ohio concealed-cary licenses that have been suspended or revoked since 2014.

"Ohio law does not allow public audit or research into the CCW licensing system, ..." Craig said. "We are left to wonder why Ohioans are denied a right to verify whether those prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon errantly have a license.

"Without the ability to audit CCW data for suspensions and revocation, we undoubtedly have people in Ohio carrying concealed weapons who should not."

She mentioned a high-profile school shooting and church shooting and suggested racial motivations behind the shooting death of a black teen in 2012.

Instead of HB 228, she proposed lawmakers consider "enactment of so called 'red flag' laws which would allow the temporary removal of guns from the possession of demonstrably dangerous people" among other measures.

Countering Craig, resident and CCW license-holder Candy Petticord, who testified on behalf of the Buckeye Firearms, said that by the time she has drawn her gun toward a threat, she already has considered "a plethora of other options, including retreating."

If those alternatives already have been extinguished, she said, her only recourse is to defend herself with her firearm.

"I believe the majority of CCW holders feel as I do - the last thing we would ever want to do is take a human life," Petticord said. "However, if the tragedy of a self-defense shooting death occurs at the hands of a CCW holder, or even if a CCW holder only wounds someone else in the defense of his or her life, please understand that there is a huge probability that the CCW holder truly believed that the force applied was reasonable and necessary to prevent loss, harm, injury, or death."

As she sees it, Sec. 2901.05 incorrectly places the burden of proof on the victim.

"In cases of self-defense, this bill would shift the burden of proof to where it should be - on the prosecution," she said. "At this time Ohio law clearly and irrationally discriminates against victims of violence who choose to defend themselves.

"As I mentioned before, I believe I can confidently say that it is not the desire of the typical CCW holder to be involved in any type of shooting and if they have been involved in a self-defense shooting situation, they are probably devastated."

Finally, Dan Acton, government affairs director for the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association, offered his group's support of the measure.

"We must balance the need to protect the individual liberty of legal firearm ownership guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with our charge of housing provider," he noted. "For this reason, we support the individual property rights of tenants.

"Further, adding this protection sets an important precedent in landlord-tenant law in preventing landlords from overstepping and preventing other actions from occurring in the rental unit."

He also mentioned the cumbersome regulations associated with Section 8 housing.

"Any effort to prevent an overreach of the government on private property rights of property owners or tenants is an important issue for us," Acton said. "Our members strive to provide the safest and most secure properties that they can for the families and individuals to whom they rent."

A subsequent hearing the bill had not been scheduled at press time.

[Back]