

Changes to Ohio gun law unnecessary

7:41 PM, Nov. 30, 2013  |  Comments
  • Filed Under

In the days and weeks since a proposal to change Ohio's self-defense laws was offered, both sides of the debate made strong, impassioned pleas for and against the changes. Although some of the arguments against what some call the "stand your ground" provision were admittedly over-the-top, we believe the current law balances the rights of both gun owners and people who choose not to legally arm themselves.

Under current law, Ohioans do not need to retreat before using force if they are lawfully in their homes, vehicles or the vehicle of an immediate family member. You don't have to retreat to defend yourself, but you don't get to run outside the house and shoot an intruder in the back either.

The change would expand the circumstances where the use of force trumps the duty to retreat to public settings, such as stores and streets.

But we've not seen a wealth of evidence to suggest law-abiding citizens are being charged, and convicted, when they have defended themselves in public situations. Ultimately, the issue begs the question: Is the change essential to gun rights in Ohio?

We don't believe it is. The Fraternal Order of Police agrees, and opposes the stand your ground provision for solid reasons. There is no outcry from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association to clarify the law. They also oppose the change - and have from the beginning.

In the end, House Bill 203 is too broad and unnecessary, and we think the Senate should strip out that part of the bill. We believe in the rights of Ohioans to defend themselves when confronted with danger, particularly in regard to the Castle Doctrine, which allows homeowners to defend their homes if they fear for their safety.

The proper balance exists in current law and should remain, unchanged.

Things To Do


Real Deals
