OH: Dilemma of shooting first

[HerrGlock]

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080614/OPINION02/806140315/-1/OPINION
Dilemma of shooting first

THERE are many reasons to like Gov. Ted Strickland. His position on National Rifle Association-backed attempts to create an armed society is not one of them.

This week, the governor unwisely signed into law a bill that weakens concealed-carry laws, declares open season on intruders, and unreasonably restricts the property rights of landlords. The bill, opposed by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and many police groups, breezed through a House and Senate eager to begin summer recess and concerned about offending the gun lobby in an election year.

The law, which will take effect in about three months, establishes in Ohio what is known as the "Castle Doctrine," or the principle that people in their own homes ought to be able to protect themselves or a third party with deadly force against intruders. That seems a reasonable position.

But Ohio's law goes further in three ways. It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later. Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

In essence, the law gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission.

More troubling, however, are changes the law makes to previous rules governing weapons in motor vehicles. Current state law requires motorists to transport their unloaded guns in a locked trunk or a case. The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by. The only possible purpose for this change is to make lethal force more readily available to drivers.

A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties.

For the NRA, the answer to society's ills is to put more guns into the hands of more people.

It is unfortunate that Governor Strickland chose to listen to it rather than to state prosecutors and many of its chief law-and-order organizations on this issue.

Send a letter to the editor at
letters@theblade.com

[CCWMike]

You have got to be kidding me....

If I read your reply right, you oppose this recent bill?

Currently in Ohio If someone breaks into your home, you have to do everything
in your power to RUN AWAY. Now we can defend ourselves. Currently in Ohio if
in an intruder breaks into your home with a weapon, threatens to kill you and
your family and you somehow are able to shoot them you can STILL BE PROSECUTED
in civil court even if you win in the criminal trial. You will most likely lose as
the family of the intruder or the intruder himself will SUE YOU for shooting him

Not only that you as the victim you are presumed GUILTY

This law now changes all this. Thank god for the Castle Doctorine Law
MANY other States have laws like this on the books. Anyone who opposes
this law must be one of 2 things, Either uninformed or a criminal. I am sure
that criminal tresspass will significantly drop due to this excellent law

[sctusa]

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080614/OPINION02/806140315/-1/OPINION
Dilemma of shooting first

THERE are many reasons to like Gov. Ted Strickland. His position on National Rifle Association-backed attempts to create an armed society is not one of them.

This week, the governor unwisely signed into law a bill that weakens concealed-carry laws, declares open season on intruders, and unreasonably restricts the property rights of landlords. The bill, opposed by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and many police groups, breezed through a House and Senate eager to begin summer recess and concerned about offending the gun lobby in an election year.

The law, which will take effect in about three months, establishes in Ohio what is known as the "Castle Doctrine," or the principle that people in their own homes ought to be able to protect themselves or a third party with deadly force against intruders. That seems a reasonable position.

But Ohio's law goes further in three ways. It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later. Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

In essence, the law gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission.

More troubling, however, are changes the law makes to previous rules governing weapons in motor vehicles. Current state law requires motorists to transport their unloaded guns in a locked trunk or a case. The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by. The only possible purpose for this change is to make lethal force more readily available to drivers.

A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties.

For the NRA, the answer to society's ills is to put more guns into the hands of more people.

It is unfortunate that Governor Strickland chose to listen to it rather than to state prosecutors and many of its chief law-and-order organizations on this issue.

Send a letter to the editor at
letters@theblade.com

Then why would it be concealed carry? Does Ohio require CCW permit holders to unload their weapon when getting into the car? DUH!!! I doubt that....

[bogey3737]

A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties.


Wonder what his position would be if a landlord told a tennant that he/she could not author a political blog while living in said apartment. That doggone Second Ammendment is just SO inconvenient.

[Tinamil]

Then why would it be concealed carry? Does Ohio require CCW permit holders to unload their weapon when getting into the car? DUH!!! I doubt that....


The article is wrong. The new law allows CHL holders to carry a loaded firearm in an unlocked glovebox or center console. Previously your gun had to be on your person in a holster or locked up.

[Dandapani]

But Ohio's law goes further in three ways. It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later. Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

In essence, the law gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission.

Stay out of my home and out of my car without my permission. What is so hard for the lib-tards to understand. Everyone is safe when they do what they are supposed to.

Back in 2004 when I took my CCW training in OH. The "legal" portion of the course was taught by the then assistant State Attorney General, who was responsible for drafting the "CCW pamphlet" and training package for the state LEO regarding the new CCW laws.

When asked about confronting an intruder in your home who was doing nothing more than stealing your TV and stereo. Could you "protect" yourself and your property?

He said, NO! At that time, all you could do was to hold the door for him, and help him carry your stuff out so that he wouldn't injure himself on your property and possibly sue you. You could not do anything if he did not present deadly force.

[Vic777]

The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by. The only possible purpose for this change is to make lethal force more readily available to drivers.This is good. It's on the right track, but the guns should be loaded.

[Tinamil]

This is good. It's on the right track, but the guns should be loaded.

They are. The article is wrong.

[MattG23Seattle]

A few points by the writer jump out as being erroneous and extremely influential statements designed to get those voters and public unaware of laws and common sense to be anti-gun.



It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later.


I believe that you should retreat if your chances of survivor are greater than holding your ground and being in an armed confrontation but you have to make a stand somewhere. I am not one who states that my home is my castle and to enter into it is coming on sacred ground. But the message that breaking into people's homes is a very serious offense is supported by nothing greater than the thought that you might die by doing so.



Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder.

I believe this is something we have already;

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is also stated as 'innocent until proven guilty'. The writer might find this shocking that it is the 5th ammendment of the United States Constitution and part of our Bill of Rights.


And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

A previous poster pointed out the main flaw here already but I do not see how my carrying legally in my car and using Castle Doctrine to defend myself within (a much smaller floor plan than my house BTW since I do not live in NYC) increases the likelihood of violence. If I am having to make a descision to pull my weapon and shoot someone, I can guarantee you that violence is already occuring and me having a concealed pistol has no effect on whether or not that happens - just the number of responses from which I can choose .

A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties.


You can not limit the rights of an individual even though you are giving them a place to rent from you. This is their place of residence and therefore the private property / public property line concerning CCW carry no longer holds. This protects us a citizens from discrimination (though not here in Seattle with Mayor Greg Nickels) and is worded in the constitution. You might as well say that someone can not live in the building because they are Black or Chinese or gay or a Democrat.

Those who make the argument that with guns your rights are putting them in danger where the other examples I stated do not, still believe that someone with a CCW permit and legally carrying a gun makes them less safe.

Until that logic changes we will have a hard time with gun control laws in the US.

[Hask12]

If they're in your house there should be no reason whatsoever to have to retreat.

[wrangler5]

The only objectors to the Castle Doctrine laws who actually have a legitimate interest in the issue are prosecutors and plaintiff's lawyers. (Cops only enforce the laws that are in effect - if the law says a particular shooting is not a crime, then the cops legally have no interest in it.)

Prosecutors want to be able to charge as many people as possible with as many charges as possible. It increases their potential for convictions, and gives more leverage in plea negotiations. Unfortunately, it also gives them the ability to destroy folks that most of us on this forum would consider "innocent," by making them defend themselves against homicide charges under a "let a jury sort it out" attitude. Prosecutors get paid to prosecute cases, but for a defendant, even if they are successful the cost of defending a criminal charge will put most families near, if not into, bankruptcy.

Plaintiff's lawyers want to be able to sue as many people for as many "offenses" as possible. Every gang banger home invader is actually an innocent, misunderstood choir boy whose grieving mother (who couldn't wait for the lazy hoodlum to move out and stop eating her food) is now devastated beyond words or compensation by his tragic and unnecessary death. If a plaintiff's lawyer can find a homeowners insurance company to sue he is more likely than not to get some money, because for an insurance company it's almost always cheaper to settle than to litigate and they are generally unwilling to pay extra to stand on a principle.

If prosecutors had been sensible in applying the "duty to retreat" rule, legislatures would not see the need to replace it with a Castle Doctrine. The fact that a Castle Doctrine law means a gangster may, theoretically, be able to get away with shooting another gangster in the first gangster's home is simply the price we pay for living under a system of laws. (Personally, I think it's a good way to thin the herd.)

If plaintiff's lawyers did not have the habit of trying to make money off of the innocent who defend themselves against criminals, the legislatures would not have to pass laws stopping them.

Missouri adopted a Castle Doctrine law in 2007, to resolve the same issues that Ohio citizens face (in MO, the "duty to retreat" had been created entirely by the judiciary through their jury instructions - the legislature had NEVER voted to adopt the rule as a part of the criminal law of the state.) So far there have been only a few reported instances where the new law has applied and (thankfully) the prosecutors have not tried to bring charges to see if they could find some loopholes or restrict the boundaries of the new law. Hopefully, Ohio prosecutors will be as accepting of the will of the people of Ohio.

[Yrdawg]

In essence, the law gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission.

Still workin at findin the fault with this part

:50cal:

[Renny]

Same here.

R

[RussP]

http://glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=151880&stc=1&d=1213466813

[steveksux]

The law, which will take effect in about three months, establishes in Ohio what is known as the "Castle Doctrine," or the principle that people in their own homes ought to be able to protect themselves or a third party with deadly force against intruders. That seems a reasonable position.
But Ohio's law goes further in three ways. It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later. Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.Clearly that person doesn't understand what "Castle Doctrine" means. He says "Castle Doctrine" seems like a reasonable proposal, then takes the normal elements of a castle doctrine law and treats then as unreasonable extensions beyond castle doctrine.

Its like saying you're in favor of laws allowing concealed pistol carry as long as they don't include pistols and they're not concealed on your person. What a dumbass.... No shortage of them in the editorial section, eh?

Randy

[fgutie35]

Hey! give the guy a break, he problably does not understand the Castle Doctrine in its full context. Do we have any lawyers on this forum that can explain to him in a more simple way so he can have a better understanding of what he is protesting against?
My simple explanation is that we now have the right to protect not only ourselves and our love ones but also our property that we as hard working citizens have gained with the sweat of our backs. Before we had no choice but to watch them striping us away from our valiables and our patrimony helplessly cause we could not stop them. Also we couldn't use deadly force outside our home (patio, porch or backyard)to defend ourselves. Even law enforcement saw something wrong with that specific situation because some LEO would advise citizens if they saw themselve on that situation, to drag the body inside your house to avoid criminal and civil lawsuit grief. I hope this makes your understanding clearer.

[Gunnut 45/454]

Way to go Ohio!! :supergrin: So now yell it up high on the Mountain-criminals RUN!!!!! :wavey:

[kelsitone]

Maybe now we'll get something similar to these: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/10/04/national/04shootCA01ready.html

[Gary1911A1]

Keep in mind it's going to be 90 days or early September maybe the 8th before the law goes into effect

[Gunnut 45/454]

kelsitone
That's one great badge of Honor!! They probably need to put great big signs on the Interstate to tell those criminals when the come to Ohio that they are now on the shoot first list! Go back to IL it's a Criminal protection zone!!

[PhoneCop]

Maybe now we'll get something similar to these: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/10/04/national/04shootCA01ready.html

Ya, know, remove the Brady campaign reference and I'd put that on my car... may anyways!

[rvrctyrngr]

Ya, know, remove the Brady campaign reference and I'd put that on my car... may anyways!

Yeah, the Bradiots thought it was cute to buy billboard space with that sign on them at the FL borders on I-95, I-75, and I-10. Also bought signs at some of our major airports as a 'warning' to tourists (heard they put some up at some of the larger Eurabia airports as well, but I can't confirm that).

Whatever....I liked it, and it sure didn't affect our tax base at all.

[Buki192327]

The LIBERALS at the Toledo Blade, want us to feel sorry for the buglars, robbers and carjackers. The burglars only need a place to stay and something to eat. Give it to them. Who cares that you paid for the house and food? The robber only needs some $$$$. Give it to them. Who cares who worked for the money? The carjacker only needs a ride to get his next fix. Give them a ride. Who cares who is making the car payment or paying for the insurance and gasoline? Only the LIBERAL press could care that the buglars, robbers and carjackers might have to go to work, at a real job. :steamed::upeyes:

[GLOCK_27]

"edit. Buckeyefirearms.com has a good list of whats been changed. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5730/

[hotvet67]

It's been michigan law since 2006 - stay out of the wrong Castle and there should not be a problem. Way to Go Ohio

http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=1541&zoneid=100

[NateIU10]

Maybe now we'll get something similar to these: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/10/04/national/04shootCA01ready.html


http://i27.tinypic.com/anbrxk.png

You mean like this :rofl::rofl:

[kelsitone]

http://i27.tinypic.com/anbrxk.png

You mean like this :rofl::rofl:

I like it! If I saw that upon entering a state, I may just decide to extend my stay there.

[Haldor]

Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. [/LIST]

I believe this is something we have already;


Actually in Ohio we did not.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove you did the shooting. When you make a self defense claim you admit you did the shooting, but that it was justified as self defense. At that point the burden of proof shifts to the person making the self defense claim that they were in fact justified to do so.

This is a really big change in Ohio law and I am very glad to see it pass. It burns me that we had to elect a democrat governor to get this signed into law (Taft was a total waste of protoplasm). If you are interested in what changed in Ohio law with this bill, read this link.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5730/

There are a bunch of other issues resolved by this law. Technically under previous law it could be argued that there was no legal way to carry a weapon in your car without a CHL, even if it was unloaded. This has not been enforced, because either LEOs didn't know about it or else recognized that it was bull.

[Dean]

Ohio's law removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later. Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder. And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

In essence, the law gives homeowners and motorists the right to blow away anyone who enters their home or vehicle without permission.

+1
That is FINE WITH ME.

[Saltcreek]

CCW holder from Ohio here!
Also part of the new law requires that if Law enforcement takes your gun for some reason and no charges are filed, they have a "DUTY" to protect and maintain the gun in good condition and have to pay any Court costs incured by the owner who has to file to get it back.
Further - the Castle Doctrine part PROHIBITS scumbags who were commiting crimes on your property OR THEIR FAMILIES from suing you for any injury or loss they incured in what would be considered a crime even if they were not charged! :)

[wrangler5]

<snip> Further - the Castle Doctrine part PROHIBITS scumbags who were commiting crimes on your property OR THEIR FAMILIES from suing you for any injury or loss they incured in what would be considered a crime even if they were not charged! :)

Many castle doctrine laws around the country have provisions like this. What's usually missing is a SANCTION for scumbag plaintiff lawyers who file claims anyway and make the shooter spend money to defend the lawsuit. There is also a risk that judges, many of whom were plaintiffs lawyers themselves, will find exceptions or reasons why the law doesn't protect a particular shooter.

We just had this happen recently in Missouri, albeit in a somewhat different context. We've had a law on the books for years that specifically exempts a property owner, who allows the public to hunt on his land, from liability for injuries which those hunters may suffer. Well, a property owner gave permission to two different people to hunt on his land, they both decided to go hunting on the same day but were unaware of each other, and one shot and killed the other (everybody agrees it was unintentional.) Decedent's estate sued the property owner, which you'd think was prohibited by the statute. BUT - the trial judge bought the plaintiff''s lawyer's argument and ruled that since the land owner didn't allow EVERYBODY to hunt on his land then he hadn't given permission to the PUBLIC and so he wasn't covered by the statutory exemption and so COULD be held liable. Our Supreme Court just set this one right and ruled that the law did NOT require opening your land to everyone in order for the exemption to apply. But I hate to think what it cost the property owner in legal fees to win this case, which I think all of us who are not plaintiff's lawyers would agree was prohibited by the statute in the first place. And it shows the extent to which plaintiffs lawyers will go (and the extent to which judges are willing to go along) in order to get money out of somebody else.

[Bren]

Many castle doctrine laws around the country have provisions like this. What's usually missing is a SANCTION for scumbag plaintiff lawyers who file claims anyway and make the shooter spend money to defend the lawsuit. There is also a risk that judges, many of whom were plaintiffs lawyers themselves, will find exceptions or reasons why the law doesn't protect a particular shooter.

The possible sanction I can see is that if you (lawyer) file a lawsuit for a client in a case where the shooter was clearly justified your client will have to pay lot of money to the shooter. In that case, you not only don't get paid for akll the time you put in, but you have probably malpracticed the case and your client can sue you for legal malpractice, so the lawyer could end up being the one who pays.

The great thing about the contingent fee system is that people who have valid claims can sue, even if they're poor, and lawyers who file BS claims will generally go broke.

Judges are a problem I don't have an answer to.

[willy1094]

I know it's already been said but I think it's sad, better yet sickening that the writer of the article thinks people's homes and veh's should be open range for anyone to just come in when they want. It's soo disappointing that todays society doesn't have the expectation that people should be required to respect boundries. It's one thing for someone to be tresspassing on your property but IN your property in another!! :steamed:

[gretske]

The fact is, that Castle doctrine laws have been in effect for many years in places like Florida, where there have not been problems with innocent people being hurt. However, there has been an increase in criminals being shot, which is exactly the law's intent.

It is sad that many journalists are more concerned with robbers and home invaders than they are with innocent homeowners.

[N4tbg]

The fact is, that Castle doctrine laws have been in effect for many years in places like Florida, where there have not been problems with innocent people being hurt. However, there has been an increase in criminals being shot, which is exactly the law's intent.

It is sad that many journalists are more concerned with robbers and home invaders than they are with innocent homeowners.

I am guessing those journalists have NEVER had any thing bad happen to them. They probably grew up in a family that sheltered them from real life. The change in opinion is amazing after becoming a victim of a violent crime and experiencing all the emotional damage that comes with it. We have all seen the videos of the bravo mikes beating up and robbing old ladies. My mother was followed home (later it was determined to be over 16 miles) and robbed in her own driveway. To this day she has panic attacks in public when approached by a bravo mike not to mention the fear she has at her home. If I ever meet one of those journalists I will take the simple assault charge for spitting in their face. :steamed:

[saminksiii]

A few points by the writer jump out as being erroneous and extremely influential statements designed to get those voters and public unaware of laws and common sense to be anti-gun.



It removes the requirement that the person in danger retreat if possible, encouraging victims to shoot first and ask questions later.


I believe that you should retreat if your chances of survivor are greater than holding your ground and being in an armed confrontation but you have to make a stand somewhere. I am not one who states that my home is my castle and to enter into it is coming on sacred ground. But the message that breaking into people's homes is a very serious offense is supported by nothing greater than the thought that you might die by doing so.



Second, it shifts the burden to prosecutors to prove a shooting was not self-defense, making it easier for bad guys to literally get away with murder.

I believe this is something we have already;



This is also stated as 'innocent until proven guilty'. The writer might find this shocking that it is the 5th ammendment of the United States Constitution and part of our Bill of Rights.


And third, it extends the protection to vehicles as well as residences, which, when coupled with watered-down concealed-carry provisions, increases the likelihood of violence there as well.

A previous poster pointed out the main flaw here already but I do not see how my carrying legally in my car and using Castle Doctrine to defend myself within (a much smaller floor plan than my house BTW since I do not live in NYC) increases the likelihood of violence. If I am having to make a descision to pull my weapon and shoot someone, I can guarantee you that violence is already occuring and me having a concealed pistol has no effect on whether or not that happens - just the number of responses from which I can choose .

A third provision in the law prohibits landlords from forbidding tenants to have guns in their rental units. This is a serious infringement of a landlord's property rights. Tenants have the right to choose where they live, but they do so in full knowledge of the restrictions a landlord may place on the accommodation. Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can prohibit pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties.


You can not limit the rights of an individual even though you are giving them a place to rent from you. This is their place of residence and therefore the private property / public property line concerning CCW carry no longer holds. This protects us a citizens from discrimination (though not here in Seattle with Mayor Greg Nickels) and is worded in the constitution. You might as well say that someone can not live in the building because they are Black or Chinese or gay or a Democrat.

Those who make the argument that with guns your rights are putting them in danger where the other examples I stated do not, still believe that someone with a CCW permit and legally carrying a gun makes them less safe.

Until that logic changes we will have a hard time with gun control laws in the US.

Last I remember there was no Constitutional right to keep and bare pets?

[Big Al 24]

There are too many
http://www.focusontraffic.com/BABY_CRYING.gif
running around out there.

[Blitzer]

More communist banter! :rant: :burn: :puking:


http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa288/Blitzer0101/V-for-Vendetta.jpg

[James Markov]

More communist banter! :rant: :burn: :puking:


http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa288/Blitzer0101/V-for-Vendetta.jpg

I know you own a Keltec P-11 but do you also own a Keltec PF-9?

[CCWMike]

Right On...

After the Castle Doctorine goes into effect we can be safe in our homes,
that is safe from prosecution should we have to defend ourselves

The laws in Ohio are TERRIBLE. The new Castle Doctorine here basically states
that once someone enters your home, car, wherever you live that person is
branded as a criminal that is entering to do you harm. You now have full legal
authority to shoot this person BEFORE they do you harm. You are presumed
innocent now also, not guilty.

The criminal and their family can not sue the victim anymore. So if a victim shoots
a criminal intruder in the victims home or car and "Blows His Arm Off" with a shotgun
they can NO LONGER come back and sun the victim

In Ohio now if you defend yourself in a "Good Shoot" you as the victim are
presumed GUILTY. You will go to jail then court, and even if you are found innocent
in the criminal portion the criminal (If Alive) or the family can sue you and WILL WIN

Thank god for the new laws