05 December 2007

Ohio Senators Hear SB184 No Duty To Retreat/Castle Doctrine Testimony

I am just returned from the Ohio Statehouse where a proponent hearing on Senate Bill 184 took place. Four witnesses testified, including myself. The most compelling testimony came from a young man who has spent more than $40,000 in criminal defense for trying to protecting his girlfriend during a brutal assault, and defending himself in a civil case against the family of a criminal who committed the crime. Horrifying testimony, which I will have more details on when I get more time and notes in front of me.

Of concern, I learned from Sen. Mason that many county prosecutors in Ohio say they are against this bill because they don't like the "no duty to retreat" language. There are going to be a lot of fireworks on this one.

If I had to make a prediction, the Castle Doctrine portion of the bill will survive, but the No Duty To Retreat language may be excised. It depends on the whim of the Ohio Senate, which has always been, as a whole, rather wishy-washy on pro-self-defense firearms regulations.

Stay tuned . . .

No comments: