Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee Considers Important Castle Doctrine Amendments

The Ohio House of Representatives Criminal Justice Committee met today to consider amendments to the Castle Doctrine legislation (the Senate version is SB 184) being considered. The House is due to recess in about two weeks for its summer break, and has left a lot of business unfinished, including this vitally important citizen safety legislation.

I attended the hearing for about an hour and a half this morning, before leaving for an appointment that helps pay the bills. Nevertheless, it was interesting to hear the lineup of people who, after this legislation has languished for nearly a year, suddenly are taking an interest and who have problems with the bill. Now, while opponents are mixed on the entire idea of Castle Doctrine (criminal and civil immunity for lawfully using potentially deadly force while in your home or car to defend yourself), a series of important amendments put forth by Buckeye Firearms Association met a solid wall of opposition from law enforcement organizations, largely objecting not on any real statistical grounds, but because they are police officers, and we should listen to them . . . because they are police officers.

With me yet?

In the end, the committee only discussed the amendments. They took no action because the amendments were never formally introduced. But they were debated.

First up was Mike Taylor, head of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police. He had a laundry list of issues. But in every case when he asked, his response was something like this (and I am paraphrasing), "I really don't have any statistics on that." Or, "I don't know." But he knows he doesn't like the amendments, which are actually numerous fixes to Ohio's problem-plagued concealed carry (CCW) law.

Also heard were representatives of the Ohio Chiefs of Police, a scandal-plagued group with little credibility, and the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association, which reportedly also objects to many of the amendments to fix CCW. This is a strange turnabout since BSSA has been a stalwart supporter of CCW reform in Ohio for years. Ohio's 88 sheriffs, which few exceptions, strongly supported CCW when it passed four years ago, after a 10 year battle in the Ohio General Assembly. That this fine organization now is changing its stance is more than a bit troubling.

Among the Ohio FOP objections:

1) Definition of "loaded firearm." Ohio is one of only a handful of states that still defines a "loaded" firearm as being unloaded, but with the ammunition ready-at-hand. Essentially, within reaching distance. Ohio FOP does not want "loaded firearm" language to be reformed to mean exactly that, a gun with ammunition in the firearm itself.

2) Katrina Provision. This would put into the Ohio Revised Code language that makes it illegal for law enforcement to arbitararily confiscate firearms from someone in their home if they are otherwise obeying the law. This occurred in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. More than 20 states, and the federal government, have sinced passed laws banning such arbitrary and illegal actions. Ohio FOP says if children were surrounding an abandoned gun on the street, they would not be permitted to pick it up and secure it because it might belong legally to someone who is law abiding.

More to come . . .