Nightline, the late night ABC News program, is planning to air a feature piece on the "Castle Doctrine" public safety phenomenon that is spreading across the nation.
Not sure how they will treat it. One focus point will be the controversial story of Joe Horn in Texas.
We have heard this statement so many times before. At the Ohio Statehouse, on ABC News, and illustrated in a gripping 911 tape from Indiana. People are listening.
If you notice, we have not seen a groundswell of calls for gun control in the wake of three high-profile shootings last week (Kirkwood, Mo; Baton Rouge, La.; and Portsmouth, Ohio) -- ALL occurring in gun-free, supposedly safe areas. In reality, these were "legislated zones of criminal opportunity."
"The reason I am telling you this story is to remind you that the first line in your defense is you. To leave it to others is pure folly."
Tim Inwood, of Clinton County in Ohio, has compiled three moving accounts of people who were defenseless.
"So my friends, if you have not done so already, I hope you will step up and take control of your own destiny. Buy a gun and learn how to use it. Practice and get the entire family (that is mature enough) to do so as well. Don’t let the sad fate of so many others befall you."
Well written. He reminds us once more that we are our own first lines of defense. Worth your time as we ready for a winter storm across Central Ohio tonight and tomorrow.
The Columbus Dispatch has a piece on a local woman who survived an attack by her estranged husband. She played dead. He killed himself.
She had a civil protection order. He ignored it. The story takes some time talking about how these orders often don't work.
"It sort of cuts both ways," said Phyllis Carlson-Riehm, executive director of the Action Ohio Coalition for Battered Women. A protection order gives credence to a victim's complaints and provides evidence that she's serious about ending the abuse, she said.
"Usually, we encourage people to take that step, but we realize it can cause more violence. … A protective order is a piece of paper, and a bullet can go through it and a knife can slash it."
In a paper published last year, Judy Postmus of Rutgers University evaluated the research on protection orders and the negative assumptions surrounding them, including the belief that they aren't useful. Postmus, a social-work professor and director of the Center for Violence Against Women and Children, concluded that if the abuse is severe and long-lasting, a protection order might be ineffective and cause more problems for the victim.
Updated: Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008, 1:11 pm -- The Columbus Dispatch has a story on the same Brady report. I particularly like the quote from Jeff Garvas of Ohioans for Concealed Carry. He notes that the "scorecard" the Brady campaign puts together is, in reality, a reflection of how well firearms advocates are doing in protecting the rights of all Ohioans.
*********
What else is new? The same argument each year. The Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) says Ohio is among several states not doing enough to combat so-called "gun violence" and "illegal guns."
WBNS10tv in Columbus has the story, as reported by Kevin Landers. You know, 10tv takes its job very seriously and does a good job of showing up at gun protests, but . . . unfortunately the assignment editors, or whoever schedules coverage of news stories and events, apparently juggle such a multitude of stories that reporters from this particular station -- a CBS affiliate -- rarely, if ever, are able to attend proponent testimony on pro-arms related safety legislation. I've never seen a staff so busy. I'm sure the appearance that the station is motivated solely by only one side of one particular issue is merely a coincidence.
As for the Brady's shrill warnings, they are the same arguments trotted out year after year. When I was in journalism school a million years ago, I was taught "if it isn't new, it isn't news." As for the validity of their concerns . . . well, consider the source.
Commentary on the piece:
Lt. Buechner has it right -- and frankly, its refreshing to hear an LEO tell the media you can't start telling people what they can and can't sell. That would mean in the used car biz that a Prius is okay, but a Maserati is unacceptable because it can break the law with its speed (but then so could the Prius). Also, there's that other sticking point . . . cars kill.
As for the gun store owner in Lancaster, I have a real bone to pick with him. According to the news story on 10tv, he advocates a semi-auto handgun with a magazine safety for home defense. This means the gun cannot be fired if the magazine drops out but there still is a round in the chamber. Very dangerous advice, and he should know better. In my personal opinion as an NRA certified firearms instructor, this is one of the WORST firearms to keep for self defense in the home. If you are awakened from a deep sleep to the sound of a break-in, or even are awake and alarmed that someone is breaking into your home, you are going to become adrenalized. As you are loading your sidearm, there is a good chance your nervousness may cause you to drop a loaded magazine, perhaps accidentally kicking it under your couch or bed, rendering your self defense tool as nothing than a big, expensive paperweight.
Magazine safetys were designed with law enforcement in mind, to prevent officers's guns from being used against them. While the gun is useless if the magazine drops out, the officer has extensive self defense training to wrestle the bad guy down. The average citizen does not. A bad, BAD recommendation from the Lancaster gun shop ower.
Frankly, if that's what he keeps for home defense, I wish him well and pray for his safety. Because he's not doing himself any favors.
As for the Brady Campaign, I would advise they take another look at Washington DC, home of some of the strictest gun control in the U.S. The never-ending violent crime there eclipses that of most areas of the nation. Which is why DC residents sued to have the three-decade ban on handguns taken off the books -- finally permitting residents to defend themselves with the tool of their choice, and to send a message to criminals that honest citizens are going to improve safety in the District of Columbia.
And until that ban is lifted, as far as places to live -- I know I am FAR safer in the Buckeye State than in our nation's capital. Which is, in fact, a sad commentary. They should both be safe places.
Updated: Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008, 10:49 pm -- Here is a report from the hearing by Buckeye Firearms Association. The eloquent Linda Walker, a BFA leader, penned the following: "Wednesday was another great day for pro-gun, pro-self-defense, and good people of Ohio. SB184, known as Castle Doctrine, received a third hearing and the anti-gun, anti-self defense, anti-crime victim social do-gooders had their say. While anyone would have a hard time explaining and defending their view of the world, the people they choose looked more inept than ever."
From my telephone conversation last night with Linda after the hearing, I think her words are an understatement. Nice catch, too, that Jeremy Burnside isn't just a rep for the Ohio Association for Justice (formerly the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers), but actually has an incredible bias he did not disclose to the committee. Gotta love the internet for research!
*********
Updated: Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008, 9:14 pm -- Observers at the Senate hearing tell me that Ms. Hoover, in her testimony, was complaining that with CCW, Ohioans for the past four years have been walking around with loaded guns. No kidding!? Now, if SB184 passes, she alleged in testimony that law abiding citizens would have the right to be judge, jury and executioner if confronted. Said one observer in a telephone call to me tonight, "I couldn't believe it. She was shilling for violent criminals!"
*********
Members of the Ohio Senate Committee on the Judiciary - Criminal heard both proponent and opponent testimony on Senate Bill 184 today, a bill that would provide civil immunity to an individual who uses force to defend themselves against a violent attack.
Among those testifying: Randy Van Fossan, chairman of Peoples Rights Organization (his testimony may be found here); a trial lawyer, Jeremy Burnside (opponent of the bill) who maintained that everyone deserves their day in court (even violent criminals suing crime victims who shot the criminal in self defense); Toby Hoover (opponent of the bill), executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence ; and a representative from Ohioans for Concealed Carry (proponent of the bill).
Also, David Johnson from Ohio Rifle and Pistol Association testified in favor of the legislation.
As soon as I have copies of their testimony, I will post them to this site. I had to leave the hearing early, actually BEFORE testimony on SB184 began. Senators got bogged down with discussion on other bills regarding stalking and mandatory prison sentences.
My contacts in the room with whom I have spoken since the hearing took place say Ms. Hoover took a good grilling from several of the senators, among them Sen. Steve Stivers, Sen. Tim Grendell, and Sen. Lance Mason. One of the questions being, and I am paraphrasing here, "You mean to tell us I have to retreat in my own house?" Another question, "You mean criminals have more rights than I do?" Allegedly, she did her best to dodge some of the obvious answers she did not want to give. Mr. Burnside also was grilled heavily by members of the panel, who took exception to his "nine scenarios" that could occur if Ohioans are granted civil immunity for using force to defend themselves.
Another senator, whose name escapes me, noted Ms. Hoover's "irrational fears" when she predicted blood in the streets and the Wild Wild West if CCW legislation passed, asked if she had evidence there would be carnage if SB184 passes. She dodged the question.
Also, it was noted that the Fraternal Order of Police has come out formally in opposition to the bill. People, the FOP needs to remember it is a police benefits bargaining union, and needs to quit trying to derail the rights of private citizens -- or in this case -- quit trying to prevent average citizens from getting back some rights they are currently denied. Plus, this bill has no impact on police. With all due respect to the many law enforcement officers who read The Ready Line, and the many LEOs who are my close friends (and whom I go out of my way to support), police carry sidearms, their leadership admit they can't be everywhere to protect everyone, and if I die because the police didn't get their in time, they are immune from prosecution.
If a police officer is on the scene where I am being attacked, however, doesn't it make sense that pretty much any situation should be taken care of by the LEO and I would have no need to draw a firearm. Right? So what logical reason can the FOP possibly have to oppose this bill, other than to keep its name in the news?
County prosecutors, who some have said are strongly opposed to this bill, are coming back next week to testify, as is the FOP representative. Which is interesting, considering there were a number of county prosecutors from around the state in the hearing room for the legislation regarding mandatory sentencing.
I anticipate SB184 will pass out of committee next Wednesday, and head to the full Ohio Senate. Hopefully, it will move along unscathed. We'll see.
More to come. . .
Yet another reason why "No Duty To Retreat/Castle Doctrine" legislation is so sorely needed in the Buckeye State.
"A homeowner who is confined to a wheelchair shot and wounded a man who confronted him on his door step, Atlanta police told 11Alive News."
He had no ability to retreat, regardless of his "duty." If he lived in Ohio, the homeowner would likely be sued by his attacker in civil court for defending himself, even if police and prosecutors determine the wheelchair-bound homeowner's actions were justified.
Pure idiocy.
NOTE: There is a hearing on SB184 tomorrow (Wednesday) before the Ohio Senate Committe on the Judiciary - Criminal, starting at 10 am on this very subect. Proponent and opponent testimony will be heard.
"For the Second Amendment, the results could be double-edged. If the Glock and SIG Sauer handguns of today were replaced by nonlethal stun guns, bans that covered these new weapons would be much harder to sustain under the Second Amendment. What would drive the push for gun control in the absence of bullet-ridden bodies? Legal rationales that may have seemed reasonable to deal with lethal firearms will seem embarrassingly unconvincing when applied to the nonlethal weapons of the future."
An interesting examination at Law.com on whether technology would change the way people look at self defense tools.
You may have watched self defense videos before. But you have never seen anything like this! Simply put, 
I suggest a glass of wine and some Python to put you in a relaxed mood before tensing up later this evening, wondering what President Bush has in store for firearms owners, and the nation's security, in his State of the Union address (his last).
No, silly. The law makes criminals think twice before breaking into a home or attacking a woman out on the street.
How does anyone NOT understand this? If they only had a brain.
"Colorado Springs deserves an award. In three consecutive months, private citizens have taken responsibility to stop violent crime in its tracks, shooting five violent predators. They’ve sent a powerful message to criminals everywhere, and it goes like this: There’s no easy prey in Colorado Springs."
From the Colorado Springs Gazette. Jeff Soyer at Alphecca predicts this is an editorial you may NEVER see reprinted anywhere else, particularly the New York Times.
