Monday, July 07, 2014

Students for Concealed Carry file lawsuit against THE Ohio State University.

(Columbus, Ohio) Today in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Students for Concealed Carry joined by Ohioans for Concealed Carry filed suit against The Ohio State University. The suit alleges that OSU is currently violating Ohio's preemption laws regarding firearms rights. The parties are represented by Barney DeBrosse LLC and attorney Michael Moran. The lawsuit can be found at the Franklin County Clerk's WEBSITE under case number 14 CV 6927. The complaint can be found here.

Monday, February 03, 2014

New Domestic Violence Firearm Disability Case Coming Soon.

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a critical case involving firearm rights. In United States v. Castleman, the Court will interpret the federal law at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) that creates a lifetime firearm ban for any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Their decision will affect the rights of thousands of Ohioans with a conviction under Ohio Revised Code 2919.25.

The case involved James Alvin Castleman, who was convicted under a Tennessee Domestic Assault statute. Castleman was arrested for several alleged violations of federal law, including 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). He argued that his conviction did not constitute a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence because it did not require the “use of force” as an element. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Castleman that his conviction did not meet the definition, and the United States Attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

On January 15, 2014, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Castleman’s case. They were especially critical of the Government’s argument that it would be a use of force if an individual, while taking a picture of a person, told that person to back up and they fell off of a cliff. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts emphasized that the Government advocates for an interpretation of the law that has no limiting principle. While the Court did not seem to agree with the breadth of the Government’s interpretation of the law, they did appear to worry that Castleman’s position would render 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) meaningless in much of the country.

We expect that it will be June of 2014 at the earliest before the Court issues its opinion in United States v. Castleman. As Ohio firearm rights lawyers, Barney DeBrosse will be ready and able to help our client’s determine how the Court’s opinion affects their constitutional right to bear our arms. Contact us today if you or someone you know has a conviction possibly involving domestic violence and is concerned about their firearm rights.

Monday, January 06, 2014


As gun lawyers, Barney DeBrosse, LLC closely monitors court cases that affect firearm rights and firearm disabilities. There is a case before the United States Supreme Court that is critically important for individuals who have lost their firearm rights due to a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (“MCDV”). On January 15, 2014, the Court will hear arguments in United States v. Castleman, on appeal from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Castleman case will clarify which state convictions can create a federal firearm disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Under federal law, certain state convictions qualify as MCDVs. For a state law conviction to be disqualifying, it must: 1) be a misdemeanor under state law, 2) “ha[ve], as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” and 3) be committed against one of the statutorily defined family members. Furthermore, federal law does not look at the individual facts behind the conviction to determine whether it is disqualifying. Courts look only to the language of the statute, and determine whether every individual convicted of the offense meets the federal threshold for an MCDV. A specific state statute creates a disability only if every conviction under that statue would qualify as an MCDV. The question before the Supreme Court is what degree of physical force must a statute require in order for the statute to create an MCDV disability. Castleman was convicted in 2001 of violating a Tennessee law for committing a domestic assault. He argued, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) requires the use of strong or violent physical force for a domestic violence conviction to create a firearm disability. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) only requires a simple assault, e.g. any unwanted physical contact. Because of similarities between Tennessee’s domestic assault law and Ohio’s domestic violence law, if the Supreme Court rules in Castleman’s favor it could mean that there are no convictions under Ohio law which create an MCDV disability. As gun lawyers, we use our understanding of state and federal firearm law to help our clients regain their firearm rights. When our lawyers meet with clients who have a conviction under Ohio Revised Code 2919.25 for domestic violence, we sit down and analyze whether 1) the conviction would qualify as an MCDV disability under the current law, and 2) what their options will be after Castleman is decided. Unlike many felonies, most MCDV convictions in Ohio create a permanent, lifetime firearm disability. Castleman has the potential to undo the lifetime firearm disability that affects many otherwise law-abiding citizens in Ohio. If you or someone you know was arrested for or convicted of Ohio Revised Code 2919.25 domestic violence, contact Barney DeBrosse, LLC today for an analysis of your individual situation.

Monday, November 04, 2013

New Changes to Ohio Open Carry Issues.

As Ohio Gun Lawyers our office is always up to date on the most recent changes in the law. This article is meant to address just a few changes. Representative Terry Johnson (R) of Ohio House District 90 sponsored House Bill 203, a bill that has received significant news coverage because it changes Ohio’s self defense law to eliminate the duty to retreat. The ‘stand your ground’ provision, while important, is only a single aspect of a bill that will address a number of important issues facing firearm owners across the state. This post will address two of the other provisions of HB 203, specifically those that help protect private citizens who are lawfully carrying firearms from harassment and arrest. In Ohio, individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms may lawfully carry a firearm openly in public. The principle applies to all manner of legal firearms, including sporting rifles and shotguns. As long as the location does not prohibit the carrying of firearms, either by law or by the posting of signs, an individual does not violate the law by carrying a firearm. The lawfulness of open carry finds its origins within the Second Amendment; if individuals have the right to bear arms, and the law restricts their ability to carry arms concealed, then the Constitution must protect their right to carry arms openly. While there is arguably a tactical disadvantage to carrying a firearm openly, many proponents of open carry do so both to have a firearm for self-defense and to make a political statement. Unfortunately, open carriers may find themselves the target of police officers who either do not know or do not care that such conduct is entirely lawful. Two of the most common crimes with which open carriers are improperly charged are Disorderly Conduct (Revised Code 2917.11) and Inducing Panic (Revised Code 2917.31). Our office has handled numerous cases on behalf of open carriers wrongfully arrested for lawfully carrying a firearm. No individual should ever have to experience the humiliation, inconvenience, and cost of fighting an unjust arrest while lawfully exercising a constitutional right. HB 203 changes both the Disorderly Conduct and Inducing Panic statutes to include the language that “[t]he exercise of a constitutional or statutory right is not, in itself, a violation of this section and does not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” The proposed section accomplishes two very important things. First, it unequivocally states that exercising a constitutional right (e.g. open carrying) cannot be the basis for a Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic conviction. Second, it restricts the ability of police officers to ‘seize’ an individual, as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment, for exercising a constitutional right. Under the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, law enforcement may not seize an individual without reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the individual has committed a crime. HB 203 explicitly renders the open carrying of a firearm insufficient on its own to justify the seizure of an individual. If HB 203 is passed, the police could still stop and question an individual openly carrying a firearm, but they would not be able to detain that individual or prevent them from going on their way without some other evidence that the individual committed a crime. Until HB 203 is passed, we will continue to fight to vindicate the rights of citizens lawfully openly carrying their firearms in public. As gun lawyers, we believe in the right of individuals to openly carry firearms in public, and believe that all individuals who obey the law should be able to go about their business without harassment or persecution by over-zealous police officers.

Sunday, December 02, 2012

What is Dangerous Ordnance?

Our gun attorneys are routinely contacted with requests from potential clients wishing to obtain what is referred to under Ohio Law as "dangerous ordnance". So what exactly is "dangerous ordnance"? In its essence dangerous ordnance under Ohio Law is any suppressor, machine gun, sawed off firearm, zip gun, ballistic knife or explosive. Generally under Ohio law it is illegal to possess these items, however, there are exceptions to this rule. In particular there are two exceptions relevant to the average citizen. The first is if the person registers the item on the National Firearms Act ("NFA") registry under federal law. The second is if the person obtains a license from their county sheriff known as a form BSSA-1. What one needs to keep in mind is that these items are HIGHLY regulated under BOTH federal and state law however. As such, if the item is a regulated item under both state and federal law the item must be registered under the NFA registry in order for legal possession. There are, however, a few instances where an item is not a federally regulated item and is, therefore, only considered dangerous ordnance by state law. Specifically, machine guns defined as any semi-automatic firearm capable of firing more than 31 cartridges without reloading. Practically speaking this means if one wishes to possess a large capacity magazine in Ohio all they need is the license from their sheriff (the BSSA-1). With regards to the traditional items considered dangerous ordnance or Class III, Title II firearms there are many mechanisms our office can assist the client with in the purchasing process. Specifically our office routinely drafts what is commonly known as a "gun trust". This unique trust has many benefits from avoiding particular federal requirements to allowing the owner to have multiple owners of the trust allowed to possess such a weapon not. If you are in the market to expand a gun collection into Title II, Class III weaponry the gun lawyers at Barney DeBrosse, LLC can help. Please call to schedule a consultation.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Concealed Carry On Campus.

Students from around the country are fighting for their rights to carry firearms on campus for self-defense. Proponents for concealed carry on campus stress that training on how to handle guns is important, which is part of receiving one's Concealed Carry License. They also say that policies forbidding carrying on campus leave students vulnerable because criminals know that they are unarmed. There have been some victories regarding students carrying on campus. For example, the University of Colorado now permits carrying on campus, though there are stipulations, such as students who carry being segregated in a separate dorm. On the Ohio State University's campus, students for the right to carry have participated in an empty holster day. This is when people wear a visible holster, without a gun, to show their support of carrying on campus. It is clear that a student's freedom to carry a firearm on campus has a far way to go, however, people continue to fight for their constitutional right to bear arms, no matter where they are. The Gun lawyers at Barney DeBrosse, LLC have been monitoring this movement very closely and will keep the information forthcoming.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

New Sportsmen Bill to be Heard by the Senate.

In the coming week, the Senate will be looking at a hunting and wildlife bill, which passed in the House 274-146. It combines proposed bills from both Democrats and Republicans, and therefore, has bipartisan support. However, this could change due to the upcoming elections, even though the bill has been worked on for the past two years. This bill would ease restrictions for public land access, increase the amount of money states receive to maintain shooting ranges and allow bow hunters to carry their weapons through national parks. The Bureau of Land Management would only be allowed to close public lands to recreational shooting for specific reasons, such as national security or fire safety. It ensures that hunters will continue to be able to use lead bullets, which is an issue environmentalists, like the Environmental Protection Agency, have been fighting against. The bill will also reauthorize existing conservation programs for elephants, tigers, turtles, great apes and rhinoceroses. The bill could do great things for hunters around the country, including preserving their rights and giving them more access to places to hunt. As a 2nd Amendment law firm the attorneys at Barney DeBrosse, LLC are devoted to hunting in this country. Call today for a consultation.