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.

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.

NEW CASE LAW ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND GUNS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Concealed Carry and the Multitude of laws.

It is important for a person with a license to carry a concealed firearm to know the laws of his or her state in order to be in compliance. First, in order to be eligible for an Ohio Concealed Handgun License ("CHL"), a person must be a resident of Ohio for 45 days and over 21 years old. Then, before receiving a CHL, one must participate in a training course of a minimum of 12 hours. 10 of the hours must be dedicated to safe handling, storage, and firing of a handgun, resulting in a written exam. The last 2 hours must be dedicated to live-fire training. A divergence from this criteria could result in an invalid CHL. Once a person has a CHL, he or she should be aware of where he or she is allowed to carry. For example, concealed carry may not be allowed on privately or government owned land in certain situations. In addition, knowing where your CHL is recognized through state reciprocity is crucial. Many states recognize Ohio CHLs: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. This is just a short synopsis of what a potential or current CHL holder should be aware of. For more information or to schedule a consultation please call the law office of Barney & DeBrossse, LLC or visit us at www.ohiogunlawyer.com.

Federal Firearm Licenses and Government Regulation.

A Federal Firearms License (FFL) is a required license in order for a person to engage in business involving the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition or interstate and intrastate sales of firearms. This became a requirement after the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. However, later legislation has altered who is required to have an FFL. Among other restrictions, an FFL applicant must be 21 years or older, is not prohibited from handling or possessing firearms or ammunition, has not violated the Gun Control Act or its regulations, has not failed to disclose information or facts in connection with the application, and has a premises for conducting business or collecting. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), "Licensees must maintain records of all firearms receipts and dispositions, including the name, age, and place of residence of purchasers." This means that a person with an FFL must keep detailed and accurate records in order to comply with the requirements of ATF. In addition, licensees must respond immediately to ATF firearms trace requests and reports of multiple sales of two or more handguns sold at one time or during any five consecutive business days are required to be submitted to ATF. Finally, if a licensee discontinues his business, he must give his records to ATF. These multitude of regulations make conducting a gun dealership highly susceptible to revocation proceedings by the ATF. As gun lawyers the attorneys at Barney & DeBrosse know what is necessary to avoid such impediments to running a successful business. Aside from the knowledge the attorneys have in dealing with the ATF, Barney & DeBrosse, LLC is also Midwest Regional Counsel for FFLGuard a national network of gun lawyers who defend FFLs. Call today for a consultation if you are facing any issues with your FFL or are planning to begin a new FFL.

HERE WE GO AGAIN - ANOTHER USELESS GUN LAW.

President Obama has been publically calling for the renewing of the Assault Weapon Ban. The original Ban was approved by Congress in 1994 for 10 years. It banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons. He said, "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities." The civilian version of the AK-47, though it looks like a machine gun used by the military, is the same as a deer-hunting rifle. Compared to a deer-hunting rifle, the civilian version uses similar bullets, fires at the same rapidity, and does the same damage. His support of the Ban is not unusual; he supported banning semi-automatic guns, which includes most of the guns in the United States, as a senator for Illinois in 1998. However, no published peer-reviewed studies by economists or criminologists find that the original federal or state assault-weapons ban reduced murder or overall violent crime. Actually, since the federal ban expired, in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have fallen. President Obama's policies, the Assault Weapon Ban, along with other gun-control legislation, are threats to law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens.

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH GUN CONTROL.

Because of the recent Colorado shooting, many anti-gun advocates are now calling for more gun control legislation. However, the proposed legislation does not resolve the supposed problems they are trying to combat. For example, on July 30, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a bill that would ban the sale of ammunition online and by mail. However, the implementation of this bill would not have prevented the shooting that sparked it. The proposed bill would make the rules for buying ammunition the same as those for buying a gun. However, the shooter in Colorado was able to legally buy a gun from a dealer and would still have been able to buy the ammunition, even if this bill was in place. In addition, the bill would "mandate licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days." The shooter in Colorado allegedly planned his attack well in advance, which means he would have been able to spread out his purchases of ammunition over time to conceal his purchases. The bill is a danger for gun advocates because it makes the process of buying ammunition much more difficult and people would be reported if he is buying more than 1,000 rounds, but these laws do not resolve the issue of mass shootings, like in Colorado. Gun advocates need to let their voices be heard and oppose this detrimental legislation. In an interesting side note, besides the shooting in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. since, at the latest, 1950, where more than three people were killed, have been in places where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

UPDATE ON U.N. ARMS TREATY.

The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty, after a month long conference, was tabled for the time being on Friday, July 27. In order for the treaty to be passed, all 193 U.N. member states had to come to a consensus, which did not occur. Many supporters of the treaty have blamed the United States for the draft not being finalized. Russia and China, in addition to the United States, stated that they need more time to consider the proposal. On July 26, a bipartisan group of 51 U.S. senators said, in a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that they would oppose the treaty if it does not protect the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms and that the current draft is an expansion of gun control. The draft included all types of arms, including guns that could be used for self-defense. They stated, “Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.” In order for a treaty to be passed, two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor of it. Despite negotiations having failed this time, which is certainly a victory for gun owners, the U.N. and many supporters are fighting to have the treaty passed during the body’s new session, beginning in September. The U.N.’s secretary-general has called this failure a simple “setback.” Mexico, along with more than 90 countries, say they “are determined to secure an Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible.” Hopefully, Second Amendment supporters will continue to win the battle against the Arm’s Trade Treaty.

CASE UPDATE. Gowder v. Chicago.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held in Gowder v. Chicago that it is unconstitutional to treat people with non-violent misdemeanor convictions the same as convicted felons. Plaintiff, Shawn Gowder, was convicted as a first-time offender for possession of a firearm in violation of an Illinois law. His record did not prevent Gowder from receiving a Firearm Owner's Identification card, which means he could legally possess a gun in Illinois. However, Chicago police denied his application. Consequently, Gowder sued the city, claiming that Chicago's ordinance banning non-violent misdemeanants from possessing guns in their homes for self-defense is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Second Amendment. The Court agreed with Gowder, saying, the ordinance "does not provide a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited," because it denies permits to people convicted of "unlawful use of a weapon," which is not defined. Gowder was convicted under a law that refers to "unlawful use of a weapon," but the law also applies to people who merely possess firearms. The Court held, "A person of ordinary intelligence would understand or interpret the term 'unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm' to mean using a firearm for an unlawful purpose, and not mere unlawful possession." The Court explained how non-violent misdemeanants were not historically prohibited from possessing guns. In addition, infringements on the Second Amendment right should be subject to the highest level of review. Chris Cox, executive director of NRA'S Institute for Legislative Action, said, "This ruling sends a powerful message that the Second Amendment cannot be eliminated by a city ordinance." Other portions of Chicago's ordinance are being questioned in Benson v. City of Chicago. The ruling in Gowder v. Chicago is important for gun owners everywhere because it protects them from losing their Second Amendment rights because of a mere non-violent misdemeanor. This means more people will be able to practice their constitutional right without infringement by a City's laws. If you or anyone you know is facing an unjust legal issue with regards to firearms call today for a consultation.

United Nations & Gun Control.

The United Nations' proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a serious threat to American gun owners and now includes civilian arms. The treaty supposedly promotes transparency in the arms trade and would prevent international transfers of arms. In addition, the ATT would expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, it was a "disgrace" that there is not a treaty that includes small arms because the world is "over armed" and insisted upon strict national legislation to control arms. Norway concurred and called for the treaty to include "non-military arms,". While New Zealand stated that the treaty should not "regulate state's internal matters, such as condition of domestic sales of arms or national systems of gun control or registration," Mexico believes that individuals' rights, such as the Second Amendment, are not an excuse for "products traded without controls" and that civilian firearms need to be included. Mexico, France, Germany, Britain, and Sweden agreed that the ATT should include "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies." In order to ratify a treaty, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must be in favor of it. Last year, 58 senators, in the form of a letter, informed President Obama that they would oppose a treaty that affected civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms, or call for an international gun registry. Furthermore, 130 representatives sent a letter to President Obama stating, "The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second amendment is based. Accordingly, the ATT should not cover small arms, light weapons, or related material, such as firearms ammunition. Further, the ATT should expressly recognize the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the ownership of firearms and related materials." National Rifle Association's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, says the treaty, "cheapens our rights as Americans citizens, and weakens our sovereignty" and could potentially lead to the erosion of the Second Amendment since the ATT focuses on government's having rights to guns, instead of individuals having rights. The conference on the ATT will conclude on July 27. Since this is a critical and complex issue, you can expect updates. As an Ohio Second Amendment Law Firm, Barney & DeBrosse, LLC, will keep a close eye on any developments.

CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE ANNIVERSARY!

This year marks the 8th anniversary of Ohio's Concealed Carry Law. Before the adoption of the concealed-handgun license law in 2003, anti-gun advocates claimed the passage would lead to incredible violence. However, despite the unfounded warnings, concealed carry laws throughout the country have not raised gun-related crime or injuries. Ohio was the 46th state to adopt licensed concealed carry. Now, 49 states have a version of the law, with only Illinois not having adopted one. Unfortunately, some states, like New York and California, have "may issue" laws. This means that bureaucrats have complete discretion over whether a person will receive a license. Maryland recently struck down its "may issue" law because of the fact that it gave sole discretion to government officials. Hopefully more states continue to strike down such language, allowing all qualified citizens to obtain a license. It is important to know that the spread of the concealed carry laws has not increased crime or gun-related accident rates. Accidental gun injuries are decreasing, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as NRA-ILA. In addition, according to several sources, including Buckeye Firearms Association, unjustified shootings by licensees continue to be extremely rare. Because licensees have proved skeptics wrong, Ohio's concealed carry law has changed for the better over the last eight years. For example, at first, Ohio forced licensees to disarm when using a bathroom in a park or highway rest stop, but this has been removed. Also, Ohio townships cannot interfere with a person's right to carry, which means an Ohio licensee can move freely throughout the state without worrying about where he is allowed and not allowed to carry.

NEW OHIO EXPUNGEMENT LAW PASSED!

Senate Bill 337 was recently signed into law by Ohio Governor Kasich. The newly enacted law which takes effect this fall alters what can be sealed and who is able to apply for his/her record to be sealed. The bill changes the words “first offender” to “eligible offenders.” “First offender” was defined as a person who “previously or subsequently has not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any other jurisdiction.” In contrast, “eligible offender” is defined as a person who “has not more than one felony conviction, not more than two misdemeanor convictions if the convictions are not of the same offense, or not more than one felony conviction and one misdemeanor conviction in this state or any other jurisdiction.” In other words, the courts are now able to seal either one felony and one misdemeanor or two misdemeanors if they are not of the same offense. In order to have a conviction sealed, there must be a hearing after the application is filed. The prosecutor from the original case may object to having the conviction sealed. The court then must have its regular probation officer, a state probation officer, or the department of probation of the county where the applicant lives “make inquiries and written reports as the court requires concerning the applicant.” If the judge rules in favor of the applicant, the offender’s previous convictions will be sealed. This could potentially help non repeat offenders to regain their constitutional rights, more specifically their 2nd Amendment rights, which would otherwise be denied to them. It is important that someone considering this process with regards to their firearm rights contact a qualified gun lawyer before proceeding as there are many nuances to not only the state law but also federal law.

Stand Your Ground / Castle Doctrine

With the recent outcry over the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, resulting in an attack on Stand Your Ground laws, it is important for one to actually understand the law. Florida's Stand Your Ground law states, "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In other words, if a person "reasonably believes" that he may die or be significantly harmed, he can use deadly force no matter where he is. In the Martin/Zimmerman case, Zimmerman explains that Martin violently attacked him (wounds suggest that his head was being banged against a curb) and that he only shot Martin because he feared for his life and to protect himself from "great bodily harm." If this is the case, then Zimmerman was potentially using deadly force correctly according to the Stand Your Ground law. The application of the law could possibly have saved his life. However, if Zimmerman's story is not true and he actually provoked Martin, then Zimmerman did not actually "reasonably believe" that deadly force was needed to protect himself. If this scenario is true, then the Stand Your Ground law is not applicable in this case because Zimmerman did not hold a reasonable belief that such force was necessary. Unlike Florida, Ohio does not have a Stand Your Ground law. However, Ohio has implemented the Castle Doctrine. Like the Stand Your Ground laws, there still must be a reasonable belief of imminent danger that requires deadly force to repel. The difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is that the Castle Doctrine only applies to one's home or vehicle. The Martin/Zimmerman case is still pending. In addition, some are calling for the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws countrywide. It will be interesting to see how the case influences the fate of Stand Your Ground laws. As Ohio Gun Lawyers our office is well versed in criminal matters as it relates to these laws. Call today for a consultation.

FFLGuard

If you own or operate a Gun Dealership ensuring you are 100% on the right side of the law is always paramount. Our office has recently entered into a business relationship with FFLGuard. FFLGuard is the premiere representative of gun dealers across the country who maintain a federal firearms license. Our office is working hand in hand with FFLGuard to ensure our clients remain legal 100% of the time. From providing services such as on the spot checks to sending out FFLGuard representatives when the ATF decides to make a surprise audit FFLGuard is here to help. For more information please contact our office today for competitive rates.

JUSTICE SERVED: CANTON POLICE OFFICER FIRED

As an Ohio Gun Law Attorney and General Counsel for Ohioans for Concealed Carry I reported on the appalling case of a Canton Police Officer going beyond the Constitutional bounds of his badge back in July of 2011.

Police Officer Daniel Harless had threatened a law abiding concealed carry holder (William Bartlett) with physical violence and execution for no apparent reason (see video below: CAUTION EXTREME AND GRAPHIC LANGUAGE). Not long after Ohioans for Concealed Carry brought the case publicity and began to raise funds for Mr. Bartlett's defense did the City Council President publicly make his anti-gun bias known. Ohioans for Concealed Carry quickly went into action and invited the City Councilman to attend a shooting event with former Ohio Governor Strickland. The City Councilman has since taken a much different tune and we, as gun owners, applaud him for his reasonableness.

Mr. Bartlett's case, however, unbelievably was still prosecuted in the City of Canton while Officer Harless was placed on paid leave pending a disciplinary hearing. At trial the judge dismissed the gun charges against Mr. Bartlett in a clear victory for concealed carry holders across Ohio.

I am pleased to announce that as of this week Officer Harless will no longer be a threat to gun owners' rights here in Ohio. You can read the article here at Ohioans for Concealed Carry and here at Fox 8, Cleveland.

A History Lesson in Restricting Liberty.

The Hughes Amendment which brought to reality a severe restriction on our 2nd Amendment rights should teach us as gun owners of the reality of the battle we face as U.S. citizens in today's world. As we can see during debate on the bill (video below) our legislature was in complete disarray and such a devastating law that has little if any impact on violence in our country and that has severely restricted our liberties became law. As a Gun Law Attorney it is disheartening to see the path we have taken. This is why my office specializes in defense of our freedoms. If you or someone you know has had their 2A rights stripped away - there may be hope in the form of gun rights restoration. Call today for a consultation.