|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OH: House Bill 228 gives more protection to gun owners in self-defense cases
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If you have to use a gun for self-defense, the law now does more to protect you.
House Bill 228 was once the “stand your ground” bill, but that language has been eliminated and now stands as a “self-defense” bill.
Before the law was amended, if you shot someone in self-defense you would have to prove your innocence. Now, Ohio is on the same page as the rest of the country: You would be innocent until proven guilty in those cases. The burden now lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/3/2019)
|
| That's the way it should be. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/3/2019)
|
| Caving in on "duty to retreat" was a big mistake. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
