Get up-to-the-minute news on pro-gun law, politics, and events in Ohio PLUS the 38-page "Grassroots Action Guide" FREE!
Article Archive
What SB184 means to you: Part II – Seizure and Return of Firearm
Submitted by jirvine on Mon, 06/23/2008 - 23:10.By Jim Irvine
SB184 is 75 pages. It will go into effect on September 09, 2008. This is part of a series of articles looking at specific sections of the bill and how it will affect you. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice. Concealed carry license holders are required to read the Attorney General guide. I highly recommend “The Ohio Guide to Firearms Laws” by Ken Hanson, Esq. (NOW AVAILABLE: Update for SB184).
SB184 introduced a new section to the Ohio Revised Code.
Sec 2923.163 requires that when a firearm is seized or surrendered to law enforcement, it shall be identified and stored in a manor that it can be returned to the person in the same condition as when it was seized. It further specifies that the court “shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person who sought the order to return the firearm” if law enforcement fails to return a firearm when ordered.
In practical terms, this means that you no longer have to spend $2,000 in legal fees in hopes of recovering your $500 gun. If law enforcement has seized your firearm, and you have demanded that they return the firearm and they refuse to do so, you may sue them to obtain recovery of the firearm. If the court orders the police to return the firearm, you will be awarded your attorney fees for obtaining the court order.
Guns On Campus: Virginia Tech Settlement Still Stubborn and Indecent, Part II.
Submitted by cchumita on Mon, 06/23/2008 - 23:05.A Pattern and Practice of denying Civil Rights is emerging, and the license to do it has just been extended thru next time.
By John Longenecker
This is Part II of my April 11th, 2008 piece critiquing this settlement.
In a June 17th, 2008 report from Associated Press, a Virginia Judge approved an $11 Million settlement won by some of the surviving parents of the Virginia Tech shootings. Not all survivors filed.
The reason for the finding is wrong. The liability seems to be found on the idea that the Trustees have a duty to protect the students and that they failed with a ‘watered down' warning from the campus to students. Some experts would say that the Trustees have no such duty, and that it is up to the individual. After all, Police have no duty to protect individuals, an all too often understated factor in deaths.










