Ohio SYG Law expansion with HB 203 vs 2008 Castle Doctrine; and Illinois Supreme Court declares state’s ban on carrying firearms unconstitutional

''Stand Your Ground'' law may expand in Ohio There are 31 states that have stand you ground laws currently, six of which have been adopted since the death of Trayvon Martin.  Ten more states, including Ohio, have laws, or changes to current law, that are set to be voted on come the November election. COLUMBUS, OH -- Currently, in Ohio, under the "Stand Your Ground" law, you are required to retreat if deadly force is being used against you unless you are in your home or car, then you are entitled to use deadly force as self defense. Governor Strickland signs SB184, Ohio's Castle Doctrine Law Submitted by cbaus on June 10, 2008 "If you're in a situation where you could retreat, then deadly force is not necessary," says Gregory Gilchrist, Associate Law Professor and the University of Toledo. House Bill 203 proposes to change that standard so that there is no more rule of retreat anywhere. As long as you have a lawful right to be in the place you are in, you don't have to retreat. The topic was discussed at UT's law auditorium Monday afternoon. Many showed up to hear an expert panel discuss the issue. But following the death of Trayvon Martin, in a case focused largely around the stand your ground law, the law itself has been questioned. Gilchrist says, "I wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease here." Opponents: Ohio doesn't need 'Stand Your Ground'

By NRA-ILA

In an unusually forceful and straightforward opinion in the case of People v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously held that the state’s “comprehensive ban” on the “use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home” is invalid on its face under the Second Amendment.  The NRA had participated in the case with an amicus brief.

The court surveyed the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions, as well as state and federal precedents from courts in Illinois.  Regarding the significance of the Supreme Court’s opinions, it declared: 

“neitherHeller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home.  On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home.”  It also characterized the Illinois law as “a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution….”  According to the court, “In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/14/illinois-supreme-court-declares-states-ban-on-carrying-firearms-unconstitutional/#ixzz2f3zihDtY