Far right favors new 'Jim Crow?'

A new state gun law critics call a modern form of Jim Crow could become the litmus test for the 2022 election, separating minorities and others from perceived racists or racist sympathizers running for office. "It will be critical for us," said Tom Roberts, a former state senator who is the president of the Ohio NAACP state conference. "This is about civility in a public place. This is an unjust law. It degrades people." Another important factor in 2022 and in other future elections will be how district boundaries are redrawn. It must be done in a way to correct the balance, he said, or Ohioans will suffer more degradation because the state and federal districts drawn up after the 2010 Census greatly advantage Republicans in both primary and general elections. Coming this week: A primer on redistricting in Ohio That results in more extreme candidates winning who could not win if the playing field were leveled, he said. "Redistricting also will be critical next year," Roberts said. But the mistitled Stand Your Ground law approved by Republicans in December during the lame-duck session after the 2020 election is racist and will result in more people getting killed, more Blacks getting killed, and more whites killing Black people without ever having to face charges, according to civil rights groups and responsible gun rights groups. Roberts said it will be an issue in every district for the statehouse and Congress. Reason for concern The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association opposes SYG, saying it will make it more difficult to charge and successfully bring to trial people who commit murder but are protected by the law. The national and state NAACP and all NAACP chapters in Ohio oppose Stand Your Ground, as do many other rights groups and victims advocacy groups. But Republican lawmakers who support the law refuse to respond to questions about why they favor it, what information they relied upon before approving it, or what they say to critics and their colleagues of color who contend there is overwhelming, empirical evidence that shows SYG laws in other states have marginalized Black people. "Stand your ground laws do not deter crime — in fact, they drive up homicides in states where they are enacted," a review of available data and numerous data studies by the Giffords Law Center states. "In any given month, approximately 30 to 50 people across the country are killed as a result of stand your ground laws." Lawmakers who support the law have been asked repeatedly if they reviewed the studies rights groups provided them and if there are other studies they relied upon that refute the information. To date, none of them have cited any data or research supporting the law, or said if they even looked at the information they were provided or responded to Roberts and others who urged them to vote down SYG in Ohio. Ask the experts State Sen. Theresa Gavarone said on her Twitter page that she was relying upon information from a blog at a right-wing website with some affiliation to the National Rifle Association. She won't say if she's talked to critics of the law, or if she's rethinking her vote on it. She also is misstating the impact of the law, which was initially referred to as "Make My Day." Rights groups contend both names are misleading because the SYG law removes the duty to retreat from a self-defense claim, meaning a person with a gun can chase down and kill someone if they fear the person they kill. Republicans won't say if they will continue to use misleading titles for legislation or answer critics who say they are supporting modern-day Jim Crow laws. Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter said the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association opposes the law because it fundamentally — and adversely — alters the meaning of self defense. "It essentially destroys any duty to retreat," Baxter said. Two lawmakers — Adam Miller, D-Columbus and Thomas West, D-Canton — are leading an effort to repeal what the Republicans continue to call Ohio's Stand Your Ground law despite the misleading nature of that name. "One of our most important responsibilities as elected officials is to ensure the safety and security of those we serve, those who sent us to Columbus," stated West, who serves as president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus. "This law did the opposite — quite simply, its passage made us less safe, especially Black Ohioans and other Ohioans of color." Gavarone, R-Bowling Green, and representatives DJ Swearingen, R-Huron and Dick Stein, R-Norwalk, won't address the concerns about the law, sticking to short talking point responses of little value. The Register this week sent the questionnaire about SYG to all 99 state representatives and all 33 state senators and will report on their responses as these are received. Go to sanduskyregister.com to read the questions we sent to them. * Dear Lawmakers: The story linked above is about the Stand Your Ground law, which civil rights groups and some in academia consider to be a racist law. We wanted to get a response from you to this development. We have some questions: • Have you or will you review the available studies that, among other things, determined that SYG laws in other states resulted in increases in the number of homicides and that whites who kill Blacks are 12 times more likely to never be charged or be acquitted at trial under this law than are Blacks who kill whites? Yes or no? • What is your reaction to the information presented in these data studies and the other information rights groups have provided to you, if you have reviewed them? Please explain. • What information are you relying upon in determining that this law — despite the objections from an overwhelming number of rights and responsible gun rights groups — is appropriate? In other words, why are you right to support this law, if you do support it, and why are they wrong asking you to vote it down? Please explain. • Have you found any information, data studies or other information that credibly refutes the findings in the data studies that rights groups have asked you to review? What are these studies that refute the information these groups provided you? Where can these be found? Why do you favor these other studies over the information provided to you by rights groups? Please explain. • The studies given to you by rights groups contend there are hundreds of incidents in which this law was used to justify unjustified killings of Blacks. The deaths of Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery are the most prominent. Could you share your reactions to the circumstances of these two deaths as it relates to SYG, and why this doesn't matter regarding your support of SYG, if you do support it? Please explain. • Have you or will you offer a response to your colleagues of color who pleaded with you in the past to reject this law, contending, as the research shows, that more people will be killed as a result and that Blacks, particularly, will be hurt by this law? If you have responded, what was your response? Please explain. • Did you respond to the concerns from the local NAACP and the state and national NAACP, all of which opposed this law? If you did respond, will you share this response with us? What did you tell them? If you didn't respond, why would you fail to offer these groups an explanation for your vote in favor of SYG, if you did support it? Please explain. • The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association is opposed to Ohio's SYG because it will make prosecuting alleged murderers more difficult. Have you responded to that concern already, or do you have a response to that concern? What information do you have that suggests the OPAA is wrong about SYG? Please explain. • Rights groups have called SYG a racist law and also refer to it as "Chase and Kill" and "Shoot to Kill" since it removes the duty to retreat as a requirement to contend self defense as a reason for killing someone. Is it misleading to describe SYG that way given that it removes the duty to retreat and expands the "castle" to nearly everywhere? Why or why not? Please explain. • The Ohio Senate press secretary, John Fortney, has called Ohio's SYG the "Duty to Retreat" law. Is this misleading, in your view, since the law actually removes the duty to retreat? Was it a mistake for Mr. Fortney to use that term, or was it intentional, in your view? Will he continue to refer to this law in this misleading way and do you support him continuing to refer to this law in this misleading manner? Please explain. • In the year 2020, which saw sustained, months-long civil rights protests against the unjustified killing of Blacks, is it particularly arrogant and/or offensive that white lawmakers would approve SYG in Ohio during the lame duck session after the election? Why or why not? Do you understand that opponents of this law are particularly concerned about it being arrogant or underhanded? Please explain. • If members of the community believe this law is racist and you provide no credible information to refute that or answer questions about their concerns, or offer any response to their pleas for you to review the available research, is it understandable to you that those individuals might view you as a racist, or as being racist tolerant for political expediency? Why or why not? Please explain. We appreciate your time reviewing and pondering these questions and ask you to share this inquiry with your colleagues. We are hoping to get this inquiry in the hands of all state lawmakers to provide the broadest possible coverage of this important issue. Also, we would prefer and it's more informative that each of you answer each question as fully as appropriate, rather than provide a prepared response from someone other than yourself. Please contact us or write back if you have any concerns about the appropriateness of these questions, or the underlying accuracy that is the basis for each one. We will review any concerns you share and respond accordingly. Thank you again for your attention.