The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gunset Training Group or its affiliates.
Click HERE to view the original post on the GunSnobbery Blog
Author’s note: this is part 15 in a series of educational posts I am going to write about State of Ohio and federal weapon and firearm laws. Part 1 can be found here. There is a list of the previous articles at the bottom (or side, depending on your device) of the page. This post does not offer legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I am a Certified Firearm Specialist through the International Firearm Specialist Academy and the State of Ohio certifies me to teach Ohio’s weapon laws in the Basic Police Academy. I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying federal law and Ohio’s laws in 30 years on the job. More than anything, this series of posts is an attempt to educate people on portions of the law and to show them where they can find the laws so that they can educate themselves further. Please consult with an attorney who specializes in firearms and weapons law if you have questions that require a legal opinion. If you are a law enforcement officer, check with your jurisdiction’s legal counsel for guidance. And remember, not all attorneys are created equal. And keep in mind that laws, interpretations of laws and definitions change. So what was current at the time I published this article may have changed over time.
Wait, what? Isn’t shooting into a house always a crime? Well, not always. But it’s complicated. In this article we will look at Ohio Revised Code 2923.161, which deals with shooting a gun at, into or near certain places. Most of the article will be about (A)(1) and a specific self-defense case out of Martin’s Ferry, Ohio. But before we look at that specific case, let’s look at the law itself:
Sections (2) and (3) deal with schools and school safety zones. (2) covers shooting at, in or into a school safety zone. What is a school safety zone? Well, I talked about it in depth in this article, but the short version is a “school safety zone” consists of a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. What all of those terms mean beyond the obvious is a larger conversation, so if you didn’t read the other article it would be a good idea to read it for clarification.
Several years ago my Detectives and I investigated this case. The picture above shows the area here it happened. The suspect was in the car represented by the orange triangle. He was chasing the blue car (triangle) shooting at the car as it drove down Frederick Dr. The rounds were shot in the direction of the school at the bottom of the picture. At least one of the rounds hit a house between the suspect’s car and the school. It went through the front window, all the way through the living room and kitchen and was stopped by the second pane of glass in a double paned back sliding door. Among other things, we charged the suspect with a violation of 2923.161(A)(1) and (A)(2). I think cases like this or when someone intentionally shoots up a house trying to hurt someone inside or an active shooter type situation are the types of cases that most people envision when we discuss this section of the Ohio Revised Code. (3) would also cover incidents like the Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis last year where the shooter fired into the building from outside.
But let’s get to the case of State v. Bradley, because it has huge implications for anyone that uses a firearm to defend themselves.
The background story (a condensed version, the full version on pages 3-9 of the appeals decision is worth reading) – Timothy Bradley moved here from out of state. He was a certified firearms instructor (NRA) and taught classes in Arizona and Hawaii. He purchased 624 Washington St. and hired some guys (one of which is the “victim”) to do some renovations on his house. The relationship between Bradley and the victim was a rocky one that included arguments about how work was being done. When the victim did not show up on time one morning, Bradley sent him a text telling him he was fired. After receiving the text, the victim went over to 624 Washington St. to retrieve his tools and get paid for his labor.
When the victim arrived at 624 Washington St., he was open carrying a pistol and went inside to retrieve his tools. What happened inside the house depends on which version of facts you believe – Bradley’s or the victim’s. Bradley’s version is that he told the victim not to come into the residence with his pistol. The victim entered the house anyway and retrieved some tools. Bradley told him a second time not to come into the house with his pistol and that Bradley would bring his tools outside. When the victim ignored Bradley and come back into the house with his pistol and made what Bradley believed was a drawing motion, Bradley drew his own pistol and started shooting. Bradley later told police that he was afraid of the victim based on several previous conversations with the victim and statements that the victim made that day. The victim denied drawing his gun until after Bradley started shooting. What is uncontested is the fact that Bradley shot at the victim several times. Some of the shots hit the victim (a couple went clean through the victim) and some of the shots went out the open front door of 624 Washington St. At least one shot hit 623 Washington St. and at least one shot hit 625 Washington St. (see picture with addresses above). Whether the shots that hit the houses across the street were misses or through and through shots was a question that was never answered. Bradley was charged with Felonious Assault for shooting the victim and two counts of 2923.161(A)(1) – Shooting into a Habitation for the errant bullets that his neighbor’s homes.
The case went to trial and Bradley claimed the shooting was a case of self defense. The jury believed him, at least in part, because they found him not guilty on the Felonious Assault charges. But they DID find him guilty on the two counts of shooting into a habitation. That’s right, they decided that shooting the victim was ok, but hitting the houses across the street with some of the shots was a criminal act. Bradley was sentenced to 6-9 years in prison.
Bradley appealed the jury’s decision to the Seventh District Court of Appeals. His attorney raised several legal arguments, but for the most part, the arguments revolved around two things in one way or another – whether he shot into the other houses “knowingly” and whether he had “privilege to do so” since he was firing his pistol in self-defense. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled (mostly) in his favor. They threw out one of the convictions for shooting into a habitation (623 Washington St.), dismissing it due to a lack of evidence (officially called “sufficiency of evidence”). Although pictures of the bullet holes in 623 Washington St. had been shown to the jury, the owner did not show up to testify at trial. Which meant no one could testify that Bradley didn’t have permission (privilege) to shoot into the house. The other conviction for shooting into 625 Washington St. was overturned, but was not dismissed. It was sent back to the lower court for a new trial based on a technical problem (officially called “plain error”) with the jury instructions that revolved around “privilege”. Because of the appellate ruling, Bradley was released from prison after spending 9 months inside. He remains out in bond while the case works its way through the system. The State has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio (SCO). Oral arguments in front of the SCO were held back in November of 2025 so we may see a decision within the next month or so. There are two things I want to cover from the appellate decision.
First, read the exert from the appeals court decision in the picture above carefully. It deals with the mental intent of “knowingly”. Even though Bradley did not intend to shoot into the other houses, the Court found there was sufficient evidence to prove the intent of knowingly because:
- Bradley shot at a person standing at the open door of his house
- The houses were in close proximity
- And, as a firearms instructor, Bradley was “aware that firing a gun in such close proximity would probably result in a bullet leaving his property and striking a neighbor’s house”.
I’d be curious what the appellate court would have said had Bradley not been a firearms instructor. Did they hold him to a higher standard than your average gun owner with little training? I’ve told my students for years that you “buy” every bullet you fire in a self-defense situation in more ways than one. And the jury in this case and the appellate court agreed.
Second, Bradley’s attorney argued that he should not have been convicted of shooting into a habitation because his self-defense claim was successful and he was found not guilty of felonious assault. He claims that because he was shooting in justified self-defense, that lawful self-defense gave him the “privilege” to shoot without worrying about where the bullets end up. A legal concept called “transferred intent” or in this case, “transferred intent self-defense”. The crux of the argument is that the instructions to the jury were deficient and because they were deficient, the jury did not know that his shots into the other houses were “privileged”. And because they were “privileged”, the jury did not know that he should not be held accountable for them. It’s an interesting situation. It is well settled on the flip side – if I shoot at A with the intent to murder them, but I miss and hit B by accident I can still be charged for murder even though I missed my intended target.
It will be interesting to see where the Court lands on this. Will they settle for the narrow approach and address just the defective jury instructions and send it back to the lower court (assuming they rule in Bradly’s favor)? Or (if they can) will they take a broader approach and declare that the shooting into habitation charges should have been dismissed once Bradley’s shooting was ruled self-defense? I won’t lie, I have mixed feelings about the broader approach. On the one hand, we all know that self-defense shootings can be chaotic and it is impossible to control or plan for every outcome and the broader approach protects the person who defends themself. On the other hand, I’ve seen some crazy stuff over the years. I would hate to see a situation where this broad approach protected a person and kept them from being held accountable in a situation where they were legally justified to shoot at someone in self-defense, but did so in a reckless or wanton manner and ended up injuring or killing someone.
Some final thoughts – watch this video of the oral arguments. I have mentioned it before, but not all attorneys are created equal. Bradley’s attorney appears to be a part of his problem. I’ve seen a lot of attorneys at work over the years and his performance during the arguments before the court did not impress me. I searched his name to see what came up. It was interesting. Make sure you hire an attorney who specializes in the right area of law – in this case, self-defense law.
And last of all – as I read all of the decisions and articles about the Bradley case I couldn’t help but think about John Farnam’s “Rule of Stupid” (going to stupid places with stupid people and doing stupid things) and how Bradley could have avoided all of this. Read the facts from the picture above. Why would anyone continue to do business with a guy like Burns once he made those statements? Bradley broke two of the three parts of the Rule of Stupid – doing stupid things with stupid people. Bradley could have saved himself a lot of money in legal fees and 9 months in prison if he stopped associating with Burns. Stupid hurts.
Author’s note: when the Supreme Court of Ohio releases their decision I’ll do an update.
