To enact section 3345.211 of the Revised Code to enact the Campus Self-Defense Act to allow adults to carry nonlethal self-defense weapons on state institution of higher education campuses.
HB 949, the Campus Self-Defense Act, would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code prohibiting state institutions of higher education from restricting adults age 18 and older from possessing or using certain nonlethal self-defense weapons on campus when lawfully present. The bill defines these weapons broadly to include pepper spray, pepper spray guns, pepper gel, mace, tasers, stun guns, electric control devices, and other conducted energy devices. It also bars campuses from requiring registration or prior approval for possession or use in self-defense.
The bill further requires colleges and universities to allow students 18 and older to store these weapons in campus housing and prohibits storage rules that would make them inaccessible during emergencies. If a state institution violates the section, it would commit a first-degree misdemeanor and be subject to a mandatory $50,000 fine. The measure is framed as a campus safety and self-defense bill, and it applies only to state institutions of higher education, not private colleges.
HB 949 would create a new statewide limit on the authority of public colleges and universities to regulate nonlethal self-defense weapons on campus. It would preempt institutional policies that ban, restrict, register, or require approval for these weapons for adults 18 and older, and it would also affect campus housing rules by requiring accessible storage. The bill would expose state institutions of higher education to criminal liability and a mandatory fine for violations, while leaving private institutions outside its scope.
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced in a favorable or supportive posture by its sponsor and cosponsors, with no recorded committee debate or votes yet. The bill’s title and structure suggest a pro-self-defense, pro-campus safety framing. Because there are no transcripts or vote results available, there is no documented opposition or consensus in the provided materials.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between individual self-defense rights and institutional authority to regulate weapons on campus. Supporters would view the bill as expanding personal safety options for adults in higher education settings, while critics may argue it undermines campus safety policies, complicates enforcement, and limits universities’ ability to set rules for residence halls and shared spaces. The mandatory misdemeanor penalty and $50,000 fine for institutions are also likely to be controversial because they impose significant consequences on public colleges and universities.