Castle Doctrine Receives 4th Senate Hearing

By Linda Walker

After several weeks delay, Castle Doctrine (SB184) received it’s 4th opponent/proponent hearing in the Ohio Statehouse on Wednesday, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice.

John Murphy, with the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, once again provided opponent testimony. Mr. Murphy explained that the main concern is civil action, in which the burden of proof is shifted to the State, instead of the “defendant” (victim). He also believes that “defendants” (victims) will be “hiding behind self defense when it is not legitimate”. He states “Castle Doctrine will be a gift to criminals”.

Mr. Murphy questioned “what if a 10 year old child enters your house uninvited”? Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy, along with his anti-gun “coalition of one” side kick Toby Hoover (Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence), believe that law abiding citizens do not know the difference between right and wrong.

At the last hearing Toby Hoover inquired in her testimony “what if a 12 year old Girl Scout and her mother go up to someone’s door, and the homeowner shoots them?” It bears asking, is this the best the anti’s can come up with? Obviously it is, as Chairman Grendell pointed out, “there are 20 some other states that have passed Castle Doctrine and have had no problems”.

Most of the Senators took turns whacking at Mr. Murphy, lobbing him back and forth like a tennis ball for nearly a half hour. As a 2nd Amendment lobbyist watching this tennis match from the audience, it was quite entertaining at times! Several, including Senator Tim Schaffer questioned Mr. Murphy about attorney retainer fees, “do prosecutors think it’s easy for a person to come up with $50,000 to defend themselves?” Chairman Grendell pointed out to Mr. Murphy “we heard the same rhetoric from you four years ago when you said the same things about concealed carry, and we have had none of the problems that you said we would have”.

John Gilchrist also lent opponent testimony on behalf of the Ohio Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. Mr. Gilchrist stated that “I do not feel Castle Doctrine will help any law abiding citizen.” Just to recap what Castle Doctrine is Mr. Gilchrist: it will allow the innocent, law abiding victim whom has been forced to protect themselves in a self defense situation, to maintain the presumption of innocence, instead of having to spend 10’s of thousands of dollars defending themselves in a court of law, possibly financially devastating a family. It will also protect the victim of the crime from being civilly sued by the criminal or his/her family. So I ask Mr. Gilchrist, how is it that Castle Doctrine will not protect the innocent again?

Mr. Gilchrist also indicated concern about the definition of a “home”. The questions arises what constitutes a home? Does it extend to the garage, the backyard shed, the premises?

Gary Witt provided proponent testimony on behalf of OFCC, and Stephen Feltoon testified on behalf of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Stephen requested that concealed carry be amended into the Castle Doctrine bill. Senator Seitz indicated that all though he fully supports concealed carry on campus, Castle Doctrine is not the bill to insert that in to.

Chairman Grendell stated there will be a 5th hearing for Castle Doctrine next week. From all indications, should there be a committee vote, there are enough Senators on board to pass it and send it to the Senate floor for consideration.

Check back regularly on this website for further updates.