Opponents of a pending “castle doctrine” self-defense bill were put on notice Wednesday in the Senate that the burden rests with them to show such measures already in place in other states are causing major problems.

The advisory came after the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police testified in opposition to the legislation (SB 184) before the Senate Judiciary-Criminal Justice Committee.

Sen. Bill Seitz (R), the panel’s vice chairman, said “a bunch of other states” have enacted laws similar to or more far reaching than the pending Ohio bill. Yet, he said, legislators have not been reading “front page essays” about problems arising like those opponents have mentioned.

“Why do you think the world will come to an end if we pass this?” Seitz said.

He suggested law enforcement opponents contact their colleagues in other states to document unintended consequences, if any, that such legislation has generated.

“We’ve heard this cry of wolf before on conceal carry,” Seitz said. “It was a big bogus claim.”

Prosecutors said the bill would shift the burden to the state to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim, and would introduce trespass alone as a factor, regardless of the danger posed or identity of an alleged trespasser. Current law places the burden on persons to prove they acted in self-defense.

“We do not think that’s onerous if the defendant is going to use deadly force in self-defense,” said John Murphy, executive director of the prosecutors association. “Basically we oppose the bill. We like the current law.”

He said the proposal would give criminals another way to possibly avoid prosecution, allowing them in circumstances beyond home intruder situations to hide behind self-defense claims that were not legitimate. “We think the bill seriously undermines public safety,” he said.

John Gilchrist, legislative council for the police chiefs, said proponents have shown no need to justify changing current law. He said the association believes the bill would do nothing to help law-abiding citizens who legitimately act in self-defense.

“It will, however, create a great deal of confusion with the law and will be of benefit to certain criminals who kill or injure others and then assert self-defense,” Gilchrist said.

“The rebuttable presumption that the criminal acted properly puts one more burden on our prosecutors,” he said. “(If) the common law rules on self-defense are nullified, Ohio will see more violent confrontations.

Chairman Timothy Grendell (R) said he hoped a substitute bill could be ready for the committee’s next meeting. A companion bill (HB 264) is pending in the House.