To amend sections 2307.601, 2901.05, and 2901.09 of the Revised Code to limit the locations at which a person has no duty to retreat.
Summary
HB408 would revise Ohio’s self-defense and “no duty to retreat” laws by narrowing where a person may stand their ground. The bill amends three sections of the Revised Code to specify that a person has no duty to retreat when lawfully in their own residence, and also extends that protection to a person lawfully occupying their own vehicle or, in some circumstances, a vehicle owned by an immediate family member. It also directs courts and juries not to consider the possibility of retreat when evaluating whether the use of force was reasonably believed necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.
The bill also updates Ohio’s criminal self-defense framework by reaffirming that once evidence is presented supporting self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, the prosecution must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It retains and restates the statutory presumption that a person acted in self-defense or defense of another when using deadly force against an unlawful intruder in a residence or vehicle, subject to exceptions for lawful occupants and for situations where the defender is unlawfully present. The bill includes definitions of “dwelling,” “residence,” and “vehicle,” and repeals the existing versions of the amended statutes.
Impact
If enacted, HB408 would change Ohio law governing self-defense in both civil tort actions and criminal cases by limiting the no-duty-to-retreat rule primarily to residences and certain vehicles, rather than broader locations. It would affect sections 2307.601, 2901.05, and 2901.09 of the Revised Code, altering how courts assess self-defense claims, how juries are instructed, and how liability is evaluated when force is used. The bill would also preserve the prosecution’s burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense is raised with supporting evidence.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to reflect a generally pro-self-defense, pro-Second Amendment policy approach, but with a more limited scope than a broad stand-your-ground law. Because the bill was only introduced and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. The available context suggests the bill was still in early consideration before the House Public Safety Committee.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s decision to limit no-duty-to-retreat protections to residences and certain vehicles, rather than extending them to other places where a person may lawfully be present. Supporters may view the bill as clarifying and strengthening self-defense rights in the home and car, while critics could argue that it narrows existing protections or creates confusion by distinguishing among locations and vehicle ownership relationships. Another likely issue is the continued use of presumptions and burden-shifting rules in self-defense cases, which can be controversial in both criminal justice and public safety debates.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.