Minnesota's version of the "Castle Doctrine'' was shown the door Thursday.

In the first legislative hearing for a bill broadening the circumstances in which people could shoot others in self-defense, a House committee defeated it on a 9-9 vote.

But that doesn't mean the effort is done this session. Its chief sponsor, Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, said he will look for opportunities to attach it to other legislation.

Afterward, Cornish, the Lake Crystal police chief, was upbeat.

"Actually, I'm very pleased,'' said Cornish, adding he went into the committee meeting expecting the measure would be defeated. "Who would have guessed it would fail on a tie vote?''

Cornish introduced the bill last year, but he never pushed it after being told the measure would get a hearing this year.

The proposal would replace current law defining justifiable homicide, which says you can kill someone in your house if you fear that person will cause you "great bodily harm or death'' or to prevent a felony.

Cornish's bill would extend justification for use of deadly force beyond the home to include a garage, car or any other place someone is legally allowed.

It also would allow you to "meet force with superior force'' if you fear substantial bodily harm, which is a lesser, more temporary degree of force than great bodily harm.

In a packed committee room filled with people wearing buttons that said "Self-Defense is a Human Right,'' the Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee gave the issue slightly more than a half-hour so it could get through a long agenda.

Cornish argued his bill would save lives, enabling people threatened with harm to defend themselves without having to retreat.

When it comes to deadly force, most states give people more options for dealing with threatening situations, said David Gross, a Faribault lawyer and a former prosecutor with the Minneapolis city attorney's office.

"Minnesota has been much more restrictive than the rest of the country,'' Gross said.

Several law-enforcement organizations disagreed with the measure. They said it was unnecessary, would confuse people, and would lead to preventable confrontations.

Just innocently cutting across someone's yard, for example, might lead to a shooting, said Washington County Attorney Doug Johnson.

"If I am on someone's property at night and they are afraid of me, they have the right to shoot me,'' he said.

Moreover, opponents said it would make it more difficult for police and prosecutors, in part because people accused of shooting someone would be allowed to claim self-defense even when their motivations were entirely different.

"This will be used as a defense in all the gang assaults that we see,'' Johnson said.

Vivian Jenkins Nelson, of the League of Women Voters, said the measure also would lead to more stray bullets in many neighborhoods.

"This bill will give these shooters cover and increase their terrorism of the community,'' she said.

Later, Cornish said opponents didn't seem to have a good understanding of his bill and the quick pace of the hearing didn't give him time to clear up matters.

A companion bill sponsored by Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, has not received a Senate hearing.