does the castle doctrine apply to other cars?

[barstoolguru]

regional / Ohio Man Claims 'Castle Doctrine' In Car Gun Case

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/jun/05/ ... r-1060613/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

quote: Edwards' attorney, Brad Fox, tells The Cincinnati Enquirer people should have castle law protection in a friend's car, or rental car, just like in their own family's vehicles.

It seems like he was in his GF's car and pulled a gun on a guy trying to get in for some reason. They write him a ticket for what I am assuming would be brandishing but his lawyer made a comment that raised a question; does the castle doctrine carry over to another vehicle you are in or just the one you own?

[RPB]

Cars?
I think you mean MPA, Motorist Protection Act
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

[RPB]

Texas "Castle Doctrine" as it read in 2007
http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

in part

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and.....

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[AEA]

The Guy needs a better Lawyer......

[speedsix]

...or a better story...this one smells like fish...

...OUR Castle Doctrine would cover him in public in that he didn't have to retreat, if he was doing something he had the right to do...


...I don't think the Castle Doctrine would be interpreted to mean ONLY in YOUR house...ONLY in YOUR car, ONLY in YOUR place of business...I think you could make the same response to someone breaking into a house that you were a guest in...a car that you'd borrowed or were a guest in...another's place of business where the criminal act put you in danger...BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SUPPORTING CASELAW...SO IT MAY BE WISHFUL THINKING ON MY PART...

...anyone seen a case like that yet?

[The Annoyed Man]

regional / Ohio Man Claims 'Castle Doctrine' In Car Gun Case

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/jun/05/ ... r-1060613/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

quote: Edwards' attorney, Brad Fox, tells The Cincinnati Enquirer people should have castle law protection in a friend's car, or rental car, just like in their own family's vehicles.

It seems like he was in his GF's car and pulled a gun on a guy trying to get in for some reason. They write him a ticket for what I am assuming would be brandishing but his lawyer made a comment that raised a question; does the castle doctrine carry over to another vehicle you are in or just the one you own?

In Texas, MPA is the law you're looking for. If I'm not mistaken, it applies to any vehicle which is under your control. In other words, if neither you nor your girlfriend have a CHL, and you are a passenger in her car, she may have a concealed firearm on her person, but you may not. OTH, if you borrow her car to run out for pizza, you may then carry a weapon in her car because it is under your control.

The area I'm not clear on is this: If neither of you have a CHL and both you and your girlfriend are in her car but you are driving, for the purposes of MPA is the vehicle considered to be under her control (she's the owner, and she's in it) or under your control (since your the guy behind the wheel). In fact, I'm going to post another thread asking this question.....

[WildBill]

The area I'm not clear on is this: If neither of you have a CHL and both you and your girlfriend are in her car but you are driving, for the purposes of MPA is the vehicle considered to be under her control (she's the owner, and she's in it) or under your control (since your the guy behind the wheel). In fact, I'm going to post another thread asking this question.....

I am going to say whoever is the driver is the one "in control." The logic is that if you are the passenger in a car that you own and intoxicated you couldn't be arrested for DUI, since the car isn't under your control.

[barstoolguru]

regional / Ohio Man Claims 'Castle Doctrine' In Car Gun Case

The area I'm not clear on is this: If neither of you have a CHL and both you and your girlfriend are in her car but you are driving, for the purposes of MPA is the vehicle considered to be under her control (she's the owner, and she's in it) or under your control (since your the guy behind the wheel). In fact, I'm going to post another thread asking this question.....

From what I have read and seen IF YOU are driving the car YOU are under control even if she OWNS the car. She is financially responsible because she owns the car but YOU being the driver are in control of the car.

Example: if you have an accident it’s YOUR fault, you are cited and if someone is killed you are charged but she has the financial burden of being sued

If she is driving and you get pulled over they can’t give you a DUI but they can arrest you for public intox

[WildBill]

regional / Ohio Man Claims 'Castle Doctrine' In Car Gun Case

The area I'm not clear on is this: If neither of you have a CHL and both you and your girlfriend are in her car but you are driving, for the purposes of MPA is the vehicle considered to be under her control (she's the owner, and she's in it) or under your control (since your the guy behind the wheel). In fact, I'm going to post another thread asking this question.....

From what I have read and seen IF YOU are driving the car YOU are under control even if she OWNS the car. She is financially responsible because she owns the car but YOU being the driver are in control of the car.

Example: if you have an accident it’s YOUR fault, you are cited and if someone is killed you are charged but she has the financial burden of being sued

If she is driving and you get pulled over they can’t give you a DUI but they can arrest you for public intox

IANAL, but IMO this is not true.

Liability car insurance coverage covers the driver no matter what car they are driving. Comprehensive and collision auto insurance coverage are linked to the car that is being covered.

Either the driver or owner can be sued. Who is held responsible in a lawsuit is another issue.

[fickman]

Wait, wait, wait. . . I've seen a lot of movies and TV where it showed an unarmed driver and the passenger was the one with the gun. . . and the passenger was very much in control of the vehicle.

If there's only one gun, whoever has it is in charge.



(J/K)

[WildBill]

Wait, wait, wait. . . I've seen a lot of movies and TV where it showed an unarmed driver and the passenger was the one with the gun. . . and the passenger was very much in control of the vehicle.

If there's only one gun, whoever has it is in charge.



(J/K)

Good point, but I think that only applies if they are waving it around.

[gdanaher]

Remember, most of those movies are filmed in California, and those gun laws out there are much more liberal than our own, so they are in fact permitted to "brandish" their pistols without fear of arrest, right?

[WildBill]

Remember, most of those movies are filmed in California, and those gun laws out there are much more liberal than our own, so they are in fact permitted to "brandish" their pistols without fear of arrest, right?

I forgot about that! As long as they are unloaded, it's perfectly OK.

[ScooterSissy]

...or a better story...this one smells like fish...

...OUR Castle Doctrine would cover him in public in that he didn't have to retreat, if he was doing something he had the right to do...


...I don't think the Castle Doctrine would be interpreted to mean ONLY in YOUR house...ONLY in YOUR car, ONLY in YOUR place of business...I think you could make the same response to someone breaking into a house that you were a guest in...a car that you'd borrowed or were a guest in...another's place of business where the criminal act put you in danger...BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SUPPORTING CASELAW...SO IT MAY BE WISHFUL THINKING ON MY PART...

...anyone seen a case like that yet?

Here's some more information:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2012 ... CFRONTPAGE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To fill in some missing blanks (for those that don't want to read it all in the link), the guy charged is the current boyfriend. The guy lifting the handle is the old boyfriend. New BF was in the care with permission. Doesn't say if Old BF had any kind of permission. New BF says he partially showed the gun, Old BF says it was pointed at him. (This casual observer says it really doesn't matter, don't go lifting door handles unless you have permission). Both BFs say they didn't know each other prior to this.

It's being applealed (and heard today, 6/6). The municiple judge reportedly welcomed the appeal, since it will settle the "I'm not the driver, does castle doctrine apply".

[Jumping Frog]

The case cited above is very specific to Ohio law. It has absolutely nothing to do with the superior law we have in Texas. The Ohio law cited, often poorly referred to as "Castle Doctrine", is explicitly dealing with duty to retreat, which wasn't really applicable in the original case anyway. The real case issue is whether a person has the right under Ohio law to use deadly force because another person attempted to lift the door handle. Without being able to demonstrate immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury, then pulling a gun on the BG becomes unlawful and he was charged with the Ohio crime of "aggravated menacing", which is a misdemeanor.

O.R.C. 2901.09. (B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person's residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.