does the castle doctrine apply to other cars?

[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?

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".

...thanks for the rest of the story...now it all makes sense...there WAS a weasel in the bushes...

...as to it being Ohio law, not Texas...court precedents from all over the country affect other states' decisions...this case might be to our benefit if it's decided that the Castle Doctrine goes with the citizen, not the address he's at or the car that he's in...that question will have to be answered at some point in Texas because of the wording of the law...I don't think our legislators meant only those three places, either...but we'll have to see...

[sjfcontrol]

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.....

BY TEXAS LAW -- NOT OHIO

MPA is the law that determines whether you can legally carry a handgun in a car (or, now, watercraft). It affected PC 46.02, and states "...that is owned by the person or under the person's control...". So in the case where the owner is in the car, but it's being driven by another person, either of those occupants would be eligible to be armed -- but a third party (non-owner passenger) would not be. If the gun is in the car, but not physically on the body of an individual, it is usually considered under the control of the driver (at least if within his reach), as I understand it.

Castle Doctrine, OTOH, determines when the use of deadly force is "presumed" justified. It affected PC 9.32 and refers to "...the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment...". So, presumably, you would NOT be covered under Castle Doctrine if you shot an intruder in your neighbor's house, or while driving your neighbor's car. (At least as I read it.)

Edit: Just because a shooting isn't covered by Castle Doctrine, does NOT mean the shoot was unjustified. It just isn't "presumed" justified. So you'll have to show/prove justification.

[bkj]

GF's car, GF is driving, neither has CHL, Anything say I cannot lone my gun to GF and she concealed it on the seat between us under a towel?

[sjfcontrol]

GF's car, GF is driving, neither has CHL, Anything say I cannot lone my gun to GF and she concealed it on the seat between us under a towel?

Nope -- sounds good to me (providing she is legally entitled to possess a firearm).

However, under a towel on the seat might be a problem if you were ever in an accident.