property you control

[Hoi Polloi]

Legal terms like that are usually defined in the code. I would guess that if it isn't specifically defined in the code somewhere that it has been defined through case law.

[NOS]

IANAL and will never claim to be... That being said, If assuming that she is being paid (or even if she's not paid) for taking care of the property while the owner is away, she might just want to ask them what measures they would like for her to take in the event of a security issue with their property. If a contract is involved, you could easily add a section on what measures they want her to protect their property with. I know that the CHL is mainly for her protection, but it seems to me that if she has been given the right to protect the property under any means necessary (by the properties owner) she would have have an easier time convincing others of her right to protect herself on that property.
We covered this in a hypothetical situation brought up in my CHL class. In the end we determined that asking the neighbor (In that case it was watching a neighbors house while they were away on vacation) what means they would have you use if a situation arose while on their property in their absence, might make things easier in the end. With their permission it seemed to all of us that if the need for lethal force was there while you were on their property, having their permission to use lethal force (or any means necessary) seemed like it would make it a little easier for your defense. We even went as far as to change the hypothetical situation to see how complicated we could make it. Say you didn't ask what measures they wanted you to defend their property with. A person breaks in and confronts you on their property. You perceive that your life is being threatened so you use lethal force to stop the threat. After the owner finds out about the incident, they claim that they never gave you permission to use a "weapon" or lethal force of any kind in their home or on their property (giving them the right and means to try to take legal action against you, further complicating an already bad situation). You do have the right to protect your domicile, which is not your house by the way, it is the immediate area which you are occupying at that moment in time. They shouldn't find you guilty of anything by defending yourself in that situation, but not having the permission from the home owner to use any means necessary might make things a little more complicated legally IMHO.

Just my .02 anyway
And Once Again IANAL

[canvasbck]

Lot's of very knowledgable people on this forum and not one definitive response. There is virtually zero chance that a responding LEO will know whether or not she is legal carrying without a CHL in this situation. Without the CHL, I would think she could count on taking "the ride".

Even with the CHL, she may take a ride after a defensive shooting. But without the CHL, she seems likely to be wearing chrome bracelets for any LEO contact where it's revealed that she is carrying and she does not live at the residence. Beating the rap is a question for the lawyer that you would be retaining.

[C-dub]

Lot's of very knowledgable people on this forum and not one definitive response.

This is more than likely due to "property under one's control" not being clearly defined in the law. That and the lack of case law of a similar situation that would give an idea one way or the other.

[canvasbck]

Lot's of very knowledgable people on this forum and not one definitive response.

This is more than likely due to "property under one's control" not being clearly defined in the law. That and the lack of case law of a similar situation that would give an idea one way or the other.

My point exactly, it's a complex issue that the combined knowledge on this board has not been able to provide a definitive answer for. A random LEO will more than likely not be able to determine the legallity of it either. A CHL would remove the ambiguity of the situation.

[NOS]

Lot's of very knowledgable people on this forum and not one definitive response.

This is more than likely due to "property under one's control" not being clearly defined in the law. That and the lack of case law of a similar situation that would give an idea one way or the other.

My point exactly, it's a complex issue that the combined knowledge on this board has not been able to provide a definitive answer for. A random LEO will more than likely not be able to determine the legallity of it either. A CHL would remove the ambiguity of the situation.

That is why I love this forum! Even when there seems to be no definitive answer to the question, we come together to find the best solution without having to argue about everyone's individual opinion on the subject.

[chasfm11]

Not to either hijack the thread or to throw mud into water that already wasn't very clear from the beginning but we have the same issue with RV. In some cases, like the Texas open container law, the house portion of RVs is specifically exempted. For seat belts, there is no clear exemption for the house portion though there would be in a charter bus or school buss of the same length. The reason that I bring this up is that the Texas State Parks honor CHL carry but I've always wondered what would happen if I had to use the gun defensively. With the BG inside the RV itself, I would think that it would be a little easier, just like in the case of the OP in the house sitting scenario.

Catching a BG in the "act" of breaking in, would get a little more dicey, I fear. Keep in mind that in many RV situations, dialing 911 isn't an option because we often don't have a good cell phone signal. If condition yellow alerts me to something that is about to happen, I really don't want to wait until I'm in close quarters to deal with it but legally, that might be the only option that doesn't result in more problems.

In RVs, like in third party house situations, the path is not very clear, at least to me.

[canvasbck]

Not to either hijack the thread or to throw mud into water that already wasn't very clear from the beginning but we have the same issue with RV. In some cases, like the Texas open container law, the house portion of RVs is specifically exempted. For seat belts, there is no clear exemption for the house portion though there would be in a charter bus or school buss of the same length. The reason that I bring this up is that the Texas State Parks honor CHL carry but I've always wondered what would happen if I had to use the gun defensively. With the BG inside the RV itself, I would think that it would be a little easier, just like in the case of the OP in the house sitting scenario.

Catching a BG in the "act" of breaking in, would get a little more dicey, I fear. Keep in mind that in many RV situations, dialing 911 isn't an option because we often don't have a good cell phone signal. If condition yellow alerts me to something that is about to happen, I really don't want to wait until I'm in close quarters to deal with it but legally, that might be the only option that doesn't result in more problems.

In RVs, like in third party house situations, the path is not very clear, at least to me.

RV's are specifically included in the MPA:

PC §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 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 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;
(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.

[chasfm11]

(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.

Right. I understand that. Perhaps I need some more education but from reading the other posts, it seemed that once you have a CHL, MPA was more or less out the window.. By that I mean that I can not mix and match between MPA and CHL application of laws. If I'm wrong about that, I hope that some will help me to clear it up. So while I can use the MPA provision of an RV before I get the CHL (and I've sort have been doing that for years without truly understanding why), having the CHL changes that game.

The interior of the RV is under my control. I would say "always" with that. The site the I rent to park it is less clear. While the property surrounding my house is under my control, I'm not sure that anyone/everyone would agree that the ground around my RV site is under my control, just as with the OP and her watching someone else's property. Neither of us are going to take responsibility for any legal actions against that property.

Sorry if I'm trying to split hairs where I shouldn't be. I'm on a very steep learning curve with much of this material.

Chas.

[canvasbck]

My inderstanding is (insert not a lawyer disclaimer here) the only thing that does not apply to a CHL holder from MPA is that a CHL holder is still required to present the CHL when asked for ID but a non CHL holder does not under MPA. IMHO as long as your RV is not parked on federal property such as COE, then you are good to go.

[jester]

The interior of the RV is under my control. I would say "always" with that. The site the I rent to park it is less clear. While the property surrounding my house is under my control, I'm not sure that anyone/everyone would agree that the ground around my RV site is under my control, just as with the OP and her watching someone else's property. Neither of us are going to take responsibility for any legal actions against that property.

A better parallel for your situation might be someone renting an apartment. The inside of their unit is under their control, but the shared hallways, pool, gym, laundry room, etc. are not.

IAstillNAL

[Pinkycatcher]

Not to either hijack the thread or to throw mud into water that already wasn't very clear from the beginning but we have the same issue with RV. In some cases, like the Texas open container law, the house portion of RVs is specifically exempted. For seat belts, there is no clear exemption for the house portion though there would be in a charter bus or school buss of the same length. The reason that I bring this up is that the Texas State Parks honor CHL carry but I've always wondered what would happen if I had to use the gun defensively. With the BG inside the RV itself, I would think that it would be a little easier, just like in the case of the OP in the house sitting scenario.

Catching a BG in the "act" of breaking in, would get a little more dicey, I fear. Keep in mind that in many RV situations, dialing 911 isn't an option because we often don't have a good cell phone signal. If condition yellow alerts me to something that is about to happen, I really don't want to wait until I'm in close quarters to deal with it but legally, that might be the only option that doesn't result in more problems.

In RVs, like in third party house situations, the path is not very clear, at least to me.

If a robber exits your RV after having stolen from it, and you walk upon them at that time (would be a crazy coincidence) then I would simply construe it as an aggressive act. I don't know if I'd draw right away, but I would for sure be ready and give an ultimatum, stating to stop lie on the ground etc. etc. call the police and then go on from there. If the robber became aggressive, then draw and shoot, if the robber runs, give a good description to the police.

[chasfm11]

If a robber exits your RV after having stolen from it, and you walk upon them at that time (would be a crazy coincidence) then I would simply construe it as an aggressive act. I don't know if I'd draw right away, but I would for sure be ready and give an ultimatum, stating to stop lie on the ground etc. etc. call the police and then go on from there. If the robber became aggressive, then draw and shoot, if the robber runs, give a good description to the police.

I'm honestly not worried about a robber stealing things. We don't take much along with us in the RV that would fight for my life over. What I'm thinking about is a break-in for the purpose of stealing things while we are in the RV. There may be no quick way to determine the purpose of the break-in and the further outside of the RV I could have a confrontation,the better. Things are pretty tight once you are inside. We keep the doors and windows locked so I'm assuming that I've been alerted because of the noise during the break-in attempt.

Frankly, this isn't about what I might do at the time of the incident. I figure that my instincts will guide me. It is about what happens afterwards. I'm trying to understand the potential for winning the battle with the BG at the moment and loosing the war in court afterwards, over a "property I control" issue.

[Pinkycatcher]

I'm honestly not worried about a robber stealing things. We don't take much along with us in the RV that would fight for my life over. What I'm thinking about is a break-in for the purpose of stealing things while we are in the RV. There may be no quick way to determine the purpose of the break-in and the further outside of the RV I could have a confrontation,the better. Things are pretty tight once you are inside. We keep the doors and windows locked so I'm assuming that I've been alerted because of the noise during the break-in attempt.

Frankly, this isn't about what I might do at the time of the incident. I figure that my instincts will guide me. It is about what happens afterwards. I'm trying to understand the potential for winning the battle with the BG at the moment and loosing the war in court afterwards, over a "property I control" issue.

I think there would be very little question in that instance that it was a justified shooting, once they are inside it is extremely close quarters and that's a very high risk situation.