TexasCHLforum.com

Hello everyone, I am a new CHL holder and first time poster.

My wife is a house sitter and is often alone visiting homes where people are out of town. She does not stay the night, just checks in on them. I was considering having her get a CHL, but when reading the laws I was curious if by house sitting if this was a property she had "control" of? Therefore making it unnecessary to have the CHL?

Thoughts?

Welcome tomw...

You raise a good question and my vague recollection is that if you are watching a neighbor's property with their concurrence, then yes you have the right to defend said property. I am sure others more informed than I will chime in.

In my opinion, I would go ahead and get the CHL. That way, she has it just in case there is ever any question. With the CHL, the only thing, I think, that she would have to worry about would be the homeowner(s) giving her proper notice under 30.06.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in, because I Am Not A Lawyer......I just sell stone for a living.

I doubt it. I read "control" of property to mean something akin to renting/leasing.

Of course, IANAL and have no doubt I could be wrong.

If she is armed and should ever, heaven forbid, have to put the on a BG somewhere, there will be a lot of forms and other stuff to deal with. Whether she has a license or not won't be an issue if she does have her CHL.

That's my 2¢ on the subject. Try not to spend it all in one place.

EDIT P.S:

Given the situation you descibe, the cost to obtain the license might be deductible?

Regardless of the answer to your question, she should get the CHL It will cover a lot of bases besides house-sitting.

1. Definitely get CHL - for multiple reasons.

2. Be careful about why you might USE a gun while house-sitting. I am NOT a lawyer and not pretending to be, and I"m a bit vague on the details of this (so don't shoot the messenger) but in the back of my head there is some element of deadly force law which states you may use a gun to defend YOUR property, but not necessarily someone else's property unless you have their OK? Seems this issue was brought up regarding the Joe Horn case? But again, I'm very fuzzy on this one so wait for someone else to come along and fill in the blanks.

tomw wrote:Hello everyone, I am a new CHL holder and first time poster.

My wife is a house sitter and is often alone visiting homes where people are out of town. She does not stay the night, just checks in on them. I was considering having her get a CHL, but when reading the laws I was curious if by house sitting if this was a property she had "control" of? Therefore making it unnecessary to have the CHL? Thoughts?

Disclaimer, IANAL, but I do have some thoughts. If your wife has the permission of the homeowner to house sit and watch the property, I would say she has control. She is alone in a dwelling which she has permission to be in. Who else could be "in control"?

I know you didn't specifically ask, but I am in agreement with all of the others suggesting that she should get a CHL. After all, she has to travel to the house, get out of the car, and enter the house with a gun, inspect the house, get back in the car and drive back home. During all of this activity, she will be completely alone. Better to do it armed all of the time.

Addressing the "Joe Horn" type comments, I am assuming that she would only defend herself if she were actually attacked while entering or while she was inside of the house. I also assume that if she arrived at the property and saw any evidence of breaking and entering, burglary or a saw a person in the house, she would call 911 and wait for the police.

Many people have already said to get a CHL so I'll focus on the other piece. Property you control.

More than a few cities have ordinances that fine people for code violations on property under their control. Do you think your wife would be (or should be) fined if there's a code violation at one of the properties where she's house sitting?

tacticool wrote:Many people have already said to get a CHL so I'll focus on the other piece. Property you control.

More than a few cities have ordinances that fine people for code violations on property under their control. Do you think your wife would be (or should be) fined if there's a code violation at one of the properties where she's house sitting?

You have a good point, but a lone person working in a convience store at night can have control of the building without being the owner of the business. IANAL, but if the law required that to be "in control" you be the owner, renter, lesee, etc. it would specifically state that in the statute.

True story. Friends of mine were home checking a neighbors house. They walk in at around 5:00 pm and as he goes down the hall he gets jumped from a bedroom. He caught a burgler in his act.

After wrestling for a min his wife came over and kicked the man off her husband. He took off out of the house and has never been caught. This was in Indiana. To this day he says he should of had a gun.

Since I assume she's getting paid for the housesitting, I'd downplay anything that makes it sound like security. That opens another can of worms.

Mike1951 wrote:Since I assume she's getting paid for the housesitting, I'd downplay anything that makes it sound like security. That opens another can of worms.

Well said.

WildBill wrote:

tacticool wrote:Many people have already said to get a CHL so I'll focus on the other piece. Property you control.

More than a few cities have ordinances that fine people for code violations on property under their control. Do you think your wife would be (or should be) fined if there's a code violation at one of the properties where she's house sitting?

You have a good point, but a lone person working in a convience store at night can have control of the building without being the owner of the business. IANAL, but if the law required that to be "in control" you be the owner, renter, lesee, etc. it would specifically state that in the statute.

Section 7.02 is an example of what I meant. http://www.arlingtontx.gov/codecomplian ... rking.html

In practice, it probably won't be a problem but IANAL either.

wow, those were a lot of great replies and good points raised. I am in agreement with all of you, that thinking about it now the CHL is a good investment. She does not advertise or perform security, only turn lights on/off, water plants, feed pets, get mail, etc. Handgun would be for protection from immediate danger only. Any other circumstance she would be avoiding/calling 911. When she house sits in rougher neighborhoods I am tagging along anyway ;)

I think the issue of control is still up in the air... and the laws were written that way, it could be argued either way. I am thinking that since the client pays a fee, she is alone in the house with their permission, has controlled access to the house(key, garage code, etc) and could control who is let in, she would be considered in control of the property.

Again, thanks for the great suggestions/replies.