'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- HancockCountyHAl
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:48 pm
- Location: Hancock County, Ohio
'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
I didn't know that the CD does not apply in someone elses car.
Why not?
Twenty-nine-year-old Woodrow Edwards III was in his girlfriend's car when a man he didn't know lifted the door handle. Edwards lifted the .40-caliber handgun he has a permit to carry, and that led to an aggravated menacing conviction. He was fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ ... TE=DEFAULT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why not?
Twenty-nine-year-old Woodrow Edwards III was in his girlfriend's car when a man he didn't know lifted the door handle. Edwards lifted the .40-caliber handgun he has a permit to carry, and that led to an aggravated menacing conviction. He was fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ ... TE=DEFAULT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HancockCountyHaL
- Bianchi?
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:42 pm
- Location: Akron, Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Correct. Castle Doctrine only applies to your own car. If you're in someone else's car, well, that's too bad.
I've had consistently good results with ether.
- TSiWRX
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
- Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Interesting....
What if I'm in my wife's car, which is registered in her name?
(Although she may not want to, yes, I can legally prove that she's my wife. )
What if I'm in my wife's car, which is registered in her name?
(Although she may not want to, yes, I can legally prove that she's my wife. )
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
- BuckJM53
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
While it may disappoint your wife , the law does state the following:TSiWRX wrote:Interesting....
What if I'm in my wife's car, which is registered in her name?
(Although she may not want to, yes, I can legally prove that she's my wife. )
Sec. 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.
Last edited by BuckJM53 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15" - Ronald Reagan
- TSiWRX
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
- Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights
- DontTreadOnMe
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Assuming your wife is considered an "immediate family member" you're covered:TSiWRX wrote:Interesting....
What if I'm in my wife's car, which is registered in her name?
2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
The appeal questions the meaning of the phrase "that person's vehicle". Interpreted strictly, it means a vehicle legally owned by that person. Interpreted broadly, it means any vehicle the person has lawful possession/use of.(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.
- TSiWRX
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
- Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights
- HancockCountyHAl
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:48 pm
- Location: Hancock County, Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Thanks folks, you are correct. I looked it up after I posted. Just seems counter intuitive to me. Why would our legislators limit us to our own vehicle and should this be an action item for future lesislative reform?
HancockCountyHaL
-
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:06 pm
- Location: ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Since the castle doctrine is about "self defense" one would think wherever your"self" is should be covered. Seems asinine to me to be this way, but then again politicians wrote it. Hopefully the appeals court will look at it this way as well.
-
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:36 pm
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
If I'm in a friend's car, I am not sure how easy it would be to safely retreat...depending on the situation. There is also defense of others that MAY come into play depending on the situation. Children in the back seat may not be able to safely retreat.
"Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?"
- djmac1964
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 3138
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 pm
- Location: Brook Park OH
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Thanks for posting this! I was, as I'm sure a lot of people were and still are, under the assumption that you were covered in any vehicle you were in!
I wonder how this would play out if someone was in a work vehicle and tried to claim they were covered under castle doctrine. After all they would be in a vehicle that was assigned to them for work, so it would be their vehicle while working, so to speak. Or someone who has a take home company vehicle that they also use for personal business.
I wonder how this would play out if someone was in a work vehicle and tried to claim they were covered under castle doctrine. After all they would be in a vehicle that was assigned to them for work, so it would be their vehicle while working, so to speak. Or someone who has a take home company vehicle that they also use for personal business.
Don M
U S Army Veteran 84-91
OFCC Patron Member
NRA Life Member
ORPA Member
WVCDL Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor / RSO
Want to become more active with OFCC, and the fight for your rights? Click the link to find out how!
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=64852
U S Army Veteran 84-91
OFCC Patron Member
NRA Life Member
ORPA Member
WVCDL Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor / RSO
Want to become more active with OFCC, and the fight for your rights? Click the link to find out how!
http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=64852
- MyWifeSaidYes
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5449
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
- Contact:
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
His lawyer will be bringing up legislative intent and that rental cars or loaners from friends should be covered.
MyWifeSaidYes
-
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Does this mean that if I was a passenger in my dad's car, and had to use my weapon in self-defense, castle doctrine wouldn't apply?
Don't think the legislative intent thing is gonna jive with the appeals court (Especially that one) since they were very clear that they intended it only to apply to immediate family members.
Don't think the legislative intent thing is gonna jive with the appeals court (Especially that one) since they were very clear that they intended it only to apply to immediate family members.
- DontTreadOnMe
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1750
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Assuming your dad is considered an "immediate family member" you're covered:bsctov wrote:Does this mean that if I was a passenger in my dad's car, and had to use my weapon in self-defense, castle doctrine wouldn't apply?
2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(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.
The rental car / loaner car question is a good point though. You can never tell with appeals courts.bsctov wrote:Don't think the legislative intent thing is gonna jive with the appeals court (Especially that one) since they were very clear that they intended it only to apply to immediate family members.
- Bianchi?
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:42 pm
- Location: Akron, Ohio
Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case
Your dad is an immediate family member. Castle Doctrine would apply.bsctov wrote:Does this mean that if I was a passenger in my dad's car, and had to use my weapon in self-defense, castle doctrine wouldn't apply?
Don't think the legislative intent thing is gonna jive with the appeals court (Especially that one) since they were very clear that they intended it only to apply to immediate family members.
I've had consistently good results with ether.