'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
HancockCountyHAl
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Hancock County, Ohio

'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by HancockCountyHAl »

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;
HancockCountyHaL
User avatar
Bianchi?
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by Bianchi? »

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.
User avatar
TSiWRX
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by TSiWRX »

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. :lol:)
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
User avatar
BuckJM53
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by BuckJM53 »

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. :lol:)
While it may disappoint your wife :D, the law does state the following:
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
User avatar
TSiWRX
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by TSiWRX »

^ Ah, thankyee! :)
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

TSiWRX wrote:Interesting....

What if I'm in my wife's car, which is registered in her name?
Assuming your wife is considered an "immediate family member" you're covered:

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 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.
User avatar
TSiWRX
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 6676
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by TSiWRX »

^ And thank you, too. :)
Allen - Shaker Heights, Ohio
User avatar
HancockCountyHAl
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Hancock County, Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by HancockCountyHAl »

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
shrekfingers
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:06 pm
Location: ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by shrekfingers »

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.
Mal R
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:36 pm
Location: NW Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by Mal R »

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?"
User avatar
djmac1964
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Brook Park OH

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by djmac1964 »

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.
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
User avatar
MyWifeSaidYes
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:59 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by MyWifeSaidYes »

His lawyer will be bringing up legislative intent and that rental cars or loaners from friends should be covered.
MyWifeSaidYes
bsctov
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:47 am

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by bsctov »

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.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

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?
Assuming your dad is considered an "immediate family member" you're covered:

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.
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.
The rental car / loaner car question is a good point though. You can never tell with appeals courts.
User avatar
Bianchi?
Posts: 1541
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio

Re: 'Castle doctrine' in car gun case

Post by Bianchi? »

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.
Your dad is an immediate family member. Castle Doctrine would apply.
I've had consistently good results with ether.
Post Reply