Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Hello,

I was having an ongoing discussion with someone about various ohio laws, both current and proposed. The person I was discussing with says they are pro gun, but anti many other common sense laws such as stand your ground.

In the course of my research to provide orc references etc I discovered the following and wanted to run it by the experts here regarding kayaks/boats and castle doctrine.

Can kayaks and boats can be considered vehicles?

ORC - 2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(A) As used in this section, "residence" and "vehicle" have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.

(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.

Based on these, it would appear that a kayak or boat is considered a vehicle (they also have to be registered in Ohio) since they transport people and property. Because it is a vehicle, then when inside it, castle doctrine would then apply if you are able to meet the criteria for it.

What are your thoughts?

kSetuni wrote:Hello,

I was having an ongoing discussion with someone about various ohio laws, both current and proposed. The person I was discussing with says they are pro gun, but anti many other common sense laws such as stand your ground.

In the course of my research to provide orc references etc I discovered the following and wanted to run it by the experts here regarding kayaks/boats and castle doctrine.

Can kayaks and boats can be considered vehicles?

ORC - 2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(A) As used in this section, "residence" and "vehicle" have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.

(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.

Based on these, it would appear that a kayak or boat is considered a vehicle (they also have to be registered in Ohio) since they transport people and property. Because it is a vehicle, then when inside it, castle doctrine would then apply if you are able to meet the criteria for it.

What are your thoughts?

This would be a good argument to make in defense of a charge if failure to retreat is being argued by the prosecution to defeat a self defense claim. There is no black and white answer in the Revise Code. Section 1547.69 deals with carrying firearms in "vessels" and refers to 2923.11 dealing with motor vehicles for definitions, so there is a distinction, but without a general definition of watercraft, vessel or vehicle, it is up to the courts to decide.

Also depends upon the body of water. ACoE controlled/managed water are technically a no go. Most people abide by this only when on or near the damns or facilities.

I boat a lot at Tappan lake. The lake and park is run by the Muskingham Watershed. The dam is ACofE. The rangers are cool with concealed carry in the park. I've decided not to be a test case on the water.

WY_Not wrote:Also depends upon the body of water. ACoE controlled/managed water are technically a no go. Most people abide by this only when on or near the damns or facilities.

Wynot why are they a no go? A body of water certainly cannot be construed as a government building or facility. Also if they are, how would one go about knowing what waterways are affected?

The reason I ask is that there have been more and more reports by kayakers of hostile encounters with land owners, or people at putins and takeouts. These are not people who use liveries, but people who own boats, respect the waters and environments. One guy came out in full camo. believed to be armed and was very hostile yelling that them that they could not kayak the waters etc. he acted like he owns the waters, which he does not and they cannot restrict access and use of the waters.

I wanted to get the discussion going in case I was missing anything. I cannot find a definitive definition in the orc of a vessel, but vehicle seems very clear and would certainly include kayaks. If that is the case, then we would have more protection under castle doctrine.

Duty to retreat if you can do so safely. How can you safely retreat in a kayak?

kSetuni wrote:

WY_Not wrote:Also depends upon the body of water. ACoE controlled/managed water are technically a no go. Most people abide by this only when on or near the damns or facilities.

Wynot why are they a no go? A body of water certainly cannot be construed as a government building or facility. Also if they are, how would one go about knowing what waterways are affected?

Any land controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited under Federal law so the definition of government facility doesn't apply. How you go about knowing what is affected is to research each one and see if the ACOE controls it, and what their boundaries are. I think it can vary for each one - but, as far as I'm aware ACOE land is always associated with dams and their land and portion of the waterway always abut the dam.

JustaShooter wrote:

kSetuni wrote:

WY_Not wrote:Also depends upon the body of water. ACoE controlled/managed water are technically a no go. Most people abide by this only when on or near the damns or facilities.

Wynot why are they a no go? A body of water certainly cannot be construed as a government building or facility. Also if they are, how would one go about knowing what waterways are affected?

Any land controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited under Federal law so the definition of government facility doesn't apply. How you go about knowing what is affected is to research each one and see if the ACOE controls it, and what their boundaries are. I think it can vary for each one - but, as far as I'm aware ACOE land is always associated with dams and their land and portion of the waterway always abut the dam.

Please forgive my ignorance, but how does one tell who controls the land (or in this case water)? How do I know it ACOE controlled?

whitefeathersnpr wrote:

JustaShooter wrote:

kSetuni wrote: Any land controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited under Federal law so the definition of government facility doesn't apply. How you go about knowing what is affected is to research each one and see if the ACOE controls it, and what their boundaries are. I think it can vary for each one - but, as far as I'm aware ACOE land is always associated with dams and their land and portion of the waterway always abut the dam.

Please forgive my ignorance, but how does one tell who controls the land (or in this case water)? How do I know it ACOE controlled?

Just like when you go to a park, you need to know whether it is publicly or privately owned to know whether the No Guns sign is legally enforceable or not. Look it up beforehand. If the ACOE controls it, you can't carry there. For instance, Indiana allows carry in its state parks, but not at Falls of the Ohio because that is also controlled by the ACOE and federal law supercedes state law.

well according to the corps of engineers site the following 4 lakes in ohio are controlled by them: Caesar Creek Lake, West Fork of Mill Creek Lake, William H. Harsha Lake, C.J. Brown Dam & Reservoir. I still dont get where they think they have the right to infringe upon our rights. But at least its only 4 places in ohio. No waterways are listed.

kSetuni wrote:well according to the corps of engineers site the following 4 lakes in ohio are controlled by them: Caesar Creek Lake, West Fork of Mill Creek Lake, William H. Harsha Lake, C.J. Brown Dam & Reservoir. I still dont get where they think they have the right to infringe upon our rights. But at least its only 4 places in ohio. No waterways are listed.

When Congress passed the law requiring the national parks and national forests to honor state law regarding concealed carry, it did not include the ACOE controlled lands, therefore federal regulations control.

Congress has rolled out some bills to fix this over the last decade or so, but as a stand alone thing they don't seem to get much traction.

We got carry in national parks as a rider on the Credit Card Reform Act of Whatever Year during Obama's first term. That kind of Congressional alchemy..I'm glad they aren't pharmacists or bartenders.