Castle Doctrine Coming To NC?


PDA






MikeNice
February 8, 2011, 05:04 PM
I just recieved an e-mail from the NRA. The NC legislative calendar opened with the introduction of a "Castle Doctrine" bill in NC. I am ecstatic. It hasn't faced a vote yet, but this is great news for gun owners.

As it stands in NC you can be sued in civil court for using defensive force to protect your home. It doesn't matter if the police find that you were legally in the right. The proposed bill would reverse this.

The bill would also change the law so that if someone forcibly enters your home, and has no right to be there, you can use defensive force. As it stands now you technically can't use defensive force unless they are threatening you or your family. The proposed law says that any forced entry by a person with no right to be there automatically constitutes the threat to use violence or force.

The proposed law also states that if the intruder removes someone from your home you can use force to stop them.

I encourage any person in NC to read Senate Bill 34 and call their state law makers. Let them know we appreciate this and will remember them in the next election.

If you enjoyed reading about "Castle Doctrine Coming To NC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ForumSurfer
February 8, 2011, 05:35 PM
From the same email you refer to:

Our legislative goals include Right-to-Carry reforms that will expand where permit holders may lawfully carry their concealed firearms, eliminating the archaic requirement that law-abiding citizens request permission from their local sheriff before purchasing a handgun, passing a solid Castle Doctrine law, and fixing the problems with the current statutes relating to a declared state of emergency. I never bought a lifetime NRA membership...but I may now. I'll be signing up for 5 years or a lifetime before the week is out. I was thinking we'd be stuck with our asinine laws until the end of time. Maybe sometime in the near future we'll have some actual open carry laws on the books to protect our rights, a castle doctrine and maybe they'll change the laws regarding the fact I have to disarm myself when I enter an establishment that serves alcohol (like freakin pizza hut).

The bit about eliminating the pistol permit purchase from the local sheriff interests me, too. Many argue that this law in particular is nothing more than some ugly Jim Crow type legislation. Arguably so. I've had friends that were denied purchase for no valid reason.

Finally, some good news for NC. Even if nothing comes of it, it is damn sure nice to know someone up there is concerned about my rights and doing something about it. :cool:

EDIT:: I like the state of emergency bit, too. We were under a state of emergency on the opening day of dove season. 1000's of NC hunters were committing a crime by going hunting because Purdue declared a state of emergency over hurricane Earl. Others like myself were out and about, then suddenly in violation of the law for concealed carrying off of our property during a state of emergency. If that law were actually enforced, boy what a mess that would have been! Enforced laws or not, if it is archaic and not serving a purpose...it needs to be removed.

jad0110
February 8, 2011, 05:53 PM
Call up your representatives, write them as well. This legislation deserves our fullest support.

Maybe they'll also do away with the asinine restrictions on carrying into a place that charges admission ... as if I am not a threat in wal-mart, but am at the movie theater.

The bill would also change the law so that if someone forcibly enters your home, and has no right to be there, you can use defensive force. As it stands now you technically can't use defensive force unless they are threatening you or your family.

Yep, compared to every other state (or most of them), NC law is bass-ackwards in this regard. In most states, the joke is if you shoot the BG and he's still outside, drag him into the house. In NC, it's the other way around (lethal force is pretty much automatically justified if it is used to prevent forced entry, but once inside, though you don't have a duty to retreat, the criminal must have the intent, opportunity and means to inflict seriously bodily harm, death or commit a sexual assault) . :confused:

Crap, the law as currently written, sorta encourages you to shoot through a door before the punk gains access! How screwed up is that?

ForumSurfer
February 8, 2011, 07:57 PM
sorta encourages you to shoot through a door before the punk gains access!

And you'll find many LEO's in NC that are familiar with the laws who will say the exact same thing.

NC has some ancient, ridiculous laws.

Don't even get me started on the lack of open carry laws and that illy "going armed to the terror of the public" bit. That one is so fuzzy no law maker can actually explain it.

Call up your representatives, write them as well. This legislation deserves our fullest support.

Yes, they do. People like us are typically the silent majority. The time has come to say a collective "Amen!" Someone should put together a contact list and back story to circulate with the usual inter-office junk mail. The majority of my pro-2nd amendment friends aren't aware of what's being done on their behalf.

jkingrph
February 8, 2011, 08:08 PM
never bought a lifetime NRA membership...but I may now. I'll be signing up for 5 years or a lifetime before the week is out. I was thinking we'd be stuck with our asinine laws until the end of time. Maybe sometime in the near future we'll have some actual open carry laws on the books to protect our rights, a castle doctrine and maybe they'll change the laws regarding the fact I have to disarm myself when I enter an establishment that serves alcohol (like freakin pizza hut).

The bit about eliminating the pistol permit purchase from the local sheriff interests me, too. Many argue that this law in particular is nothing more than some ugly Jim Crow type legislation. Arguably so. I've had friends that were denied purchase for no valid reason.

Finally, some good news for NC. Even if nothing comes of it, it is damn sure nice to know someone up there is concerned about my rights and doing something about it.

EDIT:: I like the state of emergency bit, too. We were under a state of emergency on the opening day of dove season. 1000's of NC hunters were committing a crime by going hunting because Purdue declared a state of emergency over hurricane Earl. Others like myself were out and about, then suddenly in violation of the law for concealed carrying off of our property during a state of emergency. If that law were actually enforced, boy what a mess that would have been! Enforced laws or not, if it is archaic and not serving a purpose...it needs to be removed.

I'm in Texas and we have castle doctrine. I purchased a lifetime membership for myself and my son probably 25 years ago. He was in grade school and is now a practicing attorney in Miss. He is not in active shooting sports, but has a few guns I had given him before he left Texas, one he keeps in desk drawer, so he supports 2nd admendment rights.

Over the years as a matter donation I have upgraded my status to Patron, and a couple of years started purchasing an annual membership for my wife.

The NRA has it's shortcomeings, but is still the best thing out there to help guard our rights.

9mm+
February 8, 2011, 08:11 PM
While I will be the first to congratulate the NC lawmakers if they can pass a TRUE Castle Doctrine law, there are a couple of things I need to clear up regarding NC law:

1) You can use force as necessary, including deadly force, if someone is attempting entry into your home AND you have reason to believe that person is there to commit a felony and/or feel that person is there to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you.

2) Once the person is inside the home, however, a whole new set of decisions take effect as to what you can or cannot do to the intruder. Going into all of these would be tedious so I am not going to post them here.

A true Castle Doctrine law would take out a lot of the nonsense and byzantine rules of the existing statutes. As it stands now, you certainly can use deadly force for #1 above and can use it for #2 UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. The problem is that when someone breaks into your home, you have to do all of these mental gymnastics as to shoot/don't shoot which can leave the homeowner very vulnerable as he/she tries to figure them out.

Storz
February 8, 2011, 08:13 PM
This is great news, having moved here from MI I could not believe the home invasion laws were as they are when I took my CCW class. Can anyone post up the contact information for which representatives are responsible for this, they deserve support!

jad0110
February 8, 2011, 08:55 PM
While I will be the first to congratulate the NC lawmakers if they can pass a TRUE Castle Doctrine law, there are a couple of things I need to clear up regarding NC law:

1) You can use force as necessary, including deadly force, if someone is attempting entry into your home AND you have reason to believe that person is there to commit a felony and/or feel that person is there to inflict serious bodily injury or death upon you.

2) Once the person is inside the home, however, a whole new set of decisions take effect as to what you can or cannot due to the intruder. Going into all of these would be tedious so I am not going to post them here.

A true Castle Doctrine law would take out a lot of the nonsense and byzantine rules of the existing statutes. As it stands now, you certainly can use deadly force for #1 above and can use it for #2 UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. The problem is that when someone breaks into your home, you have to do all of these mental gymnastics as to shoot/don't shoot which can leave the homeowner very vulnerable as he/she tries to figure them out.

Mental gymnastics, that's a great way to describe the current laws. Though from what I gather, the enforcement of these goofy laws comes down to whether you live in a gun friendly county or not. Shoot an intruder in your home in a place like very pro gun Avery county, and you are probably going to be fine legally. Do the same thing in Wake county, maybe not.

Quote:
sorta encourages you to shoot through a door before the punk gains access!

And you'll find many LEO's in NC that are familiar with the laws who will say the exact same thing.

Funny enough, I'm friends with one of those LEOs, he lives a few doors down from me. Really great, pro gun guy. We actually had a conversation about this very same issue just last week.

Desolo
February 8, 2011, 09:17 PM
Hopefully this all gets passed...

What are the chances of pistol permits going away? That would be awesome. That would be the icing on the cake if the rest gets though!

Doug Add
February 8, 2011, 11:34 PM
Can anyone post up the contact information for which representatives are responsible for this, they deserve support!

Primary Sponsors of the Senate Bill:
Senator Doug Berger (D, District 7: Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren counties): Doug.Berger@ncleg.net
Senator Andrew Brock (R, District 34: Davie, Rowan counties): Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net
Senator Kathy Harrington (R, District 43: Gaston county): Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net

Here is the Senate Bill (http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S34).

Primary Sponsors of the House Bill:
Representative Jim Crawford (D, District 32: Granville, Vance counties): Jim.Crawford@ncleg.net
Representative Bill Owens (D, District 1: Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Tyrrell counties): Bill.Owens@ncleg.net
Representative Tim Spear (D, District 2: Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Washington counties): Tim.Spear@ncleg.net

Here is the House Bill (http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H52).

Finn1916
February 9, 2011, 01:17 AM
Good, no one should have to worry about defending their home, family or belongings from dirtbags who wish to do them harm. I worked hard for my things, you can't have them. Besides, is my TV worth your life, it's a crappy tv anyway.

Storz
February 9, 2011, 07:48 AM
Thanks for the contact info!

ForumSurfer
February 9, 2011, 11:05 AM
Mental gymnastics, that's a great way to describe the current laws. Though from what I gather, the enforcement of these goofy laws comes down to whether you live in a gun friendly county or not. Shoot an intruder in your home in a place like very pro gun Avery county, and you are probably going to be fine legally. Do the same thing in Wake county, maybe not.


My thoughts exactly. A solid castle doctrine would ensure our legal right to protect our homes. Without a castle doctrine, we're leaving the door open for other law makers to push other less 2A friendly agendas...like duty to retreat within the home.

dcdub
February 9, 2011, 01:10 PM
Our state laws are pretty ridiculous, but I understand most areas aren't too hard on homeowners protecting themselves. 2 years ago in Mecklenburg a man chased down 4 intruders after they left his home and property and killed one of them. He was neither arrested nor prosecuted. A solid castle doctrine will be nice, but I don't worry about it too much. What kills me is, as ForumSurfer said, not being able to carry in an establishment that serves alcohol. The law forbids carrying concealed with any alcohol in your system, so if we can't drink and CC then we should be able to CC in a restaurant that serves as long as we don't drink

DK24
February 21, 2011, 02:10 PM
I believe this bill was a counter-measure for the Contributory Negligence bill that failed in the Senate.

Please correct me if Im wrong, to my understanding we currenty have the "Castle Doctrine” under NC GENERAL STATUTE 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. NC also has common law rule in tort cases known as contributory negligence, meaning the plaintiff in a personal injury action is found to be even as little as 1% at fault, then the plaintiff will get nothing from the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant still is 99% at fault for the plaintiff's injuries.

The proposed Contributory Negligence bill would have replaced Contributory Negligence with Comparative Negligence, allowing the plaintiff's to recovery damages according to the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff.

dcdub
February 21, 2011, 06:35 PM
NC GENERAL STATUTE 14-51.1. pertains to preventing a forcible entry into a home. Once the intruder is IN the home the laws change. While the occupant does not have a duty to retreat, once the intruder is in the home the occupant must be in imminent danger before using deadly force. They used to say "If you shoot them on the porch, drag them inside." Now its the other way around, which is why we need the castle doctrine.

DK24
February 21, 2011, 09:45 PM
Not to be argumentative, but under the law:

I don't have to retreat from my home.

I am justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry If I reasonably believe that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to me or others in the home or residence.

Or, if I reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

Seems pretty straight forward to me however, it does not provide immunity from civil personal injury. North Carolina currently has contributory negligence standard for personal injury action. Now if I used deadly force under this statute the bad guy would definitely have contributory negligence and would be unable to collect damages. I realize its not immunity however its as close as you can get.

I'm sorry maybe I'm just not getting the point here. NC is a Common Law state, GS 14-51.1 is NC statutory version of the "Castle Doctrine”. Now I have to admitt the last few years I've not had the time to research case law, thats part of the reason I join the forum "to share ideas and get caught up on legal aspects"

I would really appreciate if you could clarify your reasoning and/or point me to any case law. In my book, we have the "Castle Doctrine” and the law gives me all the authority I need to protect my house and loved ones. Now after having said that, I am concerned about this proposed Contributory Negligence bill.



§ 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

DK24
February 21, 2011, 10:58 PM
OK, I had a chance to review the proposed bill and I definatley like it.

Immunity from Criminal and Civil action, (always a good thing)

No duty to retreat from where a person has a right to be subsection (d), (I take this to mean a public place?)

The definition of dwelling to include "visiting as guest"

Other than that its pretty much a rehash of GS 14-51.1 with expanded definitions of felon.

I believe the two biggest points would be the Immunity and the "stand you own ground clause"

MikeNice
February 22, 2011, 10:40 AM
DK24, have you ever taken the NC CCH class? If you take the class there is a video that shows when you can use force. In that video they show a man breaking in to a house. One of the scenarios shows the man being confronted by the resident while he is holding a television. Then they tell you that in that circumstance you can not shoot. You can not use lethal force in defense of property. So, if the person is stealing from you, but not attacking you, legally you can not use lethal force.

In NC the law says that you have to be afraid of loss of life, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault once they enter the house. You can shoot them while they are trying to enter. However, once they are in your house it is the same as being on the corner of main street. The only difference is that you do not have to retreat.

So, if you come out of your bedroom and the guy has your laptop in his hand, you can not shoot. If he does not pull a weapon or attempt to attack you, you must let him leave according to the law. The new law would change it so that the assumption is any attempt to illegally enter a home or residence means the criminal is intending to do harm to the person or family inside.

With the new law you wouldn't have to wait and see what the predator is going to do. You would be able to use force even after the person enters the home.

It does take away civil liability if it is found to be self defense. That is a great thing for all gun owners in the state. After reading section 1 I take it to mean the bill only applies to places where people are meant to sleep over night. My reading of the bill is that it covers homes, residences, motor homes, tents, and hotel rooms. As long as you are in one of those places legally you can use force. That applies to guests as well as owners or leasees.

ForumSurfer
February 22, 2011, 12:19 PM
The new law would change it so that the assumption is any attempt to illegally enter a home or residence means the criminal is intending to do harm to the person or family inside.
That's my take on it, as well. One wouldn't need to prove he was in fear for his life once someone forcibly enters one's home. I view that as a very good thing. If one found one self in front of an anti-gun DA trying to make an example out of a home defense shooting, you need all the legal ground you can have to stand on.


(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or
26 great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended
27 or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
28(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of
29 unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a
30 dwelling or residence, or if that person had removed or was attempting to
31 remove another against that person's will from the dwelling or residence.
32(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an
33 unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or
34 had occurred.

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 12:30 PM
The other thing with the current law guys, you will go broke defending yourself in criminal and civil court. Sometimes even when you win you lose. The new law is HUGE.

We would no longer be able to be held civilly liable when defending ourselves and the scumbags family is liable for your court costs if they do file a bogus suit against you (at least in the strongest version pushed in the house right now).

dcdub
February 22, 2011, 12:33 PM
Again, NC GENERAL STATUTE 14-51.1. pertains to preventing a forcible entry into a home. You are correct in that you do not have a duty to retreat, which is what I said in my earlier post. However, that does not mean that you can use deadly force if someone is in your home. Legally, you must feel that the threat of death, serious bodily harm, or sexual assault is imminent.
I'm having a hard time pulling up any laws on this. I think the DOJ changed their website or something and google isn't coming back with the same search results it once did. Anyone else having this issue?

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 12:42 PM
Woo hoo CD passed committee unanimously this morning. Floor vote tomorrow or thurs.
My fellow NC residents, keep your fingers crossed.

MikeNice
February 22, 2011, 01:16 PM
Gouranga, do you have a link? I can't find the info and the links in this thread say the bills are still in the judiciary committee.

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 02:36 PM
No link yet, will post it as soon as I can. I know someone who is in Raleigh today to watch over this process. There will be an official update within the next couple of hours from what I have been told.

dcdub
February 22, 2011, 03:03 PM
I had read last time we tried to pass a Castle Doctrine that there was a certain representative named Deborah Ross who was holding up the process? Is she still in office/posing a threat to this bill going anywhere or are we past that point?

Storz
February 22, 2011, 03:22 PM
From WRAL.com

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/9153041/

By GARY D. ROBERTSON, Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. — Some North Carolina lawmakers want to make it clear that people who feel threatened for their lives in their home, car or job by someone breaking in can use deadly force against the intruder.

A Senate judiciary panel voted unanimously Tuesday for a change in criminal law that would presume the person firing a weapon at an intruder believed he or others in a locked building were justified in the shooting. The law now only provides the ability for a homeowner to use deadly force, but the person may have to prove to police he was faced with a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

The bill would increase the options people have in protecting themselves.

The bill now goes to the full Senate.

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 03:41 PM
had read last time we tried to pass a Castle Doctrine that there was a certain representative named Deborah Ross who was holding up the process? Is she still in office/posing a threat to this bill going anywhere or are we past that point?

With the dems out of power they no longer chair the committees and they can no longer block it from going to the floor for a vote. Had it been voted on any other time it was brought up it would have passed soundly but the NC Dems (mainly Ross and 1 other) blocked it in committee because they knew it would pass and they had the chair.

Beach Nut
February 22, 2011, 04:02 PM
I've been following the progress of this bill with interest. There is an
even better alternative that was proposed in the State House (#74
I believe) that would have extended the Castle Doctrine to your vehicle
and would have made the person bringing suit in a civil action pay all
the costs involved for that action. Senate Bill #34 is a good start
however and I hope our governor has enough sense to sign it. Now
if we can enact a 50% law for carry in places that serve alcohol, we'll
be getting somewhere.

ForumSurfer
February 22, 2011, 04:54 PM
Now
if we can enact a 50% law for carry in places that serve alcohol, we'll
be getting somewhere. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?BillID=H111&Session=2011#history

SECTION 1. G.S. 14-269.3(b) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
7 "(5) A person on the premises of an establishment that is a restaurant under
8 G.S. 18B-1000(2) or G.S. 18B-1000(6), provided the person has a valid
9 concealed handgun permit under Article 54B of Chapter 14 of the General
10 Statutes."There's also a section for statewide uniformity included...which means places like "The People's Republic of Cary" can't just pass a town ordinance countermanding it. :)

Storz
February 22, 2011, 06:02 PM
^^ How can the average Joe (ie us) support this?

ForumSurfer
February 22, 2011, 06:55 PM
How can the average Joe (ie us) support this?


(optional)The NRA helped get us to this point. Joining or donating helps. I don't agree with them on many things, but they actually make a difference within the government.
Follow the links in previous posts to the actual bills. You will see links of all of the politicians that support the bill. Write them.
Follow the RSS feeds on the links so you can track the bill's progress.
Repeat step 2.
Foward the links/rss feeds to your friends and family members and urge them to repeat steps 1 thru 5.
:)YMMV

Storz
February 22, 2011, 06:56 PM
Thanks :)

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 07:37 PM
Join GRNC. They have multiple people on the state floor everyday pushing for our NC laws. Including a stronger version of CD than the NRA asked for.

Don't get me wrong I love the NRA, but GRNC really is focused on us.

BTW from GRNC:
GRNC Alert 2-22-11:

SENATE COMMITTEE PASSES STRONG CASTLE DOCTRINE



ACT NOW: BILL HEADS TO FLOOR TOMORROW!



Under guidance from Grass Roots North Carolina, the Senate Judiciary II Committee today passed SB 34: “Castle Doctrine” in a stronger version which could ultimately create the most comprehensive such law in the country.



Thanks to the efforts of Sen. Buck Newton (R-, GRNC ****) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie/Rowan, ****), an amendment was made to the bill to incorporate most of the desirable features of HB 74, plus an added protection against crime in the workplace.



GRNC Legislative Action Team members were heavily involved in improving the language of the bill, drafting and reviewing sections, and providing information to sponsors and committee members.



Speaking on behalf of the bill were Sens. Berger, Clary, Daniel, Newton, and Tucker. Raising questions about the bill were Sens. Dannelly and McKissick. Sen. Berger initially offered an amendment to remove workplaces, but later withdrew the amendment and voted for the bill. SB 34 passed unanimously.



Improvements made to SB 34 include:



· Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury when an attacker makes an unlawful and forcible entry not only of a home, but also a motor vehicle and a workplace. Beyond including the carjacking protection long-sought by GRNC, this may be the first law in the country to include the workplace among protected areas.



· “No duty to retreat” before using deadly force in anyplace the victim has a lawful right to be.



· Protection against malicious prosecution: Police may not arrest a victim forced to use deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe the use of force was unjustified.

ForumSurfer
February 22, 2011, 07:44 PM
Don't get me wrong I love the NRA, but GRNC really is focused on us.


Joining both isn't an expensive venture, it is about the same price (yearly) as 250 rounds of 9mm. ;)

Gouranga
February 22, 2011, 09:03 PM
Absolutely!!! Forum Surfer. Well Said.

DK24
February 23, 2011, 11:26 AM
DK24, have you ever taken the NC CCH class?
No I have not taken the NC CCH, I’m kind of exempt. Not to boaster, I have well over twenty years of LEO experience, a ton of in-service training along with a BA in Criminal Justice.


if the person is stealing from you, but not attacking you, legally you can not use lethal force. Nor would I want to use lethal force to protect against a larceny. The law does allow me to use the least amount of reasonable force necessary to protect it. Which means I can draw down on the offender and hold them until the police arrive. I cannot use deadly force until I reasonable believe that a third party or I am in danger of serious bodily injury or worse.


If he does not pull a weapon or attempt to attack you, you must let him leave according to the law No you do not have to let them leave as previously mentioned. You can use reasonable force (non lethal) to protect property and to detain a person who has or intends to commit a felony.


In NC the law says that you have to be afraid of loss of life, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault “For most people”, if someone has or is breaking into your house (especially after the hours of darkness) its reasonable to believe that person
intends to do you serious bodily injury or worse. The part about the offender “intends to commit a felony in the home or residence” covers more than just sexual assault, with the exception of a property crime like larceny/burglary.

Despite all the media hype North Carolina does have the “Castle Doctrine” and when combined with the current contributory negligence system it works quite well. The same may not be so true if they pass the comparative fault law, which most definitely would put an undue burden on homeowners and CCW.

I fully support the revised “Castle Doctrine” bill, even though it seems a little wordy.

Gouranga
February 23, 2011, 12:41 PM
Nor would I want to use lethal force to protect against a larceny. The law does allow me to use the least amount of reasonable force necessary to protect it. Which means I can draw down on the offender and hold them until the police arrive. I cannot use deadly force until I reasonable believe that a third party or I am in danger of serious bodily injury or worse.

Now it is my understanding from my CCW instructor and a couple cop buddies i know that NC law does NOT give you the right to detain anyone for anything. Once you pull your weapon and point it at the BG, you are using lethal force. So say, someone was in Durham, and pointed their weapon at someone trying to steal from their outbuilding then forcibly held them at gun point with no lethal threat, you could be charged.

kansersurvivor
February 23, 2011, 01:45 PM
I agree with Gourang's statements...and was taught the same in my CCW class.

DK24
February 23, 2011, 01:57 PM
Now it is my understanding from my CCW instructor and a couple cop buddies i know that NC law does NOT give you the right to detain anyone for anything.

False! They need to read the law.

GS 15A?404. Detention of offenders by private persons.
(a) No Arrest; Detention Permitted. – No private person may arrest another person except as provided in G.S. 15A?405. A private person may detain another person as provided in this section.
(b) When Detention Permitted. – A private person may detain another person when he has probable cause to believe that the person detained has committed in his presence:
(1) A felony,
(2) A breach of the peace,
(3) A crime involving physical injury to another person, or
(4) A crime involving theft or destruction of property.
(c) Manner of Detention. – The detention must be in a reasonable manner considering the offense involved and the circumstances of the detention.
(d) Period of Detention. – The detention may be no longer than the time required for the earliest of the following:
(1) The determination that no offense has been committed.
(2) Surrender of the person detained to a law?enforcement officer as provided in subsection (e).
(e) Surrender to Officer. – A private person who detains another must immediately notify a law?enforcement officer and must, unless he releases the person earlier as required by subsection (d), surrender the person detained to the law?enforcement officer. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)


Backun v. U.S, 112 F.2d 635
State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E.2d 100
State v. Blackwelder, 182 N.C. 899, 109 S.E. 644 (1921)
Neal v. Joyner, 89 N.C. 287 (1883)
State v. Bryant, 65 N.C. 327 (1871)
State v. Tappe, 139 N.C. App. 33, 533 S.E.2d 262 (2000)
Harmon v. Buchanan, 164 F.Supp. 2d 649 (2001)
State v. Gilreath, 118 N.C. App. 200, 454 S.E.2d (1995)
Karadi v. Jenkins, 7 Fed. Appx. 185 (2001)
State v. Tripp, 9 N.C. App. 518, 176 S.E.2d 892 (1970)
People v. Reisner, 295 N.Y.S. 813, 162 Misc. 470
Huffaker v. Bucks Co. District Attorney’s Office, 758 F.Supp. 287 (1973)
State v. Weddell, 118 Nev. 206, 43 P.3d 987 (2002)




Once you pull your weapon and point it at the BG, you are using lethal force. Wrong! You are threatening the possible use of lethal force, its not actually lethal until you pull the trigger or hit them over the head. Keep in mined the use of force continuum. If the use of force is authorized, it’s reasonable to meet force with equal force plus one step further. The totality of circumstances dictates the level of force used. In other words if the situation calls for lethal force you don’t have to start off with soft hand, you can automatically jump to lethal force.

So say, someone was in Durham, and pointed their weapon at someone trying to steal from their outbuilding then forcibly held them at gun point of with no lethal threat, you could be charged. I don’t like “Monday Night Quarterbacking”.

However, under NC Common Law “Castle Doctrine” “ Self Defense Bar” GS 14?51.1. GS 15A?404 and 258 NC 44. Along with a few others I failed to mention, you could definitely use reasonable, non-deadly force to protect property and to detain them.

Pointing a gun is not lethal force, pulling the trigger or hitting them over the head is.

I hope this helps

kansersurvivor
February 23, 2011, 06:44 PM
DK24 - where does one find the actual law so we can read for ourselves?

Could you be held for "going to the terror of the public" for pulling a firearm to detain a BG?

MikeNice
February 23, 2011, 08:34 PM
After looking through the state provided manual that comes with the CCH class it appears that DK24 is correct. What I don't understand is how pointing a gun can be assault with a deadly weapon, but pointing a gun to stop an escape is okay?

If you can not use lethal force to detain a person, wouldn't threatening them with a gun actually make you an instigator? The argument could be made that you escelated the situation and the other person acted out of fear. If the argument is made that you provoked an escelation of the situation your right to self defense by lethal force is gone.

It all gets rather sticky. That is why the new law is needed. You break in to a house, you can be shot. No need to go through all the mental gymnastics.

Now if we could get the restrictions lifted on carrying in places that sale alcohol for consumption and places that charge admittance. Then we would be really making big strides. Throw out the restrictions on banks and state parks and I might be satisfied.

Gouranga
February 23, 2011, 09:36 PM
NC residents. CD is in trouble.

Today House Majority Leader Skip Stam and Rep. Martin tried to ambush and STOP HB74 on the floor. If these guys are in your district, contact them immediately and let them know how you feel about their actions.

ForumSurfer
February 23, 2011, 09:49 PM
Today House Majority Leader Skip Stam and Rep. Martin tried to ambush and STOP HB74 on the floor. If these guys are in your district, contact them immediately and let them know how you feel about their actions. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=H&nUserID=309

Office: 2301 Legislative Building Phone: 919-733-2962 Email: Paul.Stam@ncleg.net Legislative Mailing Address: NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2301
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096 Terms in House: 6 (0 in Senate) District: 37 Counties Represented: Wake (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/counties/counties.pl?county=Wake) Occupation: Attorney Address: P. O. Box 1600, Apex, NC 27502 Phone: 919-362-8873 Military Experience: US Marine Corps, 1968-70 No Gifts List* (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/reports/noGiftsList.pl?sChamber=House): Yeshttp://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=House&nUserID=487

Office: 1219 Legislative Building Phone: 919-733-5758 Email: Grier.Martin@ncleg.net Legislative Mailing Address: NC House of Representatives
16 W. Jones Street, Room 1219
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096 Terms in House: 4 (0 in Senate) District: 34 Counties Represented: Wake (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/counties/counties.pl?county=Wake) Occupation: Attorney Address: 16 W. Jones Street, Room 1219, Raleigh, NC 27601-1096 Phone: 919-733-5758 Military Experience: US Army Reserves, 1991- Present; Active Duty 2002-04 No Gifts List* (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/reports/noGiftsList.pl?sChamber=House): YesThere's your Wake co rep's in action!

DK24
February 23, 2011, 10:25 PM
DK24 - where does one find the actual law so we can read for ourselves?
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/Statutes.asp

Could you be held for "going to the terror of the public" for pulling a firearm to detain a BG?Yes it could be considered going to the terror of the public (if you were in the public) and several other charges, this is out of scope of the original thread and kind of taking things out of context. Better topic for a new thread if I can find the time to go into it. Mainly we were talking about the current and proposed “Castle Doctrine” along with what the law allows and prohibits.

If you "unlawfully" point a gun at someone here is the common charge:

GS 14‑34. Assaulting by pointing gun.

If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 527; Rev., s. 3622; C.S., s. 4216; 1969, c. 618, s. 2 1/2; 1993, c. 539, s. 17; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1995, c. 507, s. 19.5(d).)

What I don't understand is how pointing a gun can be assault with a deadly weapon, but pointing a gun to stop an escape is okay? This is taken out of context. Pointing a gun is not the same as the use of deadly force, shooting it or hitting someone over the head is. No body said anything about pointing a gun to stop an escape.

If someone breaks into your house and you reasonably believe that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to you or others in the home you are authorized to use deady force ie: pull the trigger or hit them over the head with a blunt object, or simply confront the subject and threaten them with the possible use of deadly force and hold them til the police arrive ie: point a loaded gun at them or hold a very big stick.

If you don't believe the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to you or others in the home, then don't shoot them or hit them over the head with a blunt object. You could still buff them by pointing a loaded gun or holding a big stick.....just don't pull the trigger or wackem.

Do you really need a statute to tell you when you are in fear of serious bodily injury or death? I pretty much know when I'm affraid of it, I think most people would if they were placed in harms way.....its based on the human element not the cold facts of the law.

You will never see a statue that says your in fear of serious bodily injury or death everytime some one breaks into you house, it just wont happen.


I do hope the revised law passes, its late been a long day. Maybe we can do a shoot don't shoot thread/use of force if I can find the time. I love the law and believe everyone should have knowledge of it.

MikeNice
February 24, 2011, 12:10 AM
It doesn't suprise me that the Wake County reps pulled this. I'm actually more suprised it wasn't the reps for Chapel Hill, Durham, or Asheville.

Mckissick is a joke and any stance he takes on guns should be laughed at. I know things about that guy I won't repeat in public. I'll leave it at this, if he wasn't politically conected he wouldn't be eligible to own a gun.

Chapel Hill's mayor is actually a member of MAIG and I believe Durham's mayor is as well.

There are more than a few people we have to watch out for as this moves forward.

I suggest everybody contact their state guys and light a fire under them. It is time to let them know we are tired of the legal double talk that provides for uncertainty. It is time to let them know we are tired of the criminal's safety coming before our own.

I think SB74 is the much better bill. I urge other members to read it and pass along their support.

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 12:13 AM
So Dk24, say you come downstairs at night and a BG has your tv in his hands. You draw down, tell him you're detaining him until the police arrive. He proceeds to walk out the front door with your property in tow, then what?

MikeNice
February 24, 2011, 12:25 AM
This is taken out of context. Pointing a gun is not the same as the use of deadly force, shooting it or hitting someone over the head is. No body said anything about pointing a gun to stop an escape.


I'm not saying pointing a gun is deadly force. However, in CCH classes they teach that pointing a gun at a person is assault with a deadly weapon. They also teach that there is no such thing as citizen's arrest and very limited power to detain. Most classes actually teach that detaining is illegal. Trying to prevent the escape of a criminal will get you arrested is what is normally taught.

That is why I'm confused about being able to detain a person or stop a criminal from exiting a scene. It appears that under certain circumstances you can detain a criminal. However, when and how seem to be in question.

My secondary point is that pointing a gun could be seen as escelating the situation. An attorney could argue that your bluff instigated any confrontation after that point. By law the instigator loses his right to use lethal force. So, where would you stand if you tried to bluff a criminal to detain them?

I know when my fear level reaches the point that I need to shoot. Legislation doesn't decide that. Legislation stops me from getting shot because I'm wondering if a person of "ordinary firmness" agrees that I had the right. It stops me from worrying whether or not some jerk DA is going to paint me as the bad guy when a predator was in my house. (Nifong left a lot of people scared of DAs.)

To me anybody willing to walk past two parked cars, two sets of motion detecting lights, and enter my house by force is a threat. If the external deterents didn't stop them, in my opinion, they must not care if they destroy the internal deterents. In other words my life must be worthless to them. I don't see giving them the chance to attack me or my family first. The new law would back me up on that. The current law makes it questionable. It also makes it possible for an over zealous DA, predator, or next of kin to bankrupt me in court.

I know you support the new law. I just felt like venting in case anyone is reading this from outside of NC.

DK24
February 24, 2011, 10:12 AM
So Dk24, say you come downstairs at night and a BG has your tv in his hands. You draw down, tell him you're detaining him until the police arrive. He proceeds to walk out the front door with your property in tow, then what? If I have my gun out it’s because I’m in fear of serious bodily injury or death to a third party or myself, if he walks out the door I am no longer in fear, the threat is gone.

Based on my training, experience and physical condition and on the presumption I am capable of detaining him by using the least amount of reasonable force (non deadly) as authorized by law. I personally would attempt to detain him. I don’t want this BG coming back to my house or breaking into someone else’s. Who’s to say if I let this BG go he doesn’t walk outside and retrieve a weapon? I have a right to protect my property and to detain with reasonable non-lethal force. If during this lawful detention he escalates the use of force and I become in fear of serious bodily injury or death then I would act accordingly.

I’m the homeowner, I’m authorized under law, and he is the BG who has broken criminal law not to mention has a boatload of contributory negligence.

B&E&L of occupied dwelling is a serious crime, especially after the hours of darkness (burglary). Based on my training and experience, these offenders often carry weapons and resort to violence when confronted by homeowners and police. It’s not unusual for them to break into the same dwelling multiple times and have multiple accomplices. IMO, for me, not taking action could prove to be more dangerous than using my abilities along with the tools provided by the law. I’m not willing to put myself or loved ones at risk for the sake of fear.




Mike, I’m running short on time I’ll get back to you later

DK24
February 24, 2011, 10:27 AM
we have no right to detain anyone at gunpoint.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, what I am trying to say.

Extra short version:

(In the context of your home) You are authorized to detain under GS15a. If you are in fear of serious bodily injury or death to a third party or yourself you are authorized to use deadly force, once that threat has been removed then you are no longer in jeopardy.

Detaining someone at gunpoint without the fear of serious bodily injury or death to a third party or yourself would be considered unreasonable.

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 11:22 AM
Based on the way the current laws are written, I feel that the average homeowner in NC, CCH permit or not, is better off not drawing on a person until he feels his life is in imminent danger. DK24 Said "Nor would I want to use lethal force to protect against a larceny. The law does allow me to use the least amount of reasonable force necessary to protect it. Which means I can draw down on the offender and hold them until the police arrive." This situation could get sticky for the average citizen. For someone like DK with over 20 years LEO experience it might be OK. Drawing and presenting a weapon is escalating the level of force to a much higher level. Technically, is in not lethal force until firing (or striking with) but it still can be construed as assault with a deadly weapon.
Now for me, morally, I feel that if someone has gone through the effort of climbing through a window or kicking in a door, they should be met with any degree of force the homeowner deems appropriate, they've got it coming to them. But unfortunately that's not what the law says at the moment. As much as I would hate to see some punk walk out my front door with my TV in tow, under current law, it would not be worth it to attempt to detain him and risk winding up in some asinine legal battle over it. I would rather spend $2,000 on a newer, bigger, and better TV than $20,000 on a lawyer and court fees.

ForumSurfer
February 24, 2011, 11:58 AM
You are authorized to detain under GS15a.


Okay, this is a completely different avenue that I am going down and not related to the castle doctrine. Feel free to reply by pm if you wish since I'm going off topic. :)

I have never been a fan of detaining someone. If a guy breaks into my house, I stop him and order him to lie on the ground...I'm worried at this point. For the following reasons:

1. I'm not a LEO. I'm not trained on how to detain someone.
2. What if he somehow gets the drop on me while I'm waiting as long as 20 minutes for the LEO's to show up (I live in the sticks). Now my non-life threatening emergency has become life threatening for myself and my family.
3. What if he gets up or moves? I still can't shoot him. Bashing him in the back of the head with my weapon is still technically using deadly force, just as if he had a ball bat. Will they prosecute? Probably not, but what if some DA wants to make an example of me?
4. What if he jumps up and starts to rush me? I have an un-holstered weapon, so fighting opens up the opportunity for me to lose my weapon. I can't shoot, he still isn't attacking. If he attacks me with his bare hands while I am drawn to ready, would it be technically legal for me to shoot with the sole reason being that he presents a deadly threat if he takes my weapon that I brought into this whole mess?

If I can't shoot the guy, I want him gone. Maybe make him drop his wallet if he has one. Maybe detain him, but outside so it is safer for me and my family...that way if he runs, no one is standing between him and freedom. Maybe I should take the advice of a trusted friend in this situation who was an LEO...insert muzzle into ear, turn 90 degrees or until he screams and wait for backup. Maybe I should keep zip-ties beside the spare mag and flashlight in my nightstand drawer? Maybe I should make him lie face down and kick him in the back of the head every time he speaks or flinches?

I'm just saying that detaining someone (whom I can't legally shoot since it they are a non lethal threat) in my house with my family present opens up the possibility for making a non lethal threat a lethal threat since I have brought a deadly weapon into the mix. If I can't shoot, I want him gone. If I can detain him in the yard, so be it. But if he's staying in my house until LEO's show up...I don't feel comfortable given my inexperience with detainment unless he's dead or unconscious and bleeding on my carpet.

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 12:29 PM
Well put. Exactly my point, with a little more elaboration ;) It all circles back around to the new castle doctrine: A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
This eliminates the need to try to recall and interpret the fuzzy laws as now written in a matter of fractions of a second. No more gray areas. If someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your dwelling, it is automatically presumed you were in fear of imminent peril of death or bodily harm if you use deadly force. No need to convince the police, a DA, or a jury. No need to think about trying to detain anyone

DK24
February 24, 2011, 12:38 PM
However, in CCH classes they teach that pointing a gun at a person is assault with a deadly weapon. They also teach that there is no such thing as citizen's arrest and very limited power to detain. Most classes actually teach that detaining is illegal. Trying to prevent the escape of a criminal will get you arrested is what is normally taught. Then how do you explain GS-15A-404? If pointing a gun at a person is assault with a deadly weapon then how do you explain GS 14-34. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding, the primary purpose of CCW is for self-defense (against the imminent threat of serious body injury or death). It’s not meant for home protection or citizens detention. Under CCW you cannot detain, you can under GS-15A-404. I would only detain someone in public if it were my last resort and a violent crime. Let the police do there job! Your job is keep yourself and loved ones safe.

The pointing the gun analogy was a poor example…. my bad, at the sametime pointing a gun at someone who just broke in to your house is not the same as shooting them or using deadly force. For all practical purposes if someone breaks in to your, and they reasonable believe your inside (especially after the hours of darkness) then you can reasonable believe they mean to do you harm.


I feel that the average homeowner in NC, CCH permit or not, is better off not drawing on a person until he feels his life is in imminent danger. Strongly Agreed! Especially if you are carrying in public where you have the duty to retreat.


This situation could get sticky for the average citizen. For someone like DK with over 20 years LEO experience it might be OK You hit the nail on head, The threshold for when a person reasonable believes they are in “jeopardy” is based on a wide range of factors such as, age, weight, sex, physical shape, training and experience.

An eighty-year-old 75-pound grandmother would reasonable be in “jeopardy” before a 250 pound 6’2, 25-year-old self-defense instructor would be.

Just like a 100 pound 15 year old male would be less of a threat than a 200 pound convicted felon known for violent tendencies and ccw.

Technically, is in not lethal force until firing (or striking with) but it still can be construed as assault with a deadly weapon Here is the charge for unlawfully pointing a weapon.

GS 14-34. Assaulting by pointing gun.
If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. (1889, c. 527; Rev., s. 3622; C.S., s. 4216; 1969, c. 618, s. 2 1/2; 1993, c. 539, s. 17; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1995, c. 507, s. 19.5(d).)


Here is the charge for unlawfully inflicting serious injury with deadly weapon

GS 14-32. Felonious assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting serious injury; punishments.
(a) Any person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicts serious injury shall be punished as a Class C felon.
(b) Any person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon and inflicts serious injury shall be punished as a Class E felon.
(c) Any person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon with intent to kill shall be punished as a Class E felon. (1919, c. 101; C.S., s. 4214; 1931, c. 145, s. 30; 1969, c. 602, s. 2; 1971, c. 765, s. 1, c. 1093, s. 12; 1973, c. 229, ss. 1?3; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1138; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

You also have this one for non-firearm

GS 14-33. Misdemeanor assaults, batteries, and affrays, simple and aggravated; punishments. (c) Unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who commits any assault, assault and battery, or affray is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if, in the course of the assault, assault and battery, or affray, he or she:
(1) Inflicts serious injury upon another person or uses a deadly weapon;

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 12:41 PM
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=H&nUserID=309

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/viewMember.pl?sChamber=House&nUserID=487

There's your Wake co rep's in action!
I find it odd that Rep. Stam, a republican, would oppose this bill.
Anyway, maybe this is getting more into activism, but let's do something. What do you guys think about drafting some sort of letter that we can all send over to their offices? Something we can email, print out and give to our pro gun friends who aren't on the forum to mail in, perhaps even an outline we could refer to while on the phone with them. I want to see this get done so we can move on to other things as well, like carrying in places that serve alcohol or charge admission. I'm not the greatest with words, but if someone wants to take a few minutes to write something up and submit it, we could all sort of edit it until we get it where we want and then open the floodgates, let these guys know how we feel.

DK24
February 24, 2011, 01:51 PM
Hey it looks like they dropped this part from the bill that was filed

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S34


GS 14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 44 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have

Storz
February 24, 2011, 02:03 PM
^^ What does that mean for us in non-legalese?

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 02:41 PM
If that part of the bill was dropped it would mean that you would not be immune from civil and criminal liability. If you shot an intruder he could press charges and sue you, or if he died his family could.
But DK24, I'm reading edition 2 and it looks like it's still there....

Storz
February 24, 2011, 02:43 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

Just joined GRNC as well :)

MikeNice
February 24, 2011, 02:49 PM
To me it sounds like they are saying simple assault still does not warant use of lethal force. In other words they are clarifying that in public you wouldn't have to retreat, but you can not skip directly to lethal force.

With that gone it would mean that lethal force outside of the home is not covered under the law. It would also mean that the duty to retreat still applies outside of your home or place of business. I believe in the new law hotels, motor homes, and tents are considerred your home if you are staying there over night.

dcdub
February 24, 2011, 03:05 PM
Yes, this section specifies that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be only if such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

Storz
February 25, 2011, 07:49 AM
Mentioned on NPR this morning, said they are expecting a final vote on Monday.

DK24
February 25, 2011, 08:28 AM
So the filed bill is the one they're voting on?

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S34

Its still contains the presumption for dwelling but does not contain the presumption and "no duty to retreat" from outside the dwelling under GS-14-51.2

GS 14-51.2. Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; 12 immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

GS 14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

MikeNice
February 25, 2011, 03:11 PM
I can't say I'm happy they left the duty to retreat in there. It is a great step in the right direction though. The relief from civil liability is a great win for gun owners. So is the clarification of the law. At least we are moving in the right direction. I guess we'll take the low hanging fruit and move on to greater harvests in the future.

Gouranga
February 26, 2011, 11:07 AM
FYI My fellow NC Residents, we need you to talk to your reps:

BEHOLD: 'The STAM SCAM'

DOES REPUBLICAN HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER THINK YOU'RE STUPID?



Also in this issue:

Bills for restaurant, parks and guns in vehicles get hearings on Wednesday, March 2.



To paraphrase a colloquialism, Republican House Majority Leader Paul Stam is trying to feed you manure by calling it a sandwich. As you recall, Stam led the attack against Castle Doctrine bill HB 74 in its House Judiciary subcommittee hearing. In relentless questioning apparently intended to tie up the bill, he painted scenarios of drug dealers shooting it out and using Castle Doctrine as a legal defense (this was rebutted by committee counsel), likening the bill to "expedited execution." Using phrases like "dead people on the floor" and "shoot first and ask questions later," Stam eventually produced handwritten language he claimed would accomplish "95%" of what bill supporters want.



Now the full proposal is out, and it is worthless. Not only does it fail to offer the presumption of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury for victims whose homes, vehicles or workplaces are forcibly and unlawfully entered, the defense offered victims does nothing. Says the legal counsel for the legislature: "The State currently has the burden of disproving the defense, so the new subsection wouldn't change current law."


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

· CALL AND E-MAIL MAJORITY LEADER 'SKIP' STAM AGAIN: Remind him that gun owners helped replace previous leadership over precisely this issue. Reach him at: Paul.Stam@ncleg.net and 919-733-2962. The message to deliver is below.



· E-MAIL SPEAKER THOM TILLIS AGAIN: Pro-gun Speaker Tillis (R-Mecklenburg, ****) supports Castle Doctrine, but needs POLITE AND CONSTRUCTIVE input to rein in Majority Leader Stam. At this point, gun owners from outside his district should e-mail only. Constituents should call. Reach Tillis at: Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net. The message to deliver is below.



· USE GRNC's AUTOMATED EMAIL: Contact all members of the House Judiciary Committee by going to: http://grnc.org/alerts/email2_25_11.htm to deliver a preset but customizable message. If you are unable to use the automated e-mail, copy-and-paste e-mail addresses for the Judiciary Committee are below the message for the committee.

Deliver These Messages

It is crucial to turn up the heat RIGHT NOW. If you e-mailed once, e-mail again. If you called once, call again. To reiterate: A light touch is all that is required for Speaker Tillis and members of the Judiciary Committee.



---------------------------------------------------



Representative Stam:



Do legislators think North Carolina gun rights supporters are stupid? Your proposal for HB 74 has all the appearances of a ruse designed to make North Carolinians think they are getting something to protect themselves against violent crime while, in reality, doing little or nothing at all.



Rest assured I will be monitoring your actions via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts. Any vote for your proposal will be construed as anti-gun. Unless you want to put Republicans on the wrong side of a gun vote, as Representative Joe Kiser once did, I would suggest you shelve it and support HB 74 in its present version.



We didn't put Republicans in power to undermine our rights. I strongly suggest you consider the fate of the last House Majority Leader.



Respectfully,

-----------------------------------------------



Dear Speaker Tillis:



I am alarmed by Majority Leader Paul Stam's attack on Castle Doctrine bill HB 74. In the last election, Second Amendment voters supported new leadership because previous leaders worked to undermine gun rights. Indeed, gun owners were central to the transfer of power in both chambers of the General Assembly.



So imagine my surprise when a Republican and member of leadership began to attack efforts to bolster the ability of lawful North Carolinians to defend themselves against violent predators. Is this our reward? Representative Stam's proposal for HB 74 is nothing but a ruse designed to make gun owners think they are getting something when, in fact, it does little or nothing.



I look forward to telling family, friends and co-workers how leaders in both the House and Senate passed legislation to bolster the rights of North Carolina gun owners.



Respectfully,

--------------------------------------------



Honorable Members of the House Judiciary Committee:

I strongly urge you to support HB 74: "Castle Doctrine" in its present form. Absent a presumption of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury for victims of forcible entries into homes, vehicles, and workplaces, the bill would be worthless.

Sadly, House Majority Leader Paul Stam seems to have forgotten that Second Amendment supporters were instrumental in bringing a pro-gun majority to the General Assembly. He not only voted against the bill in its subcommittee, but now intends to offer gun owners a shell designed to create the impression of an effective bill while actually offering little or nothing.

A nearly identical bill just passed Second Reading in the Senate, attracting bipartisan support. I strongly urge you to contact Representative Stam and ask him to shelve his Proposed Committee Substitute. I will be monitoring this bill via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,



If you are unable to use the link for the automated e-mail to the full Judiciary Committee, copy and paste the e-mails below:

Leo.Daughtry@ncleg.net, Justin.Burr@ncleg.net, David.Guice@ncleg.net, Grey.Mills@ncleg.net, Tim.Moore@ncleg.net, Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net, Johnathan.Rhyne@ncleg.net, Martha.Alexander@ncleg.net, Hugh.Blackwell@ncleg.net, John.Blust@ncleg.net, Alice.Bordsen@ncleg.net, Rayne.Brown@ncleg.net, Angela.Bryant@ncleg.net, Jim.Crawford@ncleg.net, Jimmy.Dixon@ncleg.net, John.Faircloth@ncleg.net, Bill.Faison@ncleg.net, Rick.Glazier@ncleg.net, Joe.Hackney@ncleg.net, Phillip.Haire@ncleg.net, Larry.Hall@ncleg.net, Pricey.Harrison@ncleg.net, Julia.Howard@ncleg.net, Dan.Ingle@ncleg.net, Verla.Insko@ncleg.net, Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net, Bert.Jones@ncleg.net, Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net, Ric.Killian@ncleg.net, Grier.Martin@ncleg.net, Chuck.McGrady@ncleg.net, Mickey.Michaux@ncleg.net, Annie.Mobley@ncleg.net, Gaston.Pridgen@ncleg.net, Deborah.Ross@ncleg.net, Paul.Stam@ncleg.net, Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net, Jennifer.Weiss@ncleg.net

HEARINGS FOR PRO-GUN BILLS

HB 63 and HB 111 will receive hearings in the NC House Judiciary Subcommittee A on Wednesday, March 2. HB 63 will bar merchants and employers from prohibiting guns in locked vehicles. HB 111 was introduced at GRNC behest and will remove prohibitions on concealed carry in restaurants and municipal parks. Additional contact information for committee members will follow in coming days.

Storz
February 26, 2011, 11:41 AM
Just got this as well, emails will be sent shortly.

MikeNice
February 26, 2011, 10:57 PM
I submitted an e-mail to the whole committee. I will type up a more personalized version for my reps on Sunday. Don't worry I will use Word so that it looks much more professional.

Does anybody remember the name of the anti-gun state rep that was arrested for shooting someone that broke in to their home?

dcdub
February 27, 2011, 02:02 PM
Senator R.C. Soles

nccavediver
February 27, 2011, 11:36 PM
I am not too good at these but I typed up my own little email sent to my elected reps (Wake County):

Honorable Representatives and Senators of Wake County,

I am in strong support of the "Castle Doctrine" HB 74. I believe it needs to include homes, vehicles and workplaces. I also believe one should not be able to be sued for defending his or her castle.

I also agree that CCW holders should be allowed to carry in restaurants which serve alcohol and in places which charge admission for entrance, like a movie theater. This will not turn into the wild west -- It has worked for years in other states.

I am aware and alarmed by Rep. Martin and Majority Leader Stam's attacks on HB 74 and will be watching their actions closely this week and will most definitely think about their actions in the next election.

I will finish with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little order, will lose both, and deserve neither."

Thank you for your time,
name
address
phone number

gaijin6423
February 28, 2011, 11:23 AM
I emailed the members of the Judiciary Committee yesterday, and I received one response so far:

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your email regarding the Castle Doctrine. I am a holder of a conceal carry permit who is very supportive of our Second Amendment rights.

I have been appointed to a special Judiciary Subcommittee to draft a comprehensive Castle Doctrine bill and will be working very closely with Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mark Hilton to craft a bill strongly in support of the Castle Doctrine.

Again, thank you for your email. Please be assured that I intend to see that our citizens continue to have the right to defend themselves and their families and will support the strongest possible version of the Castle Doctrine bill.

Rep. Jonathan C. Jordan
93rd District – Deputy Majority Whip
Office 418C
Phone: (919) 733-7727
Email: jonathan.jordan@ncleg.net

dcdub
February 28, 2011, 11:38 AM
I received one email so far from Rep Rayne Brown on saturday night. I'm hoping that everyone's office has been flooded with emails and they simply cannot respond to all of them. GRNC seems to think that we have their attention

MikeNice
February 28, 2011, 12:28 PM
I recieved two replies. One was short and just said that the rep was a sponsor of the bill. The other was the same as the one posted above. I don't expect many replies. Most of them won't reply unless you are in their district.

Storz
February 28, 2011, 12:53 PM
GRNC Alert from yesterday:

Stand Down... For Now
That's right, your emails and calls on HB 74 and attempts to water down the Castle Doctrine have had great effect and you have the attention of the House leadership, including Majority Leader Skip Stam. So while we continue to work on this, we ask you to put your efforts on hold. We expect to have an alert out on efforts to prevent the same watering down in the NC Senate. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, so stay tuned. In the meantime, give yourselves a hand.

ForumSurfer
February 28, 2011, 02:21 PM
GRNC Alert from yesterday:

Stand Down... For Now
That's right, your emails and calls on HB 74 and attempts to water down the Castle Doctrine have had great effect and you have the attention of the House leadership, including Majority Leader Skip Stam. So while we continue to work on this, we ask you to put your efforts on hold. We expect to have an alert out on efforts to prevent the same watering down in the NC Senate. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, so stay tuned. In the meantime, give yourselves a hand.

That's good to hear, but it will be even better to see. :)

DK24
February 28, 2011, 02:46 PM
Sorry I'm still playing catch up here. I Just read House Bill 74 and it is the one to go with.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H74

Uteridge
February 28, 2011, 03:21 PM
This is good news. I am about to get stationed in N.C. and it is great to see that I will not lose my right to defend myself from violent felons in my own home by moving to this state.

dcdub
February 28, 2011, 08:51 PM
SB34 passed 3rd reading today!

kansersurvivor
March 1, 2011, 07:35 PM
I actually heard a report on the radio this AM stating that the bill DID PASS. Is this true?

Not 100% sure of the sequence of events in how this becomes law. Does it go to the GOV's desk now or what?

Gouranga
March 1, 2011, 08:02 PM
YES!! It has passed the Senate, on to the House where it died last time around. NC residents, now is the time to hit your reps up LOUD AND CLEAR.

Let them know SB74 is coming to the House and you EXPECT them to support it as is without ANY modification.

We need voices on this guys, even if it is just an email. The Senate was overwhelmed with our voices on SB74, lets do the same with the House.

Beach Nut
March 1, 2011, 08:03 PM
Well, that's one hurdle crossed. Now it's off to the State House next. I think
the vote may be closer here so let's keep the pressure up on our State
Representatives. So far, so good.

MikeNice
March 30, 2011, 12:30 AM
Any updates?

Fred Fuller
September 14, 2011, 09:20 PM
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=sb+34&submitButton=Go

Anyone in NC heard anything else about this one?

lpl

MikeNice
September 14, 2011, 10:19 PM
I believe it was scrapped and put in with HB 650 that passed and was signed in to law.

Fred Fuller
September 14, 2011, 11:20 PM
Thanks-

SL 2011-268 - http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/sessionlaws/html/2011-2012/sl2011-268.html

lpl

If you enjoyed reading about "Castle Doctrine Coming To NC?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!