Castle Doctrine Coming To NC?

[MikeNice]

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.

 

[ForumSurfer]

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.

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]

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) .

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]

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]

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+]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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): [email protected]
Senator Andrew Brock (R, District 34: Davie, Rowan counties): [email protected]
Senator Kathy Harrington (R, District 43: Gaston county): [email protected]

Here is the Senate Bill.

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

Here is the House Bill.

 

[Finn1916]

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]

Thanks for the contact info!

 

[ForumSurfer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Woo hoo CD passed committee unanimously this morning. Floor vote tomorrow or thurs.
My fellow NC residents, keep your fingers crossed.

 

[MikeNice]

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]

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.