Castle Doctrine Coming To NC?

[dcdub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^ What does that mean for us in non-legalese?

 

[dcdub]

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]

Thanks for the clarification.

Just joined GRNC as well

 

[MikeNice]

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]

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]

Mentioned on NPR this morning, said they are expecting a final vote on Monday.

 

[DK24]

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]

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]

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: [email protected] 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: [email protected]. 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:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

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]

Just got this as well, emails will be sent shortly.

 

[MikeNice]

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]

Senator R.C. Soles

 

[nccavediver]

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]

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: [email protected]

 

[dcdub]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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