Protecting yourself with spouses gun?

[Gravel]

So my kid calls me while someone is breaking into our house. I give him the combo to the safe and tell him to protect himself if the scumbag burglar acts like he’s attacking my kid. Scumbag attacks, kid shoots, scumbag dies.

What’s the chances of me or my kid getting in trouble?

 

[RustyIron]

Would they be deemed “Authorized”?

What's "authorized?"

 

[Armed-Ca-]

What's "authorized?"

Hi, I was referring to if I live with elderly father/mother, would they be authorized to use my firearm if they were at home against an armed intruder.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Hi, I was referring to if I live with elderly father/mother, would they be authorized to use my firearm if they were at home against an armed intruder.

if you allow them access and they arent otherwise prohibited id assume so, my crackerjack law degree might not hold up in court tho. Rick will come in and shine the light of truth on us soon i hope

 

[adrkwan]

So my kid calls me while someone is breaking into our house. I give him the combo to the safe and tell him to protect himself if the scumbag burglar acts like he’s attacking my kid. Scumbag attacks, kid shoots, scumbag dies.

What’s the chances of me or my kid getting in trouble?

Depends on the DA a lot of the times. From your scenario it sounds like you and your kid would be justified. From a PR perspective, I would not want to prosecute that. If your kid grabbed your illegal AW with a 50 round mag and shot the attacker 50 times... that might be a different discussion.

 

[ButteFlyFisher]

So my kid calls me while someone is breaking into our house. I give him the combo to the safe and tell him to protect himself if the scumbag burglar acts like he’s attacking my kid. Scumbag attacks, kid shoots, scumbag dies.

What’s the chances of me or my kid getting in trouble?

Why worry about these scenarios? What's the alternative? Your kid dies? It's an easy choice.

 

[PlinkyDinky]

my crackerjack law degree might not hold up in court tho.

Pff, that's why you go with Cheerios®.

 

[Gravel]

Why worry about these scenarios? What's the alternative? Your kid dies? It's an easy choice.

No indecision about what to do, you’re right that it’s an easy choice. But lawyers are expensive and California is crazy so I’m wondering if I call the morgue or a backhoe rental company…

Just to be clear, I’m not serious about the last part.

(the way our government monitors us makes me uncomfortable telling a dark joke.. )

 

[Deleted member 25187]

Long story short, hypothetically, if wife was at home, someone was trying to break in. Could she technically use husbands handgun to defend herself with?

Regardless of defending herself, looking at the legality aspect, would the husband face any type of legal troubles since she had access to someone else’s handgun?

The fact that you guys are even discussing this shows how the smoke and mirrors of CA gun laws have taken hold of your consciousness. Would you feel in danger or less safe if someone was breaking into or has just broke into your house? I think that answer is self explanatory so your question about a spouse/girlfriend/domestic partner or yourself shooting someone for breaking into your house should also be self explanatory. Stop over complicating things and think logically despite CA legislature not being logical. CA government isn’t going to help you so you need to be your first line of defense. All this smoke and mirrors about CA gun laws is putting you at a disadvantage.

 

[nakatomi]

---

Remember watching Bond No Time to Die in the theater and the opening scene got me thinking about this thread.



The little girl goes into self defense with a Beretta after her mom is killed and made me think how our daughter (who is pretty capable already) would handle a self defense situation should we be incapacitated/unavailable.

Storage penal codes are still the DA's (do not trust any CA DA) easy angle if it ever happens hinging on "without permission" which is written for the kid rummaging through a nightstand and not a trained kid with "authorized access" to a locked container.

I've landed on a Vaultek biometric w her print enrolled. A locked container plus enrolled access documents the "with permission" piece and that's way easier to defend than saying they knew the combo (I have simplex locks as well). I logged all her range visits to document training w/ parental authorization instead of "random kid w access".

Wanted to hear other parents here on how they handled this.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Long story short, hypothetically, if wife was at home, someone was trying to break in. Could she technically use husbands handgun to defend herself with?

Regardless of defending herself, looking at the legality aspect, would the husband face any type of legal troubles since she had access to someone else’s handgun?

How many spouses do you have and why do they all share one gun?

 

[sonofeugene]

I wouldn’t hesitate to use any gun that was in my home. Nor would I hesitate to tell another person to do the same. Hesitation can get you dead.

Just remember, wait until they are inside before shooting.

 

[cali_jazz]

I wouldn’t hesitate to use any gun that was in my home. Nor would I hesitate to tell another person to do the same. Hesitation can get you dead.

Just remember, wait until they are inside before shooting.

...and don't drag them inside after shooting them outside. There's an old saying that if you shoot someone in your yard, drag the body inside. That was always terrible advice, but it's especially ridiculous today. Modern forensic evidence can help reconstruct where and how a shooting occurred. Moving the body or staging the scene doesn't make the original evidence disappear, it can instead make a legitimate self-defense shooting look like you're trying to cover something up.

 

[NationMostWanted]

I thought anyone could use a gun for self defense? If im at my uncles house and some madman kicks down his door with a knife and I grab his gun that in a drawer and use it.
He would get in trouble for leaving a firearm not locked im guessing.

I do wonder if same if a teenager accesses parents gun in a self defense situation

 

[cali_jazz]

I thought anyone could use a gun for self defense? If im at my uncles house and some madman kicks down his door with a knife and I grab his gun that in a drawer and use it.
He would get in trouble for leaving a firearm not locked im guessing.

I do wonder if same if a teenager accesses parents gun in a self defense situation

IANAL
Yes, generally speaking, the fact that it's someone else's gun doesn't prevent you from using it in lawful self-defense. The legality of the defensive use and the legality of how the firearm was stored/accessed are separate questions. The same basic distinction would apply to a teenager, the defensive use could potentially be justified while the parent could separately have a storage/access issue depending on the circumstances.

Interestingly (and counter to my initial belief), under certain very narrow emergency circumstances, even a convicted felon can temporarily possess and use a firearm in self-defense or defense of another. California recognizes that defense under People v. King and CALCRIM 2514. The key is that the danger is imminent, the gun becomes available without advance planning, and possession lasts only as long as necessary. So the fact that the gun belongs to someone else isn't what determines whether the defensive use is lawful.

 

[RickD427]

IANAL
Yes, generally speaking, the fact that it's someone else's gun doesn't prevent you from using it in lawful self-defense. The legality of the defensive use and the legality of how the firearm was stored/accessed are separate questions. The same basic distinction would apply to a teenager, the defensive use could potentially be justified while the parent could separately have a storage/access issue depending on the circumstances.

Interestingly (and counter to my initial belief), under certain very narrow emergency circumstances, even a convicted felon can temporarily possess and use a firearm in self-defense or defense of another. California recognizes that defense under People v. King and CALCRIM 2514. The key is that the danger is imminent, the gun becomes available without advance planning, and possession lasts only as long as necessary. So the fact that the gun belongs to someone else isn't what determines whether the defensive use is lawful.

Very good post here. From a criminal law POV, there really isn't any significance to who owns a firearm used in a defensive shooting. My background is in the criminal side of things, but I have followed a lot of civil case law. I've never seen a civil case where the ownership of the weapon presented a meritorious issue.

As to California's "Safe Storage" laws, please remember that you can authorize the use of your securely stored firearms by others.

There is a potentially problematic issue if your firearm(s) are employed by a prohibited person in a defensive shooting, but if that is the case, there are several factors working in that person's favor. In addition to the King case and California Criminal Jury Instruction 2514 cited by Mr. "Cali-jazz" in the above posting, Penal Code section 4 and the affirmative defense of "Necessity" come into play. PC section 4 admonished that the penal law is to be used to effect justice, it's not intended to be used a tool whenever it's possible to prosecute somebody. The defense of "Necessity" provides that a person can properly violate the law when necessary to avoid a greater harm. California Criminal Jury Instruction 3403 gives a good summary of the defense, and also cites to the supporting case law: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3403/

 

[Gawernator]

Californians are only presumed to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury when someone breaks into their home. They are still not allowed to use deadly force to protect property, which is what a true castle doctrine would allow. As I said before, this legal presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a castle doctrine (especially since there is no duty to retreat), but with the caveat that it is rebuttable, and deadly force cannot be used solely to protect property – even when a person breaks into someone’s home while they are there.

CA has castle doctrine. Only TX allows for lethal force against theft and only during the night.

 

[Gawernator]

And just to add. Breaking into a house in itself isn't necessarily grounds for using a gun. It's the intent of great bodily harm or death.

That is not true. In CA per the law anyone breaking into your house is automatically assumed to be a risk of GBI/Death if they aren't a family member or member of the household, actually.

Under California’s Castle Doctrine (Penal Code § 198.5 PC), a resident who uses lethal or injurious force inside their home is legally presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily injury or death, provided the intruder is not a family or household member and made an unlawful, forcible entry.

 

[RickD427]

That is not true. In CA per the law anyone breaking into your house is automatically assumed to be a risk of GBI/Death if they aren't a family member or member of the household, actually.

Under California’s Castle Doctrine (Penal Code § 198.5 PC), a resident who uses lethal or injurious force inside their home is legally presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily injury or death, provided the intruder is not a family or household member and made an unlawful, forcible entry.

We discussed PC 198.5 earlier in this thread. It has several shortcomings that make it less than a true "Castle Doctrine."

Foremost of those shortcomings is that the presumption of "reasonable fear" is rebuttable.

There was a trial court case that originated in the city of San Fernando during the 1980's (it never became a published appellate case and it occurred before I became a digital packrat so I don't have the case citation). In that case, a neighborhood was being frequented by a burglar. One resident (who happened be a veteran of a few weeks service in the Marine Corps (never having graduated from boot camp)) took it upon himself to rid the community of the burglar. He configured his home as "bait" for the burglar, and when the burglar broke in, the Marine shot and killed him. His case wasn't helped by post shooting comments that he made where he claimed that his status as a Marine led him to seek out the burglar. The D.A. filed murder charges and the Marine pled PC 198.5 as a defense. The prosecution successfully argued that the Marine's actions in "baiting" the burglar were inconsistent with the presumption of reasonable fear. The rebuttal was successful and the Marine was convicted. PC 198.5 did help him at all.

 

[Gawernator]

We discussed PC 198.5 earlier in this thread. It has several shortcomings that make it less than a true "Castle Doctrine."

Foremost of those shortcomings is that the presumption of "reasonable fear" is rebuttable.

There was a trial court case that originated in the city of San Fernando during the 1980's (it never became a published appellate case and it occurred before I became a digital packrat so I don't have the case citation). In that case, a neighborhood was being frequented by a burglar. One resident (who happened be a veteran of a few weeks service in the Marine Corps (never having graduated from boot camp)) took it upon himself to rid the community of the burglar. He configured his home as "bait" for the burglar, and when the burglar broke in, the Marine shot and killed him. His case wasn't helped by post shooting comments that he made where he claimed that his status as a Marine led him to seek out the burglar. The D.A. filed murder charges and the Marine pled PC 198.5 as a defense. The prosecution successfully argued that the Marine's actions in "baiting" the burglar were inconsistent with the presumption of reasonable fear. The rebuttal was successful and the Marine was convicted. PC 198.5 did help him at all.

Isn't that its own charge by itself? I thought boobytrapping is universally illegal across the US pretty much? https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-3/division-3/section-20110/

But that seems sensible that he didn't have reasonable fear because of what he said beforehand.

I guess CA has a "Limited Castle Doctrine" is the most accurate statement