Does the “castle doctrine” extend outside of my house

[UCLAFanboy]

[Sleighter]

The answers are no, and no.

[Sleighter]

The "castle doctrine" in CA is an affirmative defense that gives the homeowner a presumption of "fear of great bodily injury" from a person that willfully breaks in. The homeowner still needs to prove that they were an imminent threat, etc.

So it doesn't apply to your entire property because they can't "break in" to a place without any doors or locks. If it's publicly accessible (no gates, etc) then the castle doctrine doesn't apply. You can still legally defend yourself, just like you could in a parking lot, etc.

Now, as far as carrying on your property goes, IANAL, but I've read a lot of what real attorneys have said about it, and the general consensus is that if the land is publicly accessible (no gate, etc) that it's not considered "private property" for the sake of open carry or concealed carry. So a fully fenced backyard: good to carry. A front yard with no fence and only grass that goes to a sidewalk, not okay to carry. So I can only imagine that property without any fencing is no good to carry also.

There is an exception though. If it's legal to hunt and/or discharge a firearm, then it's legal to carry that firearm. That only makes sense. So if you can legally shoot on your property, then you can legally carry. But just because you own the land it doesn't give you any special permission or anything.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will come along to correct me.

[RickD427]

Fanboy,

Welcome back. You still need to do some homework.

California does not have a "Castle Doctrine."

The closest thing that we do have to a "Castle Doctrine" is the evidence presumption contained in Penal Code section 198.5. That presumption in narrower than a "Castle Doctrine" because it only addresses non-family members who force entry into your home. It's only a presumption. It can be overcome by evidence. I'm aware of one trial case in the city of San Fernando where that occurred. Section 198.5 also differs from a "Castle Doctrine" in that it fails to provide any protection against civil lawsuit.

[flyerq68]

Who is going to know if you are concealed carrying on your own property? I wouldn't worry about it, just keep it concealed.

[Tincon]

Who is going to know if you are concealed carrying on your own property? I wouldn't worry about it, just keep it concealed.

He didn't ask if he could break the law and get away with it, he asked what was legal. Your answer is not helpful.

[UCLAFanboy]

If I'm licensed to carry as in CCW and I'm on my property when a bad guy tries to harm me and I feel that I'm in imminent danger, can I assume I have the right to defend myself with deadly force?

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/07/22/5-things-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-in-california

[flyerq68]

If you are in fear for your life and you have a CCW, the private property issue is moot.

[Librarian]

Who is going to know if you are concealed carrying on your own property? I wouldn't worry about it, just keep it concealed.

He didn't ask if he could break the law and get away with it, he asked what was legal. Your answer is not helpful.

Quite true.

Unfortunately, there are many rare but possible circumstances or combinations of circumstances that might bring the fact of carry (presumably, without CCW) to the attention of LE. If avoidable, better not to do those things which incur legal risk.

In this case, the penalty for carrying concealed without a license, and without being in an area where a license is not needed, could be as much as a year in county jail.

[bohoki]

i think if you leave your house "stand your ground" comes into play

[flyerq68]

Quite true.

Unfortunately, there are many rare but possible circumstances or combinations of circumstances that might bring the fact of carry (presumably, without CCW) to the attention of LE. If avoidable, better not to do those things which incur legal risk.

In this case, the penalty for carrying concealed without a license, and without being in an area where a license is not needed, could be as much as a year in county jail.

I agree it would be a risk, however the OP would have to weigh the legal risk with his perceived personal risk. I don't know where the forty acres is located, but if he feels the need for his safety to carry a weapon around on his property then perhaps he would have good cause for a CCW.

[johnthomas]

Property doesn't have to be fenced, it must be posted 3 signs to the mile.





California



California’s trespassing laws are laid out in the California Penal Code Section 602.8. The law states that any person who enters onto private property that is enclosed or cultivated without written permission from the owner or authorized agent is guilty of trespassing. Further, uncultivated and unenclosed land with signs forbidding trespass “at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior roads and trails entering the land” is also considered trespassing. Offenders of the same land or contiguous of the same landowner are fined $75, $250 and charged with a misdemeanor for first, second and third offenses respectively.

private property no trespassing white on black

restricted access white on red

Read the original article at: http://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-s...#ixzz3LrG42Dx1

[Tincon]

Trespassing laws are not the arbiter of carry legalities in CA.

[Sleighter]

Property doesn't have to be fenced, it must be posted 3 signs to the mile
]

The issue isn't trespassing, that's what other people do on your property. The issue is carry, that's what the property owner wants to do. As far as that goes, the issue here is curtilage.

If you have an abundance of free time and enjoy legal minutiae then I suggest reading up on curtilage and how it effects your rights on your own property. In this instance, it limits the OPs rights to carry. However, if you don't like minutiae then I highly suggest just searching for the term on Calguns and letting the attorneys here explain the issue in laymans terms.

[fiddletown]

...The closest thing that we do have to a "Castle Doctrine" is the evidence presumption contained in Penal Code section 198.5. That presumption in narrower than a "Castle Doctrine" because it only addresses non-family members who force entry into your home. It's only a presumption. It can be overcome by evidence....

That's the way Castle Doctrine laws work generally -- they provide an evidentiary presumption which can help establish that the defender reasonably believed deadly force was necessary.

See, for example, Florida's Castle Doctrine/Stand You Ground law at Section 776.013 (emphasis added):

....(1) 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:

A major difference between the Castle Doctrine laws in most States and 198.5 here in California is that the California law applies only to one's home. But in California one has no duty to retreat, even outside his home (although considering the possible complications, a safe retreat could be the best plan).

...Section 198.5 also differs from a "Castle Doctrine" in that it fails to provide any protection against civil lawsuit.

It's true that California has no civil immunity law. However, in most States any civil immunity law is separate from the Castle Doctrine/Stand You Ground laws.