Castle doctrine and a weapon that you do not own

[Cpl. Klinger]

A co-worker who works part time (second job) at a liquor store wanted me to find out something or him. Where he works, a firearm is kept behind the counter. The firearm belongs to the owner of the shop, and this individual has told everyone that works for him it is there for their use if there is a robbery. What my co-worker wants to know is what kind of legal issues might be present if he were to use the firearm even though it is not his. I told him that a license will not enter into the question as the firearm is not being carried and is not leaving the building. I also told him that most likely it falls under castle doctrine as he is an employee and and has an interest in the protection of the property in addition to his own safety.

 

[KW730]

There are no legal issues that would come about simply because it isn't his personal firearm.

 

[GIJEW]

You ought to PM Mr. Relford with this question. FWIW I think you're right, the handgun is on private property and the owner said it's there for defense against robbers (emergency tool like the fire exstinguisher). Unless he were to do something that could be described as excessive/unjustified force, I can't imagine the prosecutor even bothering with a grand jury.

 

[camaker]

I'm no lawyer, but I agree that he can use it if needed, but I wouldn't touch it unless absolutely necessary.

 

[cbhausen]

Since when has it ever had to be one's own weapon? Never that I know of.

 

[Hogwylde]

Shouldn't be a problem unless he's a convicted felon or domestic abuser.

 

[SSGSAD]

A co-worker who works part time (second job) at a liquor store wanted me to find out something or him. Where he works, a firearm is kept behind the counter. The firearm belongs to the owner of the shop, and this individual has told everyone that works for him it is there for their use if there is a robbery. What my co-worker wants to know is what kind of legal issues might be present if he were to use the firearm even though it is not his. I told him that a license will not enter into the question as the firearm is not being carried and is not leaving the building. I also told him that most likely it falls under castle doctrine as he is an employee and and has an interest in the protection of the property in addition to his own safety.

There is NO problem. Back in the day, a "shopkeeper", could leave a gun in the place of business, instead of transporting it back and forth. Reason
Some people just did it .....

 

[in625shooter]

There will be no legal issue as long as your friend or any employee is justified! It is no different than say in a scenerio say john doe doesn't carry a gun and see's LEO Al get attacked injured incapacitated by a Thug. LEO's wepon is on the ground and john doe picks up said Officers gun and defends himself and wounded Officer and shoots Thug dead or wounding him. You are legal.

I was a municipal LEO and my advice is Know when you can and can not use deadly force before your into a situation and when you are in a life or death situation DO SOMITHING because it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission!

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

That's what I thought. I may just brief him on the idea of castle doctrine and what it entails, as well as the general idea behind what is and isn't a good time to shoot. He just wanted to make sure he wasn't going to be hung up if wasn't the owner of the weapon.

 

[Burnsy]

I'm no lawyer, but I agree that he can use it if needed, but I wouldn't touch it unless absolutely necessary.

What other possible reason could there be? This seems redundant.

 

[KW730]

That's what I thought. I may just brief him on the idea of castle doctrine and what it entails, as well as the general idea behind what is and isn't a good time to shoot. He just wanted to make sure he wasn't going to be hung up if wasn't the owner of the weapon.

I don't think castle doctrine would actually apply here, being that it isn't his home or vehicle. Stand your ground most definitely does though.

 

[looney2ns]

He needs to practice with a similar weapon as the one provided by his job.

 

[BlueEagle]

Stand Your Ground law is much more applicable in this case. But no, there is no legal trouble that he can get into for using it in defense AS LONG AS his use of it is justified. The fact that it isn't "his" gun makes no difference in any direction.

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

I'm not worried too much about his use of the gun itself (he keeps a pistol at home for self defense), but I will urge him to get more range time in. He's not too particularly worried about the whole deal, it comes more from his wife.