Make My Day Law Question

[newracer]

I wonder if "occupant" is defined.

[Backinblackrifles]

I am not sure you will have to look it up but I believe that this includes "invited" guests.

[sniper7]

I'm not a lawyer but from what I read in the law it seems she is covered. Think about if kids are living at home (say they are 20 years old) and a guy breaks in while the parents are gone and the kid kills the unarmed intruder. the kids would be covered even though their name is not on the house.

[Irving]

Yeah but the kids live at the house so there is no question that they are an "occupant."
From the way the law is written, I'd say she is covered.

[KevDen2005]

I would say you are covered, Dwelling is a home and occupant is the person who is living there or staying there. If a burglar comes into that home that you are supposed to be staying at then you can defend yourself...

I would say if you are staying a hotel and someone breaks into your hotel room you should still be good.

a burglar is someone enters illegally or unlawfully or remains unlawfully.

[newracer]

I could not find the definition in the CRS but I would think the intended definition would be "to reside in as owner or tenant." If that is the case a caregiver would not qualify, neither would a co-worker or neighbor.

However I would hope any half intelligent DA would not prosecute anyways. Also the self defense law would still apply.

[KevDen2005]

I would say as long as the homeowner is giving you permission to be in the home as a caregiver or friend it would hold weight as an occupant

[Great-Kazoo]

I would say you are covered, Dwelling is a home and occupant is the person who is living there or staying there. If a burglar comes into that home that you are supposed to be staying at then you can defend yourself...

I would say if you are staying a hotel and someone breaks into your hotel room you should still be good.

a burglar is someone enters illegally or unlawfully or remains unlawfully.

this. any dwelling you reside in be it for 30 years or 30 min. if deadly force is justified during a break in you are covered. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a camper that was busted for possession while camping. The rangers entered his tent and found drug "items" . case went to SCOTUS. they ruled in defendants favor as the tent while not a permemant fixture was a "dwelling" and warrant was needed to enter as a "reasonable amount of privacy was expected as it (at the time) was their living quarters. Same goes for your vehicle, covered while transporting a firearm (in a safe manner) in states that do no trecognize CO's CCW reciprocity.
A babysitter while not "resident" is in the dwelling and does have a right to self defense. If again DF is needed they stop the threat you would be hard pressed to find a DA that would bring the shooting to trial.
YMMV. This is why everyone on this and any other gun board should have a reliable, knowledgeable firearms smart attorney as a friend or a phone number to call if needed.
no one here (unless admits it) is an attorney. asking on this board what your legal rights are is hearsay.

[bellavite1]

Very true.
It would be a GOOD thing to have an attorney at hand for this kind of occurrence.
So, let me throw this out there...
Is any of you guys an attorney or knows an attorney that could be interested in a "group rate" for forum members or that specializes in firearms related issues?
I have never needed an attorney, so I do not know how it works.
For a while I was a member of pre-paid legal services, but after getting some very confused replies and some very delayed calls back when I did have questions, I gave it up.
I would however be very interested in having an attorney on call should anything happen while myself or my wife are carrying.
Do attorneys charge a fee to be "on call" or is it a "per service" fee schedule?
Any suggestion?

[275RLTW]

She is covered under CRS 18-1-705

"A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson."