Texas rep. proposes no retreat bill

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...nlaw_31eas.ART0.Central.Edition1.3dfa654.html

Kinda sorry I'm moving out of Texas after reading this. Of course it still must pass. The pro-criminals and bleeding hearts will likely water it down even if it does.

Drivers, workers may get leeway on deadly force

Bill aims to add cars, businesses to rules about home invasions

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, December 31, 2006
By RICHARD ABSHIRE / The Dallas Morning News

State Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, wants people to have the same right to shoot intruders who invade their cars and businesses as they have to shoot people who break into their homes.

If House Bill 284 were to become law, a person would have the right to use deadly force and would no longer be required to retreat to avoid violence in a business, workplace or vehicle.

"It's a self-defense bill," Mr. Driver said of the measure, which he filed in October for the upcoming legislative session in Austin.

The bill would establish the assumption that an intruder illegally entering a vehicle or place of business intends to harm and that the operator has the right to use deadly force in defense.

The change would take standards applied to homes and expand them to cars and businesses. The Texas penal code doesn't require a person whose home is invaded to retreat before using deadly force.

Mr. Driver's bill would extend that concept to other situations, such as carjackings.

The bill also would amend the civil code to make it more difficult for a criminal or the family of a criminal to sue someone who used deadly force justifiably.

Mr. Driver, who has chaired the House Committee on Law Enforcement for four years, said he expects strong support for his bill, which already has four joint authors and almost 30 co-authors.

The concept behind the bill is "castle doctrine." The bill is an extension of the notion of a person's home as a castle he is entitled to defend.

Florida lawmakers passed a similar law last year, and several other states have followed suit.

Zach Ragbourn, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, sees problems with castle doctrine.

"We see it as granting the right to use deadly force as the first resort in public while granting civil and criminal immunity to the person using force," Mr. Ragbourn said.

His organization supports providing for adequate self-defense but questions the need for a new law that might inadvertently put killers beyond recourse.

"Who's it supposed to help? The supporters can't point to a single case," Mr. Ragbourn said. "There's not a crisis. The system works as it is."

Mr. Driver said a few prosecutors also have voiced concerns that the law might make prosecution more difficult in some cases.

According to Jim Dark of the Texas State Rifle Association, a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, the new law is needed to fix a mistake that many states made in the mid-1970s when they adopted model penal codes from the American Bar Association. That's when "duty to retreat" was injected into the law, he said.

"There is no reason why a law-abiding citizen should have to give ground to a criminal," Mr. Dark said.

E-mail rabshire@dallasnews.com
Click to expand...

"We see it as granting the right to use deadly force as the first resort in public while granting civil and criminal immunity to the person using force," Mr. Ragbourn said.
Click to expand...



That catches my attention.

Another thing this might raise is whether NON CHLers can carry guns in their cars or businesses. If the bill is, in effect, making a sort of extention of your home (where you can legally have a gun) then why should you not be allowed to carry in your car or business?
I'm still not clear on what car carry is for non CHLers in Texas. I've gotten about 5 different answers from 5 different sources (two of them CHL instructors)
 
Last edited:
Non CHLers are already allowed to carry concealed guns in thier vehicle in Texas. However, some county DAs feel that the law doesnt say what the law says. Do not think there has been any test cases yet? I think your business counts as premises under your control so I dont see why you couldnt have a firearm.
 
Good to hear, seeing as how I'm moving back to Tx in just a few months. Could be as soon as 1 month, for that matter.
 
Non CHLers are already allowed to carry concealed guns in thier vehicle in Texas.
Click to expand...

See this is where I'm not sure.

1) You can carry as long as you are traveling. What does traveling mean?
a) Traveling is driving between at least 3 counties
b) Traveling constitutes an overnight stay away from home
c) Traveling is going to Alaska or the grocery store up the street (anytime you are in your car).

2) You can carry, but the burden of proof is on the officer to prove you weren't traveling

3) You can carry, but the officer, if he decides you are suspicious, he can nail you for carrying while you are not traveling. You will probably get off, but it will cost you court expenses, better to get a CHL

4) Yes you can carry in your car, Texas law now lets you carry the gun in your car concealed as an extention of you home

5) Yes you can carry in your car but the gun has to be visible on the seat while you are in the vehicle.

These are the different versions of what the law now says that have been given to me over the past year. Three of these have been from CHL intructors. Which one is true, I have no idea. The very least I am sure of is that my mother, a non-chler, can legally drive from Houston to Louisiana with a gun in the car as there is no question to whether or not that is traveling
 
Anyone who can get a CHL in TX and carries a gun ready to use in the car should get a CHL.

It is silly not to, if you can afford it.
 
The term "traveling" was never formally described until 1 September, 2005 and there was no definition prior to that date. It has been defined and currently states................

(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed to be
traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class
C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section
71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.
Click to expand...

I would not hesitate to guess that the majority of LEO's are not aware of this and I do know that a few DA's have publicly stated that they would lay charges regardless.

This applies only to handguns carried "on or about your person", that's within your reach, and does not apply to guns in the trunk or beyond your access. Again, most LEO's have no idea what the law says and I am aware of people being detained for even having a gun in the vehicle, although it was legal and the Officer in question was at fault by being unfamiliar with the law.
 
so, legally, a non CHLer can get in the car, drive around the block to the grocery store and back and be considered traveling
 
AFTER you are arrested, the COURT/JURY will decide whether or not you were traveling, and will use the presumption (the 5 elements) as their guide. Then, of course, there's the human element: If the judge/jury doesn't like people carrying guns, then it just about doesn't matter what the law says. They just might convict you anyway. The law says 46.02 is non-applicable when you're traveling, and then gives the presumption that you are traveling if you meet the 5 elements. Jurors can and will inject their own feelings into it, law be damned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Another scenario: Let's say you're out on the dock with your fishing pole, or are on your way to the local fishing hole with your rod and reel. You also have your handgun on your person, and don't have a CHL. Well, under the non-applicability section, 46.02 also doesn't apply if the actor "is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity". Now, do you think that the officer CANNOT arrest based on this? You're wrong if you think not. I'll sum it up this way: If you carry in your car without a CHL, you're taking the gamble that Joe Policeman believes that you should be able to be carrying at that particluar point in time. That's not a gamble that I'd take.
 
"Anyone who can get a CHL in TX and carries a gun ready to use in the car should get a CHL.

It is silly not to, if you can afford it."

Listen to the man! If I personally knew someone that wanted a CHL and was eligible, but could not afford it, by God I'd pay for it. I don't, but I'd hope that if that's the only barrier to someone, that THEY have a friend or family member that would help out.
 
I'm all for jury nullification (if the law is not serving justice, then it should be nullified, that is an old fundamental and final protection against tyranny), but it isn't even clear what the law is. It's all subject to the police and DA's "feelings." That's subjective. It should be you can either carry in your car or you can't

Yeah, getting a CHL is the best course. You shouldn't have to just to carry in the car (or carry at all if we go by the 2cond amendment...but what's the Constitution these days?) but with such a screwed up system, heck I got one just to avoid trouble and still be able to protect myself.

I don't think to not do so is silly. It does take time and money to do it. For someone who travels once every two months to Louisiana and drives around town once a week, this may not be worth it. And yes, I would gladly pay for my mother's CHL course, but she doesn't want to do it, too much money and trouble for the little bit she carries in the car.
 
Your mother thus assumes that the only risk will happen when she is in the car?

The push behind the CHL bill in TX came from Dr. Gratia-Hupp who watched the carnage at the Killeen Luby's and could do nothing because - her gun was in the car.

Like I said, the rationale for not getting a CHL - a one day course - is ridiculous. Why bother to have a gun at all?

Folks who talk about hardware and ammo but have no sense of carrying realities should rethink carrying at all. Carry a pepper spray and get a dog.
 
Your mother thus assumes that the only risk will happen when she is in the car?

The push behind the CHL bill in TX came from Dr. Gratia-Hupp who watched the carnage at the Killeen Luby's and could do nothing because - her gun was in the car.
Click to expand...

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly. You never know when you are going to need it, and well concealed, it is not inconvenient to carry.

BUT, she feels that she doesn't go out often enough and hardly ever drives around at night and the likelyhood of anything happening is remote. A gun for the house and when she drives to LA is enough (and the only reason she drives with it to LA is because I insist, otherwise she would probably forget.) http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212750&highlight=I+scream+you+scream interesting/funny thread on that note.

Even my own dad who has a CHL 90% of the time leaves his gun in the car unless he is going to be walking in a dangerous area or Christmas shopping.

To each his own.
 
Anyone who can get a CHL in TX and carries a gun ready to use in the car should get a CHL.

It is silly not to, if you can afford it.
Click to expand...

I completed the course and can afford the CHL. The main problem is that for everyday use its pretty much moot if you work on federal military property. They can issue you a government weapon but I cant carry a personal weapon on the property, which includes my vehicle. I can carry a concealed weapon in my vehicle, hotel room, my property, ect when I am on my time.

I probably should get it but due to the above circumstances I have not been motivated to apply for it.
 
In general, I agree. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that walking through your suburban neighborhood at high noon is far less dangerous than walking thought the 5th Ward or the Heights in Houston at 8'o clock at night
 
True, but it'd be a perfect place for someone like Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish....sounds good to me. ;)

One man's trash is another man's treasure...

-- John D.
 
I wish the ohio lawmakers was half as smart as the lawmakers in texas. I wish we had the "castle law" and this new bill they are trying to pass.
 
In general, I agree. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that walking through your suburban neighborhood at high noon is far less dangerous than walking thought the 5th Ward or the Heights in Houston at 8'o clock at night
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you happen to live in some place like the Heights. I used to live just outside of the Loop from there (close to 34th & TC Jester). It is kinda sad about that place -- the Heights used to be a nice neighborhood -- old but trendy, nice old Victorian homes -- and at one time was set to become a boom area once again. It must have really gone downhill since I left Houston back in '99.
 
Well there are some spots in there that are worth going. We had a new year's eve party...or rather a new years eve eve party at the old Heights Firehouse the Friday before New Years. There is a theater where they put on operas, plays and karaoke shows (it's an old church converted to a theater). It's got a few gunsmiths in the area (Herman Mushkee and Martin Tidswell). BUT, it's still got a large low class element in there.
You're right, it is a nice old Houston neighborhood with a lot of character. It may be on it's way back up....but let's just say it still has a long way to go.
 
I originally got my CHL just to cover my butt. I wanted to be able to run a bunch of errands on the way to the range, or have my gun waiting to go to the range after work. Without a CHL, I was under the impression that I could get in trouble for this.

So I got my CHL. As a result, I now carry almost all the time, but that's beside the point. Wether or not I could have gotten in trouble with a gun in my car is irrelevant. What does matter is the level of knowledge the officer that pulls me over has. I'm not knocking LEO's by any stretch. I can only imagine that we are probably better versed on this particular topic than most LEO's. They have a huge number of laws to be concerned with, and probably don't spend so much time hashing out the legal definition of 'traveling'.

I would imagine that they would be far more likely to let a DA figure it out, and arrest or confiscate my weapon in the meantime.

Granted, this is all just my personal speculation--I have no legal or Law Enforcement background. I simply tend to prefer to err on the side of caution and preempt a possible legal problem by just sitting through the 10 hour class and getting the license.

It's not to expensive and only takes time. If there aren't any issues that would bar you from getting your license, absolutely get it. It certainly can't hurt.

Just my opinions
-Zeke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top