Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law

[Texas 48]

AUSTIN — A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill, fiercely opposed by businesses, that gives workers the right to lock concealed handguns in their cars, even if the parking lot is owned by their employer.

This along with the new Calstle Domain Law provides us with more of our 2nd Amendment rights. Congrats to Texas Legislature and the Gov. . Would like to see open carry in Texas as the frosting on the Cake.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rock and Glock]

Signed by Gov. Perry today. Effective in September.

[retsupt99]

for TX...

ret

[BlueMerle]

AUSTIN — A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill, fiercely opposed by businesses, that gives workers the right to lock concealed handguns in their cars, even if the parking lot is owned by their employer.

.

I wish that were the case, but at present,(according to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/) that bill(s) HB220 and SB534 have been voted favorably out of committee, but neither has been passed by their respective chambers.

Keep your fingers crossed, I think your announcement will come true yet!

[Ti Carry]

That's very good that Texas has a Castle Doc now but the bill from what I see is missing some very critical language that seems to have been missed from the people of Texas.

The bill does not specify "or anywhere else you are lawfully allowed to be". Does any one else see this as a problem? Like from your home to your car you are not covered, outside of your car walking to the store and in the store you are not covered, out of work and walking to your car unless you make it into your car you are not covered, at the park with your family away from your house, your car, and your work you are not covered. The list can go on but just some examples.


Ti

[Texas 48]

Ti Carry said "The bill does not specify "or anywhere else you are lawfully allowed to be". Does any one else see this as a problem? Like from your home to your car you are not covered, outside of your car walking to the store and in the store you are not covered, out of work and walking to your car unless you make it into your car you are not covered, at the park with your family away from your house, your car, and your work you are not covered. The list can go on but just some examples."

I disagree. !
SB 378 States
"in Section 3 Section9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON of the Penal Code is amended 2 C"
"(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not prevoked the person against the deadly force is used ,and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as descibed in this section."
(d) For purposes of this Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether the actor described by Subsection (c) resonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary , a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat."

It covers it all.

[Raider39a]

hurrah for Texas!

I saw one of the " tv debates" between a NRA spokesperson and a VPC "lawyer." The VPC says this pretty much gives everybody a hunting license and limits the civil liabilities/lawsuits that can be brought to be bear on the shooter. I guess his priority is what kind of civil lawsuits the BG can bring to the righteous shooter and not the protection of law abiding citizens.

[Ti Carry]

Ti Carry said "The bill does not specify "or anywhere else you are lawfully allowed to be". Does any one else see this as a problem? Like from your home to your car you are not covered, outside of your car walking to the store and in the store you are not covered, out of work and walking to your car unless you make it into your car you are not covered, at the park with your family away from your house, your car, and your work you are not covered. The list can go on but just some examples."

I disagree. !
SB 378 States
"in Section 3 Section9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON of the Penal Code is amended 2 C"
"(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not prevoked the person against the deadly force is used ,and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as descibed in this section."
(d) For purposes of this Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether the actor described by Subsection (c) resonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary , a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat."

It covers it all.

That's great! That is what I was looking for, 2C seem's to fit that bill nicely. Very, very good.......it say's it but in a different manor than most CD's have stated it.


Ti

[Texas 48]

In response to Raider 39a
In Section 4 of SB 378
"Section 83.001 Civil Practices and Remedies Dode is amended to read as follows:
Sec 83.001 AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to civil action for damages for personalinjury or deathethat the defendant,at the time of the actionarose, was justified in using force or deadly forceunder Subchaper C, Chapter 9 Penal Code
Section 5. Chapter 83 Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Section 83.002 COURT COSTS,ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES.A defendant who prevails in asserting and affirmative defenxe described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs reasonable attorney's feesand earned income that was lost as a resultof the suit and other reasonable expenses."

This means if you are not charged under the new law that is an affirmative defense in a civil suit. If the BG or the BG's family sues and the suit is thrown out they have to pay all the fees your attoney costs and your expenses including lost income. That should slow them down to make them think twice about going after you since they probably will lose and have to pay through the nose. Thats if they have they have anything to pay. Most of the sharks and ambulance chasers most likely won't take the case without a retainer and won't waste their time trying to drill a dry hole since there is a likelyhood they they will come up dry. If its an illegal bringing trying to bring the suit they won't touch it unless its the ACLU working pro bono or is funded by the looney left. LULAC ,Communist party etc.

[64zebra]

That's great! That is what I was looking for, 2C seem's to fit that bill nicely. Very, very good.......it say's it but in a different manor than most CD's have stated it.


Ti

its great to have this new castle doctrin law in place (especially the civil suit part) but its really a clarfication/closing some loopholes that lawyers would have fun with, 99% of the penal code for self defense was pretty solid before this, but we'll take all we can get

[bullseye]

Way to go Texas, AZ got there Castle Doctrine law a couple of months ago. A letter to your Congressmen telling them there on the right track, Good Job might be in order.

[BlueMerle]

In response to Raider 39a
In Section 4 of SB 378
"Section 83.001 Civil Practices and Remedies Dode is amended to read as follows:
Sec 83.001 AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to civil action for damages for personalinjury or deathethat the defendant,at the time of the actionarose, was justified in using force or deadly forceunder Subchaper C, Chapter 9 Penal Code
Section 5. Chapter 83 Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Section 83.002 COURT COSTS,ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES.A defendant who prevails in asserting and affirmative defenxe described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs reasonable attorney's feesand earned income that was lost as a resultof the suit and other reasonable expenses."

This means if you are not charged under the new law that is an affirmative defense in a civil suit. If the BG or the BG's family sues and the suit is thrown out they have to pay all the fees your attoney costs and your expenses including lost income. That should slow them down to make them think twice about going after you since they probably will lose and have to pay through the nose. Thats if they have they have anything to pay. Most of the sharks and ambulance chasers most likely won't take the case without a retainer and won't waste their time trying to drill a dry hole since there is a likelyhood they they will come up dry. If its an illegal bringing trying to bring the suit they won't touch it unless its the ACLU working pro bono or is funded by the looney left. LULAC ,Communist party etc.

Just curious... Are you an attorney??

[Texas 48]

No Sir I am not an attorney. I got a copy of the Bill Passed and the pending bills then talked with a friend who is an attorney. We discussed the ramifications of the legislation. In my posts I quoted the legislation. The comments at the end of the posts are mine and are the conclusions I drew from my conversations about the legislation.

[Shrek Man]

This is excellant news for Texas. Hopefully, more states will see the light with the public support for this law, and start their own legislation.

It kinda makes me miss living there. If they had provisions for open carry, it would be almost perfect.

We recently got the Castle Doctrine law here in Michigan. Even our liberal female Gov saw the light about this one and signed it.

Shrek Man

[Jony911]

Have there been any changes or updates in this law since the OP and the last post in this thread?