Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law - Page 2

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law

This is a discussion on Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; AUSTIN A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill, fiercely opposed by businesses, that gives workers the right to lock concealed handguns in their ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law

  1. #16
    Member Array Texas 48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    san antonio texas
    Posts
    38

    Talking Texas Bill passed by legislature for Workers Rights

    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.


  2. #17
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,977
    Signed by Gov. Perry today. Effective in September.


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  3. #18
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,340

    Good News...

    for TX...

    ret
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #19
    Member Array BlueMerle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth Tx. or On a Ship!
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Texas 48 View Post
    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!

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Ti Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Under Cover
    Posts
    2,035
    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
    Train and train hard, you might not get a second chance to make a first impression!

    I vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President.....Not!

  6. #21
    Member Array Texas 48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    san antonio texas
    Posts
    38
    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.

  7. #22
    Member Array Raider39a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    335
    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.
    "embrace the suck" - our warriors in the sandbox... it implies that do the best you can in impossible conditions.
    "no plan survives intact upon contact with the enemy" - wisdom of the Grunts.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Ti Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Under Cover
    Posts
    2,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Texas 48 View Post
    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
    Train and train hard, you might not get a second chance to make a first impression!

    I vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President.....Not!

  9. #24
    Member Array Texas 48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    san antonio texas
    Posts
    38

    Civil Liabilty of Actor

    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.

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Ti Carry View Post
    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
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  11. #26
    Member Array bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    93
    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.
    LIFES JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE "GRAVE" SAFELY ,IN A WELL PRESERVED BODY.BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS TOTALLY WORN OUT SHOUTING "HOLY S@#$...WHAT A RIDE"

  12. #27
    Member Array BlueMerle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth Tx. or On a Ship!
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Texas 48 View Post
    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??

  13. #28
    Member Array Texas 48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    san antonio texas
    Posts
    38

    Response to Rallyman

    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.

  14. #29
    New Member Array Shrek Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    White Lake, MI
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    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

  15. #30
    New Member Array Jony911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2
    Have there been any changes or updates in this law since the OP and the last post in this thread?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. New NC Castle Doctrine 2 + Stand your ground
    By chiefjason in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 13th, 2011, 02:30 AM
  2. PA: Castle Doctrine & Stand your ground
    By Random in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 1st, 2010, 03:33 AM
  3. No castle doctrine, or stand your ground law, Buuuut....(long)
    By oakchas in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 4th, 2010, 05:50 PM
  4. Texas Castle Doctrine
    By rodc13 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 1st, 2007, 12:43 PM
  5. Castle Doctrine for Texas - A Strong Possibility
    By dglockster in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 29th, 2006, 03:54 AM

Search tags for this page

castle doctrine texas
,
stand your ground law in texas
,

stand your ground law texas

,
texas castle doctrine
,
texas castle doctrine 2011
,
texas castle doctrine explained
,
texas castle doctrine law
,

texas castle law 2011

,
texas castle law doctrine
,
texas castle law explained
,
texas castle law sign
,

texas stand your ground law

Click on a term to search for related topics.