Yes. That is the big gain in SB299. It now states 'use of force', not just use of deadly force'. So in the case of McDermott use of force was justified and him having his pistol out could have been deemed legal.2firfun50 wrote:In the case of McDermott, would SB299 made a large difference in the outcome? I seem to remember such a post by Charles indicating this is why SB299 is such a huge win.Keith B wrote:The issue is there is little to no case law on CHL holders because of their adherence to the law. Those who have their CHL revoked do so because of some other incident not related to carrying.
The only real CHL case I am aware of is the McDermott case from 2005 where he was convicted on 46.035 during a road rage incident. Here is a link to discussion by Charles viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262&sid=e31d6f746f ... 77c#p11031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The other one is a couple of posts down the topic, but I am not familiar with it.
Bottom line, CHL holders are a very law abiding bunch and they don't get into trouble.
I'm no expert on the case by any means, but as I see it and have heard he really shouldn't have gotten convicted, but his defense botched the case. They could have brought up TPC 9.04 as a defense but didn't do it apparently.