TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?

Here's how I understand it. I can sue you for wrongful termination even if I never worked for you. The suit should be tossed out but I have the right to sue.

Correct, and the judge would likely award the defendant his/her defense costs since the suit would be so frivolous.

Chas.

RPB wrote:

Ameer wrote:

Grammy wrote:3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?

I worked as a legal Assistant, not a lawyer, at a law firm for 25 years:

Say if someone sues you 47 years "too late" for causing an injury, and there's a 2 year Statue of Limitations, they can sue, but you can probably get their suit dismissed pretty early in the suit.

You can't stop people from suing, but you can get their suits dismissed on the basis of this or that (Statute of limitations ran/sovereign immunity for some governmental entities in some situations/civil immunity in this case).

I probably didn't pick the absolute best analogy, but it's a fairly understandable one to laypersons I hope.
(That's my layman's opinion and I"m sticking to it .... unless I change my mind )

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Welcome to the forum.

If I understand your friend's position, he believes the Texas version of the "Castle Doctrine" allows him to carry a handgun anywhere without a CHL. That's wrong. To carry a handgun outside your home, business or car, or other places that come within the scope of statutory exceptions (ex. hunting, shooting range), you must have a Texas CHL or a carry license recognized by Texas.

The "Castle Doctrine Bill" accomplished three things:

• 1. Created a presumption that someone using deadly force reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary if the person against whom deadly force was used:
  • a. Unlawfully and with force entered, attempted to enter, or attempted to remove you from your occupied home, business or car; or
    b. Was attempting to commit certain violent crimes.
  2. Removed the retreat duty anywhere in the State, so long as you:
  • a. Are legally standing where you are when deadly force is used;
    b. Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
    c. Are not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used.
  3. Granted immunity from civil liability for the justifiable use of deadly force. (This is not immunity from suit; that would be unconstitutional.)[/list]
  
  A thorough discussion of the Texas version of the Castle Doctrine is far too long for a post.
  
  The Motorist Protection Act changed Texas law such that is is not illegal to have a handgun in your car, or a car under your control, if:
  
  • 1. It is not in plain view;
    2. You are not engaged in criminal activity other than Class C traffic violations;
    3. You are not a member of a criminal street gang as defined in Chapter 71 of the Texas Penal Code; and
    4. You are not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law.

[/list]

Chas.