TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle, I agree with your opinion above. And I think Steve does as well. And I think Charles does too. But read the particulars of why this is "up in the air" in this old thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a case and it may have been incorrectly decided and not appealed (though I personally think the person prosecuted in that case was acting like a jerk and someone "brandishing" to scare away a real threat would have got off).

The problem comes from the limited exception to PC 46.035, which says you must be justified in USING deadly force to violate PC 46.035.

Some prosecutors apparently don't think PC 9.04 over rules PC 46.035.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

Steve,

I think this may be the thread you're referring to? viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for reminding me of that one. I'd forgotten the added problem of illegally unconcealing your weapon TPC 46.035 and the narrow exceptions for that offense.

Which statute supercedes which? Apparently Charles can't even tell us for sure after reading that whole thread.

Chalk it up to yet a nother "gray area" of legal concealed carry (sure are a lot of gray areas out there )

Pawpaw1 wrote:In other words, you are justified to use the threat of deadly force only if you would be justified in using deadly force.

Suppose you pull you weapon and threaten to use it and the guy just gets mad and comes at you. You just escalated the situation by brandishing your weapon.

IANAL... just food for thought.

note: emphasis added above

IANAL either, but I don't agree with your assessment entirely. I read this statute to mean it is OK to use a weapon to threaten deadly force if FORCE is justified. Basically, even though you're using a deadly weapon, you're only using it to inflict FORCE and not deadly force.

The escalation issue, I do understand and that can become a he said/he said situation. But if you were justified in producing your weapon as a use of FORCE (for instance, the person was committing theft but not robbery) you would be OK as long as you don't shoot. Once the thief ups the anty to assault or aggravated assault by "coming at you" - then you might be justified in escalating your response to use of deadly force.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I've always understood this statute.

In the OP's case, not sure it matters because a purse snatching in which the victim is still attached to the purse (the "struggle") is a robbery (and potentially an aggravated robbery) and not merely a theft. Thus, use of deadly force is justified under PC 9.43. Not saying I would necessarily shoot in that situation, but I could see how it would be justifiable (a 6-4, 250 pound, 25-year-old man struggling with a 65-year-old woman has great potential to cause bodily injury to the woman)

And again, IANAL ... but hopefully one of the legal eagles will set me straight if I am misunderstanding this somehow.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=PE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas Penal Code wrote:Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.