Return to “Motorist Protection Act”
Yes, the current immunity is not for CHL holders, but, rather for justified use of deadly force. No matter who uses it.mred wrote:If someone carring under MPA was involved in a shooting would they have the same immunity as a CHL holder reguarding civil suits?
Plus the fact that people watching the movie would have to think, as it may challenge their previously held beliefs... not good for the general moviegoing public. They just wanna see explosions and witty catch phrases.austinrealtor wrote:USA1 wrote:that book is OK , but i'm waitin for the movie .joe817 wrote:
This is the exact booklet that was passed out to my class a few weeks ago. As I had time, I read it from cover to cover 3 times before I took the class. And it helped.
But seriously, I've been thinking lately that a movie script involving a person who defends themselves or others with a concealed gun and the the repercussions and fallout of that (legal, moral, ethical, otherwise) - if written, filmed, and acted well - could be a powerful film drama ... maybe a quick "incident" at first of movie, followed by the immediate repercussions, then some courtroom drama etc. .... I'm thinking maybe along the lines of the general plot outline of "A Time To Kill" or maybe the first part of "A History of Violence" before the big plot twist that changed the whole tone of that movie.
Of course, Hollywood would never make a movie that glorifies honest law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves .... guns are only for bad guys and rogue cops/soldiers who "protect" us all.
We can film it at your house.USA1 wrote:that book is OK , but i'm waitin for the movie .joe817 wrote:
This is the exact booklet that was passed out to my class a few weeks ago. As I had time, I read it from cover to cover 3 times before I took the class. And it helped.
