TexasCHLforum.com

Hey everyone, I am new to the Forum and I anticipate getting my plastic within the next day or so.

My buddy and have been conversating about the Castle law (doctrine). The law states that you have the right to protect your castle(home) and it has extended that to your auto or work place. He says that you have the right to protect youself any where you are legally which he says gives you the right to carry a gun with out a liscence also stated by the 2nd amendment. I have tried to discuss with him that the CHL is to educate the individual. Which in turn informs a LEO that you are a good citizen that has passed a background and is not there to harm someone else but to protect himself or family.

I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Thanks

aschumann wrote:Hey everyone, I am new to the Forum and I anticipate getting my plastic within the next day or so.

My buddy and have been conversating about the Castle law (doctrine). The law states that you have the right to protect your castle(home) and it has extended that to your auto or work place. He says that you have the right to protect youself any where you are legally which he says gives you the right to carry a gun with out a liscence also stated by the 2nd amendment. I have tried to discuss with him that the CHL is to educate the individual. Which in turn informs a LEO that you are a good citizen that has passed a background and is not there to harm someone else but to protect himself or family.

I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Thanks

Welcome to the forum

In cars, it's the MPA, motorist Protection act which allows people to carry concealed in cars without a license, not castle doctrine, no you can't carry anywhere without a license because of the 2 amendment ... not yet anyway ... .. SEE Penal code Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

I'm watching senate hearings, will reply more later
Link to senate video going on now Campus carry
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aschumann wrote:Hey everyone, I am new to the Forum and I anticipate getting my plastic within the next day or so.

My buddy and have been conversating about the Castle law (doctrine). The law states that you have the right to protect your castle(home) and it has extended that to your auto or work place. He says that you have the right to protect youself any where you are legally which he says gives you the right to carry a gun with out a liscence also stated by the 2nd amendment. I have tried to discuss with him that the CHL is to educate the individual. Which in turn informs a LEO that you are a good citizen that has passed a background and is not there to harm someone else but to protect himself or family.

I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Thanks

in Texas, you can carry, on your property (residential, your work place that you own, your farm) and in your car with no licenses.
You can NOT carry in the public with out a CHL.

There are other exceptions, like hunting, shooting at the range, etc...

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.)

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.

Chas.

What if he was on my (or someone elses) property legally (as a guest) could he carry? Would that be up to the discretion of the property owner?

Thanks for the information so far.

aschumann wrote:What if he was on my (or someone elses) property legally (as a guest) could he carry? Would that be up to the discretion of the property owner?

Thanks for the information so far.

It wouldn't be legal unless your property was one of the locations that fit the exceptions. For example, hunting or shooting ranges.

Chas.

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.

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?

Grammy wrote:

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.

Is there anyway you can explain this part further?

Of course. Just ask Charles what his legal fees run!

...regarding the OP, might as well find someone else to "discuss" things with: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still" is an old adage that fits here...he wants the purest 2A situation and is bending everything in law to achieve it...society ain't gonna have it so...yet...but Charles and his ilk are getting us step after step closer...maybe someday...

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.)

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.

Chas.

Thanks, Charles. This is the most concise explanation of the Castle Doctrine I've seen.

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.

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 )

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 )

Thanks RPB, kind of what I was thinking, just wasn't sure.
Jim

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.

Suits are brought for things that on the face seem silly, but the defendant still settles, because they are afraid of what could happen in court or the settlement is small enough it makes financial sense not to have to defend against the suit. A good attorney can make a silly suit seem very responsible in front of a jury. My personal injury attorney friends consider the McDonald's hot coffee suit a very reasonable case.

philip964 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.

Suits are brought for things that on the face seem silly, but the defendant still settles, because they are afraid of what could happen in court or the settlement is small enough it makes financial sense not to have to defend against the suit. A good attorney can make a silly suit seem very responsible in front of a jury. My personal injury attorney friends consider the McDonald's hot coffee suit a very reasonable case.

I have to agree on the Mcdonalds case, the coffee was much hotter than any other places, they knew or should have known, the lid wasn't on well, there was a pothole in the drive through ... and what is rarely disclosed is that the actual amount received after the appeal was FAR less than what hit the newspapers as what the jury award was.

Another similar case, in Texas, concerning a young girl's (prior beauty contestant or model) VERY severe scars on her upper thighs from hot coffee, but we declined to represent her as the facts were different. I kinda wished she had a case/wanted the Attorney to take it, there was damages and injuries and medical costs, deep pockets, (and she was cute) .... but no provable liability/negligence. IIRC, she had removed the lid and not put it back on properly herself, then hit a pothole in the drive through, so we turned that case down..