The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
Kory Zipperer
Junior Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:19 am

The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by Kory Zipperer »

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content ... rry-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The author must be some kind of genius, I must say...
RPB
Banned
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by RPB »

Kory Zipperer wrote:http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content ... rry-campus

The author must be some kind of genius, I must say...
must be :tiphat: :thumbs2:
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"
Thomas

Re: The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by Thomas »

Pretty good... except for "a CHL holder is obligated to run away if possible." It would have been nicer if the author wrote "a CHL holder is obligated to deescalate or remove his/her self from the situation." I'm not trying to be a tough guy (I couldn't fool anyone), I just don't like the idea of running away from problems.
User avatar
RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 9606
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by RoyGBiv »

The running commentary is pretty funny over there too...

The article hits all the high notes... well written..

Hopefully the bill makes it through the legislature this session..

We need a "fingers crossed" smilie... :thumbs2:
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar
Kythas
Senior Member
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:06 am
Location: McKinney, TX

Re: The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by Kythas »

Thomas wrote:Pretty good... except for "a CHL holder is obligated to run away if possible." It would have been nicer if the author wrote "a CHL holder is obligated to deescalate or remove his/her self from the situation." I'm not trying to be a tough guy (I couldn't fool anyone), I just don't like the idea of running away from problems.
While it is certainly wise for a CHL holder to attempt to deescalate any situation he may find himself in, there is no statutory requirement for this that I am aware of as long as he did not provoke the situation. Nor is there a requirement in Texas law that he flee; quite the contrary: the Castle Doctrine specifically states that no duty to flee exists.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
User avatar
FL450
Senior Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:48 am
Location: Pearland, Texas

Re: The Daily Texan Finally Posts Pro Gun Article

Post by FL450 »

As many of you know Kory is a member of this board and has done a lot to spread the word and educate those on the campus of UT.
Keep up the good work Kory
I love the sound smell of jet fuel in the morning.
Fat thumbs + IPhone = errors, please forgive.
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”