Page 2 of 2

Re: Could you legally pass your own 30.06 sign?

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:41 pm
by Hoi Polloi
Mhoward wrote:Thats funny. When hurricane Ike came through I found a 30.06 sign in front of my house. It had to travel a long way since I have never seen it on any building in my area. It is now posted on my back porch above the bar :mrgreen:
That is really funny!

Re: Could you legally pass your own 30.06 sign?

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:29 pm
by ScottDLS
You can pass your own 30.06 sign for the same reason that you can carry openly in your own house. 30.06 only applies to "carrying under the authority" of your CHL.

Re: Could you legally pass your own 30.06 sign?

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:04 am
by chartreuse
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I agree with psijac. Remember the definition of deadly force includes "serious bodily injury" that would include a gunshot to an extremity, or using a club or other impact weapon to knock an gun or knife from someone's hand. I believe those acts should be lawful to prevent a suicide, but they are prohibited by TPC §9.34(a).

However, TPC §9.34(b) makes it lawful to use deadly force to preserve life in an emergency. For example, if you are trapped in a burning car, I can cut off your arm (seriously bodily injury = "deadly force") to get you out of the car and save your life.

Whether by suicide or accident, dead is dead and I think the law should allow the use of what is technically "deadly force" to prevent a suicide.

Chas.
TPC §9.24 wrote:Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.
That does appear to be a very odd distinction - I wonder what the reasoning behind it was?

It reminds me of the time, in school, when we were told that in Victorian England, attempted suicide was a crime that carried the death penalty. :headscratch