Author Topic: It's official - Castle Doctrine in Texas (Read 1706 times)

Brad Johnson · « **on:** March 27, 2007, 01:46:51 PM »

Texas Gov Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine into law today. That's one more incremental win for the good guys.

Brad

crt360 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2007, 01:56:38 PM »

Now if they'd just make it legal to carry in a courthouse or bank building, I'd be all set.

J.J. · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2007, 02:07:10 PM »

I love Texas...And now It is an even better place to live.

The only question is: Does this mean that the Hotel room I am currently staying in included?

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2007, 04:14:28 PM »

Texas needs open carry.

Antibubba · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2007, 08:23:28 PM »

Quote

Texas needs open carry.

California's politicians need hari-kari.

Cobalt60 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:27:36 AM »

Quote from: Standing Wolf on March 27, 2007, 03:14:28 PM

Texas needs open carry.

We're working on it.

Bigjake · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:47:59 AM »

Quote

California's politicians need hari-kari.

*choke*snort*

laugh

definatly.

K Frame · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:49:17 AM »

Oh dear. Texans will just become vigilante executioners. More blood in the streets. RIVERS of blood as innocent criminals are slaughtered...

MechAg94 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:21:49 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on March 28, 2007, 03:49:17 AM

Oh dear. Texans will just become vigilante executioners. More blood in the streets. RIVERS of blood as innocent criminals are slaughtered...

Yes, and we don't have to worry about civil lawsuits either. Cheesy

mountainclmbr · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:30:06 AM »

More crimminals will be moving to San Francisco where they will be able to ply their trade in relative safety.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:01:12 AM »

Quote from: mountainclmbr on March 28, 2007, 04:30:06 AM

More crimminals will be moving to San Francisco where they will be able to ply their trade in relative safety.

And they can illegally carry their stolen goods in plastic shopping bags. They just banned those too, there.

HankB · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:50:19 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on March 28, 2007, 03:49:17 AM

Oh dear. Texans will just become vigilante executioners. More blood in the streets. RIVERS of blood as innocent criminals are slaughtered...

Which reminds me, I have to go out by the curb with a landing net and snag a few more EBRs as they flow by . . . you know, the ones they said would be "literally flooding the streets" when the AWB was allowed to expire . . . rolleyes

You can take a look at the website one of the local Austin news channels and see the results of their "unscientific" poll, with comments . . . remember, Austin is "Moscow on the Colorado" to most Texans:

http://www.news8austin.com/shared/poll/?PollID=3771&SecID=220

The Rabbi · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:38:17 AM »

We have something like this going here in TN too.
What legal effect did Castle Doctrine have on TX law? I am having trouble supporting it here because no duty to retreat is already the law in TN.

Gewehr98 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:50:45 AM »

The way I understand it, from Lawdog's website, the recent law passed in Texas was NOT "Castle Doctrine" - that was already in effect previously. It's a "Stand Your Ground" law:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/

What did just get recently passed in Texas on 27 March was the elimination of civil lawsuits after justified shootings. The law goes into effect on 1 September, granting civil immunity to the shooter when the case is considered a justifiable shooting and it passes the "reasonable man" test.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:52:10 AM »

Quote

What legal effect did Castle Doctrine have on TX law?

In fairly simplistic terms I believe it expanded the justification to use deadly force in protection of life and property from a strictly in-your-home issue to an "anywhere you happen to be" issue. It also effectively removed the duty-to-retreat provision. Hopefully one of our APS legal eagles will chime in with all the blow-by-blow specifics.

Brad

The Rabbi · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:05:27 AM »

From LawDog's site it appears that it is neither Castle (which already is the law there) or stand your ground (which still applies "reasonable man" standards). The main effect appears to be immunity from civil prosecution if the shoot was judged lawful. That's a great thing, but it isn't Castle.
What the heck, anything that makes sniveling liberal gun grabbers snivel even more has got to be good for the Republic.
Let's push for national mandatory recognition of CCW. Bills already pending in House and Senate.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:16:31 AM »

Quote from: Rabbi

What the heck, anything that makes sniveling liberal gun grabbers snivel even more has got to be good for the Republic.

Brad

El Tejon · « **Reply #17 on:** March 29, 2007, 04:24:14 AM »

Wow, the media is completely confused. Castle Doctrine? shocked

How did everything under the sun get lumped under "Castle Doctrine"? Abolition of the duty to retreat? Castle Doctrine. Civil immunity? Castle Doctrine. Modification of sales tax to exclude the interstate sale of ferrets? Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine is a narrow exception to the general duty to retreat in those few remaining states where one has a duty to retreat before using deadly force. Its roots go back to Lord Coke in 1644 (however there are similar phrases, "a man's home is his castle", that go back to Rome).

How did civil immunity become "Castle Doctrine"? I have a headache.

Art Eatman · « **Reply #18 on:** March 29, 2007, 04:56:22 AM »

Texas was already a castle doctrine deal. Bad guy comes into your home, you never had to retreat.

SFAIK, there have not been enough "on the street" events to have any real data about whether or not retreat was ever a factor.

The practicality is the removal of civil liability in the event of a good shoot.

Art

El Tejon · « **Reply #19 on:** March 29, 2007, 08:20:31 AM »

Art, I thought there was no "castle doctrine" in Texas as there was no duty to retreat in Texas.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 29, 2007, 12:36:30 PM »

I had heard that there was an ongoing legal argument over whether duty to retreat was required. I had always been told in CHL classes that you should always attempt to retreat to help yourself legally. I think there was enough ambiguity in the law that a sharp prosecutor could get your for it. I don't know if there was any case law about it. Supposedly this new law takes away that ambiguity. It is similar to the traveling rules for carrying a gun though that is still somewhat vague.

It is also good to mention that all these changes include the caveat that you are not in the process of committing a crime or are somewhere you have a right to be. If you are breaking into someone's house, this law doesn't protect you. Cheesy

News:

Author Topic: It's official - Castle Doctrine in Texas (Read 1706 times)