From a TSRA newsletter: In the spring of 2005, the state of Florida passed NRA-supported legislation revamping that state’s self-defense laws. Texas was nearing the end of their regular session, too late for the 79th Legislature to consider such measures. However, an interim study was assigned to Rep. Terry Keel’s committee (House Criminal Jurisprudence), and draft legislation was suggested. What this House committee discovered is that under current Texas law, the use of deadly force in self-defense is justified only when retreat is “unreasonable” and does not offer the intended victim of the criminal attack nor his family protection from civil liability for defending himself. In November of 2006, State Representative Joe Driver (R-Garland) the Chairman of House Law Enforcement Committee pre-filed HB 284 based on that interim study draft. Since that time 100 House members, out of a total of 150, have signed on in support. Today Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio) filed SB 378 in the Texas Senate. Senator Wentworth surveyed constituents in Senate District 25, a district that runs from South Austin through North San Antonio, and discovered significant support and concern for this issue. SB 378, as with HB 284, establishes in law a presumption that if a criminal forcibly and unlawfully enters into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your business, that he or she is there to cause you death or great bodily harm. Both go on to say that you have no duty to retreat when you are in a place you have a right to be and are not engaged in crime. Lastly, both bills would limit the ability of criminals and their family to sue victims for killing or injuring the attacker.
I really like the way it's worded..... but ya know, I would have thought Texas of all places, would have already had the castle doctrine. The way you guys serve up deep fried inmate, I'm surprised you were'nt the first to have it.
Aanother one down...good for Texas Now if you just stop selling your "completed- paid for" roads to foreign corporationsfor toll routes .
The big thing is to get the lawyers out of the "Wrongful Death" business. No way should anyone be allowed to sue a person for defending themselves if they were aquitted by the Grand Jury or a trial. As to the roads, we've got some of the biggest crooks in the world in this state. Some of them would make Koffee Anan blush. jim
Heard that Tango. Perry is a sell out. They announced this morning that they are going to start charging starting today. They had been letting cars go through free, and the traffic cameras showed a large reduction of traffic, too. We have got to stop the Trans Texas corridor for the whole country's sake.
Here in Oklahoma we call it the "Make My Day Law" and there doesn't seem to be any problems with it to date.
In Texas, we thought it wasn't needed, that it was just "common sense" (unless of course you live in Austin).
From 2001, my home state... and Charlie is my cousin... http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1804 South Carolina Attorney General Declares "Open Season" on Home Invaders January 24, 2001Exact text from Attorney General's website: Condon Declares "Open Season" on Home Invaders 1/24/2001 Says No Charges or Prosecution of Homeowners Using Deadly Force (Columbia, S.C.) Attorney General Charlie Condon today announced that he is declaring "open season" on home invaders. In a Memorandum to all Solicitors, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Condon directed that citizens acting to defend their homes will not be arrested, charged or prosecuted. Condon said the policy was necessary in the wake of a rash of recent home invasions in North Charleston and elsewhere throughout the State. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 width=113 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=162></TD></TR><TR><TD width=162>"As Chief Prosecutor of South Carolina, I am today declaring open season on home invaders. That season is year-round."</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"As Chief Prosecutor of South Carolina, I am today declaring open season on home invaders. That season is year-round," Condon said. "Citizens protecting their homes who use force even deadly force will be fully safeguarded under the law of this State and subject to no arrest, charge or prosecution. In South Carolina, would-be intruders should now hear this: invade a home and invite a bullet." Condon cited a "recent rash of home invasions by gang members and other criminals." He said gang activity is rising sharply in South Carolina. Condon also referenced a string of break-ins in North Charleston and an incident in Columbia recently where a victim managed to fight off home invaders with a sword. The Attorney General noted that in Richland County, deputies believe 4 men were responsible for 90 home invasions in the last year. Condon said that the new policy is also being instituted to warn criminals of what faces them as a result of home invasion and to let homeowners know their rights. Condon said the case law in South Carolina "gives iron-clad protection to the citizen in safeguarding his or her home. Inside the citizen's home, there are no legal technicalities for the criminal to rely on." Force even deadly force may be used, ruled the Court, "if such degree of force be reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of preventing a forcible entry against his will." Condon said the new "open season on home invaders" policy will assist law enforcement in protecting private property and homes against break-ins because "law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once." Said Condon, "home invaders will think twice, and even a third time, knowing the risk of their own death is waiting on the other side of the innocent homeowner's door." "The home is the family's fortress of protection," Condon said. When at home, people rightfully feel they are standing on sacred ground. The citizen's home is the line in the sand where criminals dare not cross."
Rock on Condon! Now does this also apply to SWAT teams who bust in your homes because "they have the wrong address/unlawful warrant/etc.???????" eek3
It does and has the added benefit of making the gestapho double-check before deciding on a dynamic entry.
It surely must apply, but I'd wager a bit that a (mistaken) SWAT entry would benefit your heirs if you stood for your rights. That is where the whole idea of standing your ground falls down. All the same, I'd come awake shooting, I think.
