Texas Governor Signs "Castle Doctrine" Into Law

[TEA]

This law passed both houses of the Legislature with broad bipartisan support and was signed by the Governor today.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378F.htm

[auschip]

On that note, I heard a rumor that Crazy Richard's opened back up. :qtank:

[Phrost]

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the 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
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(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.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
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.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in
effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.



__________________________________________________ __________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House
I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on
March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.



______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on
March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one
present not voting.



______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House


Approved:

______________________________
______________________________
Date


______________________________
______________________________
Governor

[TEA]

Notice that in was unanimous in the Senate (also, almost every Senator signed on as a co-author) and only 13 members of the House voted against it. That is what I would call "broad bi-partisan support."

[Phrost]

God bless Texas.

And by "God" I mean, whatever the **** you believe/don't believe in or get to bless things for you in a totally non-judgmental context.

Allahu Admiral Akbar.

[teddy_bear]

Now to hope that this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022 doesn't pass.

[RoninPimp]

Don't mess with Texas.

[CannibalCrowley]

I thought Texas already had a Castle Doctrine. People are always talking about how gun/self-defense friendly Texas is, so I assumed that they would be far ahead of Michigan or Florida.

[auschip]

I thought Texas already had a Castle Doctrine. People are always talking about how gun/self-defense friendly Texas is, so I assumed that they would be far ahead of Michigan or Florida.

They did, this expanded it, and added lawsuit protection from the critter's family.

[TEA]

They did, this expanded it, and added lawsuit protection from the critter's family.

More specificall, it adds language that clarifies what a reasonable person would find to be a threat; adds vehicle and place of business to the list of places where one is allowed to use force or deadly force to defend oneself (previously, only one's residence was covered); adds language to include being out in public engaged in any legal activity as being a category under which one is justified in defending oneself; adds civil liability protection.

Here's the Governor's bill summary:

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.

The official Bill Analysis drafted by Leg Counsel: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378H.htm