222359 Bullies, 5010 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 10 of 24
Page 1 of 3 1 23 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. TEA is offline
    TEA's Avatar

    Now iz BBQ Timez?

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    BFNTX
    Posts
    2,757

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 2:11pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: TKD, Relson GJJ, Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Texas Governor Signs "Castle Doctrine" Into Law

    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
  2. auschip is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    136

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 2:49pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    On that note, I heard a rumor that Crazy Richard's opened back up. :qtank:
  3. Phrost is offline
    Phrost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,109

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 3:06pm

    Business Class Supporting Memberstaff
     Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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
  4. TEA is offline
    TEA's Avatar

    Now iz BBQ Timez?

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    BFNTX
    Posts
    2,757

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 4:29pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: TKD, Relson GJJ, Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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."
  5. Phrost is offline
    Phrost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,109

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 4:32pm

    Business Class Supporting Memberstaff
     Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  6. teddy_bear is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    78

    Posted On:
    3/27/2007 5:38pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Now to hope that this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1022 doesn't pass.
  7. RoninPimp is offline
    RoninPimp's Avatar

    BJJ Black Belt

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    1,141

    Posted On:
    3/28/2007 11:01pm

    supporting member
     Style: Rex Kwon Do

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Don't mess with Texas.
  8. CannibalCrowley is offline
    CannibalCrowley's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    440

    Posted On:
    3/29/2007 7:41am


     Style: Starting Strength

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.
  9. auschip is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    136

    Posted On:
    3/29/2007 7:55am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    They did, this expanded it, and added lawsuit protection from the critter's family.
  10. TEA is offline
    TEA's Avatar

    Now iz BBQ Timez?

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    BFNTX
    Posts
    2,757

    Posted On:
    3/29/2007 9:58am

    Join us... or die
     Style: TKD, Relson GJJ, Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by auschip
    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 personís 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
Page 1 of 3 1 23 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.