Car Carry Questions

[Byousee]

As my title says, I have a couple car carry questions.

First off, I don't have my CHL, but I am working on it and can't wait to get it. I am a student at Texas Tech University and I can't wait for campus carry. Hopefully it goes through this time. My family has several farms and a ranch here that I am always packing on, being my own land.

I am normally packing in my car and it is always concealed, to and from my car and while it is present in my car. Say I am walking DIRECTLY to or from my car and I am attacked or my car or property is being vandalized, do I have the right to protect myself and my property with said handgun?

Also, if I am traveling and someone attacks me while stopped can I use said handgun? If so, with what restrictions?

This last one I doubt but I will ask anyways. Say I am traveling and I see a young lady being attacked or harassed, in ANY circumstance, castle or what not, can I use said handgun or even a long gun to aid someone else?

Thanks in advanced for any answers!

 

[Bithabus]

I am normally packing in my car and it is always concealed, to and from my car and while it is present in my car. Say I am walking DIRECTLY to or from my car and I am attacked or my car or property is being vandalized, do I have the right to protect myself and my property with said handgun?

If you are attacked with deadly force yes, if your car is being vandalized yes but only at night.

Also, if I am traveling and someone attacks me while stopped can I use said handgun? If so, with what restrictions?

Yes. Same restrictions as if you are attacked anywhere else.

This last one I doubt but I will ask anyways. Say I am traveling and I see a young lady being attacked or harassed, in ANY circumstance, castle or what not, can I use said handgun or even a long gun to aid someone else?

If the lady is being attacked with deadly force or is about to be the victim of certain crimes, then yes. Harassment does not justify deadly force. You can use any weapon you legally possess.

Here's Texas statute concerning justification for use of force:

PENAL CODE

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY


SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 293, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.



Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.03. CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY


Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:
(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or
(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.



Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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.
(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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.



Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[Byousee]

Wow thank you very much for all the info. That definitely answers my questions.

 

[Texan2]

Spend one day taking the course and get your CHL and most of these questions go away.

 

[txinvestigator]

Until you receive some training I would just say this; only use deadly force to protect yourself or an innocent third person from anothers use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force against you or the innocent third person. In a nutshell, only to save a life.

If you read the posted code you will see many phrases such as "when and to the degree", "it is immediately necessary," "imminent commission" etc. Also, using deadly force is a "defense to prosecution" which means you have to prove you met the elements of the defense. It is NOT a defense FROM prosecution.

 

[smschulz]

I am walking DIRECTLY to or from my car and I am attacked or my car or property is being vandalized, do I have the right to protect myself and my property with said handgun?

If it is a matter of life or death ~ I choose life.

 

[Byousee]

I definitely agree and I could have been more specific about "in a life or death situation". Another interesting question that has come up is what if you are 18-21, so you obviously don't have a CHL yet but you can own, not buy, a handgun(correct me if I'm wrong). Do these answers above still apply to them?

 

[txinvestigator]

First, separate in your mind use of force and deadly force and handguns. Texas' use of force laws never mention weapons. Deadly Force is deadly force weather or not you use your hands to choke someone to death, an ink pen to jab into the brain thru the eye, shoot them, or blow them up. If you are justified in using deadly force it matters not how you do that.

If you are unlawfully in possession of the weapon you use to administer deadly force, you MIGHT be charged with possession of that weapon, but that does not diminish your justification to use deadly force. Make sense?

In Texas you can purchase a firearm when under 21, just not from a Federally licensed dealer. Texas does not address the "ownership" of firearms. The laws here only address the carry, possession, sale, manufacture, etc.

 

[Bithabus]

If you are unlawfully in possession of the weapon you use to administer deadly force, you MIGHT be charged with possession of that weapon, but that does not diminish your justification to use deadly force. Make sense?

It could. If someone uses an auto knife or unregistered machine gun, for example.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor 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.
(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.

 

[cuate]

The psycological effect of owning or carrying, or posessing a firearm comes into play in different ways according to age, life experience, Movie & TV gunplay. The intelligence vs. age has no bearing other that experience through the years teaches us that legally killing someone usually involves LEOs, lawyers, Grand Jury, and possible incarceration, depending again on Prosecuter's whims and the Defense.

There are people walking the streets of Texas, and yes, the whole US who need killing but that rests with the State, and we hope not to be the party necessary to perform the task, even if in the right under the law. We should not look forward with exuberance to a personal gun battle. This isn't Hollywood. But we who own and carry must be ready and willing without hesitation to legally kill as provided by the Statutes. The life you protect may be your own. If you go looking for a fight, you will likely find it and the aftermath will not be like the movies. Walk silently and carry a loaded firearm.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

In Texas you can purchase a firearm when under 21, just not from a Federally licensed dealer. Texas does not address the "ownership" of firearms. The laws here only address the carry, possession, sale, manufacture, etc.

Just to clarify, so no one gets confused, I think what you meant to say is handguns? 18 or older can buy long guns from a dealer, but they cannot buy handguns or pistol grip only shotguns from a dealer until 21 or older. The way I understand it, in Texas, 18 or older can legally buy a handgun from a private seller however.

 

[txinvestigator]

It could. If someone uses an auto knife or unregistered machine gun, for example.

ALL that does is remove the presumption that the belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is automatically reasonable.

it in no way affects the justification.

 

[txinvestigator]

Just to clarify, so no one gets confused, I think what you meant to say is handguns? 18 or older can buy long guns from a dealer, but they cannot buy handguns or pistol grip only shotguns from a dealer until 21 or older. The way I understand it, in Texas, 18 or older can legally buy a handgun from a private seller however.

Yes, thanks for the correction.

 

[Renegade]

Just to clarify, so no one gets confused, I think what you meant to say is handguns? 18 or older can buy long guns from a dealer, but they cannot buy handguns or pistol grip only shotguns from a dealer until 21 or older. The way I understand it, in Texas, 18 or older can legally buy a handgun from a private seller however.

The easiest way to understand Federal Law is all firearms are 21+ except rifles & shotguns, which are generally 18+.

 

[Bithabus]

ALL that does is remove the presumption that the belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is automatically reasonable.

it in no way affects the justification.

I would much prefer a shooting be automatically reasonable than have to rely on the feelings of 12 fellow citizens.

 

[txinvestigator]

I would much prefer a shooting be automatically reasonable than have to rely on the feelings of 12 fellow citizens.

You understand that presumption only applies at your residence, business, place of employment or vehicle, right?

 

[Fred B.]

As my title says, I have a couple car carry questions.

First off, I don't have my CHL I am a student at Texas Tech University and I can't wait for campus carry. Hopefully it goes through this time. My family has several farms and a ranch here that I am always packing on, being my own land.

I am normally packing in my car and it is always concealed, to and from my car and while it is present in my car. Say I am walking DIRECTLY to or from my car and I am attacked or my car or property is being vandalized, do I have the right to protect myself and my property with said handgun?

Also, if I am traveling and someone attacks me while stopped can I use said handgun? If so, with what restrictions?

This last one I doubt but I will ask anyways. Say I am traveling and I see a young lady being attacked or harassed, in ANY circumstance, castle or what not, can I use said handgun or even a long gun to aid someone else?

Thanks in advanced for any answers!

I have a question that has a twist to it concerning a minor.
He understands about going to and from his car and keeping it concealed.

He asked about his car being vandalized and it being at night.

What if he lives in a apartment complex and he sees/hears his car being vandalized at night. How would being a minor in a apartment complex parking lot with a handgun play out ??
Just seems to me that would cause him some serious legal problems. ???

 

[Texan2]

Just seems to me that would cause him some serious legal problems. ???

Yes but not for the reason you elude to. shooting someone for vandalizing a car (be it day or night) will not usually end up well for the shooter (reagrdless of age). I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Fisherman777]

There are people walking the streets of Texas, and yes, the whole US who need killing but that rests with the State, and we hope not to be the party necessary to perform the task, even if in the right under the law. We should not look forward with exuberance to a personal gun battle. This isn't Hollywood. But we who own and carry must be ready and willing without hesitation to legally kill as provided by the Statutes. The life you protect may be your own. If you go looking for a fight, you will likely find it and the aftermath will not be like the movies. Walk silently and carry a loaded firearm.

Very good paragraph. I agree.

 

[Bithabus]

You understand that presumption only applies at your residence, business, place of employment or vehicle, right?

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor 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;