TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:For what it's worth, I think you can argue that it's a legal act to get your gun and defend you friend if you felt his life was in danger and that getting the gun was the best way you had to do so. The problem comes when the cops or DA see it otherwise. You are obviously pushing very close to the line if you did this so there can always be people who see the situation differently than you do. That's a big part of why there are courts.

Using force or deadly force pursuant to Tex. Penal Code §§9.31, 9.32 & 9.33 does not nullify §46.02. You can still be charged with UCW. It rarely if every happens, but the charge would be justified under the Code. That's where §9.22 "Necessity" defense comes in.

Chas.

Here is an answer based solely on Texas law. I do not opine whether or not it is wise.

Tex. Penal Code §9.33 allows you to defend any 3rd person, if you reasonably believe that you would be able to defend yourself, if you were in their shoes. This belief must be based upon the facts as you reasonably believe them to exist. This also means you would meet the requirements of Tex. Penal Code §§9.31 and 9.32.

Getting out of your car with your handgun would violate Tex. Penal Code §46.02. If you were arrested and charged, then you could assert the defense of "necessity" available in Tex. Penal Code §9.22 (see below). This defense is based on the concept that the harm you are attempting to prevent (death or serious bodily injury to an innocent person) is greater than the harm the law you violated seeks to prevent (carrying a handgun without a license). This is not an automatic win for the defendant, because the jury must balance the "harm."

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §9.22 wrote: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.