TexasCHLforum.com

I received this by E-mail and thought I share it with ya"ll


Concerns Arise Over Law Allowing Drivers To Carry Guns Without Permit

More Texas drivers could be packing heat since the passage of a state law allows drivers to carry concealed handguns without a permit.

The law, also called the Carjacking Law, is the result of two bills passed in the Texas House and Senate.

Senate Bill 378, also known as the Castle Doctrine, expanded areas where people could use deadly force to protect themselves to include their automobiles.

House Bill 1815 eliminated most penalties against a person caught with a concealed weapon in their vehicles.

A person cannot have a criminal record or be engaged in criminal activity. Also, a person cannot be a gang member, but there are questions as to how that could be defined.

"By state law that would be somebody wearing the same colors, giving the same symbol, they could be considered a gang," said Austin gun shop owner Jim Kent. "The problem with people having a handgun in their vehicle too, as I see it, they're not responsible with a handgun to leave in the vehicle. They won't secure it, in other words lock it down or hide it."

Kent is not the only person who said the law is flawed. State Rep. Dawnna Dukes voted against it.

"Prosecutors felt it would make it easier for defendants to beat a murder rap, in some cases impossible to convict cases involving a wrongful death, mistaken identity or gang members, who might use the defense as justification to shoot an alleged attacker," Dukes said.

Kent said he does not agree with those who said the bill allows drivers to protect themselves.

"Most people would not be on their toes enough to prevent a carjacking," Kent said. "With a gun in the vehicle, where they might keep it, you know they'd be done and over before they realized they'd been carjacked, and the carjacker would probably drive off with their gun in the vehicle."

Another concern for opponents is people caught carrying a concealed weapon in a parking lot. A loophole could allow people to claim they are transporting the gun from their house to their car.

Doc

You would think a gun shop owner would be a little more pro-gun.

"The problem with people having a handgun in their vehicle too, as I see it, they're not responsible with a handgun to leave in the vehicle. They won't secure it, in other words lock it down or hide it."

Or maybe he just wants to sell more safes?

Mike you have a good point, I think most folks secure there guns in there cars. But I could be wrong also .

Doc

Mike1951 wrote:You would think a gun shop owner would be a little more pro-gun.

Maybe he was, and that was just the quote they decided to use?

The guy the article quotes is the owner/operator of the Cost Plus 10 gun store off of Burnet Road. Does anybody here actually know him? It'd be nice to know what he actually said.

jwp wrote:The guy the article quotes is the owner/operator of the Cost Plus 10 gun store off of Burnet Road. Does anybody here actually know him? It'd be nice to know what he actually said.

No I don't, but I can ask a larger audience. Is there a link to that story or is it just an email report? I would assume a statesman article based on the Cost Plus 10% gun store owner being interviewed.

This is a link to a version of it: http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=7758367&nav=0s3d

It appears to be identical to what was quoted above.

- Jim

"Kent is not the only person who said the law is flawed. State Rep. Dawnna Dukes voted against it.

"Prosecutors felt it would make it easier for defendants to beat a murder rap, in some cases impossible to convict cases involving a wrongful death, mistaken identity or gang members, who might use the defense as justification to shoot an alleged attacker," Dukes said."

So... I thought MAYBE this is an article which may attempt to broaden the analysis of the "no need to justify traveling" modification. By printing quotes like the one above, it just seems to be another misleading Castle Doctrine bashing. Why not call it the "shoot 'em in the back ask questions later law" like some other pinheads do!

I read the quote taken from the article above and do not see how this lends any journalistic support to the supposed topic. To even think that carrying in your vehicle is a justifiable defense against shooting someone does not make sense. Now I think I know what they are trying to do here. They are giving the article a less than emotionally charged headline and proceeding to lace it with less than stellar journalism to accomplish the affect it obviously has on me! I knew it! They are after me!

The newly elected Dallas County District Attorney does not like car-carry and he has said he will mount a campaign to repeal it in 2009. This is probably just priming the pump and trying to get the public energized to support him in the next legislative session.

As a side note, this same DA supported the Castle Doctrine bill and drew a lot of heat from other DAs.

Chas.

Yep, it appears that last weekend's articles appearing at the same time in major newspapers around the state could be more than just coincidental ...

What confuses me is that all of the conversation has to do with having a handgun in your car. Protection from car jacking is not the only reason one would transport the weapon. I as many of you carried a handgun in my vehicle when traveling for many reasons long before CHL. Staying in hotels while traveling, protection if I was to breakdown on some of our roads, and camping trips just to name a few. The law was changed in order to make it legal for law abiding citizens to transport a handgun. Before this change transporting to the gun range could have been determined illegal.

I am really not sure if the change really increased the number of those having firearms in their vehicles. I am fairly certain that the gang bangers did not meet at the clubhouse and pass out the pistols since know it is legal.

"The problem with people having a handgun in their vehicle too, as I see it, they're not responsible with a handgun to leave in the vehicle. They won't secure it, in other words lock it down or hide it."

The SHOULDN"T be responsible for that. A criminal is not supposed to break into your car.
Not that I won't hide my gun or lock it in a glove box if I am able but that's just because I don't want my gun stolen.

A criminal is going to kill somebody gun or no gun. A criminal can get a gun off the black market. In fact, a good enough criminal could even get past a glove box or even as safe.

Sheer nonsense.

"Prosecutors felt it would make it easier for defendants to beat a murder rap, in some cases impossible to convict cases involving a wrongful death, mistaken identity or gang members, who might use the defense as justification to shoot an alleged attacker," Dukes said.

So, what. That's part of the risk of having a free society where people have the RTKBA, the right to trial by jury, the right to face their accusor. The alternative is to ban RTKBA and leave people defenseless all for the convinence of a DA or a peace officer.

Kent said he does not agree with those who said the bill allows drivers to protect themselves.

"Most people would not be on their toes enough to prevent a carjacking," Kent said. "With a gun in the vehicle, where they might keep it, you know they'd be done and over before they realized they'd been carjacked, and the carjacker would probably drive off with their gun in the vehicle."

Who is he to say that? So people would have a better chance of preventing a car jacking if they were UNARMED?
Besides, there have been PLENTY of cases where carjacking's HAVE been prevented by a gun.

Another concern for opponents is people caught carrying a concealed weapon in a parking lot. A loophole could allow people to claim they are transporting the gun from their house to their car.

Yes...if your goal is to have people arrested because they have guns. Again, that's part of living in a free society.

What's with this asking all these Austin flakes? They aren't real Texas anyway.

This one will have you scratching your heads. I had a police officer at the house last night, he is dating my daughter. I asked him how the law was being enforced within HPD and the DA's office since we all know Chuckie's Code is what gets enforced regardless of the Penal Code provisions. The officer recounted 2 recent cases he had knowledge of. In case 1 the subject is pulled over, is not a chl holder and is asked by the officer to step out of the car, at which point it is discovered the subject is carrying concealed, remember he exited at the request of the officer, told him he was carrying, the officer called the HCDA and they accepted CCW against the subject.

Case 2 the officer I know was personally involved in, dispatched to an accident scene, he arrives and another unit is already on scene, and request him to cuff the other driver on suspicion of DWI. The officer recoginizes the suspect as a gang member, goes to frisk him and the suspect reaches for a weapon, the suspect is restrained without further incident. The officer calls HCDA who state they will not accept the weapons charge. Keep in mind, he is known by the officer to be a gang member and is intoxicated. Go figure.
Hopefully the next DA will instill some consistency and common sense into the office. I rememeber when Ol Chuckie was a night shift ADA working the intake desk. Lots of truth in the saying, some things never change.

I don't live down that way.....thank God! How much longer is Chuckie going to be in that office?

dac1842 wrote:the officer I know was personally involved in, dispatched to an accident scene, he arrives and another unit is already on scene, and request him to cuff the other driver on suspicion of DWI. The officer recoginizes the suspect as a gang member, goes to frisk him and the suspect reaches for a weapon, the suspect is restrained without further incident. The officer calls HCDA who state they will not accept the weapons charge. Keep in mind, he is known by the officer to be a gang member and is intoxicated. Go figure.

This is really disgusting. I can't find a "barf smilie."