TexasCHLforum.com

This is to Charles Cotton or anyone who is familiar with the subject.

I am not a lawyer but I did work for one of the largest firms in Dallas for a few years back in the seventies and my duties taught me a few things. How can we research specific case law dealing with chl issues? Where can we look up these cases? I would like to study the more insignificant cases in addition to landmark and precedent cases. I would like to be able to be able to read the full case report if possible.

I and most people do not have access to Nexis and most court house libraries require that you be a lawyer. Maybe there are web sites with case info.

Any help would be appreciated.

tex

The issue is there is little to no case law on CHL holders because of their adherence to the law. Those who have their CHL revoked do so because of some other incident not related to carrying.

The only real CHL case I am aware of is the McDermott case from 2005 where he was convicted on 46.035 during a road rage incident. Here is a link to discussion by Charles viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262&sid=e31d6f746f ... 77c#p11031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The other one is a couple of posts down the topic, but I am not familiar with it.

Bottom line, CHL holders are a very law abiding bunch and they don't get into trouble.

Keith is correct. There's next to no caselaw out there to be read.

You can try this site - http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=C ... tate=texas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The easiest. although incomplete, way for most people to find case law seems to be through Google Scholar( searching only Texas cases). Alternatively, you can usually access Nexis through many county law libraries without being a lawyer. Of course, just finding the cases isn't the same as understanding their legal weight or import.

Some interesting case law that is at least tangentially related to CHL/weapons:
1. As far as I know, there are four cases dealing with 46.035, two dealing with failure to conceal and two dealing with carry while intoxicated.
2. The only case that I am aware of for 30.06 (issued earlier this year) did not address the argued question of whether or not the lack of Spanish rendered a sign invalid because the case was reversed on jurisdictional issues.
3. Although there is a lot of use of force case law, the most interesting set of cases seems to be those that a blow or blows to the face are not considered deadly force.
4. There are a pair of cases on how the blade of a knife is to measured for unlawful carry of a weapon charges (everything past the hilt or guard, not just the sharpened area).
5. A lot of the case law dealing with 46.03 has been superseded by changes to the definitions, especially regarding premises.

If there is anything you are looking for in particular send me a pm and I'll see if I can send it to you.

The only way to really get to a practical 'bottom' of the subject of the definition of 'conspicuous' as it relates to signage posting is to find previous determinations in prior cases where the 'conspicuous' became a point of argument that had to be resolved. It can be in chl cases (the best to hope for) or cases where similar requirements were factors in the Texas cases. For example, a case where a foreclosure had to be posted 'conspicuously' for 60 days. Or, a parcel being auctioned had to be posted by signage posted 'conspicuously' prior to the event. If these points became arguable and were decided upon as part of the course of the case then they could be used as a precedent in any defense in a chl case where the conspicuousness of a sign posting was a factor.

At the very least we would have a better understanding of the ambiguously used term in 30.06.

tex

There's next to nothing.

Keith B wrote:The issue is there is little to no case law on CHL holders because of their adherence to the law. Those who have their CHL revoked do so because of some other incident not related to carrying.

The only real CHL case I am aware of is the McDermott case from 2005 where he was convicted on 46.035 during a road rage incident. Here is a link to discussion by Charles viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262&sid=e31d6f746f ... 77c#p11031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The other one is a couple of posts down the topic, but I am not familiar with it.

Bottom line, CHL holders are a very law abiding bunch and they don't get into trouble.

In the case of McDermott, would SB299 made a large difference in the outcome? I seem to remember such a post by Charles indicating this is why SB299 is such a huge win.

2firfun50 wrote:

Keith B wrote:The issue is there is little to no case law on CHL holders because of their adherence to the law. Those who have their CHL revoked do so because of some other incident not related to carrying.

The only real CHL case I am aware of is the McDermott case from 2005 where he was convicted on 46.035 during a road rage incident. Here is a link to discussion by Charles viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1262&sid=e31d6f746f ... 77c#p11031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The other one is a couple of posts down the topic, but I am not familiar with it.

Bottom line, CHL holders are a very law abiding bunch and they don't get into trouble.

In the case of McDermott, would SB299 made a large difference in the outcome? I seem to remember such a post by Charles indicating this is why SB299 is such a huge win.

Yes. That is the big gain in SB299. It now states 'use of force', not just use of deadly force'. So in the case of McDermott use of force was justified and him having his pistol out could have been deemed legal.

I'm no expert on the case by any means, but as I see it and have heard he really shouldn't have gotten convicted, but his defense botched the case. They could have brought up TPC 9.04 as a defense but didn't do it apparently.