First Time to Pull My Gun

[SouthEndXGF]

I carry a flashlight in one hand and the dog leash in the other, I don't have another hand for a club.

A 3 D-cell or 4 D-cell MagLite can serve double duty as both flashlight and club, if need be. It will also survive being dropped or thrown, if you need to free a hand for any reason.

As mentioned, OC spray can be a very effective deterrent if you can hit the dog where he's not protected by fur, i.e. nose leather, eyes, mouth, inside of ears.

Glad it turned out OK for you and your dog. You handled it well, IMO.

i agree with this statement. I have a 4 D-cell Mag light that was purchased with the intent of being able to use it in a nighttime defense situation. I should start carrying it with me on evening walks with my dog.

[marksiwel]

I wish we could just legally carry a collapsible baton

[dicion]

Best thing about the flashlight is that it is not a "club" in the illegal weapon sense.....I keep one in the door of my truck for just that reason.

It has always bothered me with a CHL I can carry and use a handgun (Read deadly force here) in my defense yet if I carry the police ASP Baton, I am breaking the law. As a cyclist, dogs and drunks always give me concern. I would like to have the option to use less lethal force if possible.

The Idea of the pitbull going after me or one of my dogs may very well end up with the use of my gun (one of the reasons I carry) but in the case of the OP here, a concealable baton could be the first line of defense and possibly keep from using my gun on a residential street....The dog might also recognize the "stick" and back off as well.

Technically legally carrying a handgun under the authority of a CHL makes the entirety of 42.02 not apply to you. Including the part about Illegal clubs, knives, etc
Don't believe me? read it yourself:

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;

§46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

blah blah blah

Now, how this would pan out in court? No Clue. No Test cases that I know of... I'm just pointing out the technicality

[marksiwel]

Best thing about the flashlight is that it is not a "club" in the illegal weapon sense.....I keep one in the door of my truck for just that reason.

It has always bothered me with a CHL I can carry and use a handgun (Read deadly force here) in my defense yet if I carry the police ASP Baton, I am breaking the law. As a cyclist, dogs and drunks always give me concern. I would like to have the option to use less lethal force if possible.

The Idea of the pitbull going after me or one of my dogs may very well end up with the use of my gun (one of the reasons I carry) but in the case of the OP here, a concealable baton could be the first line of defense and possibly keep from using my gun on a residential street....The dog might also recognize the "stick" and back off as well.

Technically legally carrying a handgun under the authority of a CHL makes the entirety of 42.02 not apply to you. Including the part about Illegal clubs, knives, etc
Don't believe me? read it yourself:

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;

§46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

blah blah blah

Now, how this would pan out in court? No Clue. No Test cases that I know of... I'm just pointing out the technicality

(Response from Mark's wife, a Texas law student, who has spent much time studying the Texas Penal Code)Technically this statute is accurate and verbatim. Unfortunately, it was read incorrectly. The statute only applies to the concealed handgun as it specifically references a person "carrying a concealed handgun." If it applied to all weapons in 46.02, it would say that it didn't apply to anyone carrying an unlawful weapon and licensed to carry concealed. The reference to the gun means that the statute only applies to the gun. I suppose that to be absolutely certain, I could check relevant case law, but if I were you, I really wouldn't take the risk that any judge would deviate from the plain meaning of the statute provided by the specific mention of a concealed handgun.

[dicion]

(Response from Mark's wife, a Texas law student, who has spent much time studying the Texas Penal Code)Technically this statute is accurate and verbatim. Unfortunately, it was read incorrectly. The statute only applies to the concealed handgun as it specifically references a person "carrying a concealed handgun." If it applied to all weapons in 46.02, it would say that it didn't apply to anyone carrying an unlawful weapon and licensed to carry concealed. The reference to the gun means that the statute only applies to the gun. I suppose that to be absolutely certain, I could check relevant case law, but if I were you, I really wouldn't take the risk that any judge would deviate from the plain meaning of the statute provided by the specific mention of a concealed handgun.

I don't know.. I would think they would change it to something along the lines of "This section does not apply to a person carrying a handgun who:" Or something more specifically referencing the handgun only, But rather, it says it does not apply to the person in general, who meets certain criteria. I believe the handgun and license are only 'criteria' to meet, to be exempted wholly.

The thing is, if you read ALL of 46.15, that is the ONLY statement that would only exempt only a specific item.
All the rest are general "Whole" 46.02 exemptions.. Even every other number under subsection (b).
All the other ones just set criteria to meet in subsections under (b). They do not specify certain weapons.
So, along with everything else in the entire 46.15 exempting the Whole of 46.02, that one doesn't fit with the rest if it only exempts the one item, the handgun.

I am not well versed in the rules of statutory construction, but I once read something from Charles that said that it's required that they be read as to give meaning to every provision. Eg, they all make sense if they all are 'general' exemptions together under (b), however, it does not make sense for them all to be general exemptions... except for one.

Then again, IANAL, and I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.. So I'll hold off on walking through Wal-Mart with a Katana... for now :)

[marksiwel]

(Response from Mark's wife, a Texas law student, who has spent much time studying the Texas Penal Code)Technically this statute is accurate and verbatim. Unfortunately, it was read incorrectly. The statute only applies to the concealed handgun as it specifically references a person "carrying a concealed handgun." If it applied to all weapons in 46.02, it would say that it didn't apply to anyone carrying an unlawful weapon and licensed to carry concealed. The reference to the gun means that the statute only applies to the gun. I suppose that to be absolutely certain, I could check relevant case law, but if I were you, I really wouldn't take the risk that any judge would deviate from the plain meaning of the statute provided by the specific mention of a concealed handgun.

I don't know.. I would think they would change it to something along the lines of "This section does not apply to a person carrying a handgun who:" But rather, it says it does not apply to the person in general, who meets certain criteria.

The thing is, if you read ALL of 46.15, that is the ONLY statement that would only exempt only a specific item.
All the rest are general "Whole" 46.02 exemptions.. Even every other number under subsection (b).
All the other ones just set criteria to meet in subsections under (b). They do not specify certain weapons.
So, along with everything else in the entire 46.15 exempting the Whole of 46.02, that one doesn't fit with the rest if it only exempts the one item, the handgun.

I am not well versed in the rules of statutory construction, but I once read something from Charles that said that it's required that they be read as to give meaning to every provision. Eg, they all make sense if they all are 'general' exemptions together under (b), however, it does not make sense for them all to be general exemptions... except for one.

Then again, IANAL, and I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.. So I'll hold off on walking through Wal-Mart with a Katana... for now :)

Other provisions in 46.15 do specifically only apply to certain weapons, but they do actually point that out with better wording. I see what you're saying, but none of the other provisions under subsection (b) reference a specific one of the weapons that must be carried (the others refer only to the "weapon"), which distinguishes the (6) exception from the others. Also, it would seem odd for them to require you to carry the gun in order to carry other weapons, too. I looked at some commentary regarding the legislation that distinguished the applicability to a peace officer and to a CHL holder. It said that the statute in its entirety did not apply to peace officers and that the provision regarding handguns did not apply to CHL holders. I was unable to find any case law that spelled this out. Unfortunately, most of the cases regarding unlawful carrying of a weapon discuss the traveling provision. To me, it sort of seems that the legislature added in the CHL provision sloppily after the rest of the statute was written. I don't have historical evidence to back me up on this, it's just intuition based on the wording. The only way to know what it means for sure is to get it up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and see how they read it. I think that if you want to test it out, you can probably find an adventurous lawyer willing to take on the fight, but it's not a risk that I would recommend taking.

[flintknapper]

All in all... the event turned out pretty well and I applaud the person who posted this... for his ability to "think on his feet" and the restraint that was shown.

Pepper spray can have varying effects on dogs....but is generally a good idea.

For those considering one of the big "Mag-Lites", I would advise against it. They are big, heavy and hard to wield effectively. At best... they constitute a very short range...blugeoning tool. Dogs are excellent at spotting and grabbing anything that is moving next to their head. A flashlight puts you much too close to the "action" IMO.

Instead, I would keep a small tactical light and opt for a good walking cane. A cane can be swung with great force, is not heavy and can be used in a variety of ways to defend yourself and your dog. The extra distance it affords....could prove invaluable.

If necessary, you can use the hook/crook to restrain your own animal...or possibly to pull another dog off of yours. In any case, its a much more versatile tool than a flashlight when walking a dog.

Flint.

[dicion]

Other provisions in 46.15 do specifically only apply to certain weapons, but they do actually point that out with better wording. I see what you're saying, but none of the other provisions under subsection (b) reference a specific one of the weapons that must be carried (the others refer only to the "weapon"), which distinguishes the (6) exception from the others. Also, it would seem odd for them to require you to carry the gun in order to carry other weapons, too. I looked at some commentary regarding the legislation that distinguished the applicability to a peace officer and to a CHL holder. It said that the statute in its entirety did not apply to peace officers and that the provision regarding handguns did not apply to CHL holders. I was unable to find any case law that spelled this out. Unfortunately, most of the cases regarding unlawful carrying of a weapon discuss the traveling provision. To me, it sort of seems that the legislature added in the CHL provision sloppily after the rest of the statute was written. I don't have historical evidence to back me up on this, it's just intuition based on the wording. The only way to know what it means for sure is to get it up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and see how they read it. I think that if you want to test it out, you can probably find an adventurous lawyer willing to take on the fight, but it's not a risk that I would recommend taking.

It's definitely quite complicated, and no, I really don't feel like taking it to the court of appeals anytime soon, myself
However, if a case like this ever Did go there, I would be following it intently

[drjoker]

I know shooting the dog would have created all kinds of problems for me and it was the last thing I wanted to do,

I am curious as to why you wrote this part. I may be overanalyzing, but the part of "all kinds of problems", do you think that you would have went to jail/ got sued, etc.???

Just google Harold Fish. Heck, use the search feature on this very forum and search for Harold Fish. Glad everything turned out o.k. for you.

be careful out there,

[marksiwel]

I know shooting the dog would have created all kinds of problems for me and it was the last thing I wanted to do,

I am curious as to why you wrote this part. I may be overanalyzing, but the part of "all kinds of problems", do you think that you would have went to jail/ got sued, etc.???

Just google Harold Fish. Heck, use the search feature on this very forum and search for Harold Fish. Glad everything turned out o.k. for you.

be careful out there,

It all turned out okay for Fish too, just a Bucket load of legal troubles, some time behind bars, and he helped change the States way of Trying people

[Elza]

The civil suit aspect is something that I'd be very concerned about. As for protecting your livestock, Texas law grants immunity against civil suit (thankfully). Such immunity is NOT given in the case of defence of humans or other property, AFAIK. Doesn't make sense to me, but that's the law.

§ 822.013. Dogs or Coyotes That Attack Animals
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
CREDIT(S)
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 822.033 and amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1002, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
[Sections 822.014 to 822.020 reserved for expansion]

However like all laws there are other codes that contradict this. It basically comes down to how good your lawyer is at convincing a judge or jury.

[stagalv]

So, are we legally allowed to carry pepper spray in Tx? What about an ASP type baton?

[dicion]

So, are we legally allowed to carry pepper spray in Tx? What about an ASP type baton?

In short:
Yes to the first, No to the second.

The second is prohibited under 46.02 as an 'illegal club' I believe.
However, Machetes are also just as prohibited under 'illegal knife' in the same section, but I've never seen any surveyors, etc who use them daily have a problem.

[marksiwel]

So, are we legally allowed to carry pepper spray in Tx? What about an ASP type baton?

and you also cant carry a taser in Dallas.

We need to rewrite the laws, so that we have a concealed WEAPON permit.

[dicion]

So, are we legally allowed to carry pepper spray in Tx? What about an ASP type baton?

and you also cant carry a taser in Dallas.

We need to rewrite the laws, so that we have a concealed WEAPON permit.

Or just rewrite them so no permit is needed