Care to cite the law on that?austinrealtor wrote:Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION,
Search found 3 matches
Return to “State Employee says no 30.06 needed???”
- Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:28 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20792
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:51 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20792
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
ScottDLS wrote:There's about the same chance of getting successfully prosecuted for something for which you have statutory defense as there is for you to be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. I'm not saying it can't happen, and in each case you'll have to pay for your defense, but I'm not going to limit my activities based on something that might happen.
The same type of ignoramus who ignores 30.06 (c) (3) could just as easily do the same for 46.15 (b)
or 46.15 (a)
- Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:09 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20792
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
30.06 (c) (3)7075-T7 wrote:My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.