TexasCHLforum.com

Well, there is one flaw in your reasoning.

Feeling from the scene can and will be used against you as evidence of your consciousness of guilt. It will destroy your defense at trial.

The justice system will widely view a law-abiding citizen who calls 911 and claims he/she was the victim of a crime who was forced to defend him/herself much differently than a person who murdered and fled the scene.

Innuendo deleted

WildBill wrote:I believe that you are correct, and that the shooting would be justified. I also believe that the person could [and probably would] be charged for violating carrying in a 51% business. I don't know the why the person fled the bar, but if they find him his punishment will be worse than if he had stayed at the seen. I believe his identity will be discovered.

Yep, that is the Bernie Goetz scenario, the famous so-called "subway vigilante" case from 1984.

He shot and seriously wounded all 4 assailants in the New York subway. Mr. Goetz was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence.

In this situation, he is clearly justified to use deadly force during an armed robbery. However, he should not have had a gun with him in the bar, so I'd agree he is at risk of a conviction for possessing a firearm in a 51% premises.

Another similar example would be a convicted felon who shot someone trying to rob him. If the convicted felon (who cannot legally possess a firearm) was carrying a gun and used it to defend himself, he would still likely be charged and convicted for felon-in-possession but be acquitted for actually shooting. However, if the felon opportunistically made use of someone else's gun during the robbery to defend himself, then necessity should apply in acquitting him for "possessing" a firearm.

gringo pistolero wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 800877.php

Maybe the law needs to change.

There's no maybe about it. It should be obvious to anybody who thinks about it logically that 46.035 needs to go.

South Carlina, Tennessee, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina have all fairly recently enacted laws allowing concealed carry in bars. They join the other approximately 40 states that allow concealed carry where alcohol is being served.

When Ohio passed concealed carry in liquor establishments in 2011, there was the usual ranting and raving about "blood in the streets" and drunks were going to cause out of control shootings. The same kind of arguments that get advanced in every state before it passed concealed carry.

Just like there was no blood in the streets after concealed carry passed, in states where carrying in liquor establishments passed there was simply a big non-event -- no troubles associated with law-abiding concealed handgun licensees in bars.

In fact, after Virgina passed their law, the crime rate in bars dropped a little over 5%.

gljjt wrote: Designated drivers.

Have the right to self defense as well.

People in a bar need the God-given right to self defense restored, so long as they do not drink. I've been in bars to listen to live music on many occasions and I am a total non-drinker. I am not OK with drunk people carrying guns, but just because 51% of revenue comes from alcohol does not mean everyone in the place is a drunken fool.

I am also aware that there is no political consensus in Texas that agrees with my viewpoint.