New Article: Another Law to Benefit Criminals

[Charles L. Cotton]

Another Law to Benefit Criminals
The risk of being a criminal should be shouldered by the criminal, not innocent Texans.

During the 2013 Texas Legislative Session, Sen. Royce West filed a bill that would have gutted the protections of SB378 that passed in 2007. It would have benefitted criminals at the extreme prejudice of law-abiding Texans. (See SB1349: A Criminal’s Dream Come True.) This session, Rep. Garnett Coleman has filed another bill that seeks to protect criminals from their own unlawful and violent acts. HB1627 would impose a retreat duty on the part of a would-be victim of a violent attack. It is painfully clear that Sen. West and Rep. Coleman care more about violent criminals than they do the honest Texans these predators wish to victimize.

Full article: https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jimd1981]

Thanks, Charles. Excellent background on duty to retreat! Correct link to full article: http://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/

[VMI77]

Despicable.

[misterlarry]

If I ever see these two dipsticks getting attacked by a violent criminal, I promise, I will retreat. Hopefully that puts them at ease.

[LDB415]

I too will retreat immediately the moment either of those bums are attacked. Worthless lousy bums.

[Jusme]

I know this is old news and the bill went nowhere during the last legislative session, but, I remember seeing this garbage legislation and it even required a duty to retreat in one's own home. It also put criminal penalties against someone for using deadly force against an attacker in the victim's home if it was determined the attacker was provoked. No definition of provoked was provided , so theoretically if a woman said something to her husband and he violently attacked her she could not legally protect herself. I sent countess letters and emails to my representatives as well as Governor Abbott opposing this bill.

I only bring this up because these are the type of things that are constantly brought up during legislative sessions that the left try to use to take away our rights. I know the majority of the members here are well informed on these issues, but I want to encourage everyone to be ever vigilant and spread the word to others who don't pay as much attention as we do.

Stepping down from soap box now. Headed to church to pray for our future as a nation.

[Bitter Clinger]

No shortage of morons!

[sjfcontrol]

Surely she didn't actually say that!

(And don't call me Shirley!)

[Oldgringo]

The problem is not the elected, the problem is the electorate. These particular buffoons, et al, do not elect themselves.

[The Annoyed Man]

No shortage of morons!

Surely she didn't actually say that!

(And don't call me Shirley!)

No, she didn't........ http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/feinstein.asp

Unfortunately for those who have since looked to determine the quote's veracity, the Palookaville Post site is now defunct, and the original article is therefore offline (save for archived versions).

Suffice it to say the Palookaville Post was a satirical site that published fake news, one example of which was the made-up story about Senators Feinstein and Boxer referenced above. Other examples of its work included articles claiming President Obama had granted himself a $100,000 pay raise and an Oklahoma teacher had been fired for praying when a tornado hit her school.

She has made other outrageous pronouncements, but this one did not happen.

[joe817]

TAM, thank you for setting the record straight. I hate stuff like this. Half truths help no one.

[Bitter Clinger]

TAM, thank you for setting the record straight. I hate stuff like this. Half truths help no one.

To me, Feinstein having said that is certainly believable. And in any event, I would expect one to be able to take a perspective that can include a grain of salt from time to time if called for...

Finally, while Snopes is a source, it is not the definitive end all / be all, no single man made source ever is...

[Dannyboy]

Not sure I understand. It' my understanding that for example, in my place of residence, in Texas, I have NO duty to retreat. Aren't I allowed to shoot someone who misdemeanor tresspasses, if I don't know them, and feel they are a threat?

[madwildcat]

Following Dannyboy's line of logic, it would seem to me that this kind of bill would contradict the whole "castle doctrine" concept. I am no legal scholar, but how exactly would both of these laws being on the books at the same time work? Or is the assumption that the new would just preempt that part of the old laws?

[Jusme]

Not sure I understand. It' my understanding that for example, in my place of residence, in Texas, I have NO duty to retreat. Aren't I allowed to shoot someone who misdemeanor tresspasses, if I don't know them, and feel they are a threat?

You are correct in Texas there is no duty to retreat in your home or anywhere you have a right to be. As far as being "allowed" to shoot someone you have the right to defend yourself or another person from serious bodily injury, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. I don't have the complete list in front of me, but basically you can defend yourself up to and including deadly force under these circumstances. But that does not imply "permission" to shoot someone. You will have to make that decision yourself, and be sure that you can defend your decision in court.