Why is it easy to determine...

[stevie_d_64]

...all of the details so far released to the media in this story...

http://www.click2houston.com/news/5114998/detail.html

Yet, so hard to determine, yet acceptable, to muddy the waters on the ONE issue that would be tremendously easy to figure out...

I actually have theory that this guy (homeowner) doesn't have a CHL...

But whats funny, is if you watch the actual broadcast this morning...

The reporter was clear to point out that they were not sure if the homeowner had a "permit on the gun"...


and

:x

[stevie_d_64]

If you have time to watch the video, then see the write up in the story, you may see the disparity...

It amazing how "one" word can change the entire personality of the incident...

[txgho1911]

If the homeowner is on his own property exiting a vehicle. What is there to bar him from having a pistol with him? I would understand there is nothing illegal in that.

[yerasimos]

If the homeowner is on his own property exiting a vehicle. What is there to bar him from having a pistol with him? I would understand there is nothing illegal in that.

Someone looking to crucify the guy would raise the issue of his possession of the handgun within his car prior to his arrival in his driveway. (IE, why didn't he have a so-called "permit"?) However, if he met all of the criteria in HB 823, then he might be a ready-made test case for that DA in Harris County who wants to indict people who claim the "traveling" exemption.

As an aside, I wish the people writing these stories would wrap their minds around the concept that, in the state of Texas, you do not need a PERMIT to possess a HANDGUN. A Concealed Handgun LICENSE is required for a defense from prosecution under state laws prohibiting CARRY of handguns in public. I infer from the writer's usage that the writer of the click2houston.com story is a transplant from a place like NJ or NY, and generally ignorant of firearms and laws pertaining to them. (Though I guess I am stating the obvious on that last point!)

[txinvestigator]

As an aside, I wish the people writing these stories would wrap their minds around the concept that, in the state of Texas, you do not need a PERMIT to possess a HANDGUN. A Concealed Handgun LICENSE is required for a defense from prosecution under state laws prohibiting CARRY of handguns in public.

The phrase is a "defense TO prosecution", and it has nothing to do with a Concealed Handgun License. Having a license and being in compliance fall under NON-APPLICABILITY.

TPC 46.15 makes UCW not apply to those with a CHL and following the CHL laws.

And Texas state laws do not make a difference from Public and non-public carry.




§46.02. Unlawful carrying weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun,
illegal knife, or club.




§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;

[jimlongley]

As an aside, I wish the people writing these stories would wrap their minds around the concept that, in the state of Texas, you do not need a PERMIT to possess a HANDGUN. A Concealed Handgun LICENSE is required for a defense from prosecution under state laws prohibiting CARRY of handguns in public. I infer from the writer's usage that the writer of the click2houston.com story is a transplant from a place like NJ or NY, and generally ignorant of firearms and laws pertaining to them. (Though I guess I am stating the obvious on that last point!)

Pretty much what I said in my email to them commenting on the story. I don't expect a reply or publication, it's usually not good form to call the "reporter" "uninformed."

Where in upstate NY?

[KBCraig]

My favorite line:

"The homeowner fired, striking the suspect in the garbage can several times."

He hit him in the WHAT????

[stevie_d_64]

"Defence to the prosecution"...

Now there's a statement that strikes a chord...

Under the statute 9.32 (or somewhere near there) you'd think that the time, place and method you choose to defend yourself (i.e.: self-defence) against a felonious attack against yourself or another, would never be an issue...

That the CHL law that "protects" you from prosecution for carrying a "gun" in public would just be window-dressing...Even though that laws intent is to allow, and encourage people to get the "instruction" on the law regarding the use of force and deadly force in response to those types of attacks or situation...

Notice I said "instruction", I did not say "training"...Thats totally different...

We who have this license, carry, knowing our strengths and weaknesses...We discuss, and debate all sorts of issues in relation to the carrying of a firearm for lawful defensive purposes...We understand that we are (for a certain number of us) are not Law Enforcement, therefore we understand our capacity or station in this matter...We rarely find people who have these licenses who actually go out looking for trouble...Those people are not long for the ride on those licences...

Maybe I'm just going off again (as usual)...But regardless of the legality of this incident, the bottom line is that that individual apparently defended themselves against a legitimate threat of deadly force...And they won that battle...

Now the battle is that that person is going before the Grand Jury, charges unknown and unreported (thanks MSM!!! You guys are the best! /sarcasm)...

If he is "no billed", that should be the end of it...Or will it??? We'll never hear about that...

I'm just once again, not surprised with the lack of clarifying information and the inaccuracies of the information reported...

Not that we can't read between the lines...I've gotten pretty good at that...

[yerasimos]

As an aside, I wish the people writing these stories would wrap their minds around the concept that, in the state of Texas, you do not need a PERMIT to possess a HANDGUN. A Concealed Handgun LICENSE is required for a defense from prosecution under state laws prohibiting CARRY of handguns in public.

The phrase is a "defense TO prosecution", and it has nothing to do with a Concealed Handgun License. Having a license and being in compliance fall under NON-APPLICABILITY.

TPC 46.15 makes UCW not apply to those with a CHL and following the CHL laws.

You knew exactly what I was saying, and stated it more exactingly than I did. Well done.

And Texas state laws do not make a difference from Public and non-public carry.

Ie, no carry in a county courtroom, nor in a privately-owned, 51%+ bar? Or are you implying something broader?