TexasCHLforum.com

I guess if it was, you probably don't feel like posting right now. But it makes me wonder....
----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 06875.html

March 7, 2006, 1:32PM
A Houston homeowner fatally shoots suspected robber


Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Police are questioning a southeast Houston man who fatally shot a suspected robber early Tuesday during an apparent home invasion.

The homeowner, who was not injured, found two armed men dressed in black about 3:30 a.m. after pulling into the garage of the house in the 9500 block of Almeda Pines.

The accused robbers forced open the back door and began shooting at the homeowner in the living room. He returned fire, police said, fatally striking one of the men who collapsed and died in the back yard.

The other man fled the scene. Police said the homeowner is licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

+1 for the Good Guys.

Scott Murray wrote:Police said the homeowner is licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

While it's nice that he is a CHL (meaning a certified good guy), it would have been good for the reporter to point out that no license is needed in your living room.

Kevin

Scott Murray wrote: The accused robbers forced open the back door and began shooting at the homeowner in the living room. He returned fire, police said, fatally striking one of the men who collapsed and died in the back yard.

I like how they say "accused" robbers. They are standing in the living room of someones house shooting at them and they are "accused". Sounds to me like they are downright guilty, not "accused".

+100 showkiller

isa268 wrote:+1 for the Good Guys.

+1 to that!

KBCraig wrote:

Scott Murray wrote:Police said the homeowner is licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

While it's nice that he is a CHL (meaning a certified good guy), it would have been good for the reporter to point out that no license is needed in your living room.

Kevin

Bingo!

+1 to everything said.

yup...

insert standard plus one

Another article:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/7776236/detail.html

"Police: Intruder Fatally Shot Breaking Into Home
Officers Looking For Surviving Home Intrusion Accomplice

POSTED: 9:22 am CST March 7, 2006
UPDATED: 12:15 pm CST March 7, 2006

HOUSTON -- A man trying to break into a southeast Houston home was fatally shot Tuesday morning, police told KPRC Local 2.

The shooting happened shortly before 5 a.m. on Almeda Pines Drive and Easthaven Boulevard near Hobby Airport.

Investigators with the Houston Police Department said the homeowner shot and killed the intruder, who died from gunshot wounds to his head and back.

The man told police that he fired his gun to protect himself from the intruder. His wife and two kids were not at home when the shooting occurred.

Police took the homeowner into custody but have not said if he would face any charges. They told KPRC Local 2 that the homeowner did the right thing by shooting the suspect.

Officers are looking for another man who they believe was with the intruder but jumped over a fence to escape.

No other injuries were reported."

I think its bull they took him into custody.

A shooting in the WalMart parking lot...ok I can see that.

Shooting armed intruders in my own home is a little different.

In this setting I would expect to be taken in custody to start the investigation and the BG's are still suspect's in the begining of the investigation, they haven't been charged with or convicted of anything yet.

SJRTX wrote:
Shooting armed intruders in my own home is a little different.

Maybe the shooter was a convicted felon and was breaking the law by having a firearm. Protecting himself in his own home would still be a crime in this situation.

Maybe the gun used was stolen or had the serial number ground off.

Maybe there was 100lbs of marijuana on the kitchen table.

I can think of a few instances where taking him into custody would happen.

HighVelocity:

"Maybe the shooter was a convicted felon and was breaking the law by having a firearm. Protecting himself in his own home would still be a crime in this situation."

First, the first article mentioned that the homeowner had a CHL, so I doubt he was a convicted felon (but I certainly could be wrong). I'm not debating at all, as you have some very valid points, but in reading the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws 2005-2006 in preparation for taking the CHL class, I would like some clarification if I've misunderstood some of the things I remember reading. I don't have the text in front of me, but I think it went something like this...

A convicted felon, unless their crimes were of a violent nature or other reason to be legally denied, has a right to, after 5 years after their release from supervision (parole or probation, or prison if no parole or probation is mandated after release), are legally allowed to have a gun in their home for self-defense. This does NOT give the felon a right to carry the weapon outside of their home, which would be illegal.

As indicated in my sig, I'm don't have a CHL yet so there's plenty I don't know, but want to make sure that when my wife and I take the class (hopefully April 15th), we'll be ready to pass with flying colors. Therefore, all corrections and comments are welcome!

Thanks!

sparx wrote: A convicted felon, unless their crimes were of a violent nature or other reason to be legally denied, has a right to, after 5 years after their release from supervision (parole or probation, or prison if no parole or probation is mandated after release), are legally allowed to have a gun in their home for self-defense. This does NOT give the felon a right to carry the weapon outside of their home, which would be illegal.

Time for me to insert my standard "don't try this at home!" warning.

Relying on any state's relaxation of restrictions can earn a former felon 5+ years in federal prison. It doesn't matter what the state law says, and it doesn't matter if it was a state crime with no federal counterpart. It doesn't matter if the felon served more than 1 year, or no time at all. As far as the feds are concerned, anyone convicted of a crime for which the maximum punishment could be 1 year incarceration or more, is forever barred from possessing any firearms or ammunition.

The feds can, and do, prosecute for this, even in cases where the actor is in complete compliance with state laws. One of the disturbing criteria they sometimes use is "constructive possession", meaning not in actual possession, but knowing where they can have unrestriced access. Such as, a relative having unsecured guns and the felon having access to that house.

I do not defend these prosecutions, but they happen.

But back to the original story: the homeowner was reported as licensed, so felony background shouldn't be involved. I can also imagine where "voluntarily went to the station for questioning" can be mis-reported as "taken into custody".

Reporters seldom check facts as if their own reputation was at stake.

Kevin