House approves deadly force bill, sends to governor

[Stupid]

The civil lawsuit part is what i am interested in.

[135boomer]

It should become law as soon as the Governor signs it. No good reason to wait until Sept.

[stash]

I thought I heard on the radio within the last day or so that this one would become law after the governor signs it. Anyone hear that?

[longtooth]

I sure do hope so. That would send as good a message as the margin of victory.

[jimlongley]

Unfortunately, the last line of the bill reads:

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[longtooth]

[seamusTX]

It should become law as soon as the Governor signs it. No good reason to wait until Sept.

Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 39:

No law passed by the Legislature, except the general appropriation act, shall take effect or go into force until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was enacted, unless ...

The "unless" is a supermajority of both houses, rarely done. It takes time for state government departments, district attorneys, and courts to digest changes in the law.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

It should become law as soon as the Governor signs it. No good reason to wait until Sept.

Yabbut... that's the way laws work.

[Bubba]

barbered or electrical?

He also said he supported a fence on the border.

BOTH I HOPE !

and all the warning signs should be in ENGLISH only !!!!!!

[stevie_d_64]

I believe the tables of justice just tilted back in favor of the law abiding members of society! Just as the signers of the Declaration of Independence intended 231 years ago.

We might be tilting back that way, but we won't be there until this is the law of the land:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
--L. Neil Smith, "The Atlanta Declaration"

Mr. Smith is a wise man...

[Armybrat]

The Austin American Statesman has trotted out the old "We are returning to the days of the Wild West" hysteria:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html

EDITORIAL

Gun bill encourages violent confrontations
EDITORIAL BOARD
Click-2-Listen
Friday, March 23, 2007

Let's just call it a license to kill.

Gov. Rick Perry would be wise to side with Texas prosecutors and veto Senate Bill 378 that permits any citizen who feels threatened by someone to shoot that person instead of walking away from a confrontation.

The bill, whose sponsors include state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, and Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, sailed through the House and Senate despite well-grounded opposition from Texas district attorneys. Prosecutors questioned the need for the bill, calling it a solution in search of a problem. Prosecutors also noted that the legislation would make it more difficult to convict violent criminals.

"You could be giving a new legal defense to criminals," warned Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.

Prosecutors correctly noted that current law — which permits the use of deadly force to repel aggressors in some very specific instances — provides the right balance and protections. Senate Bill 378 extends the "castle doctrine" beyond homes to include occupied vehicles, the workplace and, as the bill stipulates, to any place a person has a right to be. Got that?

To be blunt, the bill gives cover to those who shoot rather than retreat or call 911 by giving them a legal presumption of self-defense. Further, the bill provides shooters self-defense protection in civil cases.

That sounds terrific, but Kepple predicts that criminals are the most likely to exploit that provision. A gang member who shoots and kills a person approaching his car can claim that he felt threatened by the approach because the other guy was wearing the colors of a rival gang.

What happens when someone shoots and kills a person whom they believe to be a threat but isn't? A gun-toting motorist can fire away at a panhandler approaching his car with impunity by arguing that he felt threatened by the beggar. Never mind that the shooter could just drive away or roll up a window. The bill, however, would make it difficult to hold a shooter accountable if the shooting was an overreaction or an act of malice.

Bill sponsors say the legislation includes safeguards to limit the new defense to law-abiding citizens by stipulating that a person using deadly force cannot have provoked the other person and cannot be committing a crime. Citizens must also have a legal right to be where the shooting occurs.

"I think Texas victims should be protected against lawsuits and should be able to protect themselves when they're attacked," Rose told us. "There shouldn't be a penalty for defending yourself in Texas."

Unfortunately, the law is written so broadly that it will apply to victims and thugs alike. Moreover, if you are the victim of someone's mistake, haste or prejudice, that's just tough.

There is another bad bill working its way through the Senate. Senate Bill 534 would prevent employers from disciplining employees who keep concealed weapons locked in their vehicles in company parking lots. Instead of making things safer, the bill puts more people in harm's way.

Frankly, both bills encourage a return to a wild West mentality. We urge the governor to listen to prosecutors and veto the gun bill voted out of the House and Senate already. Should the parking lot bill make it to his desk, Perry should veto that one, too.

[Venus Pax]

The papers were predicting a bloodbath once the CHLs were issued. Apparently, we've disappointed them.

[longtooth]

yep & theyll be disappointed this time too.

[jimlongley]

Sent my letter to 'em.

[Show Killer]

The papers were predicting a bloodbath once the CHLs were issued. Apparently, we've disappointed them.

They were also predicting a blood bath when the Klinton Gun Ban expired. When will they ever learn?