our new "Castle Doctrine"

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
daddySEAL
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Austin area

our new "Castle Doctrine"

#1

Post by daddySEAL » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:05 pm

I've been reading the actually law, as passed and signed into the law in the Texas Penal code. But I see nowhere in it's language that clarifies this.

I presume that your since your "Castle" (meaning your residence and your car when your are in it), just as in your house you do Not require a permit to use a hadgun to defend yourself and loved ones from intruding attackers who intend to cause you serious bodily injury or theft in your dwelling, that a CHL or other permit is not required either to carry a loaded handgun in your car glove box to defence yourself and loved ones in the car from forced attackers.

It that right for public citizens that are not CHL holders, as long as you don't leave the car?

dS
Last edited by daddySEAL on Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

Crossfire
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5364
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:27 am
Location: DFW
Contact:

#2

Post by Crossfire » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:06 pm

The "Castle Doctrine" really does not change anything that you have referred to here.

You have always had the right to keep a firearm in your home, whether you have a CHL, or not. You have also always had the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property in your home.

The "Motorist Protection Act", HB1815, clarifies your right to have a handgun in your vehicle while traveling, and while directly enroute to or from your vehicle.
Texas LTC and Utah CFP Instructor, MorphoTrust Fingerprinting Partner
http://www.Crossfire-Training.com


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

#3

Post by srothstein » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:47 am

I want to disagree slightly. HB 1815 has nothing to do with traveling and takes this situation out of the traveling exception. If you are traveling (and the jury agrees) none of the restrictions on guns apply to you. You can carry open or concealed,as long as you are traveling.

The new law says that you can have a gun in your car as long as you meet the specified rules (not a gangmember, not doing anything criminal other than a traffic ticket, gun is concealed, and a few other things). The car can be up on blocks in your yard with weeds past the windows, but the gun can be in the car with you legally.
Steve Rothstein


Topic author
daddySEAL
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Austin area

#4

Post by daddySEAL » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:48 am

It used to be that you could have it in your car, but not in easy reach. Or loaded when travelling across 3 county lines.

But know it seems that you can have it in your glove box loaded when going anywhere....to HEB, to a movie, or anywhere as long as it stays in the glove box, until and if needed to defende yourself inside your car without any carry permits, right?

I always new my home is my Castle and don't need a permit to keep a gun to protect against threating intruders.....but extending that right as your car is also your personal Castle while driving in your town, is new(without long traveling)....and just wanted a confirmation that we don't need CHLs if we aren't carrying outside the car and can keep it loaded in the glove box for our incar protection with permits, to defend again violant intrusion into the car while inside it.

That's what it means now right? Every law abiding citizen in his home town rush our traffic could be armed legally, right?

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#5

Post by seamusTX » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:27 am

You are correct. Anyone who is not a gang member and who can legally possess firearms can have a concealed handgun in a vehicle.

But IMO, if you have a CHL, you must have the CHL with you and present it if asked for identification by a peace officer.

- Jim


Topic author
daddySEAL
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Austin area

#6

Post by daddySEAL » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:52 am

Oh course,
Every CHL holder should have it in his wallet (or purse) all the time to produce anyway, carrying or not.

thanks, seamusTX
dS


Hayden
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:09 pm

#7

Post by Hayden » Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:27 pm

I read nothing in the law about a "glove box". It just has to be concealed. It can be under a towel laying in the passanger seat.


Hayden


Venus Pax
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3122
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: SE Texas

#8

Post by Venus Pax » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:08 pm

I could be wrong, but I think the Castle Doctrine takes away the duty-to-retreat requirement. In other words, if you aren't committing any crimes, aren't in a criminal street gang, and are at a location you have a legal right to be, then you are not required by law to retreat during an attack before using deadly force.

I hope our legally-minded folks will correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you've always had the right to have firearms in your private home and to use them if someone breaks in.

Most people car-carried long before it was legal, but at least you have written legal protection now.
"If a man breaks in your house, he ain't there for iced tea." Mom & Dad.

The NRA & TSRA are a bargain; they're much cheaper than the cold, dead hands experience.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#9

Post by seamusTX » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:29 pm

"Castle doctrine" is a political bumper sticker, even if it is used by the good guys.

We had two completely separate bills passed into law this year:
  • S.B. 378 removed any suggestion of a duty to retreat in any place where you have a right to be.
  • H.B. 1815 made it legal for anyone to carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle. There are some "ifs and ands" which you can look up.
These laws modified different sections of the penal code, Chapter 9 and Article 46.02.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB378
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1815

- Jim


RetiredE9
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Plano

#10

Post by RetiredE9 » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:01 am

So if I'm carrying my weapon and realized that I don't have my license I can conceal my weapon anywhere in the car and be legal?

If I get stopped and the officer asks me if I have a weapon I can say yes but not on my person and still be within the letter of the law?
I'd rather be lucky than good

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#11

Post by seamusTX » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:08 am

RetiredE9 wrote:So if I'm carrying my weapon and realized that I don't have my license I can conceal my weapon anywhere in the car and be legal?

If I get stopped and the officer asks me if I have a weapon I can say yes but not on my person and still be within the letter of the law?
I think not.
GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.
I interpret this as requiring you to have your CHL whenever you possess a handgun, and display it when asked by a peace officer.

However, at least one LEO who is a forum member said he would give a pass to a citizen who had forgotten his wallet. The police can look up your driver license information and confirm that you have a CHL.

Anywhere within reach inside your vehicle is "on or about your person," unless it is under control of another person.

There have been interesting and conflicting cases in this area, where everyone in the car was found guilty, or all were acquitted.

- Jim


RetiredE9
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Plano

#12

Post by RetiredE9 » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:38 pm

"H.B. 1815 made it legal for anyone to carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle. There are some "ifs and ands" which you can look up."

So if I don't have my CHL with my gun in the glove box I can get into trouble but if my wife, who doesn't have a CHL, is driving she's legal?

I'm getting an ice cream headache here.
I'd rather be lucky than good

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#13

Post by seamusTX » Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:51 pm

RetiredE9 wrote:So if I don't have my CHL with my gun in the glove box I can get into trouble but if my wife, who doesn't have a CHL, is driving she's legal?
Yes. The CHL law, written in 1995, requires CHL holders to present their license upon request.

H.B. 1815 does not require non-CHL citizens who possess a handgun to inform an officer (though it is illegal to lie to an officer).

I think this difference ocurred because the attitudes of police have changed.

Every time a state legislator proposes a new law allowing citizens to carry, certain police officials (usually big-city police chiefs) loudly predict that armed motorists will endanger the lives of police officers. That's why many states have requirements similar to Texas for their licensees.

When H.B. 1815 passed, I don't recall any police complaining about it.

- Jim


HKUSP45C
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:25 am

#14

Post by HKUSP45C » Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:49 am

seamusTX wrote: (though it is illegal to lie to an officer)
I can't for a minute imagine that's actually true. If it were wouldn't everyone who said "I ain't got nuthin" and "It wasn't me" be up on an extra charge? I mean the sheer volume of people that a police officer comes into to contact with in "other than honorable" circumstances would surely mean that during the course of any investigation someone would invariably lie about something. You wouldn't think any criminal defendant would ever go scot free. They'd all, every one of them, be doing at least some time for fibbing to the po-po.

I don't think it's actually against the law to lie to a cop. Could you please point me to the relevant statute?

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#15

Post by seamusTX » Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:19 am

HKUSP45C wrote:I don't think it's actually against the law to lie to a cop. Could you please point me to the relevant statute?
Certainly.
PC § 37.08. FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive, he knowingly makes a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation and makes the statement to:
(1) a peace officer conducting the investigation; or
(2) any employee of a law enforcement agency that is authorized by the agency to conduct the investigation and that the actor knows is conducting the investigation.
As to why this offense is not prosecuted, I'm not sure. It's difficult to prove in court that someone knowingly made a false statement. It's difficult to offer evidence of someone's mental state (knowledge or intentionality).

However, Martha Stewart is an example of this type of offense being prosecuted as a federal felony. It is prosecuted at the state level when people report theft that did not occur with the intention of getting an insurance claim.

As a more general principle, in Texas, only the most serious crime is prosecuted. For example, a murderer is prosecuted for murder, not for all the lesser offenses that led up to the murder, such as assault and deadly conduct.

- Jim

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”