Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
Mike1951
Senior Member
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:06 am
Location: SE Texas

Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by Mike1951 »

Not a day goes by that I don't read something here wrongly attributed to the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with vehicle carry or any other kind of carry.

It simply modifies sections 9.31 and 9.32 to remove the duty to retreat and provide some level of civil immunity.

PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE ANYTHING ELSE TO CASTLE DOCTRINE!!!

It's bad enough when the media, ill informed as they are, make the mistake.

But it's made here every day by veteren members and new members alike.

Folks, we should be better informed than that.

S.B. No. 378 Known as Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force
was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity,
other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or
ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used
[requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor
who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of
force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It
is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal
injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time
the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that
is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of
force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of
unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in
effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on
March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate

I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on
March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one
present not voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

Approved:

______________________________
Date

______________________________
Governor
The Motorist Protection Act was passed to remove the confusion about traveling and to make it legal for non-licensees to carry handguns concealed in their vehicles and enroute to and from as well as the other situations defined in the act.

AGAIN, VEHICLE CARRY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CASTLE DOCTRINE.

Folks are coming here to learn and we ought to know better. Instead, bad information is being spread. Whenever someone says, "thanks to Castle Doctrine, I can carry in my car" they need to be politely corrected.

H.B. No. 1815 known as the Motorist Protection Act

AN ACT
relating to the prosecution of certain offenses that involve
carrying weapons on a person's property or in a person's vehicle.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.02, Penal Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (a-1) and (a-2) to
read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person [he]
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the
person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes
real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as
living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or
permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor
vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a
vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to
be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer,
camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with
living quarters.
SECTION 2. Section 46.15(b), Penal Code, as amended by
Chapters 1221 and 1261, Acts of the 75th Legislature, Regular
Session, 1997, is reenacted and amended to read as follows:
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a
member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by
Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal
institution;
(2) [is on the person's own premises or premises under
the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of
the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility
is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or
property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision
(5);
[(3)] is traveling;
(3) [(4)] is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or
other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the
activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the
actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly
used in the activity;
(4) [(5)] holds a security officer commission issued
by the Texas [Board of Private Investigators and] Private Security
Board [Agencies], if:
(A) the person is engaged in the performance of
the person's duties as a security officer or traveling to and from
the person's place of assignment;
(B) the person is wearing a distinctive uniform;
and
(C) the weapon is in plain view;
(5) [(6)] is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code
[Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes], to carry a concealed
handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;
(6) [(7)] holds a security officer commission and a
personal protection officer authorization issued by the Texas
[Board of Private Investigators and] Private Security Board
[Agencies] and [who] is providing personal protection under Chapter
1702, Occupations Code [the Private Investigators and Private
Security Agencies Act (Article 4413(29bb), Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes)]; or
(7) [(8)] holds an alcoholic beverage permit or
license or is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage
permit or license if the person is supervising the operation of the
permitted or licensed premises.
SECTION 3. The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Section 46.15(h), Penal Code; and
(2) Section 46.15(i), Penal Code, as added by Chapter
288, Acts of the 79th Legislature, Regular Session, 2005.
SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
governed by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and
the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
effective date of this Act if any element of the offense was
committed before that date.
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 1815 was passed by the House on May
11, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 137, Nays 0, 2 present, not
voting.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 1815 was passed by the Senate on May
23, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 31, Nays 0.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
APPROVED: _____________________
Date

_____________________
Governor
Mike
AF5MS
TSRA Life Member
NRA Benefactor Member
asleepatthereel
Senior Member
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:42 am
Location: Pearland, Texas
Contact:

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by asleepatthereel »

:tiphat:
That certainly clears things up for me. Thanks. I always thought the two were related, but there was always some confusion in the back of my mind. You made the research look easy. :txflag:
Theres room for all Gods creatures. Right between the corn and taters!

15 Dec Applied online
Plastic in hand 30 Apr
Kimber Stainles Ultra Carry II
Colt Defender
M1991A-1 Series 80
Yep. I like .45s
Join and support the NRA today!
casingpoint
Senior Member
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by casingpoint »

You made the research look easy. :txflag:
It is easy. But it appears very confusing to the uninitiated. It's so easy, lawyers lobby once had the Texas Legislature ban the delivery of how-to legal handbooks by Nolo Publishing of Mexikalifornia. Don't know what ever happened with that.
Liko81
Senior Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:37 pm

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by Liko81 »

asleepatthereel wrote::tiphat:
That certainly clears things up for me. Thanks. I always thought the two were related, but there was always some confusion in the back of my mind. You made the research look easy. :txflag:
But aren't they, though? You are justified in using deadly force in your vehicle in the same situations you would be justified while in your home. Further, the changes from "stand your ground" mean you do not have to retreat from either your home or your car. However, it used to be illegal to conceal a weapon in your vehicle unless you were "travelling", the definition of which was open to interpretation at almost every level of law enforcement. The Motorist Protection Act makes it far more clear cut that we can carry concealed in our vehicle, and thus able to actually make use of the CD justification without also facing UCW charges.
asleepatthereel
Senior Member
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:42 am
Location: Pearland, Texas
Contact:

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by asleepatthereel »

Liko81 wrote:
asleepatthereel wrote::tiphat:
That certainly clears things up for me. Thanks. I always thought the two were related, but there was always some confusion in the back of my mind. You made the research look easy. :txflag:
But aren't they, though? You are justified in using deadly force in your vehicle in the same situations you would be justified while in your home. Further, the changes from "stand your ground" mean you do not have to retreat from either your home or your car. However, it used to be illegal to conceal a weapon in your vehicle unless you were "travelling", the definition of which was open to interpretation at almost every level of law enforcement. The Motorist Protection Act makes it far more clear cut that we can carry concealed in our vehicle, and thus able to actually make use of the CD justification without also facing UCW charges.
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.


This is the part that had me wondering if it was ok to actually carry, in a holster, on your body while inside your vehicle, Or if the gun had to be concealed, like inside the console/glove box. As I read the above, it makes it clear that as long as the weapon is not in plain view, You are not involved in criminal activity, other than a class c misdemeanor, prohibited by law from possesing a gun, or a member of a gang, you can actually carry a gun on your person inside the vehicle, and to and from the vehicle to the house. One thing that is still left up in the air is what happens should you get in an accident, or if you are pulled over and the officer asks you to step out of the vehicle. Myself, I would calmly and in a non threatening manner notify the officer that I am carrying a weapon in accordance to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and ask him how I should proceed. Now, when my plastic gets here, the issue will be moot for me, but for the sake of future CHL holders, I would like to know.

I have read the above statutes several times looking for the answer to this, and for some strange reason, seeing it here on the Forum, it finally came clear. Thanks Mike. :tiphat: :txflag:
Theres room for all Gods creatures. Right between the corn and taters!

15 Dec Applied online
Plastic in hand 30 Apr
Kimber Stainles Ultra Carry II
Colt Defender
M1991A-1 Series 80
Yep. I like .45s
Join and support the NRA today!
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by Liberty »

I understand the differences and the confusion, but as long as the rules are kept straight. Does it really mater what anyone calls it? Sorta like calling a mag a clip, it only matters to the anal retentive. We all know what is meant. Maybe its just me, but I actually enjoy driving some folks crazy by calling a revolver a handgun.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
LarryH
Senior Member
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: Smith County

Re: Motorist Protection Act VS. Castle Doctrine

Post by LarryH »

Liberty wrote:I understand the differences and the confusion, but as long as the rules are kept straight. Does it really matter what anyone calls it?
OK, then I will call it "shoes".

In my job, AND in a couple of my avocations, clear and correct communication is important.

As the bombastic one on talk radio used to say (and probably still does), "Words mean things." Using the wrong word for a concept can and does confuse those who are new to the subject area.

So, yes (IMHO), it does really matter what someone calls it.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”