TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:My understanding if justified in defending yourself or others, those violations are overlooked.

e.g. engaging an active shooter in a school building after you were waiting outside to pick up your daughter.

Some states have exceptions like that enshrined into law, but as far as I am aware Texas is not one of them. In Tennessee, IIIRC, you cannot be charged for carrying illegally if you use a firearm to stop a crime.

Of course, what is against the law and what charges actually get filed are completely different. In the hypothetical you cite it would be political suicide for a prosecutor to charge a CHL holder who (illegally) entered a school building to stop a school shooter, and if the prosecutor did charge the CHL I would expect the jury to use their right of jury nullification.

droshi wrote:I think this above quote is a good idea, however it just doesn't make sense that carrying without a CHL is a less serious violation than carrying on a school. To me it makes more sense to have no restrictions for CHL holders, but allow basic citizens to carry in restricted areas without a license. But I understand the world doesn't work like that!

Remember, for many years (well over a century) there was no way in Texas for a law-abiding citizen to go about his daily business armed legally. Many of those people chose to go armed anyway and my understanding is that is where the two-tiered system for charges of UCW came from. If you weren't in one of the restriced areas but merely in public, you could only be charged with a misdemeanor (and in reality most police knew that many members of the public were carrying and didn't care). If you were in one of the restricted areas it was a more serious charge (ie a felony).

It just amazes me how in TX legal carry was banned for a long long time. I still think how that was possible in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Wasn't like a true wild wild west? horses, bandits, and caravans?

Droshi wrote:The real problem to me is that even freedom of speech has limitations that are not specifically regulated in the 1st amendment such as slander or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. Being able to own and carry a gun without a tax is still possible...it's just restricted to your own land.

Which would be roughly equivalent to permitting "free speech" as long as it's never uttered so as to be heard outside your home.

Beiruty wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:if charged for UCW, you can choose a jury trial or bench trial. Living in the DFW area, I wouldn't trust 12 idiots to tie their shoes right, much less be able to rule on fundamental rights and judicial precedent. I'd go for the bench trial, then throw mcdonald at the judge with a total ban being unconstitutional, which 46.02 is. Then, when the prosecutor brings up chapter H licensing being the constitutional requirement to exercise the 2nd Amendment, I'd throw Murdock v. Pennsylvania at the judge.

You need to wait until the Supreme court rules that carrying firearms is a constitutional individual right like the free speech. So far, I guess the supreme ruling was only for purchasing and owing firearms.

the mcdonald opinion specifically states in the 'held' section that the right to 'keep AND bear' is a right. mcdonald said zero about purchasing.

Droshi wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:if charged for UCW, you can choose a jury trial or bench trial. Living in the DFW area, I wouldn't trust 12 idiots to tie their shoes right, much less be able to rule on fundamental rights and judicial precedent. I'd go for the bench trial, then throw mcdonald at the judge with a total ban being unconstitutional, which 46.02 is. Then, when the prosecutor brings up chapter H licensing being the constitutional requirement to exercise the 2nd Amendment, I'd throw Murdock v. Pennsylvania at the judge.

Are you saying that because the case makes a claim that a tax for a license placed a restriction on this person's 1st amendment rights that any similar tax on 2nd amendment rights is equally unconstitutional? Seems like it would have to be taken to Supreme Court for it to be directly applicable in lower courts, although it is a valid argument.

the murdock decision said 'a right protected by the constitution'. not just first amendment rights.

The Annoyed Man wrote:You guys are engaging in wishful thinking if you think that a Texas judge is going to be impressed by you throwing case law from another state at him.

if a texas criminal court judge doesn't want to follow case precedent, he/she can easily be embarassed and overturned by an appeal.