TexasCHLforum.com

DSARGE wrote:I cannot think of anywhere that's posted that I HAVE to go.

If you're speaking of 30.06 businesses, I can see your point. As TXRancher pointed out, you might not want to tell the judge that you didn't show up for jury duty b/c you couldn't bring the smokewagon along.

Some of us work in places that are off-limits. I guess we could quit our jobs, but that would be a bit of an extreme move for some of us right now. (Besides, Skiprr just hooked me up with a nice little fire extinguisher that I can use in conjunction with a cigarette lighter that I confiscated from a young padouan.) I'm not without options.

I dont think some of you read the two choices correctly.

Some of you would actually rather be in a situation where you NEED a firearm and NOT have one?

Thats like saying your rather be dead than in violation!


This doesnt mean id intentionally carry into 30.06, nosir, i wouldnt go in.

But out of the two choices, i know which i prefer :)

TX Rancher wrote: Photoman said:

“Obey the law. Why in the world would anyone answer any differently on a public forum?�

Well possibly since I don’t believe in black helicopters from the UN, or conspiracy theories that have the government looking at everything I post on the web.

Also, I don’t believe anything I’ve said violates any laws applicable in Texas, so even if I was important enough for the “Government� to watch me, the info would be useless.

I'm not at all concerned about the government and their black helicopters. The NSA has better things to do than knock on my door.

I'm more concerned about some sleazy lawyer digging up all my posts on the internet to use against me in a civil suit after I legally shot someone in self defense.

After spending the last year or so on internet gun forums, I'm fully convinced that MANY of the persons posting are totally unaware of this hazard.

Right2Carry:

I’m simply answering one possible interpretation of the question. Of course I wouldn’t go in if that were a choice available to me that met with my morals and ethics.

But lets for a second postulate that my wife is inside the posted building, and I’m waiting for her to come out so we can go to lunch together. While standing outside, legally armed, I see through the door an armed man pointing a pistol at my wife, and I believe she is about to be shot in the next few seconds. Now would I enter, with my firearm…I think we can all guess the answer to that one since she is the most important thing in my life, I’ll worry about possible legal ramifications after I’ve done everything in my power to protect her.


Photoman:

I think I get your point, and if I’m right in my interpretation, I agree with your point. But I don’t feel anything I’ve said on this thread, or for that matter in other posts would be of value to an attorney trying to attack my character. Now if I said “Once the guy is down, the best thing to do is make sure he’s dead. If not, put two in his head before the cops get there� then that may be useful (depending on what I’m charged with). But since I don’t advocate that type of response, I doubt my comments could be used against me effectively.

Of course comments can be taken out of context, but that’s what I have a defense attorney for, so he can show the jury the rest of the comment, and show them I’m not as the opposition is trying to paint me.

And as always, I reserve the right to be wrong, so I’m only stating the reasons I’m comfortable with my responses and not advocating anyone follow my lead.

People want to know why it is so hard to get legislation passed that helps gun owners and CHL owners. One only has to look at some of the posts on here, see that 50% of CHL owners would rather violate the law than obey it, and then we wonder why the Anti's fight so hard. THe proof is in the poll results.

Quote: "something tragic would have occured, I would hope that I would have tried to fetch the weapon from the car and protect my family member (or others) without worring about it much."

"Law of competing harms" or in Tejas Chapter 9, "Necessity".

Right2Carry wrote:People want to know why it is so hard to get legislation passed that helps gun owners and CHL owners. One only has to look at some of the posts on here, see that 50% of CHL owners would rather violate the law than obey it, and then we wonder why the Anti's fight so hard. THe proof is in the poll results.

Just to clarify, in case your comments were in response to my post, I don’t believe I would be violating the law. My comment about taking my chances with the legal system were based on my assumption I would be found to be in compliance with the law, and would only be facing possible civil proceedings (at least until Castle Doctrine is in effect). I also believe “a reasonable person�, including many anti’s, would agree with my response to the scenario. I think to sit and watch your wife be murdered if you had the means to avert the actions would not be acceptable to the average citizen.

Note that in my post, I stated that in the situation where I do not know a firearm will be required (so far all the real world situations I've found myself in as a CHL'er), I would not carry. Which also is in compliance with the law.

I believe section 9.32 is my legal justification in the scenario I put forward (wife in imminent danger of being murdered).

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.(a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor ’s situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to protect 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.

I believe this was one of the codes Greybeard was referencing in his response.

I may be interpreting the code wrong, and if so, I certainly want to be corrected!

TX Rancher wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:People want to know why it is so hard to get legislation passed that helps gun owners and CHL owners. One only has to look at some of the posts on here, see that 50% of CHL owners would rather violate the law than obey it, and then we wonder why the Anti's fight so hard. THe proof is in the poll results.

Just to clarify, in case your comments were in response to my post, I don’t believe I would be violating the law. My comment about taking my chances with the legal system were based on my assumption I would be found to be in compliance with the law, and would only be facing possible civil proceedings (at least until Castle Doctrine is in effect). I also believe “a reasonable person�, including many anti’s, would agree with my response to the scenario. I think to sit and watch your wife be murdered if you had the means to avert the actions would not be acceptable to the average citizen.

Note that in my post, I stated that in the situation where I do not know a firearm will be required (so far all the real world situations I've found myself in as a CHL'er), I would not carry. Which also is in compliance with the law.

I believe section 9.32 is my legal justification in the scenario I put forward (wife in imminent danger of being murdered).

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.(a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor ’s situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to protect 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.

I believe this was one of the codes Greybeard was referencing in his response.

I may be interpreting the code wrong, and if so, I certainly want to be corrected!

My comments were directed at the poll not anyone in particular. If I am talking about someone in particular then I will call them out.

The poll says nothing about being on the outside while someone we love is being held hostage or being threatened on the inside. That would be a totally different situation IMHO.

I can't vote, you don't have an option for me, these don't fit.

ElGato wrote:I can't vote, you don't have an option for me, these don't fit.