TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:

speedsix wrote:...we've argued/discussed this before viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; some think it means the threat of deadly force is fine if the use of ANY level of force is justified in Chapter 9...but in a case where Chapter 9 said the use of "force but not deadly force" is justified...you'd better not threaten deadly force... I may have the right to use force to restrain a shoplifter...if I pull a gun and tell him I'll shoot him if he doesn't stop...I just messed up bigtime!!!

In Physical Assault or attempt of Physical case, the actor can claim he is being robbed and he threatened the use of deadly force or deployed deadly force to terminate the robbery. This is a valid defense.

...only if he WAS being robbed...otherwise, he's becoming just like some defense attorneys...you do it right, the law works just fine without being twisted...

Jumping Frog wrote: However, if you are not justified in using deadly force, but you pull out your handgun and start waving it around, you can still be charged with not concealing.

Earlier, I was reading Oklahoma law...and came across something interesting. In Oklahoma, you can open carry to your vehicle and to the range. This open carry includes ones property.

Open carry at the time the OP had his interaction with the door to door guy...may have prevented this altercation?

Is the law the same in Texas? Can I answer the door with a gun on my hip? Or, would that be brandishing?

I know that in some gun forums, there is usually someone who will post "open carry would have prevented this"...but in this case, would it have prevented anything?

Shinesintx wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote: However, if you are not justified in using deadly force, but you pull out your handgun and start waving it around, you can still be charged with not concealing.

Earlier, I was reading Oklahoma law...and came across something interesting. In Oklahoma, you can open carry to your vehicle and to the range. This open carry includes ones property.

Open carry at the time the OP had his interaction with the door to door guy...may have prevented this altercation?

Is the law the same in Texas? Can I answer the door with a gun on my hip? Or, would that be brandishing?

There's no brandishing in Texas. Also, logic says it's not assault or disorderly conduct. Think about this. A bank guard with a holstered gun isn't threatening anyone, so logically a homeowner with a holstered gun isn't threatening anyone.

To the best of my knowledge, you can open carry all day on your own property. I think you could probably throw a musket over your shoulder and march the perimeter of your property while tooting on a flute.

johnson0317 wrote:To the best of my knowledge, you can open carry all day on your own property. I think you could probably throw a musket over your shoulder and march the perimeter of your property while tooting on a flute.

Yeah. Four pages later I forgot the OP was talking about his own property.

My point is limited to being out in public. If you are threatening deadly force as a means of using force (when force is justified), that is legal but you can still get charged for failure to conceal if you are holding someone at gunpoint.

Shinesintx wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote: However, if you are not justified in using deadly force, but you pull out your handgun and start waving it around, you can still be charged with not concealing.

Earlier, I was reading Oklahoma law...and came across something interesting. In Oklahoma, you can open carry to your vehicle and to the range. This open carry includes ones property.

Open carry at the time the OP had his interaction with the door to door guy...may have prevented this altercation?

Is the law the same in Texas? Can I answer the door with a gun on my hip? Or, would that be brandishing?

I know that in some gun forums, there is usually someone who will post "open carry would have prevented this"...but in this case, would it have prevented anything?

...I'm thinkin' if he'd opened the door with a holstered gun visible, the BG woulda left real quick...and yes, OC on your property is legal in Texas...I often open my front door with a gun showing if my shirt's off...it is NOT brandishing...

johnson0317 wrote:To the best of my knowledge, you can open carry all day on your own property. I think you could probably throw a musket over your shoulder and march the perimeter of your property while tooting on a flute.

...betcha they'd soon review your mental capacity to have a CHL on that one...unless you were an OFFICIAL Neighborhood Watch trooper with your yellow flashing light on your hat...

Jumping Frog wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:To the best of my knowledge, you can open carry all day on your own property. I think you could probably throw a musket over your shoulder and march the perimeter of your property while tooting on a flute.

Yeah. Four pages later I forgot the OP was talking about his own property.

My point is limited to being out in public. If you are threatening deadly force as a means of using force (when force is justified), that is legal but you can still get charged for failure to conceal if you are holding someone at gunpoint.

...if you're in a situation where deadly force is justified, and you decide to threaten deadly force, which would be justified...you are not guilty of failing to conceal...even if you hold that person at gunpoint...that's the whole idea of being justified...otherwise you'd have to keep a paper sack over your gun at all times....

speedsix wrote:...if you're in a situation where deadly force is justified, and you decide to threaten deadly force, which would be justified...you are not guilty of failing to conceal...even if you hold that person at gunpoint...that's the whole idea of being justified...otherwise you'd have to keep a paper sack over your gun at all times....

I agree with you that you are not guilty of failing to conceal if you threaten deadly force when using deadly force is justified.

I am talking about the case where you threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force when only (regular) force is justified. It is legal to threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force, but you can be charged under those circumstances with failure to conceal.

Keep in mind that I had a man looking through my van on my property. I ordered him off my property, and he said "no." He then began walking quickly through my yard directly towards me, telling me "no" once again at the order to leave, and continued walking directly towards me. My threat to pull my weapon (as I had my hand in my pocket on it) was the EXTREME limit as to when I feel I could be safe. had he come ANY closer I would have felt in immediate danger and threat.

Jumping Frog wrote:

speedsix wrote:...if you're in a situation where deadly force is justified, and you decide to threaten deadly force, which would be justified...you are not guilty of failing to conceal...even if you hold that person at gunpoint...that's the whole idea of being justified...otherwise you'd have to keep a paper sack over your gun at all times....

I agree with you that you are not guilty of failing to conceal if you threaten deadly force when using deadly force is justified.

I am talking about the case where you threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force when only (regular) force is justified. It is legal to threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force, but you can be charged under those circumstances with failure to conceal.

...nope...can't agree with that...common sense tells me that if you can't legally shoot, you can't legally threaten to shoot...THAT'S where we have disagreement...because if you can get in trouble for failing to conceal, that in itself says that threatening with deadly force IS NOT JUSTIFIED in that situation... I read what the Boss said on the other thread about a cop who told him he did it...but cops routinely draw, aim, and threaten to gain compliance from a thief, on a traffic stop, in a "suspicious person" situation...where you and I would be in serious trouble if we did it...they are given latitude that we don't have...or need...


...common sense says if I can legally only hit you with my fist...I have no business threatening to shoot you...

...if you're in a situation where deadly force is justified under PC9...you can threaten with deadly force...and you WON'T be charged with anything, CHL-related or not... if the situation doesn't justify deadly force, keep your gun in the holster and concealed...that's the way I read it...that fits common sense to me, and you won't see me threatening, displaying, or aiming my weapon in ANY situation where I would not be justified in shooting someone...there's a looooooooooooooooooooooooong distance between force and deadly force, and this little paragraph wasn't designed to shorten that distance...it should have been better worded...

wgoforth wrote:Keep in mind that I had a man looking through my van on my property. I ordered him off my property, and he said "no." He then began walking quickly through my yard directly towards me, telling me "no" once again at the order to leave, and continued walking directly towards me. My threat to pull my weapon (as I had my hand in my pocket on it) was the EXTREME limit as to when I feel I could be safe. had he come ANY closer I would have felt in immediate danger and threat.

...I understand completely...as I said before: " ...our OP could easily be covered under 9:32(a)(1) and (2) and (b)(1)(A)"

...in the interest of clarifying what the law means...look at PC46.035(a).........there are places we can't carry, even as license holders, AND INTENTIONALLY FAIL TO CONCEAL...but look at, and notice the wording of, (h) at the bottom of the section ....in that case, if we would have been justified in using DEADLY force under Chapter 9, we have a defense to prosecution....


...so WHY, if the "use of any force" argument is true, did this law SPECIFICALLY SAY "...DEADLY force??? (which, by the way, makes perfect sense...you HAVE TO fail to conceal to USE the gun...which you MAY...IF you are justified in using DEADLY FORCE (not just force)

...I won't argue the point anymore...I think this proves the intent of PC9:04...byt, of course, IANAL, and I MAY not be smarter than a fifth grader...

I disagree that deadly force was justified in the case as described by OP.

I believe, the trespasser was just trespassing and blowing off some words. He was non-compliant to the demands by owner to leave his property.

He is surely NOT entering with force to the actor's occupied habitation, where is justification for "reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary"?


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

second part:

(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 , vehicle, or place of business or employment;

...when you have a person prowling your car, who has been previously told to leave...and you tell him to leave very forcefully, and you're standing in your front doorway, and he refuses and continues to advance on you...it is ENTIRELY reasonable that he intends to enter your house and to defend yourself...our OP was justified...and handled himself with restraint...

...read 9:31(a)(1)(A) and (C)...given the facts as he posted...it was reasonable to believe that (a) and/or (C) were imminently probable unless he acted...so that takes care of 9:32(a)(1) and in (2)...the perp refused to stop and only seconds were available to stop him...that's "Immediately necessary"... and (b)( C) is satisfied...


...you have to make the reasonable decision on the facts as they've happened, as you percieve them, and don't have time nor responsibility to "what-if" the guy from an aggressive, suspicious intruder to a member of a Sunday School invitational committee...and the facts said ACT NOW...and he did...