Let's not forget

What should be on the 2007 agenda for CHL's?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Let's not forget

Postby RPBrown » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:48 am

That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.
NRA-Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image
User avatar
RPBrown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: Let's not forget

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:51 am

RPBrown wrote:That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.


:thumbsup:
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby longtooth » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:59 am

Me too. The BGs have owned the streets for too long & they know it.
It is time for a return to the good people of the land.
:patriot: :txflag: Flyem at the same heigth. :thumbsup:
Image
Carry 24-7 or guess right.
CHL Instructor. http://www.pdtraining.us
NRA/TSRA Life Member - TFC Member #11
longtooth
Moderator
 
Posts: 11828
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Angelina County

Postby cyphur » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:15 pm

I agree, and this should extend to include all situations - at home or not. No ability for any party to sue in an event of lawful action by a CHL - whether its in his driveway, Walmart, or the middle of a restaurant.

However, in the event of say injuring an "innocent" third party, I could see that left open - only if there was clearly evident negligence. In that case, it should be strictly defined with very little leeway for DA's and judges to interpret - with error on the CHL's side.
cyphur
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Flower mound, Tx

Postby 1TallTXn » Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:40 pm

+1!!
1TallTXn
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: S DFW

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:07 pm

cyphur wrote:I agree, and this should extend to include all situations - at home or not. No ability for any party to sue in an event of lawful action by a CHL - whether its in his driveway, Walmart, or the middle of a restaurant.

However, in the event of say injuring an "innocent" third party, I could see that left open - only if there was clearly evident negligence. In that case, it should be strictly defined with very little leeway for DA's and judges to interpret - with error on the CHL's side.


I don't anticipate any real trouble getting a good bill passed that deals with both the criminal and civil issues related to a lawful shooting by a CHL. I can almost guarantee it will not deal with reckless injury/killing of a third party from either a criminal or civil standpoint.

Injuring or killing someone unintentionally while engaging in lawful self-defense doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "recklessness." I've heard that some teach that any wounding or killing of an innocent party always equates to reckless injury of a third part, but that simply isn't true. A righteous self-defense shooting certainly can be carried out recklessly. For example, if a CHL doesn't ever practice and shoots only once every 5 years when they renew, their attempt to take a 25 yd. shot in a crowded restaurant would likely be considered by a jury as reckless conduct, even if the person he was shooting at needed to be shot. There are many other examples. Could the bar be set lower for reckless conduct in say Travis County v. Bell County? Yep, but there's nothing we can do about that.

Regards,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby MoJo » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:13 pm

:iagree: this along with employer parking lots should be priority one CHL legislation this session.
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Texas and Louisiana CHL Instructor, NRA Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor
User avatar
MoJo
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:10 pm
Location: Vidor, Tx

Postby HighVelocity » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:12 pm

I would like to add that the family of the BG have to pay restitution to the victim to cover psychological counseling (if desired) and replacement ammunition (mandatory).
I am scared of empty guns and keep mine loaded at all times. The family knows the guns are loaded and treats them with respect. Loaded guns cause few accidents; empty guns kill people every year. -Elmer Keith. 1961
User avatar
HighVelocity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Let's not forget

Postby KinnyLee » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:27 pm

RPBrown wrote:That not only do we want the duty to retreat removed as a part of the Castle Doctrine, but also eliminate the rights of the BG or his family to file civil suits in the case of his or her injury or death caused by someone defending themselves.


+1,000,000 here. :cool:
KinnyLee
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:59 pm

Postby 40FIVER » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:33 pm

I have to disagree with High Velocity. There are lots of families out there who have no control over other family members. An example would be battered wives with abused kids, who are crimminilized every day by the sorry person they married. Should the parents be responsible for their adult son who becomes a drug addict who steals to support the habit? The crimminal is guilty, not the parents, not the brothers not the sisters. I wouldn't want to be held responsible for the actions of a 25 year old son.

I say make the offender pay, if he lives.

The offender's family should NOT have the right to sue, either.
40FIVER
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Archer City

Postby HighVelocity » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:34 am

I have to disagree with High Velocity


It looks like I'm losing my touch. Normally my sarcasm is quite apparent. :???:

How about this 40fiver... The family members of the BG should not be allowed to proclaim to the media how their son/daughter/nephew/niece/grandson/ etc etc was such a nice kid and would never hurt anyone.
I am scared of empty guns and keep mine loaded at all times. The family knows the guns are loaded and treats them with respect. Loaded guns cause few accidents; empty guns kill people every year. -Elmer Keith. 1961
User avatar
HighVelocity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3374
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: DFW, TX

Postby Diode » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:59 am

HighVelocity wrote:
I have to disagree with High Velocity


It looks like I'm losing my touch. Normally my sarcasm is quite apparent. :???: .


I liked the replacement bullet part best. :lol::
Diode
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: Spring Texas

Postby Diode » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:00 am

Just curious, when does the next session start Chas?
Diode
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: Spring Texas

Postby 40FIVER » Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:03 pm

You bet HighVelocity. The BG's family should have to own up to the fact their "precious little baby" was/is nothing but a common crimminal who deserves nothing but justice.

And I will admit, most of the time, the BG became a crimminal because the parent(s) refused to raise them properly. They do have some accountability.

40FIVER
40FIVER
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Archer City

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:05 pm

Diode wrote:Just curious, when does the next session start Chas?


January, 2007 but I don't know the exact date.

Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Next

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest