TexasCHLforum.com

Unfortunately you have overlooked the fact there is no such thing as a Federal tort... sort of a basic issue to the whole discussion.

Any suit against an instructor the (however unlikely) occured on Federal property would be original jurisdiction of the state court... NOT Federal... and of course tort suit would be estopped by the state law.

Q.E.D.

And I say again... BALDERDASH!

Chuck


Uh, you do realize that it is cases like this that establish the fact of what is Federal Jurasdiction? Lock it because you made a statement and I brought up a a scenerio with case law that could effect us all that probably has not be brought up?

Listen, if you think it is far fetched, fine, If you are not going to worry about it that is great as well, but it is these kinds of topics that might lead to people learning something, and at this point I am trying to make that someone me.[/quote][/quote]

Ok, since you think I am wrong, would you please tell me who has jurisdiction on Federal Land that has been ceded by the state?

Would you tell me how that is established, and would you find a case since the 6th district court handed down this ruling that would countermand the contentions I have made. here is a hint, you will find many cases that back up what I have said. If the Government can prove it is federal land and it was ceded by the state, it is a federal case. I used the one from 1903 because it involved something that could be overlooked and was not obvious such as a dam.

I could be wrong, be telling me I am doesnt make it so. Offer the reason.[/quote]

BALDERDASH!! Utter Balderdash!

I have it figured out now... this is a joke... everyone is supposed to be laughing...

Right?

Chuck

Rabbi wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Rabbi wrote:(W.D.Ky. 1903)

Uh, you do realize that it is cases like this that establish the fact of what is Federal Jurasdiction? Lock it because you made a statement and I brought up a a scenerio with case law that could effect us all that probably has not be brought up?

Listen, if you think it is far fetched, fine, If you are not going to worry about it that is great as well, but it is these kinds of topics that might lead to people learning something, and at this point I am trying to make that someone me.

What in the wide world of sports does this mean????

Would you be so kind as to educate me and explain the issues involved in the Federal Government having jurisdiction in a shooting case?

Thanks

Chuck

Rabbi wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Unless a person you trained is a LEO and sued under color of authority how could it be a Federal case????

If territorial jurisdiction over a crime is Federal it is a Federal Case.

Charles,

It was for the Rabbi...not for you... I know well you are an attorney from our previous interactions.

I must however, admit to being underwealmed by Ayoob.

I had not read your post when I wrote the reply... I guess I over edited the quote and took it all out of my post, and I see now it was unclear.

In general I agree with your points... the only exception being the question of hand loaded ammo... but I do recognize there are other views... just no cases to support a general condemnation of hand loads.

How about doing one of your classes here in Dallas?

Anyway, sorry for the unclear post.

Chuck

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Chuck:
I'm not sure if this was for me, it I think it is.

cxm wrote:I think you are way too wrapped around lawyer issues... have you been reading Ayoob lately?

I am an attorney and yes I have read Ayoob lately. I've seen nothing to indicate he has changed the position he has promoted for 20 years.

cxm wrote:I'm not aware of any Texas cases that support your theories...

Two points. First, I said I didn't think this was an issue in Texas, except perhaps in Travis County, so the lack of any case on point supports my position on this issue.

Secondly, in Texas Courts, you won't see any opinions unless the case goes to the appellate court and 99% of cases never get there.

cxm wrote:Being a good shot can also be a positive point... responsible enough to learn to shoot well so as to not endanger bystanders etc. etc.

I agree, otherwise my wife and I wouldn’t have taken more classes at Thunder Ranch than I can count. However, that's not the issue. The discussion revolved around the potential in some jurisdictions of having a prosecutor attempt to use such facts as advanced training against someone using deadly force to defend themself. As I said, I don't think this is an issue in Texas.

If you had been in one of my deadly force seminars you would have seen a segment on Myths & Urban Legends In that segment, we discuss unfounded concerns and false “common knowledge� that abounds relating to self-defense shootings.

I can't help but think you misread my post, as you and I seem to agree on every point you raised. The only exception may be on Ayoob's opinion about the likely aftermath of a self-defense shooting. Although you didn't say it, it appears that you feel Mas does not paint a bleak picture for someone shooting in self-defense. He clearly does and has for many years.

Regards,
Chas.

I think you are way too wrapped around lawyer issues... have you been reading Ayoob lately?

I'm not aware of any Texas cases that support your theories...

Being a good shot can also be a positive point... responsible enough to learn to shoot well so as to not endanger bystanders etc. etc.

OF course I'm willing to be proved wrong...

FWIW

Chuck