Reason you decided to get CHL ?

[LAYGO]

Because in any game of paper-scissors-rock-.45ACP, .45ACP always wins.

Yes, but Spock with a phaser beats .45 ACP.

10. Because Sheldon Cooper is a smelly pooper.........and there are lots of Sheldon Coopers out there......

Not true. His mother had him tested.

I love me some BBT! :)

[ltgencharles]

this video [youtube][/youtube]

After seeing that, I finally got the ball rolling and did the class.

[jmra]

this video [youtube][/youtube]

After seeing that, I finally got the ball rolling and did the class.

Fixed the link

[EvoGTR]

this video [youtube][/youtube]

After seeing that, I finally got the ball rolling and did the class.

Fixed the link

Amen brother, same reason here too. Don't even go to Denny's late at night anymore because of all the recent robberies. Better safe then sorry

[Kyle L]

I got mine not just because it's my right to do so. I got mine because it's my "duty" as a citizen to protect my family and friends any way I can. I am 44 and have seen this country change for the worse over many years I feel. It's my feeling that "people" in general have no respect for one another any longer and each day we (as a country) move farther away from common sense decisions. I simply refuse to be a victim of a crime if I can help it. To pretend that all is well and it won't happen to me or my family is irresponsible. Criminals COUNT on a target to be unprepared and afraid, I won't be.

[escapedNJ]

I am getting my CHL because I lived in a state that denied your right to defend yourself outside the home and even in your home you have a duty to retreat. It took me 6 months just to have a right purchase a long gun and there is an active assault weapon ban in place since 1991 and Magazine restriction of 15 as well. I lived in tyranny for 36 years. I now live some where that has a lot of freedom in comparison. I carry to protect my family, myself, and even out of respect for all those people stuck behind the lines in states that see guns banned except in a handful of exceptions. Lastly I carry because I am my first responder!

[Abraham]

"Lastly I carry because I am my first responder!"

Would you please elaborate?

Thanks!

[Abraham]

Whoops, I just reread your post and realized you said "my" not "a" first responder.

Sorry...

[THINKER]

I got my CHL for a multiplicity of reasons:

I have a duty to protect my family and myself
I have a responsibility to exercise the freedoms afforded by our Constitution
I do not want to EVER have to say "What IF I had had a gun"

I was raised in a LE family and have been around all types of guns my entire life. I have taught my children to be proficient with all types of firearms. My wife of 22 years is finally coming around to the handgun way of life. As others have said, I have always been taught not to point a gun at any person, but in todays society, I do not want to be the one who brings a knife to a gun fight.

I will to the best of my ability and judgment DEFEND the lives of those that I hold most dear.

[SwimFan85]

I got mine when I found out Texas didn't have any kind of unlicensed carry for civilians.

[jnichols2]

I spent most of my life in the Air Force. Moving around, going overseas, living safe on base. No need for a gun.

When I retired from the Air Force we moved to a very nice, safe community. I got a job where I traveled a lot.

Shortly after I retired, there were some home invasions in our area, so I bought a pistol, and later an AR-15 for home defense.
The Texas legislature extended Castle Laws to the car, so no need for CHL.

Last month while walking my little Yorkie, we were attacked by a Pit Bull.
I never worried about dogs around the neighborhood. Most were friendly, the others scattered if you yelled at them.

This one was different. He attacked silently from behind.
When I noticed him, I stepped in his path to prevent my Yorkie's being killed. Then he attacked me.
I managed to bluff him, and he backed off. But things were definitely tense.
I learned later that some people not far off were raising fighting Pit Bulls. That explained his behavior.
I decided that at 66 years of age, I didn't want to fight a Pit Bull bare handed.

Also, "random" attacks on people just out and about seem to be on the increase.
I may have slowed down a bit, but I haven't become a "victim" yet.

Someone might remind me the Yorkie is legally considered "property" and I can't use force to protect her.
The policeman I talked to about the report reminded me that if I shot the dog, he was attacking ME, not the Yorkie.

Our society's changing. Something tells me the anti gunners are going to find it pretty rough a few years down the road.

[cb1000rider]

Someone might remind me the Yorkie is legally considered "property" and I can't use force to protect her.
The policeman I talked to about the report reminded me that if I shot the dog, he was attacking ME, not the Yorkie.

As I understand it:

You can use force to protect your property in Texas. I think you implied in your prior post that you can't do this because it's not covered under the castle doctrine. I don't know of any limitation indicating that force is allowed to protect property only at home.

In the case you mention, you're not using deadly force. You can't use deadly force against "property" - the Pit Bull. You could be charged with a number of other things, however, and there is probably a bit of cover-your-butt implied by the LEO who suggested that you were the one being attacked.

Someone correct me if I've got it wrong.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

[jnichols2]

cb1000rider,

Your quote corrects me.

Thanks

[2firfun50]

Someone might remind me the Yorkie is legally considered "property" and I can't use force to protect her.
The policeman I talked to about the report reminded me that if I shot the dog, he was attacking ME, not the Yorkie.

As I understand it:

You can use force to protect your property in Texas. I think you implied in your prior post that you can't do this because it's not covered under the castle doctrine. I don't know of any limitation indicating that force is allowed to protect property only at home.

In the case you mention, you're not using deadly force. You can't use deadly force against "property" - the Pit Bull. You could be charged with a number of other things, however, and there is probably a bit of cover-your-butt implied by the LEO who suggested that you were the one being attacked.

Someone correct me if I've got it wrong.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

This little piece of Texas law is very appropriate for dealing with attacking dogs. I don't believe your average city LEO has ever heard of it. Since the Yorkie is a "domestic animal", the protecting property really doesn't apply.

Sec. 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:

(1) any person witnessing the attack; or

(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.

(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.

(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.

(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.

(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... HS.822.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[adaboy5]

I turn 40 next mnth and it was always on my bucket list of things! Plus it's really getting crazy now days and it to clost to home now, violence, murder, theft etc that is...