TexasCHLforum.com

So now for the question no one wanted to ask: Lets say for example a CHL holder (not myself) accidentally carried into a store with a valid 30.06 sign and then was forced to use their weapon in a self defense situation would they still be charged with UCCW and lose their chl?

seamusTX wrote:Yes, I really have never seen a valid 30.06 sign (and I hope it stays that way).

Galveston County has 30.06 signs on some of their facilities that meet the requirements of the law except that they are not valid because they are on government-owned premises.

Other than that, I've seen only signs with the wrong wording, in English only, and too small.

I asked El Gato (who is a CHL instructor), if he had ever seen one. He said the only one he knew of in the county was on a particular medical clinic.

- Jim

C'mon up to Dallas, Jim, I can show you a few.

But I agree, the greater majority I have seen are non-compliant in some way or another.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:Lets say for example a CHL holder ... accidentally carried into a store with a valid 30.06 sign and then was forced to use their weapon in a self defense situation would they still be charged with UCCW and lose their chl?

In Texas, in general, if you take some justified action to defend yourself or others, you will not be charged with any minor offense that you committed in the course of action.

I don't know of any statute that says this is so, it just seems to be the way that it is.

This is definitely not the case in some states. In Illinois, people who justifiably defended themselves were often charged with weapons violations. The state legislature put a stop to that several years ago.

There is one exception to this (which does not apply to CHL holders or most people who would be reading this forum): If a felon has a firearm, he will almost always be charged with felon in possession.

- Jim

So its not officially written anywhere?

Well, there is the necessity defense. If breaking a law avoids some greater harm, you get a pass.

However, in your hypothetical case, the CHL holder would have been breaking the law before the need to use the handgun arose. I know of no law that says he has justification in a case like that.

There is such a thing as common sense. The police are not obligated to arrest (except in one case that is not relevant to this discussion), the DA is not obligated to prosecute, and a judge can dismiss a case for any or no reason.

IANAL, and there may be some aspect of the law that I don't know about.

- Jim