Harleyman007
Regular Member
What do y'all think about this?
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Sear...ustom&Custom=SB-299&All=&Any=&Exact=&Exclude=
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Sear...ustom&Custom=SB-299&All=&Any=&Exact=&Exclude=
This says that it is a defense to prosecution if you pull your weapon (without discharging it) on someone to stop them from committing a crime. Without this, if you pull your weapon, you better shoot the bad guy.(h)It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
I have not read carefully, but if they make carrying legal, and opposed to having a permit a defense to prosecution, it's a win. Right now, IIRC, it's is still technically illegal to carry, but the CHL provides an affirmative defense.
It's not a defense, affirmative or otherwise. It's an exception of applicability. If it were a defense, you could be arrested and would be required to prove your defense in court. With an exception, you're not subject to arrest.
There seems to be a fundamental disconnect in perception among many people on these forums.
What is legal is what council can convince a judge and/or jury is legal.
What is arrestable is everything. Everything. And if you think there's meaningful sanction against an officer who arrests falsely, the Scientologists are looking for more adherents.
What should be discussed, when someone wants to know if it's okay to do something, is less what standing law declares legal or illegal, and more what is or isn't prone to get you arrested, no matter the legality. Court-adjudicated legality is a concern for those who can afford legal bills. Arrest likelihood is what most of us are interested in.
This is a dangerously false mindset. As I've posted before:
EDIT: Yeah, I know I misspelled "counsel" in the original post.