Texas Castle Doctrine

My post, "Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill Becomes Law " continues to be one of my most popular posts. Quite a few people are interested in our Castle Doctrine law and the search engines are sending them here. Since there is so much interest, I thought I should write an update with a little history and links to the applicable Texas codes.

The Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground bill that became law is SB 378. The actual title of SB 378 is "An Act Relating to the Use of Force or Deadly Force in Defense of a Person".

SB 378 passed the Texas State Senate with a vote of 30 to 0. The bill went on to the House where it passed 133 to 13 with one abstaining from the vote. This bill was signed into law by Governor Perry on March 27th, 2007. The Texas Castle Doctrine is effective as of September 1st, 2007.

Here is the text of SB 378 as enrolled. I have removed the strikeouts that indicated deleted text from the code to make it easier to read. The title of each section is linked to the applicable section of the Texas Penal or Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.


SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

This is good law that took a lot of hard work to get passed. If your representatives supported SB 378, be sure to send them a quick note thanking them for their support. We've a lot of work ahead of us in this next legislative session, a thanks now could go a long way towards more support in the future.

Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill Becomes Law

Tomorrow is September 1st, the day that the Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill becomes law. I have received quite a few hits from people interested in this new law, and what it does for the free citizen of Texas.

In a nutshell:

SB 378 explicitly states in law that a person has no duty to retreat if the person is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be present, if he or she has not provoked the attacker, and if the person using force is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used. In addition, the jury is instructed to presume that the victim's actions were reasonable if the victim brings forth evidence that he or she is entitled to the presumption, unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

This bill also provides civil immunity for the individual who uses justified force or deadly force. This individual is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable. An individual can still be sued, but if it has already been proven that the force was justified, they will win, and early on in the case.

Here is the text of SB 378, as it is always good know the exact verbiage of the law.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

This is a very good law and the free citizens of Texas should be proud of their legislature for getting it accomplished. We should also thank all the folks who called, emailed and faxed their representatives and supported this bill, and those who worked behind the scenes to get this done. Getting this bill passed was no easy task, and it is a testament to all of our hard work that it passed with such wide margins.

If you live in Texas, own a firearm, support our rights, and are not a member of the TSRA, shame on you. The TSRA was very instrumental in supporting all of our firearm related rights during this past legislative session.

To join the TSRA today, click here. If you tell them I sent you, James Dark (the Executive Director) would owe me a beer at the next Lone Star Friends of NRA Banquet.

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill Signed Into Law

From the Star Telegram:

By Kelley Shannon:

Governor signs 'castle doctrine' deadly force bill

Gov. Rick Perry signed into law Tuesday a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces...

...This is the first bill-signing this legislative session by the Republican governor. The law takes effect Sept. 1.

It is a done deal. On September 1st Texas will have a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law.

For more information on this law (including text), go here.

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill

On March 12th, SB 378 (Relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person) was voted upon and passed in the State Senate. The vote passed with 30 Yeas and 0 Nays.

On Monday, the 19th, Representative Driver made a motion to substitute SB 378 for the House version of the same bill (HB 284). This motion passed and SB 378 was placed before the house and read into public record.

Today SB 378 was read for the third time in the House and was voted upon by the members of the Texas State House and passed. The voted passed with 133 yeas and 13 Nays. One member stated on the public record that he intended to vote Nay, so the vote would have been 132 Yeas and 14 Nays.

All that is left is for Governor Perry to sign the dotted line, and Texas will have a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law. This law will go into effect on September 1st.

Here is the text of the bill.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

That is pretty much it in a nut shell.

Oh...

Who were the dissenters? Who were the ones would deny a Texan the ability to use lawful force against a goblin?

A list of the usual suspects:

Representative Lon Burnam - Representative Garnet Coleman - Representative Dawnna Dukes - Representative Harold Dutton - Representative Jessica Farrar - Representative Ana E. Hernandez - Representative Terri Hodge - Representative Donna Howard - Representative Barbara Mallory Caraway - Representative Ruth McClendon - Representative Borris Miles - Representative Paul Moreno - Representative Senfronia Thompson and the member who stated:

I was shown voting yes... I intended to vote no.

Representative Elliott Naishtat

If your representative is on this list, and you would have preferred they voted for this bill, write and let them know. More importantly, if your representative supported this legislation, write and tell them thanks. Showing our appreciation for their support will go a long way towards maintaining their support on future legislation.

For and update on the Texas Castle Doctrine law, click here

The Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law Makes it Through Committee

Yesterday I drove down to Austin and attended the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee's public hearing on HB 284, the Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. I went to be a part of the process in getting this legislation passed.

One of the first things I noticed when I arrived at the Capitol Building was the large number of AARP members. They were everywhere. The AARP had bussed them in from all over the state, dressed them in the same tee shirts and gave them small signs reading "Utility Reform Now". It is interesting that the AARP can generate enough interest to get hundreds of people to the legislature for the sole purpose of saving a couple of dollars on the monthly electricity bill, but when it comes to legislation that concerns basic freedoms and liberty, only a handful of folks show up.

You can watch a broadcast of the public hearing on HB 284 here. Be warned, the entire meeting lasted over 7 1/2 hours, but the portion concerning HB 284 is only the first 2 hours of the broadcast.

The first person to take the stand was Representative Driver. Rep. Driver is the author of HB 284, and I had a chance to meet and speak with him before and after the hearing. Rep. Driver introduced his bill and all seemed to be going well until they started taking about the "Committee Substitute" of the bill. It seems that an agreement was made earlier in the day with some of the members who had co-authored the bill, but were not happy with it's content. These changes were necessary to get the bill through the committee. Maybe, just maybe, I was not wrong after all.

The "Committee Substitute" has not yet been posted, but Rep. Driver spoke to it early in the broadcast. Basically there were 4 changes to the original bill, as I have not seen the exact wording, these are as I understood them from Rep. Driver's testimony:

1. Changed this wording "...unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment" to clarify that in order for presumption to apply the unlawful entry must be forceful.

2. Added that the habitation, vehicle, or place of business must be occupied. In other words some members thought we would start shooting folks breaking into our vehicles at the mall parking lot.

3. Strikes the affirmative defense to civil action language. Instead provides the crime victim immunity from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the lawful use of deadly force.

4. Removed this language: "COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses."

I am going to have to read the Committee Substitute before I can comment. But at the moment I am very disappointed in item #4. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association was the driving force in items 3 and 4, their testimony thanking the committee for making the changes starts at 8:25 into the broadcast.

Carl Wood was next to testify. He is a regular citizen, a CHL holder and an Instructor. He made some very good points for the bill, and his testimony starts at 9:20.

Next to testify for the bill was Susan Buxton, you may better know her at the "Gun Toting Granny" from Arlington. Mrs. Buxton described her ordeal when she had to shoot an intruder in her home. She explained some of the legal aftermath of that shooting and mentioned one thing that I had not known, the goblin was never charged with any crime related to breaking in to her home. He will be getting out of prison in a couple of months on unrelated charges. Mrs. Buxtons testimony starts at 13:15. I had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Buxton after hearing, she is one neat person that I would like to get to know.

Following Mrs. Buxton was Deanna Eggleston (I am totally guessing on spelling, sorry). Ms. Eggleston related her encounter with an intruder late in the night. This man admitted to her that he had come to rape her. What prevented him from doing this was her .357. She did not shoot the goblin, and he was apprehended later. Her testimony starts at 32:35.

Rep. Peña pronounced my name correctly, most do not. I did not testify.

The first to testify against the bill was The Rev. Peter Johnson (youngest aid to Dr Martin Luther King). Rev. Johnson testified about a time when a civil rights worker was severely beaten, and dieing. The police would not allow the man to be taken to a hospital as he was a "nigger lover". Rev. Johnson mentioned that he grabbed a shotgun but was tackled by Andrew Young. Later Dr. King convinced him that violence was not the answer (oh by the way, the kid died). The Reverend never mentioned the Deacons of Defense and their contribution to civil rights. The Reverend also mentioned that he is involved with gun buy back programs in Dallas, he has
"bought back" over 3000 firearms. One statistic he mentioned that I found interesting is that 85% of the guns they purchase in the "buy back" program are stolen. That is 2550 stolen firearms. A thought crossed my mind when he mentioned this statistic. I wondered if the Reverend's gun buy back program was promoting crime in Dallas? If goblins were stealing firearms for the sole purpose of receiving money during the buy back? The Reverend's testimony was very heartfelt and honest. It starts at 39:45

The next testimony against the bill was a representative of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. His testimony starts at 47:00. You do have to view this part of the hearing. His testimony basically stated that the DA's office was against this bill because the presumption of innocence would be difficult for the prosecutor to overcome.

The Texas State Rifle Association was in attendance, but did not testify. I met with James Dark, the Executive Director of the TSRA, after the meeting and he indicated that votes were in to pass the bill on to the house.

The NRA did testify to counter the comments made by the Harris County ADA. Terra Micha (probably misspelled also) represented the NRA. If you are familiar with the Harris County DA's refusal to abide by the Texas Traveling Law, you will get a kick out of her testimony. It starts at time 1:03:50.

A couple of other county DA's testified against the bill, they basically echoed the Harris County ADA and mentioned blood in the streets due to bar fights. and drive by shootings. Totally off topic for this bill. When one of the committee members mentioned that the Dallas County DA was for the bill, the last DA testifying made the mistake of referencing the fact that the Dallas County DA was new and did not really know what he was doing. You will have to watch to see the reaction of the representatives from Dallas. Go to 1:31:15.

The last to testify against the bill was , Texas's very own representative of the Brady Bunch, Marsha McCartney. She pulled out the normal Brady routine and quoted the articles from Orlando and the New York Times that have been fisked left, right and sideways and have been proven to be mostly lies and misrepresentations. Her testimony starts at 1:33:10.

Representative Driver had the opportunity to rebut Marsha McCartney's misuse of facts and make a final statement. His final statement starts at 1:39:30.

The bill was passed on to the full body of the house with the committee's recommendation that it be passed. The vote was 5 to 3 for.

Voting for the bill were Rep's Peña, Vaught, Talton, Riddle, and Pierson.

Voting against the bill were Rep's Mallory-Caraway, Hodge and Moreno. It is interesting that Rep. Mallory-Caraway mentioned a couple of times the amount of email she had in support of the bill, and that the DA in her district was in support of the bill, but still voted against it.

If you would like to read a more concise version, the Dallas Morning News reports here.

Just Got Back From Austin

I took today off and drove down to Austin to attend the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee's public hearing on HB 284 (Texas's version of the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law). I am going to take some time to wind down from the day and the drive and will most likely wait until tomorrow to post on the hearing. I will say that the committee voted 5 - 3 to send the bill to the full house with a recommendation that it be passed. Portions of the bill were amended prior to the meeting, and I will go into more detail on those in my next post.

I Was Wrong!

On Friday, I posted a Texas Firearm Legislation Update. In my commentary I mentioned that Representative Vaught was attempting to hold HB 284 (The Castle Doctrine Law) up in committee. I stated:

It now appears that between the rally and the fax/phone campaign, the freshman Democrat who is Vice-Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee is trying to hold up the bill.

In the comments to that post, Representative Aaron Peña (the Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee) assured us that he expected Representative Vaught to vote with the majority on the Castle Doctrine Bill.

This morning Representative Vaught responded to this issue via email. Here is what he said:

JR, I have not received the e-mail you mentioned in your blog yet because I am in Dallas right now. However, in response to the general inquiry, the information you posted is not correct. I intend to vote for the Castle Doctrine bill. That has been my intention before coming to Austin, and has remained the case since I took office. I have listened to all sides, including the State district attorneys' groups (who did have some concerns about the bill), and I think we have a fair bill that will likely pass out of committee.

As an Iraq war veteran (OIF 1) and having grown up on a ranch near Fort Worth, I am a strong 2nd Amendment and self defense supporter. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in either political party who is stronger 2nd Amendment supporter than me. So, I am really puzzled why anyone would tell you I was against the bill. I would appreciate you sharing with me who gave you that information as it is a pure fabrication which should be addressed. Thank you, and please take some time to visit with me in Austin if you come down on Tuesday.

Allen Vaught

It seems that I was given faulty information about Representative Vaught and his actions in the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee concerning the Castle Doctrine Bill. My statement accusing Representative Vaught of trying to hold up the bill was incorrect, and I was wrong to make such a statement without attempting to do a better job of vetting my source. I am very glad to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I appreciate the fact that Representatives Peña and Vaught took the time to correspond with us and settle this matter.

The Castle Doctrine Bill is a very important piece of legislation. House Bill 284 defines the term "unlawful force" as it pertains to a goblin acting on a citizen, states that there is no requirement to retreat from a goblin who is demonstrating unlawful force, and helps to protect the citizen from civil suits.

It is a beautiful day, so V and I are off to the range!

Texas Firearm Legislation Update

It has been a busy end of the week so far as pending gun laws in Texas are concerned. With all the federal and local gun legislation being submitted, I finally had to break down and sign on with one of the internet fax services to get all my faxing accomplished quickly and without breaking the bank.

First we have the two major anti gun bills that have been submitted to the Texas State Legislature by Representative Yvonne Davis. House Bills 594 and 595. HB 594 is titled "An act Relating to the creation of certain offenses concerning firearm sales at gun shows" and I commented upon it here. HB 595 is titled "Relating to requiring a waiting period for the purchase or sale of a handgun; creating an offense" and I commented upon it here.

Both of these bills are currently in the House Committee on Law Enforcement. As neither one of these bills has a single co-sponsor, I did not expect them to gain much traction. But, the Brady Bunch have been busy. It seems that the anti's have done a pretty good job of organizing their phone/fax trees and have bombarded members of the committee with faxes and phone calls. Now there are members of the committee pressing to release these bills for public hearings. A public hearing on these bills would be a waste of time and our tax dollars. Bills with no sponsors will not be passed and all public hearing will accomplish is to give the anti's a soapbox to stand upon and create sound bites for the evening news.

If you are a Texan, take a minute and contact the members of the House Committee on Law Enforcement and let them know your view on these two bills. We need to counter the efforts of the antis. Remember to be respectful and not-threatening, this committee is pretty much gun friendly, Chairman Driver is the author of the Castle Doctrine Bill that I will talk about in a minute.

House Law Enforcement Committee:

Rep. Joe Driver - Chairman
Rep. Thomas Latham - Vice-Chairman
Rep. Alma Allen
Rep. Stephen Frost
Rep. Soloman Ortiz, Jr.
Rep. Hubert Vo
Resp. George “Buddy” West

Next on the agenda is HB 284, the Castle Doctrine Law. When I first commented on HB 284, it had 3 authors and 74 co-authors. This bill now has 102 co-authors (out of a total of 150 state representatives). You would think that with over 2/3 of the house either authoring, or co-authoring this bill, it could make it through committee easily. Well here we go, the Brady Bunch strikes again. On Monday, the 12th of February, the Dallas chapter of the Brady Bunch staged an anti gun rally in Austin and got to meet with a few of the legislatures. It now appears that between the rally and the fax/phone campaign, the freshman Democrat who is Vice-Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee is trying to hold up the bill. This bill has the support of the House, and the People of Texas. If you are a Texan, contact the members of Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and let them know that you support HB 284 and want it released for a vote by the entire house.

Rep. Aaron Pena - Chairman
Rep. Allen Vaught Vice-Chairman
Rep. Debbie Riddle
Rep. Juan M. Escobar
Rep. Terri Hodge
Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway
Rep. Paul Moreno
Rep. Paula Pierson
Rep. Robert Talton

If you want your voice to be heard, please remember to be respectful and polite in your communications with the folks whom we are counting upon to protect our liberties.

If your representative is one of the authors or co-authors of HB 284, contact them and thank them for their support. If they are not, then contact them and let them know that YOU support this bill and would appreciate their support also.

This is a lot of contacting, and it can be a lot of work, but it is work well worth doing. If you do not stand up for our rights and freedoms, who will?

For up to the minute information on Texas firearm legislation, go to the TSRA-PAC.