Friday, March 30, 2007

Texas Workers Protection Legislation!

There are several bills floating around the Texas Legislature that attempt to deal with the issue of employers firing CHL holders if the employer discovers a firearm in the CHL holders vehicle. This is a good idea that would not be necessary if it were not for corporations overstepping their bounds when trying to control all aspects of the lives of their employees. There is a small problem though, the idea has gone sour with the bills that have the most likelihood of passing.

Senate Bill 534 (SB 534) and House Bill 992 (HB 992) are companion bills titled "Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a concealed handgun."

It all sounds well and good. The NRA-ILA has sent out the mass mailing requesting Texas firearm owners to contact their legislators and urge support for these bills and HB 220 (I will comment upon HB 220 shortly).

This is how the NRA-ILA describes these bills:

All three bills would allow Concealed Handgun Licensees to transport and store handguns in their locked, private motor vehicles while parked on their employer’s property. HB992 and SB534 also provide employers with protection from civil liability for the unforeseeable acts of criminals.
Sounds great doesn't it?

There is one major flaw with two of these bills. Let us see if you can pick it out -


(a) A public or private employer may not discharge, discipline, or penalize in any manner an employee because the employee:

(1) applied for a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;

(2) holds a license under that subchapter; or

(3) transports or stores a handgun the employee is licensed to carry under that subchapter in the employee's locked motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees if the handgun is hidden from plain view and the employee has filed with the employee's immediate supervisor:

(A) a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee:

(i) is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;

(ii) intends to store a concealed handgun in the employee's locked motor vehicle while parked in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees; and

(iii) may not remove the handgun from the employee's vehicle for any purpose other than self-defense in the immediate parking area; and

(B) a copy of the employee's license to carry a concealed handgun issued to the employee by the Department of Public Safety under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
Okay, so I gave you a hint.

The requirement for an employee to inform the employer in writing of his or her CHL status pretty much renders this law useless for many. CHL holders who work for companies or individuals who are anti gun, are not going to notify them, in writing, that they have a firearm in the car. CHL holders are not stupid. Texas is an "at will" employment state, and the employer may not state that a CHL holder was fired for having a firearm in the car, but any other excuse will work. Future performance evaluations will be affected and promotions missed. These bills accomplish absolutely nothing for CHL holders, or for anyone else who happens to have a firearm in the vehicle (in Texas, it is legal to have a long gun in your vehicle at all times).

Yesterday, SB 534 passed the Senate. HB 992 (the companion to 534) and HB 220 have passed through the Law Enforcement Committee and are awaiting scheduling through the Calender Committee.

HB 220 is a much better bill. It contains no requirement for the CHL holder to notify the employer of his or her status as a CHL holder. HB 220 simply states:

Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person licensed under this subchapter from transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.
The issue I have with this bill is the following verbiage:

A private employer may prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees if:

(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and

(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot, garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.
A secure parking lot does not do any good for the CHL holder while they travel to and from work.

There is a third bill sitting in committee. HB 1037 effectively addresses both employee and employer issues as they relate to firearms in vehicles.

For the employee:

(b) A public or private employer may not discharge, discipline, or penalize in any manner an employee because the employee transported or stored a firearm in the employee's locked motor vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle was located on the employer's property.
For the employer:

(g) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the storage of a firearm in the motor vehicle of an employee.
HB 1037 is an excellent bill, that has no chance of passage in this legislative session. Personally, I am willing to wait until such a time as a bill such as this can be passed. But I acknowledge that we do need some employee protection.

So this is what I would recommend;

Contact your House Representative and let them know that you fully support HB 1037 and would like to see it released from committee for debate on the House Floor. Baring that, let them know that you would prefer they support HB 220 over HB 992. Give them good reasons why you are against HB 992 and why you would support HB 220.

In defense of the NRA's support of SB 534/HB 992 is the fact that this is the most contested piece of pro-gun legislation that has been put before the Texas Legislature. Castle Doctrine was a breeze compared to this. Many of Texas's largest employers have come out very strongly against these bills. The fact that SB 534 made it through the Senate is testament to the hard work of the lobbyist and Senators who are trying to get some protection for CHL holders. It is easy for me to be a hardliner when I am sitting at my keyboard. I do not want to minimize the work that is being done on our behalf in the legislature. If SB 534/HB 992 passes, the requirement to provide written notification, if abused by companies, can be fought in a future legislative session.

Thursday, March 29, 2007


12+ hour days at work make quality bloggin tough, brain just isn't working as well as it should.

So I'll leave you with a couple images of the quintisential Texas BBQ Gun

Texas Six Shooter BBQ Grill

Handgun BBQ Grill

Wednesday, March 28, 2007


In the comments section of a couple recent posts, Fits has mentioned 30.06 Signs. I am sure that many of you who read this site have no idea about what a 30.06 sign is. I thought I should explain.

When Texas passed it's version of a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Law, a compromise was made that attempted to balance the right to keep and bear arms with the rights of a property owner. In Texas a business owner may prohibit concealed carry on his or her property. This was accomplished through the Texas Penal Code, Section 30.06.


Basically a CHL holder is in violation of the law (Class A misdemeanor) if he or she remains on the property after proper notification that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden. This notification can be either verbally, the owner or owner's representative asks you to leave, or by written communication. The written communication can be a card handed to the CHL holder, or a sign posted at the entrance of the property. The language of the written communication has to be exactly as follows (in both English and Spanish):

Any other signage does not constitute proper notification and a CHL holder can legally enter the establishment with a concealed firearm. If a business owner posts a no guns sign other than the proper 30.06 sign, I see it as an invitation for a CHL holder to enter. Now if the owner determines that you have a concealed firearm and asks you to leave, you must leave.

One of my very first posts on Fit's site, Shooting the Messanger, concerned some comments he made about Texans and 30.06. I took a bit of umbrage to a post of his "The Neverending Sissification Of Texas...We Get Letters" and we have been commenting back and forth ever since.

There are very few 30.06 signs posted in Texas these days. Businesses have realized that CHL holders have money and are not the guys planning on a robbery. We are gaining momentum towards changing the Penal Code and doing away with 30.06, but it will be awhile yet before that happens

More information on 30.06 can be found here and here.

Found While Looking for Something Else

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Killed by a Drunk Driver

Today's Houston Chronicle reports on a fatal accident involving a serial drunk driver.

By Cindy Horswell

A Mexican national, charged with intoxicated manslaughter and failure to render aid in the deaths of a Porter woman and her pregnant daughter, had three prior drunken driving convictions...

According to investigators, Gomez-Gutierrez was speeding on the Eastex Freeway about 3:40 p.m. Sunday when his pickup truck slammed into the back of a 1998 Buick belonging to the Ortiz family. The two women were killed on impact near the entrance to Kingwood, investigators said.

Authorities say Gomez-Gutierrez fled the accident scene on foot but was captured further down the road after being hit by another car. He was not seriously injured....

Kahan said, "Part of the blame for this accident should be placed on the criminal justice system which punted, passed and kicked Gomez-Gutierrez out of jail, so that he could do what he does best -- drive drunk."
I am not going to comment on the fact that a Mexican National had been arrested and jailed three different times without being forced to leave the United States.

I did not pick this article to point out the failures of our justice system or question the light sentences that this drunk had received previously.

I am not even going to mention that the Houston District Attorney should be doing more to keep repeat criminals off of the streets and less daemonizing of law abiding gun owners.

Nope, I am not going to talk about any of that.

I mention the above article so I can comment on this other piece of news that is being reported today.

From WBAP, News Talk Radio 820:

AUSTIN-(WBAP)-A bill named after two fallen metroplex police officers has passed the Texas House of Representatives. The Darren Medlin and Dwayne Freeto Act increases penalties for drunk drivers who assault or kill peace officers, firefighters or EMS personnel while they are in the line of duty. The Act is named after Grapevine police officer Darren Medlin, who was hit and killed by a drunk driver in 2004, and Fort Worth Police Officer Dwayne Freeto, killed when his car was engulfed in flames after being hit by a drunk driver last December.

The legislation now goes before the Texas Senate.
Will someone please explain to me why the death of a police officer, firefighter or an EMS in this situation is worth more than the death of the two women in the first article?

I can understand increased penalties for killing or attempting to kill a police officer attempting to arrest a goblin. Legislation such as that may help to protect our police officers. This is different. A drunk who kills in a traffic incident is not killing a police officer because he or she wears a badge, the drunk kills them because they are where they are. The drunk would have killed anyone who happened to be in that same spot.

Do you want to increase penalties for intoxicated manslaughter? Go ahead, but increase them across the board. The three generations that were killed by the Mexican National, deserve the same justice as a public servant killed under the same circumstances.

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill Signed Into Law

From the Star Telegram:

By Kelley Shannon:

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.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Guns 'n' church for Britney Spears

What do you do if you are against a free citizen's right to keep and bear arms, have a lot of money, and are worried about your personal safety? Why hire an armed body guard of course.

From The Post Chronicle:

Britney Spears has found religion. Well, sorta. Britney Spears' weekend trip to church sparked controversy yesterday when a security guard pulled a gun on a photographer.

The singer spent her first Sunday morning after her recent rehab stint at the Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles--a regular haunt of top religious celebrities.

But the Sunday service was anything but peaceful after a security guard threatened to shoot a photographer who was attempting to get pictures of Spears at prayer.

The paparazzo was detained and later released.
This short story says much more than it intends about the "Way Things Are" in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

There are different laws for different classes of people in California. A rich celebrity (who is an anti-gun hypocrite) can hire armed bodyguards to keep the common folks away. Other than the hypocrisy, there is nothing wrong with hiring armed guards to protect yourself. The illustration of how celebrities are treated different than normal folks does not occur until after the bodyguard pulls a firearm on a photographer. If you or I were to pull a firearm on someone for taking our picture, we would be in jail post haste. Not this bodyguard though, he is protecting a celebrity so gets a free pass. Not only was the bodyguard not arrested, but the photographer was "detained".

There is more on this story here.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

More Guns Banned by HR 1022

The most recent issue of American Rifleman has an article titled "Show Me What's New in '07". A good bit of "What's New in '07" could become "What's Banned in '07" should HR 1022 be passed.

Here are the firearms from the April edition of the American Rifleman that would be banned under HR 1022:

From Auto-Ordnance -

Thompson 1927A-1 with Detachable Buttstock

The Thompson 1927, The Thompson M1, and the Thompson 1927 Commando are banned by name in HR 1022. Auto-Ordnance is pretty much SOL if this becomes law.

From Berretta -

Rx4 Storm

Beretta lists this as "The Beretta Rx4 Storm is the most advanced semiautomatic rifle ever designed. This .223 special purpose rifle emphasizes individual performance with ergonomic adjustment and ambidextrous controls." Well that barrel shroud would make this a banned firearm under HR 1022.

From Cobb Manufacturing -

COBB Multi Caliber Rifle - MCR 200

MCR-400 Series Rifle Caliber: 338 Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm)

I honestly do not know how badly Cobb Manufacturing would be hurt by a loss of pretty much all civilian sales due to the passage of HR 1022, but I think it would be a significant hit. Cobb had invested a lot of R@D dollars to perfect their MCR's, money down the drain if HR 1022 becomes law.

From D.P.M.S. -

Panther LR-260L in .260 Remington

Panther LR-TAC20 in .308 Winchester

DPMS is another company that will be severely affected if it loses civilian sales due to HR 1022.

From FNH-USA -

FN SLP Mark 1

This beautiful semiautomatic shotgun has a fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds. This is way too much firepower for a free citizen to handle.

PS90 TR (Triple Rail)

Barrel shroud, thumb hole grip, forward grip... All banned attributes of a firearm by HR 1022.

There you have it. Some of the best new firearms of the year would be banned if HR 1022 is allowed to go forward. These companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research and development to improve upon firearm platforms, they need the civilian market sales to keep this research going. Why is this research important? It is important because our soldiers will benefit from improved small arms. Remove the civilian money from the small arms industry, our military will suffer.

Here is the full text of HR 1022

Edit to add: I just checked, and there are now 33 cosponsors to this bill. I guess it is a good thing that "Gun control is a dead issue".

Own a Piece of History!

From Xavier Thoughts:

Pretty amazing, the things you can find on Ebay these days.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Gazing at the Flag: Flags from Iraq to America

Gazing at the Flag: Flags from Iraq to America

I own an American Flag the flew over the USS Constitution. I received it while in the Navy, and it is one of my prized possessions. Now I am about to get a new flag.

NORTHERN IRAQ (Army News Service, March 19, 2007) - Since paratroopers of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment's 1st Squadron set foot in Iraq, they've raised and lowered a new flag every hour on the hour. Each flag has then become available for purchase through the unit's Family Readiness Group.

Spc. Michael Tyree of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment's 1st Squadron lowers an American Flag flying over his unit's headquarters in Northern Iraq. Spc. Fabian Acosta catches the flag as it lowers.

"(The) flags are flying with pride in many homes," said Christopher S. Italiano from Columbus, Ohio, friend and brother-in-law to Lt. Col. Ross Davidson, commander, 1st Sqdn., 73rd Cav. Regmt.

"The 1-73 Cav will forever be honored as symbols of the country's strength and belief in democracy."

Soldiers, family members and friends have purchased the flags as gifts or to show off their patriotism.

Troop A First Sgt. Robert Ochsner bought one for a friend whose son is in special forces, and another for his father, who is in the Patriot Guard - a group of motorcyclists that provides security at fallen Soldiers' memorials - and flies his flag whenever they ride, said Ochsner.

"I was stunned by the total reverence I felt when I received the flag, the certificate and the thank you note," said Jayme Parker, a resident of Cypress, Calif., who is Davidson's cousin. "I cannot describe the feeling I had when I touched the flag. I gave a moment of silence and said a prayer for those who proudly serve, and for those who have given their lives for the freedoms I enjoy."

Danny and Debbie Williams from Augusta, Ga., gave away several of the flags at Christmas and soon received an outpouring of thank you's.

"Just holding this flag and knowing where it has traveled just fills your heart with love for our country and her defenders," said Debbie.

The flags sell for $25 and each comes with a certificate of authentication signed by Davidson and Command Sgt. Maj. Brian Krabbe, the command sergeant major of 1st Sqdn., 73rd Cav. Regt. For information on purchasing a flag send e-mails to

Article and Photos by Spc. Susan Blair -
1st Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, Public Affairs
Thanks to Mikes America for pointing us to Gazing at the Flag who originally posted this.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Gun Control a Dead Issue?

Yesterday while on the way home from work, I heard Sean Hannity mention something that made my jaw drop. It was during his daily apologetics for Rudy Giuliani. A caller had mentioned something about Rudy and gun control, and in Sean's answer he stated "Gun control is a dead issue" and continued with something along the lines of "The Liberals know better than to bring it up".

Well Sean, if gun control is such a dead issue why does HR 1022 (To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes) have 30 cosponsors? If gun control is such a dead issue for the Liberals, why did Representative Castle introduce HR 96 (A Bill to Close Gun Shows)?

Add to this list HR 203, HR 256, HR 297, HR 354, HR 428, HR 880, and the various Senate bills (The GOA has a short summery of these and other bills here).

It does not appear to me that the anti's see gun control as a "dead issue".

One more point - Why do the "conservative" talking heads and pundits consider the Second Amendment to be a "social" issue? They place gun rights on the same level as gay rights and welfare. Do they really not understand that the Second Amendment is the bedrock of our liberty, that it is the guarantee that the .gov will not significantly overstep it's bounds without our permission? Don't they know that it is the Second Amendment that makes us free men and women, and not servants? Even the old school liberals understand that fact.

I am just sometimes amazed by what I read and hear by the "Conservative" front men that are supposedly uniting the conservative base.

Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) has compiled a very informative collection of articles concerning all of the '08 presidential candidates and their stand on the Second Amendment. If gun rights and the preservation of the Second Amendment is an important issue to you, then you need to know where the candidates stand. To me, the position a candidate takes on the Second Amendment and gun rights says a lot of how that candidate will look at the entire Bill of Rights and our Constitutional liberties.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

An Interview With Duncan Hunter

Representative Duncan Hunter sparked my interest when he announced that he was throwing his hat into the ring and run for president on the GOP ticket. The Duncan Hunter '08 website did an excellent job of defining his core values and beliefs in the areas of the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, abortion and the like, but had scant information on his views of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

So what's a blogger to do other than get in contact with his campaign staff and request an interview?

After correspondence back and forth, and a bit of time to allow Representative Hunter's staff to vet both myself and my blog, he agreed.

An interview (via email) with presidential candidate Duncan Hunter.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the following firearm related questions. The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and firearms issues in general are not addressed on your campaign web site so folks are interested in your views on these issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these vital issues of liberty with you. Our website was put together piece by piece and the Second Amendment statement was one of the later things added. That does not reflect the slightest lack of commitment on my part regarding Second Amendment rights. My record over 26 years in Congress is absolutely clear.”

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”

2. There has been a lot of discussion in the media and in the legislature about “Closing the Gun Show Loophole.” What is your definition of a “Gun Show Loophole”, and how would you address this issue?

I reject the term ‘loophole’. It is a clever verbal device of the left to restrict the rights of Americans. Constitutional rights are not loopholes in governmental regulations. As President, I would veto legislation that would require a background check on private firearms transactions at gun shows or any other bill that restricts the Second Amendment Rights of American.”

3. Representative Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.B. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. Do you believe that Americans have the right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern? Do you support restricting a citizen’s access to firearms based upon cosmetics or ease of function?

As President, I would veto any bill that reauthorizes the semi-auto ban that was sunset in 2004. These types of bills represent “feel good” measures that impede the rights of law-abiding citizens by banning guns based not on facts but based largely upon how scary they look.”

4. In Congress, you represent the great state of California, a state applauded by some and demonized by others for having extremely restrictive gun control laws. Do you understand California’s gun control laws to be a necessary and effective deterrent to violent crime?

Gun control laws directed at law-abiding citizens are not a crime deterrent. In fact, studies show that private ownership of firearms by Americans reduces crime. You and I both know that the one thing criminals prefer more than any other is unarmed victims.”

5. If you are elected President of the United States, how would your presidency affect firearm owners?

As President, I will not sign any treaty that impedes, in any way, the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Only judges who have a demonstrated commitment to interpret the Constitution as our founders intended will be nominated to the federal bench.

I would ask Congress to send me for my signature, legislation to repeal the D.C. gun ban, legislation to allow reciprocity among states with concealed carry rights and other pieces of legislation to restore rights that prior administrations have eroded.

In fact, I authored the Hunter amendment, Rol call 241 in 1999, to allow DC residents to keep and bear arms

Representative Hunter; thank you again for taking time out of your busy day to answer these questions and address issues that many Americans see as important. Your voting history on Second Amendment issues is appreciated.



There it is, Duncan Hunter on the Second Amendment. Since this was an interview, I'll leave my thoughts to myself for the time being.

I am very thankful to Representative Hunter for taking the time to answer these questions. I hope the questions were sufficient to give you information you can use in making a decision in the Republican primaries.

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.


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


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:


(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.


(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.


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

Monday, March 19, 2007

How Not to Introduce a New Shooter to Firearms

There is no sound on this video, none needed. It is a short, 18 second, display of lack of concern for safety and for the new shooter.

Tenth Edition of the Second Amendment Carnival

Stan over at Free Constitution has posted the Tenth Edition of the Second Amendment Carnival.

Providing the best 2nd Amendment coverage the blogosphere has to
Head on over and check it out.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Poacher Kills Game Warden

From the Star Telegram:

By Alex Branch

A Texas game warden was killed early Saturday during a shootout between authorities and a man suspected of hunting illegally.

Warden Justin Hurst, 34, was shot after the suspect led law enforcement officers on a 50-minute chase that wound through the back roads of Wharton County southwest of Houston, said Maj. Rolly Correa of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

When the car finally stopped, the suspect came out shooting, authorities said.

“I don’t know how many patrol cars were hit, but there were a number of windows shot out and lots of rounds fired,” Correa said.

The suspect, a goblin whose name is not worth mentioning, 26, was wounded in the shootout and taken to a hospital, according to a statement from the Texas Department of Public Safety. He is expected to be charged with capital murder.
The person who murdered this game warden is not a hunter, he is a poacher. There is a big difference. Hunters do not take game illegally, poachers do. Hunters do not get crosswise with law enforcement, poachers do. Hunters are law abiding citizens who continue traditions as old as mankind itself. Poachers are scum who steal from the land and from the citizens of Texas.

The chase started after a fellow game warden spotted a man believed to be hunting illegally from the road, authorities said. When the warden approached him, the suspect fled.

Hurst and officers from several jurisdictions joined the pursuit.

Hurst started his career with the agency in 1995 as a wildlife biologist, Correa said. He later grew interested in law enforcement and graduated from the Game Warden Academy in August 2002.

Hurst was killed on his 34th birthday and is survived by his wife and 4-month-old child, Correa said.

“It’s a really hard thing,” Correa said. “He was loved by all. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.”

Hurst was the 16th Texas game warden killed since 1919, Correa said.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Warden Hurst.

Game Wardens play an very important role in the preservation of our hunting and fishing grounds, keeping our lakes and open areas safe, and in wildlife education. Every Game Warden I have come in contact with has been very professional straightforward.

I am sure that everyone in the shooting community can agree that this goblin is no hunter, at best he is a poacher, and in reality a murderer. I have written the author of this article, and explained a bit about the differences between poachers and hunters.

If you would like to add your 2¢, here is his email:

Sunday's Blog of the Week

I am not really sure that this weeks blog of the week is considered a blog, but it is a very important web site. This web log provides us with a daily rundown of what is going on in the world of Second Amendment Blogs. Just as important as the current information, is the sidebar links to gun law history. This is a good place to start if you desire to become better educated in Second Amendment issues and the gun laws of today.

Of course I am talking about Gun Law News.

If you have not been there, go now. Click through some of the links, read, educate yourself. I am sure that Gun Law News will make it on to your favorites list.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Firearms Banned by H.R. 1022

Thought I would post a couple images of firearms considered "assault weapons" by the anti's.

Banned Specifically by Name

Mini-14® Ranch Rifle

Ruger Mini 14

M1 Carbine

This one is on GunBroker

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle (I assume they mean both)

Kel-Tec Sub 2000

One Banned by Attributes

Remington Model 11-87™ SP-T Thumbhole

Model 11-87™ SP-T Thumbhole

Thumbhole stock, a big no-can-do.

And, One That Many Have Not Thought About

My Kimber Pro Carry II

That is correct, from the bill:

...a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
Who did John Browing develop the 1911 for?

H.R. 1022, Assault Weapon Ban Update

The push to pass H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, is gaining momentum with each passing day. In an earlier posting I asked if the bill was:

...a trial balloon, or is it a serious effort by the Dems to launch a new AWB? A nod to the trial balloon folks would be the fact that this bill currently has no co-sponsors. If it were a serious piece of legislation, the Dems would be crawling all over each other to get their names on it.
Well guess what, H.R. 1022 now has 26 cosponsors. That means 26 more congress critters are giving their active support to this bill. Below is the list of the so called representatives of the people who have signed on to this bill.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]

Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]

Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]

Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]

Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1]

Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]

Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14]

Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]

Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]

Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]

Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]

Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]

Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]

Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]

Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]

Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]

Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]

Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8]

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]

Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29]

Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28]

Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8]

Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]

It looks to me like they are starting to get serious. We also need to get serious. We need to respond to this attack against our freedom right now. We can not wait until this bill gains even more momentum. Once it gets out of committee, the Dems will push it forward. They have a sitting president who has stated that he will sign an AWB, they have the majority, and they need a victory on a bill like this to bolster their candidates in the '08 elections.

I added a button on the top of my side bar that helps to make it easy to contact your congress critter. At the minimum, you should write, fax, email and call your representative and let them know that legislation such as this will not be tolerated.

For extra credit, contact the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to prevent this bill for going forward.

Gun Law News has a good synopsis of the bill here.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Some Mid Week Humor

Last week NASA fired that crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak. Apparently there was no place at NASA for an unstable woman. The good news? Today she was hired as co-host of “The View.”

Jay Leno via The Patriot Post

Darwin is on Our Side

From the Fresno Bee:

A Bulldog gang member who shot himself in the stomach while pounding on his handgun with a hammer was arrested on suspicion of possession of a firearm, Fresno police said...

...Hernandez eventually told detectives that he had been hammering on the handgrips of the loaded .22-caliber pistol when it fired.

An End Result of Gun Laws

The anti's keep telling us that we need more gun control laws, that writing more anti gun legislation will somehow keep violent criminals from using a firearm. Massachusetts is one state where the anti's have been very successful in implementing draconian gun control laws. Let's see what happens when a violent career goblin breaks these laws.

From the Berkshire Eagle:

By Nicole Sequino
PITTSFIELD — A 25-year-old Pittsfield man with a violent criminal history admitted in Berkshire Superior Court yesterday that he shot a 25-year-old man outside a local bar in May 2005, and then shot himself in the foot to imply he had been attacked.
Well... you know what my first comment is going to be. All the anti-gun laws in Massachusetts, all the political rhetoric and all the heavy handed restrictions placed upon the supposedly free citizens of Massachusetts did nothing to stop this violent creature from being violent.

At least they got their man. A repeat violent criminal is in custody and the State of Massachusetts has a chance to protect it's citizenry and keep this goblin locked up for a good, long time.

Reggie W. Ellerbee pleaded guilty to single counts of armed assault with intent to murder, being an armed career criminal, use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal possession of ammunition, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling place.
Holy sheep dip Bat Man. Isn't attempted murder a serious enough offence to get this guy locked up for a good long while? I think both the state and the people would be much better served if we would stop it with all this add on BS to crimes. Prosecutors could focus on the one important charge and juries would not have to deal with all this superfluous garbage. Anyone running for office who swears to vote against all new laws would get my vote.

Back to the subject at hand. This guy is going away forever with all those charges. This is Massachusetts, a gun control mecca.

Judge John A. Agostini sentenced Ellerbee to a total of 10 to 10 1/2 years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction. He will also remain on five years probation after his release on the condition that he have no contact with the alleged victim or his family.
A repeat violent offender will be back on the streets in just a few short years. Who will be to blame for his next victim? The goblin, the gun, or the justice system?

D.C. Gun Ban Overturned

A couple of folks have asked why I have yet to comment on the recent overturning of Washington DC's gun ban.

Basically it is because everyone else has done a very good job of getting the good news out there for the world to read. I would not have much to add to the commentary already written.

Gun Law News has compiled a fairly thorough list of articles and commentary on this very important decision:

Tuesday, March 13, 2007


There are very few movies that stick with me. The first would have to be Ol' Yeller, a line from that movie is often in the back of my mind. "A man's got it to do what a man's got it to do".

The song Impossible Dream from the Broadway show "Man From La Mancha" rolls through my mind during quiet moments.

Tonight we went to see the movie 300, and all I can say is that this movie will be sticking with me for quite awhile.

Accidental gun fatalities hit low Point

Fatalities due to accidental/negligent of a firearm are heartbreaking events that leave families and friends stunned. The sad truth of the matter is that pretty much each and every one of these incidents could be prevented by safe and proper handling of all firearms.

If you watch the news and listen to the anti's, you would think that accidental/negligent firearms related deaths are on the rise. The facts show that quite the opposite is true.

From South Coast Today:

By Marc Folco

Today, the annual number of accidental firearm-related fatalities (730) is down 77 percent from a high of 3,200 in 1930. In comparison to the 730 accidental gun deaths, 809 die from being struck by an object, 893 die from natural heat or cold, 1,307 suffocate, 3,306 drown, 3,369 die from fires, flames and smoke, 4,272 choke, 17,229 fall to their death, 19,457 are poisoned and 44,757 are killed in car accidents.
Did you catch that? Down 77% since 1930!

In 1930, there were approximately 110 million people in the United States, today there are over 300 million. If you adjust the numbers for the population increase, the results are very impressive.

In 1930 there were 2.9 accidental deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people.

Today there are .24 accidental deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people.

That is almost a 92% decrease in accidental/negligent firearm-related fatalities since 1930.

The author of the article lists a few factors contributing to this accomplishment:

The decline is attributed to a number of factors including firearm safety education programs by educational groups like the NSSF and the NRA, state-affiliated hunter education programs, free locking devices shipped with new firearms and advances in firearm designs and manufacturing.
I would like to add a couple of thing that I think have helped decrease accidental/negligent shootings:

  • Jeff Cooper. By publishing and advocating the Four Rules of Firearm Safety, Jeff Cooper has done more than any other individual or government entity to increase the safe handling of firearms the world over. The Four Rules, when followed, prevent accidental/negligent discharges.
  • This is one area where the media may have actually helped instead of hindered. When there is an accidental/negligent firearm related death, the media is all over it. This has increased awareness of the dangers associated with unsafe handling of firearms and caused folks to be more responsible.

Jeff Cooper, the media, gun magazines, hunting and shooting organizations, shooting ranges, gun shops and blogs have all worked together to raise awareness of firearm safety. A higher level of awareness equals a safer population.

We can do better. We can reduce deaths due to negligent firearm handling by another 90%. If you own a firearm, be responsible. Teach everyone in your house the proper and safe way to handle a firearm, make it as instinctual as buckling a belt.

If you are interested in learning more about firearm safety, I have posted some good information here.

Thanks to ACE over at Airborne Combat Engineer for leading me to this article.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Firearms and Employer Parking Lots

Three different bills have been introduced into the Texas State Legislature that would give CHL holders the right to transport and store their handgun in locked private vehicles on company property and also provide immunity from liability for the employer.

The introduced bills are:

HB 220 - Relating to the rights and liabilities of an employer with respect to the carrying of a concealed handgun. (HB 511 is a duplicate of this bill)

HB 992 - Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a concealed handgun.

HB 1037 - Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a firearm.

Current law allows an employer to fire an employee who lawfully carries a firearm in a vehicle on a company parking lot. An opinion piece in today's Star Telegram does a much better job explaining just what is wrong with this picture.

By Marion P. Hammer (former president of the NRA)

The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Transporting a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work, grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a shopping center or anywhere else people commonly travel is central to that right.

In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio), UPS fired an employee for having a firearm stored in his vehicle in a public-access parking lot used by UPS employees and customers. The court found that "the right to keep and bear arms" is enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination. Further, U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."

Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.

Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.

State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights. That is at the heart of this debate.

Businesses cannot substitute their own political philosophies for constitutional rights. And nowhere in the Constitution are businesses given any authority to prohibit rights in their parking lots. Businesses have no more right to ban firearms in private vehicles than they do to ban books. Businesses may impose only restrictions that do not rise to the level of contravening protected rights.

Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.
The article goes on to make both common and legal sense of the issue and is well worth the read.

Of the three bills listed above, HB 1037 is the one that I like best for several reasons. The main one is that it most protects a free citizens right to keep and bear arms.

All of these bills have heavy opposition, both from the anti's and from large corporations. If you are a Texan, and want to see one of these bills passed, you need to contact your representatives and let them know.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Sunday's Blog of the Week

The Blog of the Week for this week is a blog that I check several times each day just to see what's new.

Fits is a prolific blogger and his commentary covers a wide range of topics. Politics, pretty women, firearms and sports are all topics covered by Fits.

If you have not guessed by now, this week's blog of the week is Shooting the Messenger. It is well past time that I highlighted this blog. Fits is straight forward and tells it like he sees it. He can be controversial because he points out BS when he finds it.

If you want a good read, enjoy guns and are interested in politics, head on over now. You may not always agree with what you find over at Shooting the Messenger, but you will have the opportunity to state your position (trolls excepted).

Ethics Training, Lessons Learned From History

The headlines are becoming common place, the accusations of police officers abusing their authority work to create an insurmountable divide between the police and those they are sworn to "protect and serve".

  • In the aftermath of Katrina, we watch as the police forcibly disarm free citizens, leaving them at the mercies of the roving gangs and other goblins.

  • From Atlanta we hear of an elderly woman who died in a gunfight with undercover officers serving a "no knock" warrant looking for drugs. During the investigation we learn that the officers lied to get the warrant, continued to lie after the shooting, and forced their informant to lie for them.

  • And then there are the cases where we read of officers using their positions of authority to insure they are not charged when committing crimes, or to get sexual favors from prostitutes or even the law abiding citizen who gets pulled over in a traffic stop, or any number of other unethical practices that they feel they can get away with just because they are police officers.

The good news is that these officers represent a minority of the police who serve the community. I firmly believe that the majority of those who wear a badge are decent individuals who do their best to perform a difficult and often unappreciated job. But, as we saw in the Katrina aftermath, it does not take very much for those in a position of authority to turn against the very people they are sworn to protect and serve.

Here in the DFW Metroplex, a program has been developed to give our officers the tools to make ethical decisions in situations like the Katrina aftermath.

From the Dallas Morning News:

By Jeffrey Weiss.

Police officers find ethics lessons in Holocaust stories

A Plano police academy uses the lessons of the Nazi Holocaust to teach ethics to modern police officers.

Mike Jacobs, a death camp survivor and the founder of the Dallas Holocaust Museum, tells his story to the visiting police academy class. Mr. Jacobs said he hopes the officers learn from people who were in similar leadership positions during the Holocaust. Here's one of the lessons: What could it take to turn a beat cop into a mass murderer? Not as much as you'd think.

The disarmament of free citizens in New Orleans is only the most recent incident where those in authority have misused their power. Granted, disarmament pales in significance compared to the extinction that occurred in Josefow. This incident only goes to show how easily something like this can still happen.

Then Mr. Dlin told the students that police have a special ethical obligation. How police treat civilians is a good index of the real values of any society, he said.

And the Nazis recognized that, he added. The brutal Gestapo and the SS started as special police units.

But Reserve Police Battalion 101 started as a regular bunch of cops, not hard-core party members. They were members of the Hamburg police force who joined the battalion as an alternative to regular military service. In July 1942, they were sent to Poland.

The Final Solution was in full swing, and Nazis were loading thousands of Jews onto railroad cars every day and sending them to the death camps. But that July, in a Polish town called Josefow, there weren't enough trains.

Only three weeks after it left Germany, Battalion 101 was given what its commander called the "unpleasant task" of emptying the town of its 1,800 Jewish residents. The 300 strongest men would be sent to a work camp. The other 1,500 – men, women and children – would be marched into the forest and shot.

One lieutenant refused to take part. About a dozen other officers also refused. During the long day of killings, about 20 percent of the unit eventually stopped shooting.

By teaching from the past, maybe incidents like this can be prevented in the present. This course is being given to senior officers of the various forces in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. In my mind, this is a very good use of my tax dollars.

Jennifer White, 34, a lieutenant for the Arlington Police Department, said the session was a good reminder that police officers need to be constantly aware of the ethical issues that confront them – as does every citizen.

"They didn't start in 1942 with the mass killings. Things added up," she said. "We can't let the little things happen."

Herbert Ashford, 41, is a lieutenant with the Dallas Police Department. In his 20 years on the force, he's seen the power of peer pressure, he said.

"It's just human nature," Lt. Ashford said.

But the session at the Holocaust museum was a good reminder that he and his fellow officers have a higher responsibility.

"Throughout history, a few people stand up for what is right," he said.

The ethical lessons of that day would be reinforced in other classes at the Plano academy, along with discussions about Aristotle, Locke and Machiavelli, Mr. Carlson said. The eight-week course is designed to help police commanders deal with issues of ethics and leadership.
Maybe, just maybe, courses such as this will help keep our police from becoming the "only ones".

Saturday, March 10, 2007

I Really Do Not Understand the Logic

From the Rockford Register Star:

Chief Judge Kathryn Zenoff sentenced Salvador Rubio Friday to 60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections — 30 years for the murder and another 30 years because he used a firearm to commit the crime.
The fact that this young goblin has received a 60 year sentence is great news. I am a firm believer in isolating murderers and other violent criminals from society. What confuses me about the sentence is the fact that it is split into two separate offences. The goblin received 30 years for killing a man, a 30 year kicker was added because he used a firearm. Would the victim be any deader if he was killed with a knife, hammer or pencil? Does the family really care what tool was used to take their loved one from them? How has our justice system devolved into this state of add ons and special circumstances? A murder is a murder. It really does not matter to the victim or the survivors what was used to commit the crime, only the fact that the crime was committed. This is in the same vein as hate crimes, any fool can tell you that if you murder someone, you pretty much passed the hate test. This goblin received an appropriate sentence for murder. Why do we have to use a kicker to get to 60 years, isn't murder enough?

Friday, March 09, 2007

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law Update

Earlier I had reported that the legislation that passed through committee was not the same as introduced. At the time, the amended legislation was not available online, and I had some concerns about the changes. You can read my earlier post here.

The amended text of HB 284 and SB 378 are now posted online. The House and Senate bills are exactly the same, so all of my links will be to the House bill. You can find the original and amended text here.

The committee substitute is not as bad as I had originally thought. The intent of the bill has been protected.

Unlawful force is still adequately defined. The committee added the words "and with force" and "occupied" as follows:

(1) 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;

(2) 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;

The requirement to retreat is still removed and the legislation still protects us from criminal prosecution.

My primary concern with the committee substitute to this bill was the changes to the provisions pertaining to protection from civil actions.

The original bill contained the following:

83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code. The following is removed: (against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.)

83.002. 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.

The committee substitute changed 83.001 to read:

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.

and deletes 83.002.

I like civil immunity much better than an affirmative defense.

I am not real happy with the committee adding the words "and with force" to the legislation. These words have the potential of opening loopholes for prosecutors and civil lawyers. If a goblin enters a home via an unlocked door, has he entered "with force"?

Other than that, this is good legislation. This is a vast improvement over our current law.

In a nutshell.

HB 284 and SB 378 -

1. Define unlawful force as it pertains to a goblin.

2. State that a citizen is justified in using deadly force against a goblin using unlawful force.

3. State that a citizen is not required to retreat from a goblin using unlawful force.


4. Grant civil immunity to a citizen who has used deadly force against a goblin who decided to use unlawful force against the citizen.

This is good law. If you are a Texan, please contact your Representatives and ask them to support SB 378 and HB 284.

Revolving Door Justice in Cleveland

There were two major news stories while I was in Cleveland. The first was the tragic accident that involved the Bluffton University Baseball Team's bus as they were in route to Florida for a Spring tournament. The second was an equally tragic shooting of a young lady named Johanna Orozco. Johanna was shot with a shotgun at close range by her ex-boyfriend, a goblin named Juan Ruiz. Johanna survived, but remains in critical condition. She will be looking forward to a very long and painful process as the doctors attempt to reconstruct her face.

This is another violent crime that the justice system should have prevented. This 17 year old goblin, a known violent offender, was on the street with the blessing of a county magistrate.

In November, the goblin was arrested at school for carrying a revolver at school. He plead guilty to a felony charge.

December the goblin was expelled from school.

January a county magistrate dropped all charges against the goblin, even though he had plead guilty. This was done "for the benefit of the minor".

So what does jr. goblin do with his new found freedom? He rapes his ex-girlfriend at knife point. Yep, this goblin who deserved to have felony charges dropped by a magistrate, rapes Johanna.

Johanna reports the rape, the goblin is arrested for his second felony in four months. Whew, now we have this goblin off the streets, finally....

Nope, this magistrate sends him home on house arrest. They put an ankle bracelet on him and send him home.

Wearing his ankle bracelet, he leaves home and hunts down Johanna. When he finds her, he shoots her in the face with a shotgun. Now, finally, he is behind bars.

Watch the video here.

When you watch the video, note that Dad (who does not speak English) affirms that his son is a good boy.

Why do the anti's blame the gun when situations like this make the root issues so very obvious?

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Time Off

I have a bit of a family emergency. I am going to be out of town until at least Thursday afternoon. I doubt that I will have much in the way of computer access while gone, so I will get back with you guys at the end of the week.

Friday, March 02, 2007

While the DA's are Busy Lobbying Against Castle Doctrine...

Many County District Attorneys have had representative in Austin all week lobbying against the proposed Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law. They are putting a lot of effort into limiting free citizen's rights to defend themselves against goblins.

Maybe if they concentrated on the job we hired them for, there would be less goblins on the streets for us to defend against.

From the Star Telegram:

By Melissa Vargas

A 19-year-old Bedford man with a record of theft charges was indicted Wednesday in connection with stolen property from at least three Northeast Tarrant County suburbs, police say.

Matthew Eric Dever is accused of breaking into a car in Grapevine, stealing a car in Watauga and burglary of a habitation in Keller, officials said. He remained in jail Thursday in lieu of $85,000 bail.
This little goblin has been busy

Police say it all started Jan. 9...
I think the police might be a little off on the start date. Remember the first sentence of the article? "...with a record of theft charges..." How far back did that record start?

Dever has an extensive record of arrests beginning in September, including accusations of forgery and aggravated robbery in North Richland Hills; unauthorized possession of a weapon, tampering with government records and possession of a controlled substance in Hurst; and burglary of a habitation in Fort Worth.
"...beginning in September," Makes you wonder when his 19th birthday fell. Good money says no earlier than October.

Question for the DA's. How far is this goblin going to have to go to prove to you he needs to be isolated from society?


The prison escapee I commented on here has been captured.

From the Star Telegram:

By Bill Miller

Now let us see how fast the same District Attorneys who are so adamantly against the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law can get this repeat offender goblin back on the streets.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

A Rifle is a Rifle is a...

Blatantly filched from Barking Moonbat Early Warning System.

This is a pretty decent video using facts to dispel the "assault weapon" mystique. Jim Zumbo is learning the lessons portrayed in this video the hard way.

The narrator did get a couple of thing wrong, one "fact" that he stated a couple of times early on is way off. I would mention the inaccuracies, but then you would not have anything to comment about, now would you?