A Real Scary Anti-Self Defense Bill from Texas

Gordon · Dec 9, 2020

DAMN BURN MY FREAKIN EYES WTF

Threeband · Dec 9, 2020

I think this is similar to the way the law in England has been for many years.

I heard that it is illegal to interfere with a burglar stealing your telly, that the homeowner is supposed to move to the far side of the room so as not to interfere with the burglar. Maybe it's not true, but that's what I heard years ago.

Please tell me I'm wrong...

Robert2888 · Dec 9, 2020

This is but another blow in the hostile takeover of Amurrica. This bill was tailor made for a very specific purpose. Middle class white Amurrica better get with the program very soon.

Tungsten · Dec 9, 2020

Some Republican should pencil in an amendment or rider to the Bill. Something like "all commies must be put in front of a firing squad before sun down."

fidelity · Dec 9, 2020

GUNSnROTORS said:
Rep. Terry Meza certainly is a busy bee. Filed a yuge list of new TX Bill Intros from 11/9 through 11/18/2020, many are anti-freedom and/or anti-American:

https://legiscan.com/TX/people/terry-meza/id/20240

...

She can't be doing all this herself. Some lobbying organizations must be her stenographer. Wonder which one provided the gem in the original post.

nedsurf · Dec 9, 2020

She is a prime candidate for people to visit her and offer a "This house is gun free" yard sign.

Skipjacks · Dec 9, 2020

Of course this woman will still get armed guards 24/7 because the nightmare society she created won't apply to her

Huckleberry · Dec 9, 2020

snallygaster said:
Rep. Terry Meza - Attorney and Community Activist:

WAIT ONE DALLAS MINUTE! WTF?

How dare you compare that big, ugly, nasty looking thing to Sweetums!

Sweetums doesn't even compare to that trollish lookint ogre

How can you compare one of the Greatest Muppets to that looney Texas politician?

You owe Sweetums an apology

Kicken Wing · Dec 10, 2020

The original post is shocking. I am continuously stunned by the ignorance and arrogance of certain people in power. I don't see how anyone in their right mind ... Oh yeah, she is not in her right mind. That explains it. This does sound like something that would come from MD, not TX. But then again Beto thought he was a Texan too.

Norton · Dec 10, 2020

Kicken Wing said:
The original post is shocking. I am continuously stunned by the ignorance and arrogance of certain people in power. I don't see how anyone in their right mind ... Oh yeah, she is not in her right mind. That explains it. This does sound like something that would come from MD, not TX. But then again Beto thought he was a Texan too.

She knows exactly what she is doing. This is not out of ignorance or naiveté.

This is your fundamental change/new normal/great reset. Create a Dystopian hell where there are the serfs (that's us) and then our betters like her who will still live in their safe worlds behind guarded gates.

They are actively pushing this thought process in the schools. We can shrug it off right now, but realize that the kids that are being brainwashed with this stuff are going to be the ones making the decisions, and they think that WE are the insane ones.

MDFF2008 · Dec 10, 2020

Absolutely right.

One need only go back and look at the summer. The "Betters" were all for the rioting and destruction, but as soon as it impacted them directly, they were calling the police and talking about buying guns.

I would also add that this could also be another classic leftist tactic where they come back and say "hey, maybe we went a little too far, here's a watered down 'common sense' version that says you can only use non-lethal force to defend your house, unless you are cornered and attacked."

I am actually waiting to see which of the far left cities is the first to actually legalize theft in the name of equity. The signals are lit and track is lined, it's just a matter of who pushes the button first.

fidelity · Dec 10, 2020

MDFF2008 said:
...
I would also add that this could also be another classic leftist tactic where they come back and say "hey, maybe we went a little too far, here's a watered down 'common sense' version that says you can only use non-lethal force to defend your house, unless you are cornered and attacked."
...

The solution is upthread (variation of the sign suggestion).

As a compromise, all constituent homes that want to abide by the cower-and-hide policy when their property is broken into should be issued a white flag that they can fly outside.

This way the burglars (and rapists) know which homes they can break into without resistance or fear for their lives. Homes where the occupants understand that the persons committing the crime are misunderstood victims, and the occupants are privileged.

Win win for everyone. People who have their guns and want to protect their property continue to do so, those that want to redistribute their own wealth in the face of potential violence have a greater opportunity to do so, and the criminals can get their work done quickly and efficiently.

Bob A · Dec 10, 2020

fidelity said:
The solution is upthread (variation of the sign suggestion).

As a compromise, all constituent homes that want to abide by the cower-and-hide policy when their property is broken into should be issued a white flag that they can fly outside.

This way the burglars (and rapists) know which homes they can break into without resistance or fear for their lives. Homes where the occupants understand that the persons committing the crime are misunderstood victims, and the occupants are privileged.

Win win for everyone. People who have their guns and want to protect their property continue to do so, those that want to redistribute their own wealth in the face of potential violence have a greater opportunity to do so, and the criminals can get their work done quickly and efficiently.

Wonderful solution to the problem; it's just common sense!

Doctor_M · Dec 10, 2020

That is some top-shelf whakadoodle right there.

llkoolkeg · Dec 10, 2020

A shovel and bag of lime are seemingly soon to be at least as important to maintaining gun rights as the vote.

CanDoEZ · Dec 10, 2020

I was stationed in Dallas in the 80's and lived in that district. Things must have changed tremendously there since then.

5cary · Dec 10, 2020

Help me out here.

This is the text of the bill. It sounds nothing like what the OP posted. Am I missing something? (My bold for emphasis).

87R1395 JCG-D

By: Meza H.B. No. 196

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the use of deadly force in defense of a person or
property.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Sections 9.32(a) and (c), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against
another if the actor:
(1) is [if the actor would be] justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; [and]
(2) is unable to safely retreat; and
(3) [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, or aggravated
sexual assault[, robbery, or aggravated robbery].
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a [A] person who is
in the person's own habitation [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.
SECTION 2. Section 9.41, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land, including a habitation on the land, or
tangible, movable property is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's
trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land, including a
habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property by another is
justified in using force against the other when and to the degree
the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force
immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
SECTION 3. Section 9.42, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land,
including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property
if the actor:
(1) is [if he would be] justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.41; [and]
(2) [when and to the degree he] reasonably believes
the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) [he] reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
SECTION 4. Sections 9.32(b) and (d), Penal Code, are
repealed.
SECTION 5. The change in law made by this Act applies 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
governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,
and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred
before that date.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2021.

teratos · Dec 10, 2020

The Castle Doctrine is as old as private property.

lt508th · Dec 10, 2020

I am shocked that this legislator can openly make remarks such as this, and somehow remain in her postion. One can only hope she is soundly whipped in the next election cycle.

lt508th · Dec 10, 2020

5cary,

Like you, I was a bit puzzled when I went to the original link, seeing only the text of the proposed bill. After digging a bit more, I found this link, in which the legislators comments about the bill are presented.

https://thehayride.com/2020/12/gov-abbott-is-correct-castle-doctrine-bill-is-dead-at-the-door/

A Real Scary Anti-Self Defense Bill from Texas

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

The M1 Does My Talking

Active Member

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

No One of Consequence

Snakes and Sparklers

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

όυ φροντισ

Certified Mad Scientist

Hairy Flaccid Member

Ultimate Member

On the spreading edge of the butter knife.

My hair is amazing

Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics