Fallguy

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

LOL...Oops, I admit I didn't read the article before my post, I just addressing the issue of using deadly force to protect property in TX. I do think the article is a bit fishy, especially since it doesn't contain a link to the article.

In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property TX Penal code Sections 9.41 & 9.42 Hell in TX you can even use deadly force to protect a third persons property (Section 9.43) Remember Joe Horn? So Yes, I think in TX you can shoot them in the back if it is the only way to recover your property. 9.42.(2)(

Very good then sir. You and I will just simply have diffrerent views on this then. I hope neither of us, or anyone on this board, ever have to the feel the violation of theft again.

Since it used the word "and" I believe it means B, it will expire in 90 days regardless. Also if the bacground check reveals any criminal charges, it will become void immediately.

Dave makes very good points. The presumptions in the self-defense laws are just that, it doesn't mean you can't be charged. It just means if you are the DA has to prove it wasn't reasonable for you to be in fear, instead of you having to prove you were. The neighbor kid running away is a good example.

Welcome

If you told the same story to the deputy that you did in the post, surely he meant you could shoot the dog because it was a threat, not just because it was on your property. Now I'm not saying a person would be charged with it everywhere in the state, but as I said..AFAIK you can shoot a dog just because it is on your property. But you can shoot a dog that is a threat just about anywhere, unless you are trespassing on the dog owner's property. (But I know of a case in Lexington where even that was dismissed by the judge)

There are situations in where you can (or at least it appear) you are defending your life and property at the same time. Such as a car jacking or someone that broke into your home and after you shoot them you see they had your DVD player in their hand. The law before said you couldn't use deadly force to protect property period, so if there was one of the dual protection (life and property) situations a DA could have tried to charge you with using deadly force to protect property if he wanted to. Now the law just clarifies that if use deadly force in a self-defense situation it is ok if you happen to be defending property at the same time.

Since sometimes attitude is hard to tell in the typed word....I don't mean this in a smart way. Have you ever had anything stolen or come home to find your house broke in to? If not, see if you feel different after that.

Ok..I've tried to read all of the post. At first I did question about asking for the HCP and I don't think she would have had one, but I too have heard that if you are outside your door within the city limits, you are in public...at least to some degree. But you still do not have to have a HCP to be armed on your property. So overall no harm no foul I guess. Now...on the mom. I don't think she was making a citzens arrest, nor did she need to. Someone breaking into an attached garage is the same as them breaking into your house. 39-11-611© says "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury" 39-11-611(a)(4) defines a residence as "a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence" So IMO she could have used deadly force, but made what was probably a wiser decision and only threatened it....you can threaten deadly force if you are in a situation you can use it. However she very could have made a citzens arrest legally if she wanted to, the powers of arrest by citizens are very close to those of LEO. See 40-7-109 LEOs can make an arrest for a select few misdemeanors that didn't occur in his presence. See 40-7-103

First I think as others have said it would be good to get to know the neighbor and talk to them about it if it is a problem and/or make reports to the police about it, if it keeps occuring. You can't shoot a dog just because it is loose or just because it is on your property. But you can use deadly force against a dog if you reasonablly believe the dog was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to you or someone else or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by you. See 39-14-205(

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Does sound like they were trying to play both sides. I still wonder if all these cities opting out know they will have to post signs. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through, just to sunset in a year. But maybe one good thing coming from this could be a challenge and find out the local goverments can't opt out. Although I'm not sure why that would be a problem, if nothing else you could just repeal 39-17-1311 entirely, but AFAIK cities could still post a park per 39-17-1359 like any other city owned property if they wanted to.

It does seem MTAS has taken on a bit more than an advisory role on the parks issue...

First state law superseceds any rule/regulation of department. But both are saying the same thing in this case. Both are discussingn two possiable scenarios on renewing. 1. Applying for renewal before expiration expiration. 2. Applying for renweal after expiration of current HCP. (Which you can do if it is whithin 6 months of expiration. If it is over 6 months you are considered a new applicant) In case number 1 above, you can continue to carry, even after the expiration date on the HCP as long as you can show you applied for renewal before the expiration date. In case number 2 above you can not carry until your new HCP is issued. But it is you decision to carry/not carry as you see fit. I am just trying to prevent misinformation from being given.

100% correct.

That is wrong. Read the law. It plainly says you can continue to carry even if your old permit has expired as long as you can prove your applied for renewal before the expiration date. You show that by the sticker they put on the reciept when your renew.

The OP renewed 4 months before the expiration of his HCP. The member in post 2 renewed 5 days before his expired. But you are right, if you permit has expired before you renewed you can not carry until your new permit arrives. But that wasn't the case for these two individuals