Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(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.
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
. So I was wondering about a scenirio where you are filling gas and are outside of the car with a weapon inside the car and needed to retrieve it. It does not sound like this is within the bounds of the law as written. The reference to getting the CHL would cause this issue to be mute.
Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
I have had some problems with harassment gas stations. This has happened twice with family in the car and fortunately I was fortunately able to diffuse it verbally. I was looking for information dealing with carry in the car now that it is legal and came across the verbage in Section 9.31 1A regarding "occupied" habitation or vehicle. So I was wondering about a scenirio where you are filling gas and are outside of the car with a weapon inside the car and needed to retrieve it. It does not sound like this is within the bounds of the law as written. The reference to getting the CHL would cause this issue to be mute.
Go for broke; make it a unicycle.TexasRifleman,
This is like putting a puzzle together. I should have been a lawyer...
One other question...
What constitutes a vehicle? Would this include a bicycle?
Thanks for helping clarify all this...
Nothing too bad. We stopped late at night for gas north of San Antonio for gas on I-35. An individual came along that insisted he needed a ride into Austin for some "emergency". Wouldn't leave and would not take no for an answer. He made a move to the car, so I locked it with the remote. I pulled a cell phone out and told him we would let the police give the ride. He proceeded to leave...
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
What constitutes a vehicle? Would this include a bicycle?
The courts have held the term “motor vehicle” to be different from and broader than the term “automobile.“. . . Common usage has made the phrase “motor vehicle” a generic term for all classes of self- propelled vehicles not operating on stationary rails or tracks, and therefore, as a result all automobiles are motor vehicles, but the contrary proposition is not true. The term “motor vehicle” is much broader than the word “automobile” and includes various vehicles which cannot be classified as automobiles.
Under the Certificate of Title Act, for example, “motor vehicle” includes “any motor driven or propelled vehicle required to be registered under the laws of this state; a trailer or semitrailer . . . that has a gross vehicle weight that exceeds 4,000 pounds; a house trailer; a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle . . .; [and] a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or moped.” For purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, a “motor vehicle” is “a self-propelled vehicle designed for use on a highway, a trailer or semitrailer for use with a self-propelled vehicle, or a vehicle propelled by electric power from overhead wires and not operated on rails.”
Is it true that if you are carrying a concealed handgun in your vehicle in the state of Texas, your ammunition (or clip) has to be seperate from the gun?
That's absolutely amazing, even more amazing that he would say that to a cop.That is when Smith, fearing for his life, fired two shots from a 9mm handgun, hitting the truck’s tires twice although he would tell police he was trying to hit the driver.
When asked by police why he did not either stop or exit the highway or call 911, Smith told them he thought he was covered under the Castle Doctrine.
Smith is licensed to carry a gun but will still be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
ChickenRanch said:Not sure where I heard it, but have heard it several times
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view;
Heck, I keep one mag in the gun, one in the center console, and one in my pocket!Not sure where I heard it, but have heard it several times
You are correct on this one...this also applies in Texas.In Mississippi, another CD state, your vehicle is concidered an extention of your home. Anything that is legal in your home is legal in your car except for open containers of alcohol.
Actually the law does define loaded versus unloaded. If it is loaded, it is referred to as a "readily dischargable firearm". And yes, you can carry both either loaded or unloaded....doesnt matter.Just wondered. That sounds like one of the things you'd hear in a gun store
Texas law doesn't appear to address loaded or unloaded at all, it just mentions the requirement that it be concealed.