Texas Legislative Updates

[rbernie]

I got this today from TSRA - y'all Texans need to read the proposed bills and ping your elected State officials with your comments:

This was the first week for State Senators and Representatives to prefile bills for the 2007 session of the Texas Legislature. Several TSRA-backed legislative initiatives have officially been filed and assigned bill numbers: HB 284 by Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland), is the Texas version of Florida's "Castle Doctrine" and self-defense reform bill; SB 112 & HB 258 by Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas) & Rep. Frank Corte (R-San Antonio) would prevent the confiscation of legally possessed firearms by law-abiding citizens during a state of emergency or natural disaster. And HB 220 by Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford) would allow Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) to store handguns in locked vehicles while parked on their employer's property. Please begin contacting your State Senators and Representatives and urging them to support these important measures! Legislators' contact information and the text of the bills listed above can be found at http://www.house.state.tx.us/bills/welcome.php. More TSRA-supported legislation is expected to be prefiled in the coming weeks - we'll keep you posted!

 

[MechAg94]

Has anyone really looked at the language of that Castle Doctrine bill? I am really concerned that it might screw up the law instead of help.

 

[wdlsguy]

Here is the introduced version of HB 284 (Castle Doctrine Bill).

 

[LAR-15]

How about permitless carry of firearms?

 

[Sam Adams]

HB 284 looks like a winner. It has civil lawsuit protection, as well as protection against criminal prosecution. This will not only keep you out of jail, but out of the poorhouse as well. It is at least some restoration of common sense.

 

[rbernie]

Has anyone really looked at the language of that Castle Doctrine bill? I am really concerned that it might screw up the law instead of help.

My unedumacated review of it was pretty positive.

As best I can tell, it pretty much says that you have the ability to you use deadly force any place you have a right to be without a need to retreat if you believe you're in danger of serious bodily injury, sexual assault, or kidnapping or if the other party had/was attempting to unlawfully enter your car, house, or place of employment. It specifically allows an affirmative civil defense for personal injury/death resulting from such self-defense and allows a defendant in such a suit to recover all legal fees and lost income resulting from the civil action.

 

[MechAg94]

I agree. It doesn look okay on a quick review. They just edited existing statutes and it looks like it ain't too bad. I would be curious if any lawyer types would agree though.

 

[rbernie]

How about permitless carry of firearms?

Frankly, my first priority (not to be confused with anyone elses ) would be to have some cover of law against civil suits in the event of a self-defense shoot. Once that Sword of Damocles has been removed, other things (permitless open carry, etc.) can be attacked. More bluntly - I'm not sure that you could possibly ever get permitless open carry in a legal atmosphere that does not accept the notion of permissible self-defense.

One step at a time...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It specifically allows an affirmative civil defense for personal injury/death resulting from such self-defense and allows a defendant in such a suit to recover all legal fees and lost income resulting from the civil action.

From a legal perspective this is meaningless, you still have to go to court and prove that it was a good shoot (burden of proof is on the shooter). This means you pay the attorney's fees initially and if you win, you get to try to collect from the deadbeat that you shot (or such of his family members as bring suit).

From a practical perspective, the civil suit protection isn't anywhere near as good as the protections offered in the Florida castle doctrine and is barely a minor change to existing Texas law.

 

[rbernie]

the civil suit protection isn't anywhere near as good as the protections offered in the Florida castle doctrine

Well, dang.

Where can we find the specifics of the FL law, and why do ya suppose they didn't use it as an example?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well I went out and found the text of the Florida law and I was dead wrong, the Florida law is similarly toothless on civil suit protection:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s.8 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.12 943.10, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

So you are in the same situation in Florida. You still have to go to court (at least to summary judgement) and if you win, you can try to collect against a guy who is likely judgement proof. Well, it isn't great protection; but it would have probably stopped the two most recent cases I could find on the subject. In both cases, the parents of the deceased had money and sued the person who shot their poor innocent child as he innocently attacked the homeowner.

 

[rbernie]

I dunno if it's a doom-n-gloom as it looks. After all, most of the suits are likely to be undertaken by folks without the financial wherewithal to fund the legal fees themselves. I kinda wonder if the civil side of things is generally funded by contingent legal fees.

If that's true, then if you away the likelihood of an award to cover the plaintiffs' legal fees and render the plaintiff in summary judgment for the defendants' fees - maybe the suit doesn't get picked up?

That's got to weed out a lot of wheat from the chaff....

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If that's true, then if you away the likelihood of an award to cover the plaintiffs' legal fees and render the plaintiff in summary judgment for the defendants' fees - maybe the suit doesn't get picked up?

The difference is that if an attorney takes a suit on contingency, he gets a cut of any settlement that the insurance company, city government, or homeowner offers. He also takes a cut if he wins at trial.

If he loses, the poor misunderstood child who got shot for innocently standing in your living room at 2am with a machete is on the hook for all the attorney's fees, etc. His lawyer doesn't owe you a dime.

The main thing this type of protection does is give a sharp reality check to angry, grief-stricken relatives who might have the funds to launch a legal attack on their own. Considering that most of us don't have the insurance or assets to make us a worthwhile target for a lawyer working on contingency, the protection isn't "meaningless" like I said earlier; but it certainly is more like concealment than cover.

 

[rbernie]

If he loses, the poor misunderstood child who got shot for innocently standing in your living room at 2am with a machete is on the hook for all the attorney's fees, etc. His lawyer doesn't owe you a dime.

Agreed, and a good point.

My point is that the plaintiff's lawyer has also invested time (money) into an endeavor that generated him ZERO revenue, and his ability to get that revenue from his clients dropped precipitously when he got in line with the defendant. I would have to believe that would dissuade a lot of attorneys from using a civil suit to 'fish' for even a relatively small settlement. Dunno...

 

[The_Shootist]

I thought

...if you were injured in commission of a felony in texas you didn't have the right to sue?