Castle Doctrine Bill Now Ready for Governor's Signature [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Castle Doctrine Bill Now Ready for Governor's Signature


dglockster
03-20-2007, 10:58
Please contact Governer Perry's office and urge that he sign the Castle Doctrine Bill. It should be on his desk by Friday, March 23.

His contact information is at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact/#contactinfo

sdsnet
03-20-2007, 11:02
Originally posted by dglockster
Please contact Governer Perry's office and urge that he sign the Castle Doctrine Bill. It should be on his desk by Friday, March 23.

His contact information is at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact/#contactinfo

I just called the Governor and left a recorded message to please sign the bill.

dglockster
03-20-2007, 11:07
Thanks for taking the time to make the contact. For law abiding Texans, this is the most important legislation since the original concealed carry bill.

Who's next?

Gumbo
03-20-2007, 13:46
Done...

I anticipate and wholly expect him to sign it...as long as common sense prevails.

Bitstream
03-20-2007, 17:48
Originally posted by dglockster
Please contact Governer Perry's office and urge that he sign the Castle Doctrine Bill. It should be on his desk by Friday, March 23.

His contact information is at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact/#contactinfo

Done...

texduramax
03-20-2007, 20:02
Yes Sir!:thumbsup:

bluelineman
03-20-2007, 20:27
Done!

Thanks for the info.

Philipp2
03-20-2007, 20:28
What does the final version of the bill look like? I heard that there had been several changes as it went along.
:banana:

Chad Landry
03-20-2007, 20:55
Thanks for the info. I'm on it.

waltherone
03-21-2007, 11:00
Message sent!

Jack23
03-21-2007, 15:52
Originally posted by sdsnet
I just called the Governor and left a recorded message to please sign the bill.

MEE TOO! I am keeping my fingers crossed! I have two questions.
1. What do you think the chances are that he will sighn it?
2. If he does sign it, when would it take effect and become law?

dglockster
03-21-2007, 16:49
Here is a link to the bill that has been sent to Governor Perry for his signature:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378I.pdf

P.S. I found that once it loads, if I reduce it to 125%, it is more readable.

barnettbill
03-21-2007, 17:30
I read in the Abilene paper today that Gov Perry likes the bill and is expected to sign it. I know that the opera is not over until the fat lady sings... but she is about to take the stage.

cwood
03-21-2007, 17:44
Originally posted by dglockster
Here is a link to the bill that has been sent to Governor Perry for his signature:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00378I.pdf

P.S. I found that once it loads, if I reduce it to 125%, it is more readable.

The Governor WILL sign it.

It will take effect Sept. 1.

wil129
03-22-2007, 11:41
Done sent E-mail thanks for link.

Lykoi
03-22-2007, 19:30
he already stated he's going to sign it... so no worries on my part... i did however leave a message thanking him for allowing me to defend my life and property without fear of criminal charges/civil retaliation.

waltherone
03-22-2007, 23:40
Hey question for you guys..

Since conception I've been reading the castle doctrine provides civil suit immunity so long as you are justified to begin with...

In reading the bill the only mention I see of this is "it is an affirmative defense to civil action..."

Is this the same thing? I always thought an "affirmative defense" meant you can still be sued, which causes all sorts of inconveniences and all, but unsuccessfully? Does this actually mean you WON'T be sued so long as the local LEO and prosecutors see no reason to file charges and say you were justified?

I've got little experience interpreting law, can ya tell? :D

dglockster
03-23-2007, 06:39
Maybe uhlawpup can clarify this for us.

uhlawpup
03-23-2007, 07:01
Generally speaking, an affirmative defense is matter which, assuming the original complaint in the lawsuit be true, is a defense to it. It should be raised in the answer to a lawsuit.

I can't go much deeper without crossing the line from legal information to legal advice, but I think you can understand from the above what the answer to your questions are.

Philipp2
03-23-2007, 10:35
Found this with a Google search:

"Affirmative defenses are new or additional matters raised in the answer which state some independent reason why the plaintiff should be barred from recovering damages, even if everything alleged in the complaint is true."

waltherone
03-23-2007, 10:52
Originally posted by uhlawpup
Generally speaking, an affirmative defense is matter which, assuming the original complaint in the lawsuit be true, is a defense to it. It should be raised in the answer to a lawsuit.

I can't go much deeper without crossing the line from legal information to legal advice, but I think you can understand from the above what the answer to your questions are.

Well THAT sounds like we can still be sued, albeit almost certainly unsuccessfully... the thing Phillip posted after you sounds more like it BARS the would-be plaintant from suing to begin with... meh, I'm just gonna keep trying not to shoot someone I guess :tongueout:

Philipp2
03-23-2007, 13:13
My guess is that it will be up to the court to hear the first test case. I wish that it had been clearer; maybe it is and us "IANAL" types don't understand it.:upeyes:

cwood
03-23-2007, 21:44
Originally posted by waltherone
Hey question for you guys..

Since conception I've been reading the castle doctrine provides civil suit immunity so long as you are justified to begin with...

In reading the bill the only mention I see of this is "it is an affirmative defense to civil action..."

Is this the same thing? I always thought an "affirmative defense" meant you can still be sued, which causes all sorts of inconveniences and all, but unsuccessfully? Does this actually mean you WON'T be sued so long as the local LEO and prosecutors see no reason to file charges and say you were justified?

I've got little experience interpreting law, can ya tell? :D

The ORIGINAL version of the bills addressed the civil liability as an "affirmitive defense" which essentially meant that you had to go to trial to demonstrate that the elements of the defense were in place.

The Committee Substitute changed the bill to a version "Civil Immunity". This is much better for us.

The 'engrossed' and later 'enrolled' version passed by the legislature maintain the "civil immunity" wording...thank goodness.

For mt two cents, if the Legislature did nothing else for us this session, I would be satisfied. This bill is HUGE for us and for those who choose to defend themselves with means other than firearms, too.

You can find the "enrolled" wording at the following link:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm