Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2013, 20:54   #1
ChallengerSRT
Senior Member
 
ChallengerSRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 308
Here's Something Radically Different

A town that wants to make it MANDATORY to OWN a gun! i hope it happens and other rural communities follow suit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D281590
ChallengerSRT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 21:02   #2
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Another town did that some time back. Can't remember where on exactly when. I'm thinking it was somewhere in Georgia but I'm not sure. I'd love to see more places doing it.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 00:45   #3
VinnieD
Senior Member
 
VinnieD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,134
Non gun owners embolden criminals by increasing the odds that the criminal will find an unarmed victim, therefore endangering not only themselves, and forcing armed citizens to defend them, but also increasing the likelyhood of a gun owner being mistaken for a non gun owner by said emboldened criminal, and attacked by a criminal, forcing them into a situation where they will have to shoot and face possible litigation.

Therefore I propose non gun owners pay a crime tax to pay for the medical, legal, and ammunition costs that gun owners incur as a result of the non gun owner's negligence to arm themselves.
__________________
"Use more gun." -The Engineer- (Team Fortress 2)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
VinnieD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 01:33   #4
BobbyT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Another town did that some time back. Can't remember where on exactly when. I'm thinking it was somewhere in Georgia but I'm not sure. I'd love to see more places doing it.
Kennesaw, in response to Morton Grove, IL's ban. MG's crime climbed steadily over the next three decades, whereas I believe Kennesaw went 25 years without a murder.

Kennesaw's last murder, in 2010, was in a school "gun free zone".
BobbyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 01:53   #5
F350
Senior Member
 
F350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado Western Slope
Posts: 1,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyT View Post
Kennesaw, in response to Morton Grove, IL's ban. MG's crime climbed steadily over the next three decades, whereas I believe Kennesaw went 25 years without a murder.

Kennesaw's last murder, in 2010, was in a school "gun free zone".
Kennesaw GA is on the west side of Atlanta and pretty close to the GLOCK plant, talked to several GLOCK employees to lived there when I stopped by to have my GLOCKS rebuilt a few years ago.
F350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 11:00   #6
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnieD View Post
Non gun owners embolden criminals by increasing the odds that the criminal will find an unarmed victim, therefore endangering not only themselves, and forcing armed citizens to defend them, but also increasing the likelyhood of a gun owner being mistaken for a non gun owner by said emboldened criminal, and attacked by a criminal, forcing them into a situation where they will have to shoot and face possible litigation.

Therefore I propose non gun owners pay a crime tax to pay for the medical, legal, and ammunition costs that gun owners incur as a result of the non gun owner's negligence to arm themselves.
one thing I love about Texas law... if you're a chl holder, involved in a justified shooting ruled as such, you're immune from prosecution and possible retaliatory lawsuit
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:30   #7
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
one thing I love about Texas law... if you're a chl holder, involved in a justified shooting ruled as such, you're immune from prosecution and possible retaliatory lawsuit
I hope that is indeed the case... because! We have the same law in Louisiana. I've been told there are loop-holes and we can still get sued. I'm hoping that is incorrect. Seems the good guy always ends up getting screwed one way or the other though.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 03-10-2013 at 12:32..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:53   #8
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I hope that is indeed the case... because! We have the same law in Louisiana. I've been told there are loop-holes and we can still get sued. I'm hoping that is incorrect. Seems the good guy always ends up getting screwed one way or the other though.
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

There is no mistaking what is written there. If I am ever forced (knocking in wood in hopes that it never happens) to shoot someone to defend me, my family, or third party from the violent actions of a criminal/BG, I dare him or his family to TRY to sue me.
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 09:29   #9
KevinFACE
Senior Member
 
KevinFACE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

There is no mistaking what is written there. If I am ever forced (knocking in wood in hopes that it never happens) to shoot someone to defend me, my family, or third party from the violent actions of a criminal/BG, I dare him or his family to TRY to sue me.
I suggest you re-read your CHL manual once more.
KevinFACE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 12:11   #10
domin8ss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 413
I see what you mean. Utah has civil immunity too. In most states you are liable for whatever your bullet hits if you miss or your round over penetrates.

Last edited by domin8ss; 05-08-2013 at 19:21..
domin8ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 13:48   #11
OctoberRust
Anti-Federalist
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,642
nope.

Government telling people what to do, is still Government telling people what to do.

It's none of the government's business if I own or don't own a gun. As long as I'm not hurting anyone else in the process.

Keep the government out of my home, and can't stand them thinking they know how to live someone else's life better than them. (even if I do agree that one should keep a gun in the house for defense)
OctoberRust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 14:30   #12
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFACE View Post
I suggest you re-read your CHL manual once more.
I'm pretty sure he meant suits brought by injured criminals or in the case of an injured or dead criminal a suit brought by a relative.

If you listen to "in most self-defense shootings 10 or more rounds are needed crowd" you're think we could just spray and pray all we want.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 15:57   #13
KevinFACE
Senior Member
 
KevinFACE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I'm pretty sure he meant suits brought by injured criminals or in the case of an injured or dead criminal a suit brought by a relative.
:

I took what he said at face value, that no matter what you are immune as he described. I'm telling him to re-read his manual once more, because those who have read it, and read it well, know that you can still be sued.
KevinFACE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 17:09   #14
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFACE View Post
I took what he said at face value, that no matter what you are immune as he described. I'm telling him to re-read his manual once more, because those who have read it, and read it well, know that you can still be sued.
So you are telling me a CCW holder can be sued for causing harm to a criminal during the commission of crime. I don't know the content of your CPRC CH. 83. but I do know this.

Louisiana passed a low not to long ago that says a person can not be sued for harm done to criminal while he/she is in the act of committing crime. Since the law is not specifically geared towards CCW it's not in our CCW manual. The law covers everything from tripping and hurting themselves while robbing your home to someone beating them to death with a baseball bat to stop a rapist. Just because it isn't in the CCW hand book doesn't mean it does not apply to a CCW holder. If I'm in fear of my life or the life of another and I injure or kill the person causing the fear, according to the law, I can't be sued. That doesn't mean if I miss and hurt or kill an innocent bystander they or their family can't sue. Your mileage may vary.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 03-11-2013 at 20:20..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 20:07   #15
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFACE View Post
I took what he said at face value, that no matter what you are immune as he described. I'm telling him to re-read his manual once more, because those who have read it, and read it well, know that you can still be sued.
Maybe you should read his post again.

He did not say "No Matter what", he said.

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 20:09   #16
steve4102
Senior Member
 
steve4102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFACE View Post
I took what he said at face value, that no matter what you are immune as he described. I'm telling him to re-read his manual once more, because those who have read it, and read it well, know that you can still be sued.
How about you enlighten us with some quotes from this manual, then back these quotes up with actual Statutes as they pertain to Deadly Force?

Thanks
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
steve4102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 20:26   #17
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,092
ok first, it's not a manual. It's the handbook containing the laws that govern concealed handgun licensing in TX, along with definitions that pertain to those laws. you can freely lookup the handbook by googling it, or by visiting TX DPS website.

Second the paragraph that I posted from the handbook clearly states (in plain english for those of you that have a hard time understanding plain english) that if you are involved in a shooting that is determined to be a justifiable shoot, you are immune from civil liability (being sued in civil not criminal court). To break it down even further:

if you shoot and injure or kill a bad guy, while that bad guy is in the act of committing a crime that warrants the justifiable use of deadly force, then you cannot be sued because you are granted immunity.

it is clearly stated in the statute that I already posted, but here it is again.

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Chapter 9 penal code identifies the list of items that is considered a crime by the CHL holder for things like criminal trespass, etc. So when the two are linked together, it's saying that if you are involved in a shooting, and you are cleared of any criminal conduct under Chapter 9 of the penal code related to that shooting, then you are immune to civil liability (being sued by the criminal you shot or his/her family for shooting the criminal).

I don't think it can be made any clearer than that.

If you would like to read it all, feel free at:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/interne...rms/chl-16.pdf
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15

Last edited by Lord; 03-11-2013 at 20:27..
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 20:34   #18
Lord
Senior Member
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFACE View Post
I took what he said at face value, that no matter what you are immune as he described. I'm telling him to re-read his manual once more, because those who have read it, and read it well, know that you can still be sued.
I have read it. I read it very well. I even carry a copy of it with me at all times. When there are questions related to its content or meaning, I am contacted periodically by an instructor of criminal justice at one of the local high schools and a local college. I have also been contacted by no less than three CHL instructors, 2 practicing attorneys (and a partridge in a pear tree) to discuss definitions etc. While I am no certified expert, I have a pretty good grasp of the laws and rules when it comes to carrying concealed, and how to interpret them and their meanings. So, to you, I recommend that maybe YOU should read and get a better understanding of it. Sure, then can sue you.. they can try anyway, but you can write a simple rebuttal to the charges and have them summarily dismissed (if it ever gets that far) based on the fact that you would be granted immunity as long a the shoot was justifiable and ruled as such.

End of story, have a nice day, thank you for playing.
__________________
Lord
PPQ M2, G-19, PT-140 Pro, PT-111 Pro, Core-15
Lord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 11:16   #19
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
\CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Lord, when I read that in your original post I though the bold was for reference an the rest was your simplifying what the law says. I don't think they could have stated it much more simply then that.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 03-12-2013 at 11:17..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 15:06   #20
KevinFACE
Senior Member
 
KevinFACE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,139
I'll just leave this right here:

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

I know I'm bumping a 2 month old thread but I just got re-interested in finding what I was looking for earlier.


Sourced from here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.9.htm

Last edited by KevinFACE; 05-08-2013 at 15:07..
KevinFACE is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 651
166 Members
485 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31