Previous post
Castle Doctrine, or stand your ground, is on the Texas legislative docket for the upcoming session. No, it’s not about making the law stronger. Instead it would’ve blown a big gaping hole through the current laws.
It seems that Texas Democrat Rep. Terry Meza doesn’t like the castle doctrine and has a fabulous idea how to endanger every homeowner who would dare to defend themselves against people trespassing on their property.
“”A bill seeking to modify the so-called “castle doctrine” in Texas is getting lawmakers riled up ahead of the legislative session that begins next year.
The “castle doctrine” is outlined in Sec. 9.41 of the state’s penal code. It gives people the right to use deadly force to protect their “land or tangible, movable property.”
State Rep. Terry Meza, D-Irving, filed House Bill 196 in early November, which would modify part of the code to require homeowners to be “unable to safely retreat” before deadly force can be used. It would also remove robbery and aggravated robbery as crimes that could be legally stopped with deadly force by property owners.”
Let’s take a look at this for a minute. First of all, the current law gives people the right to defend themselves against someone intent on robbery, rape, sexual assault, car-jacking, and trespass – whether it is your home or your car. Now, I don’t know about you, but someone coming onto my property without my permission is not welcome and you can damned well bet I won’t just stand there and shake my finger at them and say “go away!” Nope, I’ll defend myself, my property, and my family by whatever means and force necessary. Which does include using a gun.
Yes, using a cast-iron skillet for defense can definitely knock a burglar well into next week. However, a gun will ensure that that burglar or rapist doesn’t get close enough to engage with you physically. Then again, if you have good throwing skills, a cast-iron skillet could leave a mark.
Yet Terry Meza has big problems with people defending their property and their families. She wants everyone to “safely retreat” as much as possible before even considering using deadly force.
people to take justice into their own hands. While theft is obviously wrong, we have laws to address that. I don’t believe that stealing someone’s lawn ornament should be an offense punishable by death. 3/3
— Terry Meza (@TerryforTexas) November 19, 2020
How incredibly asinine and condescending of her! But her statement also tells me one of the reasons for her little agenda.
Remember Mark and Patricia McCloskey? They live on Portland Place in St. Louis, Missouri. One fine evening a lovely bunch of rioters broke through the gate at Portland Place and started tromping through private property. The McCloskey’s were having NONE of it, and stood their ground with weapons. They weren’t going to “safely retreat” and let these rioters just run rampant over THEIR property.
But Meza wants anyone threatened by a would-be burglar, rapist, or looting rioter, to run inside their home and let them have free rein over the rest of their property. Uhhh, Terry? Guess what? Running inside and hiding WON’T stop any of the above from entering the premises and putting the lives of everyone inside at risk.
Secondly, what Terry Meza is wanting is to redefine castle doctrine with limits. It doesn’t matter if your property includes a separate garage, a yard, or a shed. Nope, that doesn’t need to be defended. More importantly, she would rather that homeowners don’t use weapons of any kind, but especially GUNS to defend themselves.
It’s perfectly fine for those misunderstood trespassers, robbers, looters, rapists to carry weapons, but not the homeowners.
What Terry refuses to understand is that the Castle Doctrine isn’t just about guns. As I mention above, anything that can cause harm can be used to defend yourself, home and property.
“A strange noise sounds through the house and a guy grabs a baseball bat, a tennis racket, or a golf club, and investigates.
What’s that for?
Self-defense, right? Of course it is, as it should be. Anyone entering your home represents a threat and using any of these tools to defend yourself is self-defense.
How is that any different than using a gun?”
Very different according to Terry Meza. To her, Castle Doctrine is solely about guns, so therefore she’s pushing for retreat in the face of threats to you and yours.
https://twitter.com/RiderBabe52/status/1337066148848951297
Seems that Terry doesn’t realize that a lot of Texas Democrats are gun owners. By pushing for this legislation, what Terry Meza is trying to do is embolden the criminals and put civilians at risk. What’s next on her agenda? Paying for funerals and burial expenses for criminals? Oh wait, that is what the new LA District Attorney
Governor Abbott is definitely NOT a supporter of this legislation.
Let me be clear.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) December 9, 2020
The Castle Doctrine will not be reduced.
We won’t force Texas homeowners to retreat.
Especially with the crazy “defund police” ideas, homeowners need to protect themselves now more than ever.
We will protect 2nd Amendment rights. https://t.co/DgtxWE6y0S
Terry Meza can go ahead and “safely retreat” all she wants. She can ditch Castle Doctrine all by herself in favor of virtue signaling to the criminals.
Most importantly, the Castle Doctrine is centuries old, plus we have a Constitutional right to defend our home and property. Terry wants to take that away. Now more than ever, it’s definitely time to tell politicians like Terry to “Get Off My Lawn!”
Feature Photo Credit: holster, pistol, flag by lbropalic via Pixabay, cropped and modified
talgus says: Texas Democrats always throw bushels of spaghetti (laws encumbering legal gun owners with potential felonies) every new legislative season. the volume has increased every time. the hope is to get one or two to slip and slide thru the process. I suggest the submitter s be required to follow every period of their laws from submission date forward.
CaptDMO says: And THIS is why “compassionate”, high “emotional” quotient, women have no place in legislature.
In this case, Ipso Facto
Sorry ladies.
SFC D says: “While theft is obviously wrong, we have laws to address that”. Does she not understand that those that are intent on stealing give not a single fuck about the law? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly certain that’s why we call them “criminals” and not “law-abiding citizens”. Would she take the same stand if the victim was an abused woman and “the law we have to address that” was a restraining order? We all know how well that works. Idiot.
GWB says: Anti-gunner feminists have been more than happy to make abused women more vulnerable for decades. They have often pushed waiting periods (though those seem to be less in favor, for now), even for women with restraining orders ‘protecting’ them.
These people so often really believe the fairy tale that “the law” will protect citizens. The rest are just cynical and are using it to achieve power.
Let’s flip the script, as they say.
If I’m home to shoot an intruder, it means they knowingly broke into my home and don’t care that I’m there. In my experience, this means they are willing to do me (or my family harm) to accomplish their ends.
This gives me the right to defend myself, with the most effective legal means available. Running into a room won’t save me, unless it’s a fortified panic room.
Now, her assertion that an armed intruder is only using their firearm to “maintain peaceful transfer of goods” and secure my compliance…. That again puts me in risk. What if their aims include raping my daughter? Son? Me? Kidnapping? Murder to avoid being ID’d.
All of those scenarios could be avoided if I did us both the favor of having a firearm to encourage them to make “the right decision” and give up a life of crime.
My having a gun to counter their intentions is actually HELPING them become better people. It’s showing them the error of their ways, potentially putting them on the right path (in the hopes of living longer than 30 seconds).
I think we need legislation to put a gun into every law abiding citizen’s home. It’s really the most economical and effective means to helping put people back on the right track.
GWB says: Running into a room won’t save me, unless it’s a fortified panic room.
And even then it won’t save you, unless you’ve called for someone else to come save you. You will eventually starve in there, while the bad guy lays siege. Extreme? Yes. But so is the idea that you should run like a rabbit when someone with ill intent puts you in their crosshairs.
give up a life of crime
They can either give up crime or they can give up their life. Inside my own house, I’m ok with either answer. The first means a lot less paperwork for me, though.
I think we need legislation to put a gun into every law abiding citizen’s home.
I’ve been advocating for at least 12 years now that we should return firearms training (safety training at a minimum) to schools. If you refuse the training, then you are barred from owning/carrying a gun until you take it and pass it. You’ve just made everyone who wants to be, a safe firearms owner/practitioner. If they don’t want to be, that’s fine, they get a flag in the system and can’t buy/own/carry a firearm. All the rabbits get what they want and all the sheepdogs get what they want, and a sheep can legally turn into a sheepdog anytime they want by taking the course.
I think a proficiency course should be offered, as well. The kids who pass that can actually use firearms before turning 18. I wouldn’t make it overly stringent, but I would make it hard enough that you would be a decent hunter (one that doesn’t have their targets run away slightly wounded, only to succumb to sepsis and such). Think of it as Driver’s Ed for guns.
Oh! And I also think it’s an arguably good idea that the gov’t should provide at least one firearm for everyone qualified as a member of the militia. And require training with it.
SFC D says: “Now, her assertion that an armed intruder is only using their firearm to “maintain peaceful transfer of goods” and secure my compliance”.
That’s normally accomplished via the use of currency, not a gun. She’s not strong in the use of logic.
GWB says: would require a homeowner to exhaust the potential of safely retreating into their habitation before using deadly force
Yes. You want us to retreat in the face of evil, giving up what we have worked to obtain to someone else’s covetousness. IOW, you would take away one of our most basic rights – property – in order to not harm an evil-doer.
That makes you EVIL yourself, enabling sin and corruption.
emboldens … people to take justice into their own hands
Guess what? In a republic of free citizens? Justice is already in our hands! That’s where it resides! We build courts and laws to enable uniformity of justice and procedures to help ensure justice. But all of those belong to us. They don’t belong to some elite who wear black robes or some praetorian guard. They belong to us.
As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, the cops aren’t there to protect us from the bad guy, but to protect the bad guy from us.
she would rather that homeowners don’t use weapons of any kind
That’s because she does not want you to be FREE and INDEPENDENT. She wants you to be a SERF. You’re not elite enough to be free, like she is.
Most importantly, the Castle Doctrine is centuries old
Actually, it has been in existence from the dawn of Man. When the first laws came into existence, it was recognized, not created. (This is also true of Stand Your Ground laws, and the basic Self-Defense doctrine.) Even Moses’ law recognizes it (Exodus 22:2 – though that is a bit stricter than regular Castle Doctrine, it also assumes only a thief, not a robber). (The Code of Hammurabi, as well, implies it with “If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”)
Anyone who wants to make you more vulnerable to someone with ill intent is NOT “protecting” you, but making you their slave.
GWB says: From her Twits:
it does not restrict homeowners from using firearms in self-defense as applicable to current Texas stand your ground laws. …
What my bill would do if passed, would require a homeowner to exhaust the potential of safely retreating into their habitation
Guess what? Restricting homeowners from standing their ground is EXACTLY what you describe it doing! Castle Doctrine is the most restrictive form of “Stand Your Ground” law. It’s your home, so you don’t have to run anywhere else. If there’s anywhere you’re legally allowed to be, it’s your own home (unless you’re supposed to be in prison, of course). Allowing someone to treat the entirety of their property in that fashion is a very small step up from there. Allowing them to treat their automobile in that fashion is another very small step.
9 Comments