To: csvset
A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday. Since this was a construction site, does this truly qualify under the "castle doctrine?"
16 posted on
07/09/2007 5:46:20 PM PDT by
Cowboy Bob
(Withhold Taxes - Starve a Liberal)
To: Cowboy Bob
He was on his own property and he had a concealed carry liscense he doest need the castle law under either of those circumstances.
The castle law in TX essentially says that your “Car” is an extention of your home and you have the right to carry in you car and defend yourself from your car
20 posted on
07/09/2007 5:52:02 PM PDT by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: Cowboy Bob
Since this was a construction site, does this truly qualify under the "castle doctrine?" Yep, although it doesn't really matter, it was his property, he was on it, and defended it (and himself). The new Castle doctrine doesn't change that. Even his possession of a CHL is irrelevant when on your own property or property you control.
43 posted on
07/09/2007 8:41:22 PM PDT by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson