Big Texas; Big Gun Rights (mission, Article, Zen)

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by kateyes

As the right to bear arms(and presumably to use them) is guaranteed in the US Constitution--I am not sure I understand the poll. I also don't quite understand why Gov. Perry found it necessary to extend the right to use deadly force beyond the home to automobiles and the work place. In theory it would give someone the right to defend themselves against an armed attacker anywhere. I was under the impression(perhaps mistakenly), we already had that right.

You are correct in most states, a few however have a retreat requirement such as Texas and Florida. Florida got rid of theirs a year or two ago, Texas just now it seems.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Mister_T

You think that's ridiculous, check this out. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

We see in the case that the legal opinion is that the perp will lose his suit.

[kateyes]

Well, I have to say the retreat issue doesn't make any sense to me. For most people your home is your last retreat, to be told to leave it in the hands of an intruder goes against pretty much every instinct you could have. The change in Texas makes more sense to me now.

It is ironic though--I was once told by a policeman, that if the intruder was all the way in the house--that constituted a threat and could be acted upon with "deadly force".

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by kateyes

Well, I have to say the retreat issue doesn't make any sense to me. For most people your home is your last retreat, to be told to leave it in the hands of an intruder goes against pretty much every instinct you could have. The change in Texas makes more sense to me now.

It is ironic though--I was once told by a policeman, that if the intruder was all the way in the house--that constituted a threat and could be acted upon with "deadly force".

Me too.

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

We see in the case that the legal opinion is that the perp will lose his suit.

The fact that it would even get that far is ridiculous to me.

[GeneCosta]

So if someone flips me off at a stop light, I can shoot him dead if I prove I interpreted it as a threat?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

Ah, the freerepublic. Got to love people who accuse you of being a terrorist.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

So if someone flips me off at a stop light, I can shoot him dead if I prove I interpreted it as a threat?

nope. you have to prove that a reasonable person would have considered that your life was in imminent danger.

[GeneCosta]

Ok, sounds good to me. The states shouldn't be "interpreting" constitutional amendments, though. That's the job of the Supreme Court.