The Texas legislature passed an expanded “castle doctrine” this week, effectively broadening the definition of where one can use deadly force in self-defense, while removing the requirement to retreat if possible. From the LA Times:
AUSTIN, Texas Mar 28, 2007 (AP)— Texans will be able to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes, cars and workplaces under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Rick Perry.
The bill states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The building or vehicle must be occupied at the time for the deadly force provision to apply, and the person using force cannot provoke the attacker or be involved in criminal activity.
The Legislature approved the measure this month, and the National Rifle Association backed it. The law takes effect Sept. 1.
“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but it is intuitive to human nature. You ought to be able to protect yourself,” Perry said.
He’s right, although different people handle the “fight or flight” reaction differently… which is why I see some problems coming down the line — because everyone cannot be trusted with a weapon (from the Houston Chronicle):
At least 11 slayings have occurred in Houston since Saturday, and the latest came Wednesday when a Metro bus passenger shot another passenger who had bumped into him, police said.
The victim and suspect apparently got into an argument while the suspect was trying to get off the bus in the 11700 block of Westheimer, Houston police said.
The suspect, who had a license to carry a concealed handgun, shot the other man in front of about 30 passengers at about 11:30 a.m., police said.
We could argue and discuss whether a Metro bus qualifies under the expanded castle as a vehicle — but that’s not what bothers me about this story.
What I want to know is whether you think every citizen (who hasn’t been convicted of a felony or is otherwise legally barred) should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon — because if the Chronicle’s report is correct, this suspect shouldn’t have had a concealed-carry license in the first place.
Bumping into someone doesn’t meet the imminent threat standard, folks — and in a nutshell, this is the problem with the gun laws. Not everyone has the wit, or the training, or the mental and emotional strength to be trusted with a weapon.
I have no problem with the concept. This is a very dangerous world, and Polimom’s walked through it both armed, and unarmed; I get it, and I support it. However, if we’re going to arm ourselves, we need more than criminal records screening and training at a firing range.
Because it’s not me that I’m worried about out there in the big bad world, my friend. It’s you.