Texas HB196
Saw some comments regarding TX HB196 that are cause for concern.
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.” This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home. Now listen to what she has to say…
“I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.” Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”
“In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better.”
Hat tip: George
A perfect example of where “Don’t California My Texas” applies.
This is what happens when you don’t throw the communist from the helicopter.
What has she been smoking?
PS: I live in California and I think it’s nuts.
So let’s all meet over at Terry’s house in Irving and walk in and see what we need to relieve her of, since I might need it more than she does.
Everyone in Texas needs to go get what they want from her house today!
Did she really say that ????
This is the height of liberal stupidity! I’m not overly surprised that someone is this “progressive”. She is just another example of the fact that common sense is gone. I’d like to see her face when she gets her house broken into, and they end up taking her for everything. Not a chance any insurance company in the world is going to cover all the costs to reimburse her.
So… The thief has 2nd Amendment rights but not the victim.
Cannot believe I’m reading this….how can someone say that this ok, what an idiot!
Why doesn’t she just leave her doors and windows so any any-and every-body can walk through and leave with whatever they find?! Or, go ahead and set it all out on the street in front of her house? I don’t think she’d be expected to dust or polish the furniture, but that would be a nice touch to help out the thief(ves)! If there’s anything left, save it for the next bunch of intruders. Make their job a little easier if it’s already outside and ready to take!
This woman is pure crazy. Maybe she wouldn’t be so eager to have TEXAS homeowners step aside to make it easy for criminals IF SHE had her house broken into to. I am sure she lives behind some gated walls with private security. Just think how much crime would increase. She is so liberal she needs to take her liberal minded crap to Cali. This is Texas .
I live in KALIFORNISTAN at the moment, waiting for the time I can head east. I’m pretty sure all the inmates in Kalifornistan would vote for something like this, seeing how they got voting rights back.
I’ve defended California Law for over 30 years, I assist with multiple CCW classes as well. Even some of our ‘SHEEP’ are starting to open their eyes and getting trained. I bought a new house 2 years ago, no carpets, just nice tile floors, easier to clean.
So lets’ say an intruder enters my home (after HE/SHE/IT cut my power). The 50,000 lumen light with RED DOT attached to my 45.ACP with Hornady HST’s shows me they are clearly aiming a firearm in my direction. They suddenly hit the floor and die of HEAR FAILURE. I clear my house and check outside for accomplices. Hmm, they acted alone! Did an intruder, in fact, perish in my house? (Hell, I already know I’m on a list). Tile not carpet, wink wink.
My son was held up at gunpoint, he knew the punk. Punk never did any real time, my son has grown weary of kicking his ass on sight. Punk would be safer locked up, at least in prison they will blend his food for him to drink from a straw.
Hey Mz. CRUZ, want to come over for dinner? You and more like you are welcome anytime TOOTS! Ya that was a sexually charged Toots. I gotz my retirement and I get Protective Custody if locked up, and still get paid.
Her bill has ZERO chance of being passed out of committee. As a lifelong Democrat, I disagree with her premise and think that she is terribly naive. A crack addict breaks into your house with a gun, he doesn’t give a shit about your life or your loved ones’ lives. He will kill you in a heartbeat. I will not retreat in my own home. Thieves take note.
Right on Michael Williamson!
I promise I’ll cooperate…with the full force of a .45!
I love all the weapon ads at the end of this blog.
How stupid is she to say that “criminals only carry weapons for self protection” and not realize that is why homeowners have weapons. Criminals cannot be marginalized by saying “they need the stuff more than the homeowner does.” They are criminals with bad intentions, and deserve the “death penalty” if they illegally enter someone’s home with a weapon and the intent to harm or steal. I will not flee my home, but I will defend it with all the weapons at my disposal.
Hi! Can you provide a link for the quoted comments from Meza? I’m trying to find where she said that. Thanks!
OK… I figured it out… You have to think like the left.
After close analysis of her reasoning behind the bill, thieves no longer exist. They are just people enforcing the “equitable redistribution of wealth”, thus, they are EROW officers! This means anyone, regardless of race, creed, national origin, gender identity, etc. can simply and easily qualify as an EROW officer, and, in fact, *must* be allowed to qualify. Since we cannot tolerate any kind of discrimination, no forms of identification of any kind are requirements for EROW qualification.
Of course, EROW officers, to sufficiently protect themselves, must be armed because the average despicable wealth hoarder (DWH) (previously known as law abiding homeowners) won’t otherwise willingly cooperate, so they must be incentivized through the threat of a firearm to hand over whatever the EROW officer requests. The person just walks into a gun store, states they are an EROW officer, and the gun store *must* provide a firearm under the EROW firearm mandate (EROWFarM). The EROWFarM does not require any form of compensation to the gun store owner for the firearm. That is, the gun store owner cannot gain any wealth from selling firearms to EROW officers.
I thought about this a bit longer, with my newfound left-thinking brain and realized something. Since the insurance company is going to reimburse the DWHs, isn’t it a no-loss transaction? Why the need for the EROW officers and the unnecessary and potentially violent confrontation during the enforcement of EROW law?
Why don’t we just submit a bill requiring every DWH to be required to disclose their insurance company to any EROW officer requesting it? The bill must also require insurance companies to pay out distribution of wealth (DOW) claims. In this scenario, the EROW officer, instead of having to kick down a door or smash a window to enforce EROW law, can just ask the DWH who their insurance company is. Then, the EROW officer can just file a DOW claim to the insurance company to provide whatever it is they would have otherwise confiscated. This makes things completely non-confrontational!
So, suppose my neighbor buys a brand new Porsche! I cannot afford a Porsche, so I submit my claim as an EROW officer, and then go ask my neighbor for their insurance company information. Then, I just file a DOW claim to their insurance company, and viola, I get a Porsche!
The changes requested are not all bad. In Sec.9.42(1) at the end it takes out the AND. As there is (2) and (3), I would agree with removing that word. Secondly starting Sec.9.42(3) to remove the word HE. I have known plenty of Texas women who would have problem shooting an intruder. See, I told you not all the changes are bad. 🙂
Allen meant “NO” problem shooting an intruder.
Where are these quotes from?
U better get that bitch out of there w
Quick! Texas if u let that bill go through we’ll just change ur name to Mexico. Adios!
I don’t live in Texas but what world do I live in where this is an actual bill???
She’s got to be a democrat. Someone voted for her. Obviously another IDIOT.,
Every home invasion or burglary that ends with harm being done to people living in, or visiting, that home has this factor. It is done because someone else thought they needed, wanted, or deserved something more than the people that it belonged. And it sometimes does go beyond physical objects and wealth.
Sometimes it’s your life, and they do not state this fact at the beginning of the encounter.
I suspect every rape of a woman, or a child, is because someone else wanted something that another had.
And the desire to not leave a witness is probably common.
Now, if a person breaks into her house and rapes her, then what is she going to say about the “Raper”?????
Instead of having to steal somebody’s used stuff and have to pawn it, maybe she should suggest the banks get rid of their security guards and alarm systems so the thieves can just take money and use it to buy what they want without having to get ripped off by a pawn shop, and the bank could recover the money from the FDIC.
It’s just more internet bullshit. How can you be so damn gullible? You’re as bad as the left. You believe anything. Stop believing everything anyone tells you. Read the damn bill. It does nothing like the bullshit “article” says. The “article came from a semi-satirical forum,
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,421840.0.html?PHPSESSID=hffvegqqqtj2od8bjq6a2g45i7 Do some frickin’ research before spouting off.
Paragraph c obviates 0:31
(1) is [if the actor would be] justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; [and]
(2) is unable to safely retreat; and
(3) [when and to the degree the actor] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB196/id/2214951 paragraph c, (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a [A] person who is
in the person’s own habitation [has a right to be present at the
location where the deadly force is used], who has not provoked the
person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged
in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.