Texas CHL Blog

It is unlikely that any 911 tape has been as widely distributed and as thoroughly debated as the one related to Joe Horn’s shooting of two fleeing burglars who had broken into his neighbor’s home. Had it not been for Mr. Horn’s statements on the 911 tape, no one outside of Mr. Horn’s family, neighborhood and a few Pasadena policemen would have known anything about him or the shooting.

Unfortunately, Mr. Horn’s ill-advised and inflammatory statements to the 911 dispatcher thrust him into the spotlight, a position of prominence he came to loath. In spite of how “bad” the tape sounded, those in legal circles knew that his actions were entirely lawful, according to the Texas Penal Code. Unlike many states, deadly force can be used by Texans to protect property under certain circumstances. Deadly force can also be used against fleeing burglars, again, under certain circumstances. (See Tex. Penal Code §§9.41-9.43).

After seeing the ordeal Mr. Horn has had to endure, it should be clear that one must be very careful about what is said to a 911 dispatcher. There is little doubt that much of what Mr. Horn said was the result of a combination of factors such as fear, impatience, concern, bravado and adrenalin-dump, rather than heart-felt comments or a desire to take someone’s life. Nevertheless, the now-infamous 911 tape has been heard literally around the world and it matters not what motivated the comments.

Mr. Horn has received death threats, his home, indeed his entire block, has been the scene of a loud and potentially dangerous protest, and he has been vilified by so-called community activists. Others have called him a model citizen, the perfect neighbor and a hero. Passions have run high on both sides of this event and the Harris County Grand Jury should be commended for not succumbing to this pressure and returning an indictment against a man who so clearly did not violate Texas law.

Throughout this ordeal, the phrase “he took the law into his own hands” was thrown about like a baseball in Spring time. This often used phrase is not found in the Texas Penal Code or in Blacks Law Dictionary, but its colloquial use implies that someone has broken the law. This is yet another inaccurate and unjustified description of Mr. Horn’s actions. While reasonable minds can differ as to whether Mr. Horn acted prudently, or whether others would have reacted to the burglary as he did, it is clear that he did not break the law.

The 2009 Texas Legislative Session may well see an effort by some to change Texas law to prohibit the use of deadly force to protect property, or to stop certain fleeing felons. This effort should be soundly defeated, as it works to the benefit of criminals, not honest citizens. Burglaries often result in the homeowner and his or her family being injured or killed. Diminishing the occupational hazards of being a burglar should not be a goal of the Texas Legislature. If such legislation should pass, the lives of some burglars may be spared, but at the cost innocent lives.

Charles L. Cotton

1 Comment »
Filed under: Texas Legislature

As I am writing this article, I’m sitting in a lounge chair on my patio. A strong wind is blowing and dark clouds are rolling in. It’s clear that a storm is coming. Well, I wish the only storm brewing was related to the weather! Eight years of relative peace on the federal front are coming to a close and political storm clouds are gathering. President Bush didn’t go out of his way to help gun owners, but he didn’t hurt us either, even when pressured to do so after the Democrats took control of Congress and tried to “deal” on legislation he wanted.

Gun owners have enjoyed tremendous success at the polls for several years, even considering the Democrats regaining majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. Many of the newly elected Democrats claim to truly support the Second Amendment, but only time and an opportunity to vote on gun bills will tell whether these claims are election rhetoric or true commitments. One thing is certain, the 2008 Presidential Election offers the very real prospect of returning an anti-gun President to the White House. This has implications even more ominous than the 1994 passage of the Clinton gun-ban, also known as the “assault weapons” ban. As noted, many of the “new” Democrats in Washington have not had the opportunity or misfortune to see a vote on a gun bill. So Second Amendment supporters must still view the likelihood that the Democratic Party’s margins in both the House and the Senate will increase as an ominous possibility. Clearly, the battle to defend our Second Amendment rights is far from over.

After suffering stunning defeats at the polls in 2000 and 2004, anti-freedom groups like the Violence Policy Center, Sara Brady and their ilk focused on state legislatures. They were hardly content to accept the demise of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and introduced even more menacing legislation in several states. After taking control of the U.S. House and Senate, the Democrats introduced an even more Draconian “assault weapons” ban at the federal level. Though filed, this bill has not been pushed by the Democrats for fear it would hurt them in the 2008 Elections. The anti-gun forces bankrolling the anti-gun Democrats are confident that whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is in the White House, they will remember them as their “friends.” So if we see a President Obama or President Clinton in 2008, then the far-reaching “new” assault weapons ban will be the first of many battles we will have to fight. Remember, Obama has stated he supports not only the assault weapons ban, but also a federal law banning concealed carry by citizens throughout the entire Country!

Under President Bush’s direction, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton lead a successful fight against anti-gun forces within the United Nations and against George Soros’ puppet Rebecca Peters, all of whom were trying to do with a UN treaty what the anti-gun forces have been unable to do in the Legislature. Unfortunately, the U.N. small arms treaty is like a summer cold, it always seems to come back. If Clinton or Obama are in the White House and Democrats like Senators Schumer and Feinstein continue to enjoy a majority in the Senate, a devastating U.N. smalls arms treaty is a very real possibility.

At a time when we should be gearing up for battle, there is a distinct danger that the pro-Second Amendment voter base has grown complacent, because of our successes at the state and federal levels for the last eight years. Our victories have been numerous. The NRA and its state associations have steadfastly expanded law-abiding citizens’ rights to carry handguns for self-defense. “Shall issue” concealed carry statutes are now the rule, rather than the exception, in the majority of states; a feat many would have considered impossible only a few years ago. Anti-lawsuit statutes have been passed in several states to protect firearms manufacturers from frivolous, politically motivated suits filed solely to drive them out of business. This is in addition to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed at the federal level to provide a two-pronged defense.

The NRA also took action in response to the atrocities inflicted on helpless citizens in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Former Mayor Ray Nagin, illegally and unconstitutionally ordered the confiscation of all firearms from law-abiding but stranded and helpless citizens, leaving them without the means of self-defense at a time when their lives were clearly in danger. As one woman said, “They didn’t offer me a drink of water, they didn’t offer me any food, they didn’t offer me a ride out, they just took my gun and left!” Thanks to the NRA, federal legislation was passed preventing the repeat of such despicable acts by public officials. However, the NRA didn’t stop there. Suit was filed on behalf of citizens whose property was illegally confiscated and the scope of Mayor Nagin’s lies and deeds came to light during the discovery process. We should also take pride in the fact that this suit was made possible because the NRA had investigators on location in New Orleans to obtain documentary proof of Mayor Nagin’s quest.

The NRA made passage of laws commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine” a top priority in the states. These laws vary by state, but at their core they allow a citizen to defend themselves from violent attack, without having to worry about facing prosecution and prison. Many of the states included civil liability protection in their version of the “Castle Doctrine.”

But make no mistake, all of these successes are in danger. With the Democrats in control of the House and Senate, not only do we face the very real possibility of another assault weapons ban that is more encompassing than Bill Clinton’s version, we could see the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Emergency Powers Act that prohibits the confiscation of firearms in times of emergency. If John McCain is President, he likely would veto such legislation; Clinton or Obama would sign it with a big grin on their face.

I made this statement in 2005 and it bears repeating.

Ironically, our successes can actually work against us, unless we are ever vigilant. It is comforting to see the great strides we have made, but we cannot allow that success to lull us into complacency. Rather, we must use our successes as a springboard for new efforts.

Unfortunately, three years after first making this statement, our “new efforts” are going to be directed largely toward protecting what we have gained.

There is much work to be done. In truth the fight to defend all Constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, will never end. There will be times of relative peace as we enjoyed from 2000 to 2008, but the threat will always be present to some greater or lesser degree. While we have to guard against complacency that is born of success, so too must we guard against fatigue caused by a seemingly endless battle. So how do we accomplish this? We win by staying in the fight with our commitment of time, energy, effort and money. If you are not a member of the NRA and the TSRA, then by all means join both. If you are already a member, then consider a donation or better yet, regular sustaining donations. Our successes have always come at the cost of time, effort and money and this isn’t going to change. In addition to money, be ready to respond to a call to action by voting, getting others to vote to support their Second Amendment Right, and placing calls, faxes and emails to Senators and Representatives.

Millions of our ancestors fought World War I, the “war to end all wars,” with the fervent hope that their children would know war only on the pages of history books. But only 23 years later, Americans found themselves in World War II locked in a battle to save our way of life. We’ve learned there is no “war to end all wars” whether it is fought on the battlefield, or in the political arena. So pray for peace, even if only for a little while, but do so while preparing for the coming political battles. To do less would guarantee the demise of the Second Amendment.

Chas.

No Comments »
Filed under: Federal, Texas Legislature

Here is a communication I sent to a Hilton Hotel executive in response to an apparent new policy to prohibit Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees from bringing their defensive handguns into the hotel.

Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner

Gentleman,

I recently picked up a member of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) from the Doubletree on 15th St in Austin and noticed the new signs announcing that concealed handguns are not permitted (the signs are silent on whether other types of firearms such as rifles and shotguns are prohibited).

I have several questions:

1. Is a firearm in a personal vehicle in your garage prohibited?
2. Since I was in my vehicle and armed when I drove up to pick up my colleagues the other night, was I in violation of your policy?
3. When you accept reservations do you inform your guests of this policy so that they are not surprised when they arrive?
4. If a guest with reservations and a firearm, and who was not aware of your new policy arrived at your hotel would you provide safe off premises storage for the weapon?
5. If there were no provisions for storage of a firearm, would you insure the guest could find other equivalent lodging in Austin even if all hotels were booked as is often the case?
6. Since most of the SBOE members stay at your hotel because they can walk to state office buildings, do you assume an additional obligation for the personal safety of guests who are disarmed by your policy and who may be victims of crime while on or off your premises, particularly while walking at night to and from meetings?
7. Do you have any concern that the signs posted on your building might attract criminal activity since criminals are likely to be attracted to a location where they believe their potential victims are unarmed? Does this obvious incentive for criminal activity create an additional liability for you if a guest is assaulted?
8. Are you aware that the signs you have posted likely do not comply with Texas Penal Code section 30.06 and therefore may not be legally sufficient to ban handguns from your property?

While a State Senator, I was the author of Texas’ concealed handgun law. There are few if any in the State of Texas who are more familiar with state and federal firearms law than I. Additionally, I have spent approximately $15,000 hosting receptions at your hotel, and have attended many others as a guest of other elected officials and the Republican party. I can reasonably state that tens of thousands of dollars of future revenue may be in jeopardy if this senseless policy remains in effect.

I recognize there is a great deal of misunderstanding about Texas firearms law, and frequently premise holders believe posting signs may be required by law in oder to achieve some desirable objective. In other words, posting these signs is not always an informed decision.

While I am not an attorney, I am more than willing to explain Texas firearms law to anyone with the Hilton Hotel corporation. I’m very qualified to do so since I authored most of the laws pertaining to carrying handguns while I was a member of the Texas legislature.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Jerry Patterson
Commissioner, Texas General Land Office

1 Comment »
Filed under: Uncategorized

Throughout our current Presidential campaign I hear that collaboration and “getting along” are the traits we should be looking for in our candidate for . I can tell you that based on 30 years observing California politics that is definitely not what we want. We want candidates on both sides that have strong opinions on issues, clearly communicate their stand, and are willing to fight all opponents to implement their desires or prevent others from implementing theirs. This should especially true of our republican candidates

The last great Republican Governor in California was Ronald Reagan. He articulated his strong conservative values so strongly that the hair-brained, social engineering programs of the Democratic legislature were unable to be passed. Every one sent to him was vetoed and there were rarely enough votes to override his veto. This led to a legislative stalemate in state government that was frustrating to the politicos but great for the State.

Reagan was replaced by Gerald R. Brown, Jr., arguably the most liberal, left-wing governor that has ever served in such a high office. Brown’s claim to fame was that he sold the Governor’s mansion because it was a symbol of waste and lived in an apartment. He also let his chauffeur have some time off and drove himself to work in a Plymouth Satellite from the State motor pool. Brown came to power under the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in California that had hated Reagan and all he stood for.

Under Brown, numerous liberal and socialistic programs were implemented that alienated most people in the state. Every one of these programs served to move power from the hands of the people and local government, into the hands of the State. The “great social experiment” of a centralized State government that protected its entire people from big business, environmental contamination, conservatives, and other bogey men was started during this period. This laid the foundation for severe personal restrictions and the dire financial straights that effect California today.

In my opinion, the greatest impact of the Brown Administration was that Republicans in the State saw they could only get and hold power in the state if they cooperated with the Democrats to continue the consolidation of power into the State government. Gone were the days when they could appeal to conservatives, they had to sacrifice true conservative principals and move to the center. That is, move closer to the liberal element. Since the Brown administration every Governor in California, save one, has been a Republican. The notable exception is Grey Davis, a Democrat who was recalled by the voters because he was too liberal. The laws that lead to the condition in California were passed by Republican Governors, cooperating with a Democratic legislature.

Interestingly, since Ronald Reagan was President, we have seen the same trend in national politics. Reagan angered the liberals in California because he spoke the truth, had strong convictions, and refused to compromise on them. He did essentially the same thing in Washington as President. Since that time, in every election, we hear the calls to elect someone who can “work together with the legislature for change.” This has never meant compromise; it has always meant that the candidate should reflect a desire to meet the agenda of the left. Getting along only means those measures will be taken to increase government control, never to relax it. The only way to stop this slide is people on both sides of any argument that have such strong opinions on a critical topic that their differences lead to legislative grid lock.

In California, it only took two election cycles for the change to happen. Only two elections meant the difference between personal liberty and an all-controlling state. There were only two elections where voters had a choice between candidates who were bad and not-so-bad. Only two elections…

No Comments »
Filed under: Federal

More hypocrisy from a leading anti-Second Amendment Crusader

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has been accused of being involved with a prostitution ring providing high-price “call girls” to its customers. The full extent of his involvement has not been disclosed and may not even be known at this time. The accusations against Governor Spitzer were reported on virtually every major news outlet, much to the chagrin of the Spitzer’s supporters the likes of which include New York Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer and Presidential hopeful New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

As yet, no official charges, if any, have been released and early reports of an indictment against Governor Spitzer appear to have been premature. The only allegations publicized at this time appear to be based upon the Governor arranging to have a specific prostitute named “Kristen” travel by train from New York to Washington D.C. to have sex with him at the Mayflower Hotel. If Governor Spitzer is the now-infamous “Client No. 9″ discovered during court-ordered wiretapping of the Emporors Club, then his actions would violate the Mann Act and the former New York Attorney General may find himself doing time in the same prisons to which he sent others convicted of the same crimes of which he may be accused.

Spitzer’s Public Apology

What does a New York Governor without a moral conscience do when he has been caught breaking the very laws he once vigorously and hypocritically enforced? Why, he makes his devastated and betrayed wife stand next to him at a press conference so he can publicly apologize to her and the rest of his family, and hopefully gain some sympathy and support with her grief-stricken face and his crocodile tears. So typical of a corrupt politician who has been caught, Governor Spitzer did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand in front of the media’s cameras alone and admit that he cheated on his wife and broke a number of state and federal laws. Rather, he gave a self-serving statement that he hopes will convince at least some people that he is truly sorry for what he has done.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong. I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.

Well Governor Spitzer, you certainly violated family “obligations” and “any sense of right and wrong,” but you know well that you violated federal and state law as well. If you were as remorseful as you would have the public believe, you would have admitted that also, and you would have immediately resigned as Governor of New York.

Special Significance of Spitzer’s Apparent Crimes

Allegations against high-ranking political figures, especially allegations of involvement with prostitutes, are unfortunately rather commonplace. But the allegations against Governor Spitzer are especially troubling in light of his undeserved reputation of being tough on crime, including organized prostitution rings. Apparently, Governor Spitzer was tough on other peoples’ crimes and other peoples’ prostitution rings, but not his own.

Prior to being elected Governor of New York, Spitzer served eight (8) years as New York Attorney General. During those years, he built a reputation of being a crusader against crime, ironically including the prosecution of prostitution rings. As time went on and his deception grew, he was dubbed “Eliot Ness Spitzer” and “Mr. Clean,” titles he spent like political monopoly money to feather his political nest and “work” his way into the Governor’s Mansion. But in truth, Spitzer is much more than a fallen political figure, he is a fraud. He is not sorry for what he did, only that he got caught. He is not sorry for the betrayal and humiliation his wife and family feel, but he morns the effect this scandal will have on his political future and possibly his freedom. Why else would he flaunt his wife’s shame and grief before television cameras, other than to feign remorse and hopefully salvage some political support. A man who is truly sorry for his actions does not subject his wife to being a media spectacle and he fully admits his guilt; he does not simply recite a result-oriented prepared statement.

Frivolous lawsuits against innocent firearms manufacturers

Playing on undeserved nicknames was not the only dishonorable thing Spitzer did in his quest for power and position. He was a prime offender in the filing of frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers solely to put them out of business through mounting legal defense costs. In the days before passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, politically motivated groundless lawsuits against firearms manufacturers were threatening to destroy the American firearms industry. Prior owners of Smith & Wesson reluctantly made a deal with New York that nearly destroyed the company when its customers abandoned it. When the deal looked like it was falling apart, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo managed to salvage it and in so doing, sparked a conflict with Spitzer who needed disparately to get credit for the “deal” of the century. Thankfully, Smith & Wesson ownership changed as did its management, the Spitzer’s extortion plot failed when Smith & Wesson repudiated the “deal,” and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed making such Spitzer-esk arm-twisting impossible.

But Spitzer’s political battle plan included frivolous lawsuits against high profile people and companies outside the firearms industry. And those lawsuits garnered him a great deal of criticism. As Kimberly Strassell, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it “Eliot Sptizer’s Real Agenda is . . . Eloit Spitzer!“ It is obvious that, until yesterday, Spitzer believed the old adage that “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” His perspective has probably changed in the last twenty-four (24) hours.

Silence from Spitzer supporters is deafening

Where is the outcry from leaders in Democratic Party? Where is the outcry from Senators Schumer and Feinstein, both stalwart anti-Second Amendment rights activists? Undoubtedly Schumer and Feinstein are devastated that their anti-gun champion, founder of the frivolous lawsuit theory of victory, has been so unceremoniously defrocked. And where is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (a/k/a Brady Campaign to Ban All Guns) on this issue? Who knows, not a peep has been heard from their camp. One can only imagine the thunderous roar that would be heard from these people if an officer of the National Rifle Association had been accused of such conduct and crimes.

Fellow Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer managed only to say the following:

I feel bad for him and his family but until he makes a more complete statement, I have nothing more to say.

You feel bad for Spitzer and his family, Senator Schumer!? What about your own constituents, the good people of New York? What about the people and companies who were falsely targeted for politically motivated lawsuits solely to promote Spitzer’s lust for power and position? What about the New York Attorney General’s Office and the Governorship of New York? All have been betrayed, disgraced and tainted by the acts of a power-hungry, grand-standing politician concerned only with his own well-being and pleasures.

Oh how the mighty have fallen!

Chas.

1 Comment »
Filed under: Federal