Longhorn's Robbed

Discussion in 'In the News' started by EagleEye920, May 18, 2006.

  1. EagleEye920

    EagleEye920 Member

    904
    0
    16
    http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=79996

    Thank the Lord noone was hurt from what the article says. This could have easily gone a different way.

    This again brings up my frustrations with the bogus restaurant carry law. What would have happend if an Armed Citizen had stopped this. Would he be charged since Longhorn's is "off-limits".
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,352
    385
    83
    Not only would he be charged, but he would also lose immunity

    Copied from my comments on SB 396:

    " . . . unless any deadly force, used by such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title."

    Tell them to just put a line through that.

    If they need a reason why, gunsmoker and jrm have provided several examples. This part of the law removes immunity from criminal prosecution if you have a firearm at a public gathering, if your Uncle Ted had a conviction in 1979 for writing a bad check over $600 and shoots someone to protect your kids while you and your wife our out having a romantic evening, even when you disarm a robber at the Macaroni Grill (not the same romantic dinner, I hope), because they do serve alcohol.

    What good does this part of the law in Section 2 do? If the carriage or possession of the weapon is illegal, then immunity from prosecution for use of force will not stop the local prosecutor from making a weapons charge. Tell Senator Smith to line out this language in Section 2 of SB 396.