[Spats McGee]

So I'm wondering how many people here have actually troubled themselves to sit down and read their state's black-letter self-defense laws.

I routinely read Arkansas' statutes, and I monitor the case law in my state and circuit.

 

[Spats McGee]

The fact that you chimed in on this reminded me of a discussion about Colorado gun laws on THR.
One of the moderators in the legal forum stated the Colorado law specifies if you have a firearm in your vehicle it must be carried in plain view. No such law exist in Colorado

I'm a mod on THR, so I'll go take a look at that one. If you know the name of the thread or want to PM me a link (so as not to derail this thread), feel free. It would shorten my search.

 

[Spats McGee]

You two guys ought to know better than most, from perusing a few threads here from time to time, that it is pretty evident that a fair number of guys have not read the applicable statutes. And, perhaps even more importantly, that just because someone read a statute and/or a couple decisions, does not mean that they actually understand it.

Absolutely.

 

[Spats McGee]

Here is the problem I have. The State CCL says one thing. My 18 years of Firearms Training and my Federal retirement badge say another. I was trained to put two in the chest and one in the head as part of a Body Armor drill, that some like to call the Mozambique. State CCL course tells me head shots are murder. I was trained to shoot from 25 yards for 18 years. State CCL course tells me, I cannot engage past 15 yards, and must retreat if being fired on from a further distance. I was trained never to turn your back on a shooter, unless death was your goal. So, what ultimately takes primacy. My retirement Badge and Credentials, that I still carry, or the CCL course, and the CCL I carry. I want to know who wins in this one, Federal or State CCL.

I'm not licensed in TX, but you might want to take a closer look at its laws:

Here are the TX LTCH Laws

. . . .
(c) A person who 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.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.32 (West)

. . . .
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.31 (West)

. . . . (c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.21 (West)