So I took the renewal class yesterday and got a refresher course on Texas concealed handgun law. A license is good for five years, at which time the holder has the opportunity to renew it by taking a refresher course and passing a written and shooting test. However, fairly new law says that after the second renewal the license holder isn't required to take the course and shooting test but once every ten years.
Every shooter knows that accurate shooting is a depreciating skill and that it's important to practice in the interim. All those bad habits come roaring back without practice, such as in my case, recoil anticipation. That's when the body reacts to the recoil just a little bit too soon, and the bullet hits the target way low. (I've found that a dummy round mixed in with live ammo in a magazine during practice helps me focus on correcting it.)
Plus, the Lege likes to tinker with the law every two years. So with the need for practice and the need to keep up with the law it wouldn't hurt to attend a class more frequently than is required.
All the info a license holder or prospective license holder needs is available at the Texas DPS website.
Pop quiz: You pull up to your house which is currently unoccupied, and you see a guy wearing a ski mask pouring gasoline on your house. He takes out a cigarette lighter and looks like he's ready to light it. You reach for your gun.
True or false: Whether you would be justified in shooting him depends on the position of the sun in the sky.
Answer: True. See Texas Penal Code Sec 9.42 -- A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property . . . to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime...
Day, night, makes a difference.
Can't leave this post without a shout-out to Gaylene Stansbery and who did a fantastic job conducting the class with her husband Jim. I first met Gaylene a few years ago when I was participating in handgun shooting competition. She came along never having participated in that type shooting, and within a couple of months, she was better than I was. "Gimme a bullet," I told her. "I wanna shoot myself."
Post Script. The DPS may start offering a renewal class online, and I wonder how popular that would be. The classes with live instructors teach for the test. But the DPS might just provide a link to the handbook with instructions to read it then take the test. We'll see how that works out.
Post, Post Script.
Eric pointed out in a comment the other way of reading Section 9.42, and that reading would hold that the word "nighttime" pertains only to theft and criminal mischief and not the other things listed, i.e., arson, burglary, robbery, and aggravated robbery. (Actually, that was my first interpretation prior to taking the class.)
The legislative intent was not easily discernible for the 63rd Legislative Session regarding the new Penal Code of 1973. However, Eric's interpretation could very well be right as an aggravated robber could be wielding a firearm which would trigger the self defense application of the statute. In that event the statutes regarding protection of self and protection of property would overlap and not contradict. Thanks Eric.
Disclaimer: No one is reading Sleeples in Midland for advice on whether to shoot someone. Make your own interpretation of the law and above all, use common sense.
My wife and I will be taking a renewal class from Gaylene in June.
In the penal code section you quote above, I'm getting a different reading, with "theft during the nighttime" being the only application of the time of day limiter because of the placement of the comma. If you read the whole of that clause, it seems to support my interpretation:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;
Did you go over this in the class?
Posted by: Eric | May 23, 2011 at 09:51 PM
Well, it's not an inconsequential point, is it? Arson and aggravated robbery, in particular, are crimes with potentially deadly outcomes, and we need to understand what our rights are in terms of protecting ourselves in the [unlikely] event we confront such situations.
This probably warrants further research.
Posted by: Eric | May 24, 2011 at 06:49 AM
Dang. You're fast Eric. I posted a reply then deleted it to rewrite it.
I brought this up in the class, but Gaylene wasn't there to provide legal advice or interpretation.
The clause in the statute is poorly written, in my opinion. A casual search at the Court of Criminal Appeals website doesn't turn up any cases on point. But don't let that prevent your own research.
Posted by: Geo | May 24, 2011 at 06:57 AM