JournalStar.com - Lincoln, Nebraska:

After we left the range, some of the students talked about why they want a permit. One said personal security. Another mentioned a cousin who was murdered and how he doesn’t want to be a victim. A couple of the others said they want to carry handguns while they’re traveling on the road.

I thought about it a lot in the last few days and decided even if I do get the permit, I won’t carry. I’m just not willing to accept the responsibility of keeping a loaded handgun in public.

I imagine people on both sides of this polarized issue will view my decision through their own filters. Gun advocates might call me a coward, while the antis might crow that I had second thoughts after having gone through the course.

My choice does not mean others can’t handle the responsibility of carrying a handgun. It means I’m being honest with myself in knowing I’m not one of them.

A good article that is actually not biased against guns or self defense, I don't think.  My only question is about the first paragraph of the story where he mentions that his target was three feet away.  Did he really mean three feet?

Dallas Morning News:

State Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, wants people to have the same right to shoot intruders who invade their cars and businesses as they have to shoot people who break into their homes.

If House Bill 284 were to become law, a person would have the right to use deadly force and would no longer be required to retreat to avoid violence in a business, workplace or vehicle.

Actually, we already have legal precedent for lethal force in self defense while in a vehicle. Tomorrow when my blog comes back online and I can search it, I'll try to look up the reference and link it.  [UPDATE:  Link here.]

In short, the very first instance of lethal self defense by a Texas CHL holder was when he was attacked while sitting in his car in a traffic jam.  The man who attacked him was punching him with his fists through the open window.  The man being attacked shot and killed the one hitting him.

It was no-billed--the pre-trail hearing determined it was lawful self defense and that was that.

However, this bill also provides protection against civil suits.  Pertinent part here:

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code.

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Of course, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Self Defense doesn't like it, but they couldn't stop this movement in numerous other states, and I doubt they'll have much effect in Texas.

The full text of the new bill can be found at the Texas Legislature website as House Bill No. 284.

Crossposted to The Gun Blogs.

From abc13.com:

Texans who are 55 or older are more likely to get concealed handgun permits than those who are in their 20s, 30s and 40s, according to Texas Department of Public Safety statistics.

That falls in line with national surveys that indicate seniors are more likely than any other age group to be gun owners.

In Texas, 42 percent of those who have concealed handgun permits are 55 or older. Texans who are 60 or older have about 25 percent of the permits issued, statistics show.

Makes sense to me. The older you get, the more you come to the realization that you're not immortal and bad stuff can happen.