Transcription
Yes, knocking out a tooth, cracking a tooth could be serious bodily injury. There are an equal number of cases that say no, it's not. Ultimately, it's a jury answer.
Um, what I was finding in my research, though, is all these people who had their teeth knocked out where it was considered a use of serious or serious bodily injury, they all seem to be holding like weapons.
We are the armed attorneys. Today, we are answering your questions. We got some good ones. Black powder defense, paint bombs for porch pirates, how all these new ATF rules interact with Chevron deference being kicked down, shockwave carry, and so much more.
But before we begin, show your support for the Second Amendment by hitting that like button. And Texans, head over to armed attorneys.com. Check out the armed attorneys self-defense legal protection program. This is that thing that probably is itching in the back of your mind. You know you need coverage. These things, self-defense incidents, you know, first they charge you crimally, then they sue you civily. You don't want to get wiped out by this stuff and we have a solution for you. So check us out armed attorneys.com.
Emily Taylor. >> Hello. >> We got some good hopefully we have some answers to your questions today. >> All right. >> All right.
The first one is Sisly Michael. Question. Curious if you folks have ever defended someone who used a capp black powder firearm. >> No. No. And funny because people do ask about them quite a bit. Um, and actually in years back they really it was a it was a popular device for getting around our open carry statute for some time before we before we had open carry. Um, so it was something that was a little bit more popular. But no, I have never ever I mean gosh the most >> you've had a single action revolver person. >> I've had a single as close to black. >> Yeah, that's as close as we've ever got. Well, and I had M1 Grand. That's the most unusual unusual firearm. I've had some black powder felon in possession. You know, not technically a firearm under Texas law. So, obviously those cases go away. >> Oh, we had a black powder um TSA >> violation on you. You remember that? >> Yes. >> And that was interesting because normally you accidentally carry your handgun through TSA security in your carry-on and it's pretty much strict liability and there's not much you can do. But the one time you really get out of it is when you're like, "Hey, this wasn't a firearm." And then there are other statutes that >> Yeah, they still they still hate it, but it's not a firearm and you'll still you'll get you'll be in trouble for something else, but not firearm. Yep.
All right, so we've got at >> Anthony Guardian Survival Tools question. >> Anthony always has great questions. >> Anthony does have good questions. Can you please give some examples of when what is clearly written in the law as justified conduct for self-defenders does not work out for the defender in reality because the court or jury dishonors, ignores, manipulates, or misinterprets the law. Laws versus reality. Seems I've heard of an example of someone protecting a third party that shot and killed an attacker who was attacking a woman at gunpoint, but one round missed the attacker and also killed another innocent woman. And although that does not fit the legal definition of reckless, they were still charged with manslaughter. Yeah. Yeah.
So, this is tough. And, you know, I would love in my, you know, heart of hearts cuz I I love a process. But, um, you know, when juries go back and they deliberate, you know, was this justified? Was it reasonable, immediately necessary? was the amount of force used, the right amount of force. You'd like to think they take the facts that they've been presented, crank it through the law, and come out with a clean answer, but really, uh, from what I've seen, juries rely on their gut a lot more of like who's right and who's wrong. And I think it comes down to reasonleness. Well, yeah, that's the that's where you can't create a perfect machine like Richard wants to create because reasonleness, although you're supposed to use an objective standard, a hypothetical reasonable person, that's just not how human beings on a jury work. They're always going to say, "Who do I think was right? Do I think that was reasonable?" Not the standard they're supposed to apply, but that's where that's where it gunks everything up. So, yes, I mean there is there are countless examples because the state's going to arrest you and prosecute you regardless. Um, but there are countless examples of that working against you when the law says you can do a thing, but ultimately I mean, oh my gosh, Edwin and Leslie are about to go to trial on one where the law says you can brandish a firearm to rid yourself of a trespasser. The law says it, but it's got to be reasonable. And I am >> worried about how this trial is going to turn out.
Well, and I've seen it go the other way, too. And this is why, you know, it's always down to this jury. You know, what is the jury going to do? I've seen examples where, and you hear us say this all the time, warning shots, not a thing, because it's a use of deadly force, but at the same time, you're kind of saying, "Hey, this isn't reasonable or immediately necessary because I had time to point it in a safe direction." So, generally, you know, we say warning shots, terrible decision. Mhm. >> Uh but I had a client who there's a giant brawl in front of her house. One of her family members was getting her a kicked and she discharged in the ground cuz that was the only way to get the attention of a huge group of people. Now in that situation, all right, I would normally say don't warning shot, but jury, you know, this is one of those things where they say, "Hey, this is reasonable under the circumstances even though the law >> interesting. Law said no, but the jury muckup was in her favor." >> Yeah. So I've seen a gobo voice. >> Sure enough.
All right. This one to you, Emily. Rob Holland 2722. Question. Uh, you have discussed Texas law concerning truck guns via pistol via long gun. My question is about a firearm such as the Mossberg Shockwave. Since it is neither a pistol nor a rifle, must it be concealed or can it be carried in plain sight? That is an excellent question. It is a firearm. You're correct. It is neither pistol nor rifle. However, because it is not pistol, it need not be concealed or if visible visible in a holster. You can treat it like a long gun. Treat it like a long gun. All bets are off except don't commit disorderly conduct. Don't display it in a manner calculated to alarm. >> Yeah. So in Texas, no holster requirement, but Yeah. Exactly right. The only law that when we talk about carrying long guns generally out in public or just firearms generally out in public, that's what we look at our disorderly conduct. >> Yep.
All right, we've got at Rick Lobere question. When being attacked by someone using their hands and feet, no external weapon, what separates bodily injury from serious bodily injury? My son was attacked and the first punch to the faith face broke a tooth. Would this have justified a response with deadly force or just force? >> I went digging on the line. >> Forced Richard to do a bunch of research into into teeth. >> Yes. And I'll tell you it I don't really have good news to report. Um there are cases where they say yes, knocking out a tooth, cracking a tooth could be serious bodily injury. There are an equal number of cases that say no, it's not. Ultimately, it's a jury answer. Um, what I was finding in my research though is all these people who had their teeth knocked out where it was considered a use of serious or serious bodily injury, they all seem to be holding like weapons like blunt, you know, blunt part of an axe or club or something else. And so that makes me lean towards maybe a punch to the face by itself, you know, cracking a tooth, breaking a tooth. I'm going to say it's a jury question ultimately, but the case law does not seem to be in the favor of that being by itself absent other factors like let's say you break a cheekbone or orbital socket or a jaw or something like that, you know, tooth by itself. H I don't know. I don't know. But there was one case where somebody got their tooth knocked out, they were knocked unconscious and the court there was a case where they said that was serious bodily injury. So you see how all these different things can change it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, ultimately, I mean, you want to use deadly force, you're going to have to take that punch and then be able to say to the jury and have it be reasonable that you thought you were going to die. And in some cases, that's going to be very much true. >> I mean, if someone punches me in the face and knocks a tooth out, like, I'm >> I'm going to assume that they're ready to kill me. >> Should we put that on the thumbnail? You with one tooth missing? >> No. >> All right. We won't do that.
All right, this one to you, Emily. John Zen 5RO. Not a gun question, but people who trap porch pirates using paint bombs, etc. Are they within the law? >> Um, so I love these videos as much as anyone because porch pirates deserve it. Like with the glitter bombs and the fart bombs and everything that Yes. >> Phenomenal. Um, yes, you are within the law. So, we're talking Texas here because that's where we are. But we actually have a specific code section that talks about devices to protect property. And it is section 9.44 of the Texas Penal Code. And here we've got this is when it is acceptable. And we've got two conditions here. Number one, the device is not designed to cause or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodil injury. and the use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device. So, you know, until >> not a lot of cases on this also, >> not a lot of cases on this, but until you can die from fart spray, you know, and you are reasonable and believing that that is true, >> fine. Go on with it. >> Yeah. And then just looking into the common law just a little bit. Generally they do not like devices to protect stuff because there's no human input of like um hey judgment call is this an appropriate use of force. Yeah. >> Deadly force never. I've never seen a state legalize traps for deadly force. But for the use of force they still want some human judgment involved so they can hold somebody responsible. >> You think that we can start programming our Ring doorbell cameras with AIs to decide who our houses could shoot with guns? >> Oh yeah. I've seen it. >> Spring guns. Yeah. I mean there there's some judgment in there. Okay.
And um last one. This is spokerquimics one. Please, please, please. I am literally begging anyone with knowledge to explain to me how any new rule made by any NGO has any legal effect on anyone since Scotas reversed Chevron difference. In other words, does this new rule you guys talked about have any legal standing now that Chevron difference is dead? So, we talked about our new rule on shipping guns. >> I'm going to fill in I'm sure he's talking about, you know, um, you know, not the Congress passing a law, but one of our government agencies. And this was in the context of the proposed rule so that, you know, FFLs using remote verification could ship a firearm directly to consumer, you know, through the mail. All right. So, the question is, Chevron, what did that do? Well, it left agencies up to interpret their own rules and the court sided with them. uh if it the statute was ambiguous. Um hint, they used to think all their statutes were ambiguous and it gave them the the authority power. >> Yeah. Power. I'm making lots of air quotes if you're just listening. Um to write all kinds of stuff that clearly the Congress either expressly disavowed or didn't have the authority to do or if they did it, it did the exact opposite of what the agency wanted. And so now the question becomes, all right, you would think all this rulemaking under all these agencies, is it defunct just because Chevron is dead? And the short answer is no. But what Chevron did is it shifted the calculation from the agencies self-interpreting and it shifts it to the judicial branch. So if the rule is going to survive judicial scrutiny, you know, is this within the scope of what the Congress is allowed to do? Did they did they regulate this area and did they delegate things? Um if it if it jumps through, you know, a bunch of these hoops and yeah, the rule is going to be okay. Um but the calculations with the court and not the agency, >> right, Loberbrite, I wish Lobbrite had said you can't make rules anymore, but Lober fantastic. be amazing. Lerbrite just said, uh, you don't get to be judge, jury, and executioner of ambiguous law anymore. Really, >> you just get to be the >> judge and jury. >> Yeah, >> the court's the executioner. >> I don't know. >> I'll figure out where they fit in that analogy.
But these are some great questions and we hope you enjoyed this discussion. If you did, consider subscribing, hitting that like button, and help us fight the anti-2A algorithm by sharing this video. And if you are not an Armed Attorney member, leave your questions below and hopefully we'll get to them on a future episode. If you are an Armed Attorneys member, you can submit them to us directly and we will call you and talk about them. So if you're a Texan and you like that, go on over to armed attorneys.com. And until next time, we're the armed attorneys.