(TX) Evidently SOME politicians appreciate the value of a handgun

[Drizzt]

Mayor pro tem Samuel fights off attackers


Mayor Pro Tem and Ward 3 Councilman Audwin Samuel was attacked in his driveway Thursday.

With a single shot from his pistol, Beaumont Mayor Pro Tem Audwin Samuel drove off attackers who hit him in the head with a beer bottle in the driveway of his North End home Thursday.

Samuel, the Ward 3 councilman, phoned police at 11:56 p.m. to report the incident at his home in the 3700 block of Bowen Drive.

He told police he was driving home when he noticed two vehicles following him, one a white four-door car and the other described simply as a burgundy vehicle, according to a Beaumont police news release.

Samuel said four men got out of the cars and approached him as he got out of his car after getting home from his law office Thursday.

One of them told him, "I want to talk to you," Samuel said in a telephone interview Friday night.

Samuel said he jumped back in the car, started blowing the horn and reached for his handgun. Family members inside the house did not hear the horn.

Samuel said one of the men opened the car door and hit him in the head with a bottle.

When the attacker, whom police described as being in his 20s, saw the gun, he yelled to the others and they ran off, Samuel said.

Samuel said he fired one round at them before his gun jammed.

Samuel, who was shopping for a handgun for his wife during the Friday interview, said he normally carries his gun when traveling or working late at his office.

He said he was glad he had it Thursday night.

"Had I not, I probably would have been seriously injured or dead," Samuel said.

He said he and his wife both are taking classes for concealed carry permits.

He said he did not know why he was attacked.

The mayor pro tem was taken by private car to a local hospital, where he was treated for a laceration to his head and released.

Samuel said he was feeling "pretty fair" Friday.

Beaumont police were investigating the attack but had no suspects or motive for the crime late Friday.

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/s...5522431&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

 

[TMM]

the gun jammed after ONE shot?

looks like he needs to improve from a Jennings to somthing better...

~TMM

 

[Pilgrim]

the gun jammed after ONE shot?

looks like he needs to improve from a Jennings to somthing better...

It's a new handicapping system for the newest self-defense shooting association. If your pistol jams after one shot, it means you are rated a 'Combat Master'.

Pilgrim

 

[Firethorn]

Sounds wierd...

Political disagreement? Mugging/carjacking?

Gun 'jammed'? Maintenance, man. If you're not going to take care of your gun, might want to switch to a revolver.

edit: If he's got a Jennings or equivalent, time to trade up.

 

[Tim Burke]

Not necessarily a cheap gun...

it could have been a Glock. It wouldn't be the first time one jammed early in a gunfight because of limp wristing.
Even if it was a worthless POS Jennings... it still wasn't worthless.
Rule 1- Have a gun.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

it could have been a Glock. It wouldn't be the first time one jammed early in a gunfight because of limp wristing.

You got that right. With (im)proper technique (limp wrist), it's pretty easy to make a semi-auto fail to feed after the first shot. I'm not surprised that this happened to a guy who was probably shaking and afraid for his life when he fired the shot. IMO he needs to work on his technique and mental preparedness more than anything. And meanwhile he might consider carrying a revolver instead. That's not a pot-shot at semi-auto's, it's just an acknowledgement that revolvers tend to be more fool-proof than semi's -- an invaluable attribute for an inexperienced/nervous shooter in a tense situation.

 

[Hook686]

Mayor pro tem Samuel fights off attackers




He said he and his wife both are taking classes for concealed carry permits.


http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/s...5522431&BRD=2287&PAG=461&dept_id=512588&rfi=6

hmmmm I suppose that no criminal action will be taken. Here in California if I were to carry while taking the CCW class, that would be it ... a felony. Special treatment seems the lay of the land no matter which regime one lives under.

Hook686

 

[Drizzt]

Actually Hook, this was perfectly legal for him to be doing. Here in TX, you don't have to have your CHL to carry a firearm in the vehicle.

 

[Jubei]

And meanwhile he might consider carrying a revolver instead. That's not a pot-shot at semi-auto's, it's just an acknowledgement that revolvers tend to be more fool-proof than semi's -- an invaluable attribute for an inexperienced/nervous shooter in a tense situation.

A revolver is only more "fool-proof" if the shooter isn't the fool in the first place. If the problem is a lack of ability, then I'd rather he throw rocks. At least he's taking classes.

Jubei

 

[Live Free Or Die]

A revolver is only more "fool-proof" if the shooter isn't the fool in the first place. If the problem is a lack of ability, then I'd rather he throw rocks. At least he's taking classes.

I didn't consider whether or not he ought to defend himself with a firearm; that's none of my business. My point was that it's easier for anyone -- but especially someone inexperienced -- to experience a ftf with a semi than a revolver. Particularly in a high-stress situation.

 

[TrybalRage]

You got that right. With (im)proper technique (limp wrist), it's pretty easy to make a semi-auto fail to feed after the first shot. I'm not surprised that this happened to a guy who was probably shaking and afraid for his life when he fired the shot. IMO he needs to work on his technique and mental preparedness more than anything. And meanwhile he might consider carrying a revolver instead. That's not a pot-shot at semi-auto's, it's just an acknowledgement that revolvers tend to be more fool-proof than semi's -- an invaluable attribute for an inexperienced/nervous shooter in a tense situation.

I can see it jamming - in a car, in a panic, the slide hits or catches on something that does not allow a full cycle...

 

[Valkman]

Same here, Hook - anyone can have any loaded weapon in their car with no permit except for North LV and Bouder City. With my permit I can have a gun in those places also.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Time for a new pistol.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here in TX, you don't have to have your CHL to carry a firearm in the vehicle.

Well, yes and no, kinda sorta maybe so...

Clear?

The basics of the law have not changed. You can still only carry a firearm in the vehicle if you're travelling or if you fall under another exemption (on the way to the range, etc.).

The new part of the law states that the officer is to PRESUME you are travelling if he finds you in the vehicle with handgun and no license. However, if there is sufficient evidence that makes it clear you are NOT travelling, then you can still be arrested and charged. The officer can't go fishing, but if something falls into his lap you can still get in trouble.

Example.

You roll through a stop sign one block from your house. You are wearing shorts a t-shirt and flipflops. On the seat next to you is a half-gallon ice cream container from the store two blocks from your home with a receipt prominently showing the store's name. The officer asks for your license and asks where you are going. You tell him you were just mowing the lawn and when you finished you drove to the store for some ice-cream and were on your way back home. When he asks for your insurance, you open the glove box where you keep the insurance card. When you open it, your handgun, which you also keep in the glove box, is revealed to the officer.

The officer now has very good evidence that you are not travelling and are carrying a handgun without a license. You could be arrested at the officer's discretion and if he decides to take you in, you're probably going to be prosecuted and lose the case.

From a PRACTICAL standpoint you are correct, but it's important to realize that you can still get yourself into trouble if you're careless.

 

[Jubei]

I didn't consider whether or not he ought to defend himself with a firearm; that's none of my business. My point was that it's easier for anyone -- but especially someone inexperienced -- to experience a ftf with a semi than a revolver. Particularly in a high-stress situation.

Don't get me wrong LFOD, I'm not saying that he should or shouldn't defend himself with a firearm, my point is simply that if he, or anyone, decides to employ a firearm (revolver or semi-auto), they are obligated to know how to use it. If not, then they not only endanger their aggressors, but themselves, their families, and anyone else within range of their bullets. I'm sure that everyone on THR has had a run-in or has witnessed people that shouldn't be handling a firearm. I'm not saying they don't have a right to, just that if they can't be trusted to run around with scissors, perhaps they shouldn't have a gun.

Jubei

 

[atomchaser]

I'd say he did pretty well in spite of the jam. He'd be probably be dead or in the hospital if he had gotten one shot off. I think it is one of those deals were one has an epiphany "It can really happen to me". I bet he is better preapared (and armed) next time around.

 

[ajkurp]

Di Feinswein

also carries. So does UpChuck Schumer. And Sarah Brady bought a gun for her criminal son.

Here's a fact- EVERY polititian knows the value of a gun.

Most want that value in their hands- not yours.

 

[rudolf]

it could have been a Glock. It wouldn't be the first time one jammed early in a gunfight because of limp wristing.
Even if it was a worthless POS Jennings... it still wasn't worthless.
Rule 1- Have a gun.

I tried to 'limpwrist' a Glock 17 by holding the grip with the thumb and index finger of my left hand, that is two fingers, and only using the fingertips. I then pulled the trigger with my right index finger. No way I managed to produce a jam, even though it flipped around quite a bit.

I did manage to produce quite a few jams with 115 grs FMJ S&B as well as 125 grs lead PMC using a strong two handed hold. Both were simply to weak to cycle. The best gun isn't good with bad ammo.

Do you have a Glock, or are you a 1911 owner trying to tell us something?

 

[Azrael256]

Wasn't the whole CHL thing sponsored by a state rep who's husband was killed at the Luby's in Killeen?

 

[Drizzt]

Wasn't the whole CHL thing sponsored by a state rep who's husband was killed at the Luby's in Killeen?

Dr. Susanna Gratia Hupp. A fine woman, and a fine representative in the Texas House. Our Lt Gov also played a very large part in getting CHL here in TX.

 

[Test1968]

Wasn't the whole CHL thing sponsored by a state rep who's husband was killed at the Luby's in Killeen?

Rep. Hupp was with her parents, who were killed. SHe had a weapon in her car, but couldn't carry due to the laws at the time.

She is one of, if not the biggest reason Texas now has CHL.

 

[NineseveN]

I used to hate Texas, now I cannot for the life of me, figure out why.

 

[Azrael256]

Rep. Hupp was with her parents

Parents, that was it. For some reason I thought it was her husband. I hate to see people learn these things the hard way, but at least we're safer now.

 

[middy]

Well, yes and no, kinda sorta maybe so...

Clear?

The basics of the law have not changed. You can still only carry a firearm in the vehicle if you're travelling or if you fall under another exemption (on the way to the range, etc.).

<clip>

That's simply not true.

(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

In your example, the "offender" was travelling to the store to get ice cream, and then travelling back.

 

[JohnKSa]

The legislators were careful in the wording of the law NOT to define travelling.

Therefore the phrase "presumed to be travelling". Travelling still has it's common definition (which is not spelled out in the law).

Here is a bit of text on the subject by someone with a little more expertise than I.

http://www.tsra.com/HB823_Keel.htm

Some quotes from the text:

The presumption applies unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist. If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists.

In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances.

HB 823 does not give “everyone the right to carry a gun in a car”.