Texas State Rep Terry Meza Wants To Eviscerate The Castle Doctrine

People won’t stop pushing Texans around. You’d think they’d learn that irate Texans push back. State Rep. Terry Meza (D) filed House Bill 196 in November to modify part of the Castle Doctrine. In all her immeasurable knowledge about gun use in home defense, Meza thinks it’s reasonable to require a person to be “unable to safely retreat” before using deadly force to protect their habitation or property.

Meza assures everyone, “It does not repeal the Castle Doctrine, and it does not restrict homeowners from using firearms in self-defense as applicable to current Texas stand your ground laws.” She tweeted this clarification on November 19. “What my bill would do if passed, would require a homeowner to exhaust the potential of safely retreating into their habitation before using deadly force in defense of themselves or their property.”

The bill does not affect the ability of property owners to protect themselves while inside of their home. However, they would be limited in their ability to protect themselves and their families outside of their home, or outside or inside a vehicle that isn’t made for living. If you’re in an RV, you’re covered. If you’re getting out of a car you’ll have to make a dash for safety past the criminals before being able to defend yourself.

This clarification did not make many Texas citizens feel better. Meza’s bill also seeks to remove robbery and aggravated robbery from the list of crimes that can be legally stopped with deadly force. So I guess you have to ask if they’re there to rape and murder you or just steal your belongings? And you’re not allowed to protect any of your belongings. “While theft is obviously wrong, we have laws to address that.” Ah yes, we’ll just make sure the thieves know that stealing is against the law. That should stop them in their tracks.

We’re not done, there’s more brilliant legislation coming down the pipeline. Meza ALSO filed HB178 to prohibit the possession and transfer of a firearm magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Insert slow blink here.

Why are people who are deathly afraid of guns, who’ve never owned guns, who don’t know a nerf gun from a machine gun (looking at you here, Liberal Santa) always in the habit of dictating how many rounds gun owners need in their possession? “High-capacity magazines are largely unnecessary in regards to hunting and self defense,” she says. Except, what kind of mathematical genius calls 10 rounds “high capacity”?

As someone who’s taken a few concealed carry classes (I know, you only need one, but I was pretty bad the first time so believe me, I needed to take it again), even with well-practiced technique it’s very difficult to get multiple rounds off and hit your target when shooting for time. Speed and accuracy don’t always go hand and hand.

I have a military expert at home to help me practice, and still I estimate I’d need a solid two to four rounds to even hit a dangerous target on the move. Then two or three more rounds to make sure they don’t get back up and come after me again, pissed off because I shot them.

I know, it sounds cruel. But attacking someone at their home, office, or grocery store parking lot is also cruel and it’s the sign of a psychopath that you don’t want to give the upper hand over you. Now imagine there’s more than one attacker. That 10 round, high-capacity magazine may not see you through.

I consider both of these bills to be the legislative version of virtue signaling. At best they accomplish nothing but making Meza feel good about herself and giving her something to put on her next campaign flyer, but at worst they would put law-abiding citizens up for severe legal repercussions for daring to defend themselves. Texans are grumbling and their lawmakers are angry. This is some BS.