in ,

BATSHIT! Insane Democrat Want's to Kill The Texas Castle Doctrine

Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property.  This has long been a target for the left.  See Below. 

In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.” This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home. 

Now listen to what she has to say…”I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.” 

Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves. Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.” 

“”In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better.”

Actual Bill Texas HB-196

87R1395 JCG-D  By: MezaH.B. No. 196   A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of deadly force in defense of a person or property.        BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:        SECTION 1.  Sections 9.32(a) and (c), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:        (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another if the actor:              (1)  is [if the actor would be] justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; [and]              (2)  is unable to safely retreat; and              (3)  [when and to the degree the actor] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:                    (A)  to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or                    (B)  to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault[, robbery, or aggravated robbery].        (c)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a [A] person who is in the person’s own habitation [has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used], who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.        SECTION 2.  Section 9.41, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:        Sec. 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.        (b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:              (1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or              (2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.        SECTION 3.  Section 9.42, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:        Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property if the actor:              (1)  is [if he would be] justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; [and]              (2)  [when and to the degree he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:                    (A)  to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or                    (B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and              (3)  [he] reasonably believes that:                    (A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or                    (B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.        SECTION 4.  Sections 9.32(b) and (d), Penal Code, are repealed.        SECTION 5.  The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.   An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.  For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.        SECTION 6.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2021.

This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!


What do you think?

-30 points
Upvote Downvote

Written by admin

Just came to skate and drive fast cars.


Leave a Reply
  1. Can you please cite your source for these quotes. I would love to share this to show how insane these Democrat politicians truly are, however I will need a trusted source, video or audio of these quotes to truly get through to all but those who are similarly deranged.

  2. So, Meza thinks armed intruders are breaking into your house only to take money or property. What about the armed intruder who is breaking in to rape you? I guess if he’s simply intending to take for himself a lil’ bit o’ ‘tang from your wife or daughter, well, you just have to consider that as an equitable sharing of and redistributing of tha wealth, so to speak, of your women’s goods with the less fortunate. We certainly can’t allow you to hurt him. He has every right to satisfy his needs in the eye of the lunatic Left. This Meza character ought to be run out of the state! And who are her constituents? She represents Irving. So, as usual, this Democrat seeks to take away the 2nd Amendment right of people of color. That’s primarily who she represents. What do you folks in Irving think? Are you ready to step aside for every criminal who wants to take your things and/or rape your people? You have to be kidding!! You voted for that?!!

  3. goofy fuckin left wing bitch, we have laws and people need to abide by them if not there are repercussions, like jail or death. These democrats have lost there damn minds.

  4. WTF!!! The entire basis of the free enterprise system is one of honest work and reward for a job done right. This woman intends to undermine the entire system for a bunch of thieves? As Saint Ron White has observed, “You can’t fix stupid!”

  5. If you get past my no trespassing signs and the clearly marked purple posts and still find it necessary to ignore the warnings … you get what you get.

  6. Let’s do a test run at this idiots house and see how things turn out. Let’s get four or five armed people, of course with stolen or illegally acquired firearms, and, unbeknownst to said idiot, break into said idiot’s home. If the situation does not escalate, said idiot can flee and the entitled perpetrators can gather up all said idiots belongings. Also, said idiot, please leave car keys available for a peaceful retreat. Then, call your insurance company said idiot.

  7. She is insane, now the thieves have rights too? We can balance the wealth between the hard workers and criminals. How do these idiots get elected? Yeah well let them rob your house bitch!

  8. OK… I figured it out… You have to think like the left.

    After close analysis of her reasoning behind the bill, thieves no longer exist. They are just people enforcing the “equitable redistribution of wealth”, thus, they are EROW officers! This means anyone, regardless of race, creed, national origin, gender identity, etc. can simply and easily qualify as an EROW officer, and, in fact, *must* be allowed to qualify. Since we cannot tolerate any kind of discrimination, no forms of identification of any kind are requirements for EROW qualification.

    Of course, EROW officers, to sufficiently protect themselves, must be armed because the average despicable wealth hoarder (DWH) (previously known as law abiding homeowners) won’t otherwise willingly cooperate, so they must be incentivized through the threat of a firearm to hand over whatever the EROW officer requests. The person just walks into a gun store, states they are an EROW officer, and the gun store *must* provide a firearm under the EROW firearm mandate (EROWFarM). The EROWFarM does not require any form of compensation to the gun store owner for the firearm. That is, the gun store owner cannot gain any wealth from selling firearms to EROW officers.

    I thought about this a bit longer, with my newfound left-thinking brain and realized something. Since the insurance company is going to reimburse the DWHs, isn’t it a no-loss transaction? Why the need for the EROW officers and the unnecessary and potentially violent confrontation during the enforcement of EROW law?

    Why don’t we just submit a bill requiring every DWH to be required to disclose their insurance company to any EROW officer requesting it? The bill must also require insurance companies to pay out distribution of wealth (DOW) claims. In this scenario, the EROW officer, instead of having to kick down a door or smash a window to enforce EROW law, can just ask the DWH who their insurance company is. Then, the EROW officer can just file a DOW claim to the insurance company to provide whatever it is they would have otherwise confiscated. This makes things completely non-confrontational!

    So, suppose my neighbor buys a brand new Porsche! I cannot afford a Porsche, so I submit my claim as an EROW officer, and then go ask my neighbor for their insurance company information. Then, I just file a DOW claim to their insurance company, and viola, I get a Porsche!

  9. This woman needs to sit in the statehouse for the rest of her term with duct tape over her mouth and wearing a tee shirt that reads “Yes I am the dumb ass that proposed HB-196 “

2 Pings & Trackbacks

  1. Pingback:

  2. Pingback:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[VIDEO] Dinesh D’Souza Exposes The Real Reason Why GOP Legislatures Aren’t Helping Trump (

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy trolls Democrats over their party’s losses (