Democrat in Texas files bill to abolish state's "castle law"; media "fact checkers" say it doesn't; you decide

The Democrat party is determined to disarm law-abiding citizens.  Failing that, they'll try to pass laws making it illegal for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against home invaders, thieves and assorted goblins.

Naturally you think that's hyperbole--a tinfoil-hat right-wing comspiracy story.  You can't believe any Democrat lawmaker would be so utterly f'n insane as to write a law putting homeowners in legal jeoplardy if they use a gun to defend themselves against a home invasion or attempted robbery, eh?

Yeah, well...welcome to the new United States under the Democrat party, led by Kamala and Joe and Chuck and Nancy and Swalwell and Beto.  Cuz a Dem state rep in Texas has filed a bill that would do just that.  It's Texas HB196, introduced by a 71-year-old retired female attorney.  She was just horrified that Texas had a law explicitly making it legal for a homeowner to shoot any goblin who broke in, without having to first have said goblin fill out a form declaring that he was breaking in to rob, rape or murder, then get a written opinion from the state department of bullshit saying it was okay to shoot the intruder.

Rep. Tony Meza (f) appears to think giving homeowners the right to shoot intruders is just too, too cruel!  So her bill would require a homeowner to "retreat" before defending.  Of course "retreat" is deliberately left unspecified:  If you retreated to the farthest back bedroom of your house, is that enough?  If the goblin breaks down the bedroom door, does Meza's new law require you to retreat to the closet before shooting? 

If the homeowner has access to a back door, is the owner required to leave his/her home and retreat to the back fence?  Wouldn't that allow the goblin to take whatever he wants and waltz out?  

Why yes, yes it would.  But rest assured, citizen, this "amendment" does NOT gut Texas's "castle doctrine law."  Not at all, citizen!!

With the amount of "retreat" required left deliberately vague, moronic, leftist Democrat DA's would be free to charge conservative homeowners who did NOT retreat to the farthest reach of their property.  Here's the text of the relevant portion of the Democrat's bill:

H.B. No. 196 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 justified in using force under Section 9.31; [and]

             (2)  is unable to safely retreat; and 

             (3)  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 [Meza's bill removes "robbery, or aggravated robbery", meaning you could no longer shoot to defend against robbery]

       (c)  [sic; there was no (b)]  Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is in the person's own habitation, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, ... is not required to retreat before using deadly force...

Whoa, did you notice that last sentence?  Anyone else see a huge trap there?  If this POS bill passed, every defense attorney would have their client claim the homeowner "provoked 'em," probably by not immediately agreeing to give the robber everything he wanted.

NOW...I realize you probably don't live in Texas, so you don't think this affects you at all.  The relevance to you is that the leaders of the Democrat party have declared their opposition to "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws.  You may well wonder why they'd be against allowing people to defend themselves against home invasions and the like.

Y'know, that would be a great question to ask Harris or Biden.  Gosh, if we just had someone who could get either one of those scum to answer such a question, eh?