Several Texas gun owners advocated on Wednesday for a proposal that would provide broader legal protections for individuals who use or threaten force in self-defense situations.
House Bill 170 by State Rep. Ryan Guillen (R-Rio Grande City) seeks to address current legal limitations that can leave law-abiding citizens vulnerable to costly civil lawsuits.
The bill would extend civil immunity to situations where homeowners threaten to use force, not just those who actually use deadly force. Currently, individuals who de-escalate a threatening situation by brandishing a weapon still face potential litigation.
HB 170 would extend civil immunity for threatened force, provide protection for those cleared in criminal proceedings, deter frivolous lawsuits, and allow for the recovery of legal fees for those found justified in their actions.
Kyle Carruth highlighted the real-world implications of current law during the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee meeting.
Carruth’s testimony centered on an incident that occurred on his farm in Lubbock on November 5, 2021.
He described the intruder as “a bad dude” with a history of violence, noting he “had beaten [Carruth’s employee] Christina multiple times, in fact, attempting to kill their child, their first child in the womb, as well as breaking her jaw, blackening her eyes.”
The confrontation began when the man drove onto Carruth’s property, demanding to know the whereabouts of his son.
Carruth recalled: “He told me to ‘shut the f up.’ I said, ‘No, you get off of my property,’” to which the intruder responded by getting in his face and saying, “Make me, b****.”
Feeling threatened and knowing it would take time for the police to arrive, Carruth armed himself.
He told lawmakers, “I got the absolute biggest gun that I could possibly get a hold of, and went back outside and told him to leave now.” The intruder responded: “Do you think that scares me? You better effing use it or I’m going to take it from you and effing kill you.”
A physical struggle ensued, with Carruth describing being thrown off his porch. He fired two shots, killing the intruder. “No life is more important than any other. My life is not more important than his, nor his than mine, but he chose to forfeit that that day.”
The aftermath was devastating.
Carruth emphasized the personal cost, stating, “I haven’t had a dime’s worth of income in over three and a half years now… My children have been ostracized in their elementary and middle schools. Parents won’t let their children come and spend the night with my children.”
He said he supports HB 170 because “Someone who defends themselves legally and justly should not be put through a situation like this, where they lose their livelihood, they lose their standing, they lose their social standing.”
Despite being cleared by a special grand jury, which “unanimously no-billed me on the potential of 17 different charges,” Carruth faced a $50 million lawsuit that ultimately cost him his life savings and his businesses.
“I would implore you to please pass this bill. It does make complete sense—if you didn’t do anything criminally wrong, why are we then rewarding those individuals that were in the wrong?”
Supporters from organizations like Texas Gun Rights and Gun Owners of America argued the bill is crucial to prevent law-abiding citizens from facing financial ruin after justified self-defense actions.
Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, testified that the measure is “common sense” legislation.
“The standards for being convicted in criminal court are much higher than for civil for civil court, so if you’re fully acquitted of criminal charges, you should not be penalized in civil court,” said McNutt. “And we’ve got examples from multiple gun owners who have faced millions of dollars in civil penalties in spite of escaping any kind of criminal wrongdoing.”
The bill was left pending in committee.
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
