H&K 416 Oh Yeah!
Posted on 05/01/2007 12:02:53 AM PDT by FreedomCalls
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, mulling ways to stop the kind of murderous rampages that recently left 33 dead on a college campus in Virginia, said Monday there’s one sure-fire solution he likes: allow Texans to take their concealed handguns anywhere.
Period.
Perry said he opposes any concealed gun-toting restrictions at all — whether it’s in a hospital, a public school, a beer joint or even the local courthouse.
“The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says 'Don’t bring your weapons in here,' someone who has ill intent on their mind — they could care less," Perry told reporters. “I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals, whether they're in church or whether on a college campus or wherever."
As reporters began clicking off a list of places where concealed permit holders face restrictions, Perry cut off the questioning and made it clear that he meant anywhere at all.
Under current law, secured airport areas, hospitals, courthouses, bars, churches and schools are among the places where weapons are or can be banned, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
People entering federal courts in Texas are routinely required to leave even their cell phones behind.
“Let me cover it right here," Perry said. “I think a person ought to be able to carry their weapons with them anywhere in this state if they are licensed and they have gone through the training. The idea that you’re going to exempt them from a particular place is non-sense to me."
State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, called Perry’s proposal “a terrible idea."
“Anybody has a right to tell somebody that they can’t bring their handgun into their place of business," Burnam said. “I think the governor is just overreaching in a counterproductive way and it's kind of typical (of the) governor — shoot from the hip, literally and figuratively."
Perry made the remarks at a news conference after meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to discuss ways to prevent mass shootings and enhance school safety. The discussion stems from President Bush’s drive to find solutions to such tragedies in the wake of the carnage at Virginia Tech University.
About 260,000 Texans, who have undergone mandatory background check and training, are licensed to carry a concealed weapon, records show. In the last fiscal year, 180 licenses were revoked and 493 were suspended for unknown reasons, records show.
In light of your analysis, explain the “No solicitation” signs at malls.
Of course it's about guns, -- 'property rights' are being used as an excuse to infringe upon the concealed carrying of arms.
It's about the rights of private property owners to determine what happens on their property.
~Nothing happens~ if a concealed arm remains concealed on the person carrying it.
-- Common sense is being ignored in an attempt to defend, - what? Why does a property owner feel something will ~happen~ if his visitors/employees are armed?
In the example I've given, both guns and unbridled free speech are unwanted by the private property owner.
Unbridled free speech is a constant possibility from any visitor/employee on your property, as is physical violence. -- You cannot tape mouths or restrain your visitors/employees prior to their possible actions. -- Thus your attempt to disarm them is a prior restraint on an enumerated freedom [our right to carry arms]..
Granted, 'your home is your castle', -- I suggest you invite no-one into your home - lest they become 'unbridled';
-- and on the rest of your property try to conform to our constitutional principles regarding free speech and carrying arms.
In light of your analysis, explain the 'No solicitation' signs at malls.
What confuses you about such signs? The mall owner does not want his customers bothered by solicitors.
-- No one is bothered by customers carrying concealed weapons. --
--- Unless, when a mad-man appears, no one else has a weapon.
Please see link for correct info concerning carrying in churches in TX: http://www.packing.org/state/texas/#stateoff_limits
The asterisk means the church must post the required sign for it to be a restricted location — no sign, you are good to go.
What confuses you about such signs? The mall owner does not want his customers bothered by solicitors.
I'm not confused about the signs; they are the exercise of a private property owner to pre-emptively limit the expressions his invited guests using the First Amendment.
H&K 416 Oh Yeah!
Unbridled free speech is a constant possibility from any visitor/employee on your property --
In light of your analysis, explain the 'No solicitation' signs at malls.
What confuses you about such signs? The mall owner does not want his customers bothered by solicitors.
-- No one is bothered by customers carrying concealed weapons.
-- --- Unless, when a mad-man appears, no one else has a weapon.
I'm not confused about the signs; they are the exercise of a private property owner to pre-emptively limit the expressions his invited guests using the First Amendment.
Unbridled free speech is a constant possibility from any visitor/employee on your property, -- Your sign informs them to not bother your customers with solicitations. --- A comparable sign would inform concealed carry customers that they are not allowed to brandish/display their weapons, - which they already know.
Do you have any more specious comments or are we done?
A comparable sign would say 'no guns', although it would allow other types of self defense/offensive weapons such as knives etc.
-- Your sign informs them to not bother your customers with solicitations. --- A comparable sign would inform concealed carry customers that they are not allowed to brandish/display their weapons, - which they already know.
Do you have any more specious comments or are we done?
A comparable sign would say 'no guns',
You have a tenuous grasp on 'comparable' language.
although it would allow other types of self defense/offensive weapons such as knives etc.
Arms are arms. - Guns are arms, so are knives. -- But at least now you're making some attempt at rationality. - Congrats.
-- Now please, find someone else to bug.
To reduce confusion about 'arms' the sign should clearly indicate which arms are prohibited.
The signs could read along the lines of "No GUNS Allowed' and could be posted near the signs which say "No Solicitation Allowed"
----------------
-- Now please, find someone else to bug.
You were the one who volunteered for this in post #137, remember? I was sitting fat, happy and contented until you came along!
Besides, I thought we were having a pleasant give and take, or does the fact that you're getting the short end of this exchange 'bug' you?
"-- signs could read along the lines of "No GUNS Allowed' and could be posted near the signs which say "No Solicitation Allowed"
At post 133 you said:
This isn't about the issue of free speech or even the issue of guns.
My response at #137:
Of course it's about guns, -- 'property rights' are being used as an excuse to infringe upon the concealed carrying of arms.
A response you have been unable to refute.
So please, find someone else to bug.
You were the one who volunteered for this in post #137, remember? I was sitting fat, happy and contented until you came along!
Fine. Feel free to remain fat, happy and contented with your efforts to use 'property rights' as an excuse to infringe upon the concealed carrying of arms.
Besides, I thought we were having a pleasant give and take, or does the fact that you're getting the short end of this exchange 'bug' you?
Like I've said before, you have a tenuous grasp of 'fact', as well of a 'pleasant exchange'.
You seem proud of giving me the 'short end' while you defend gun grabbing. Why is that?
You’ve already conceded my argument that private property owners can abridge the First Amendments rights of invited guests by posting signs stating “No Solicitation Allowed”, and then enforcing that directive.
Everywhere except the border that is.
Thanks for that link. I had heard or read somewhere that when the Texas CCW law was originally passed churches were prohibited locations, and subsequently the first year or so experienced abnormally high collection-plate robberies, which resulted in the law being changed. Don’t know if that is true, or just an embellished story.
LOL! Love your tag line.
How many people have asked you about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.