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.
A couple of points:
Right now, in Texas, there are a number of places in which you cannot legally carry a concealed weapon, whether the property owner wishes to allow you to or not. Here is the entire list, from Title 10 Chpt. 46 § 46.03, comments in brackets are mine:
* A place of business that derives 51% or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption [a bar, or many restaurants with bars - bar and grilles, for example]
* On premises of a correctional facility [prisons, jails - and yes, this includes walking across the lawn of the county jail while going between the public parking lot and the range next door to the jail.]
* On the physical premises of a school, an educational institution, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or an educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, [Even if the private school gave teachers permission to carry concealed, they can’t under this section. Some private schools would really like this to go away.]
* On the premises where a high school, collegiate or professional sporting event of interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event
* On the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress.
* racetrack; secured area of an airport
* In any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court.
* *on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship. [Whether the church wants you to carry or not - however, not effective unless the church posts the BIG 30.06-compliant signs at every entrance]
* *On the premises of a Hospital licensed under the Health and Safety Code [see churches, above]
* *On the premises of a nursing home licensed under the Health and Safety Code [see churches, above]
* *Amusement parks. Amusement Parks means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
* Public or private premises conspicuously posted with this sign [ http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlssign.htm ] do [apply and are illegal for people to carry in]
* Items above marked * Do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
Some of these places make sense. Some of them don’t.
Second, with regards to private property rights, I support the idea of a property *owner* (not a lessee) being allowed to do as he or she wishes with the property, including the banning of concealed carry firearms. That said, I believe that Texas now needs to codify into law the following idea:
If a private property owner or any of his or her assigned agents or lessees shall prohibit the otherwise lawful concealed carry of firearms on his or her property, said property owner is then totally and wholly responsible for seeing to the safety of those who enter their property in the course of commerce. In the event that these people should come to harm through the owner’s failure to provide adequate security to each individual person on their property, said property owner is then liable for any and all damages arising from the incident up to and including liability for death, dismemberment, and disability that occurs on the property, even if committed by a third party illegally entering the property. Conversely, a property owner allowing legal concealed carry on his property cannot be held liable for damages and injuries that occur as a result of someone exercising his or her legal right to self defense on that property.
Translation: You want me to leave my guns behind to go shopping on your land? OK, but *you* are responsible for my safety now, and if something happens, I’m going to end up OWNING you, your property, and all of your money. If you do allow concealed carry and something goes “wrong,” you can’t be sued.
If Texas implements that, I guarantee that those 30.06 signs will start disappearing. The liability factors alone will force it.
That seems fair enough.
(Reposted with an added comment:) That seems fair enough for someone with a permit. But how about if we continue to allow prosecution in those circumstances if the patron does not have a CHL?
Agreed, that makes perfect sense to me.
Violating a private owner's restriction on firearms shouldn't be any different from violating a restriction on (say) bare feet or an obscene t-shirt. Get tossed out, and they only get to prosecute if things get nasty.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Well, right. The problem is NEVER the weapon itself. (That's the liberal's point of view, that guns are evil, etc.).
Constitutional rights, and responsibilities, attach to the person, not the object.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Precisely correct. I have the right to only patronize businesses which accept me as I am, firearms and all.
And if I pay tuition for my daughter to attend a college that has concealed carry, and halfway through the term they put a restriction that turns her campus into a massacre zone, I want the school to refund not only that year's tuition, but the expenses incurred in transferring to another school that has no such restriction.
The only way these idiots will understand is if it costs them something.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
As posted above. A law requiring an business to take responsibility for the safety of their employees and patrons. And to face automatic monetary and perhaps automatic criminal liability for what happens on their property, would change employers attitudes.
One place I haven’t seen people talk about is at their place of work. I have begun trying to get some support for the following measures to be enacted in Oklahoma to allow it;
1. That an employer will not be liable in the event of any injury that occurs as a result of an employee using their weapon in self-defense.
And
2. That any employer who still does not allow their employees to legally carry is specifically liable for any injuries incurred to the employees in an instance where it can be reasonably argued that had they been armed they would not have sustained those injuries.
I have always felt that the only way to give people the ability to defend themselves at work and cause employers to allow concealed carry is to make it more expensive NOT to allow it.
Second ammendment discussion using a mature, logical proposition as a starting point.
God Bless America.
Didn’t think we had it in us, did ya?
:0)
[”But how about if we continue to allow prosecution in those circumstances if the patron does not have a CHL?”]
That’s a whole new can of worms. I believe that the constitution allows all citizens to keep AND BEAR arms, and that only through due process of law can these laws be infringed.
Our federal, and various state governments do not necessarily agree.
Also, it brings up which right is the most important one, whether the property owner’s right to control his property trumps the right of another citizen to carry a gun for self-defense on said property.
I side with the RKBA.
I sense that the rangers would much rather you be eaten by a wild critter/bear than you shooting one in self defense. That's the impression I get from reading and watching nature stories concerning parks and wild bears. I know that park policy is to kill bears that have killed park visitors, but that doesn't make you feel better if it's your face that is being gnawed away by an irate grizzly. I guess that the rangers are afraid that there might be a number of people going into parks to shoot bears deliberately and then claiming self-defense. I'd at least allow tourists to carry tasers if not firearms.
“What’s the problem with that?”
Let us start with discrimination, these businesses are OPEN to the public, they cannot legally enforce something they cannot see. If they do not want guns on their prem, let them install metal detectors and and run an airport TSA security system.
If carrying concealed, correctly no one will ever know.
I remember noticing (in 1980) a sign at a watering hole at the DFW announcing that it was illegal to carry firearms in a saloon in Texas. The first image that came to this Northeasterner’s mind was the barkeep reminding a couple of prospective patrons, “Gentlemen, y’all best check you shootin’ irons ‘fore I serves ya.”
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.