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.
That the Second does not include any verbiage about permits or licenses, and that the bureaucratic processes and monetary fees required just about everywhere (except Vermont?) for such things amount to an infringement against those who don't want to do the paperwork or pay for the privilege of exercising a Constitutional Right.
OTOH, I understand the concept of incremental "baby steps" back from the brink of confiscation, and applaud the Governor for his latest effort.
You made some good points. I certainly believe in property rights, but what were the rights of the people, to name a Texas case, murdered by the lunatic in the infamous Luby's shootings of ten years ago or so? If the Luby's management had a no guns policy (and it did), how did that help the victims? The answer: it didn't. Twenty or more were murdered.
I'll freely admit that it's a tricky question: property rights versus the rights of the average citizen not to killed by a lunatic who doesn't care a whit about any property rights or laws. If I were a store/business owner, maybe I wouldn't want people walking around with loaded weapons. But what of the society at large? As you stated in your reply, if a lunatic comes in shooting, what are your options if you don't have a weapon yourself? The lunatic will certainly not respect any admonitions against carrying firearms. As was the case at Luby's and Va Tech.
I’m good with that, as long as the property owners’ rights end at my car door. I don’t think employers should be able to search employees’ cars, for instance.
If you do business with the public, you have no such "right". THAT idea was settled during the 1960's. Try telling gov't that no blacks will be served because you're a "private business" and see what happens.
Unless you mean someone's home as "private property". Then it's just an agreement between you and the homeowner.
It is back door gun control .
Or should I say control of the peons.
So business have the right to restrict ammendments!
I guess we can just brush of all that civil rights legislation then eh?
/sarc
Considering that even being accused of domestic violence (a common divorce tactic used even when not true) will result in getting your guns taken away (and thus also your license), this represents a vanishingly small percentage of CCW holders getting into trouble
And you know that a CCW holder committing an unjustified homicide WILL be front-page nationwide news for weeks. This speaks volumes about CCW holders
I support the property owner being able to require a CCW holder to leave. Just as I support a property owner being able to prohibit carrying chewing gum into his place
I do not support there being any legal penalties for a CCW carrying into a place with a "no guns" sign, as long as he complies if he's asked to leave
DITTO
Movie theaters prohibit video recorders from being carried into the theater. But if I carry a camcorder into the theater anyway, the only thing the manager can do is eject me. He cannot subject me to legal penalties for having ignored his sign.
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."
EXTREMELY WELL SAID!!!
I’m pretty sure he was only discussing public property which is the only property a governor would have control.
A private property owner shouldn’t have any problem with a concealed carry licensee in their shop. It’s concealed for one thing and added security.
I don’t understand how anyone leaves the house without a firearm....
All you have to do is have the insurance companies tell the property owners "post the signs or we cancel your policy". The property owners will have no choice
In turn, the insurance companies are told : "Make this mandatory for the people you insure, or you will have trouble with regulatory agencies"
Instant backdoor gun control, with little fuss blowing back in the faces of the people behind the scenes
“He gets it.”
Now if he would *get it* on some other issues. I don’t and never will, like this man.
I personally think that my Constitutional rights apply everywhere in America --except-- on another American's private property where they object to my exercising them.
So for example, the First allows me to shout pretty much anything I please on my own property, and most places in public, but it does not give me the right to scream it in my neighbor's living room.
If my neighbor objects to having guns on his property, it behooves me to either not take my gun with me when I visit him, or else not visit him.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Businesses that invite the public are a trickier matter. As in comments above, discrimination based solely on race or nationality is a no-no. But as long as we permit a business to not allow persons wearing (say) tank tops, or carrying boom boxes, I think a business should be permitted to not allow firearms. My RKBA per the Second doesn't include "against the wishes of other property owners on their property" as far as I can tell. His reasons might be religious, and I bet that would prevail.
Nobody is forcing me to patronize his business, and I surely will take my dollars elsewhere. And if for some reason I had no choice but to go there, I'd probably keep my gun with me anyway; let him try to detect it and then throw me out. The law should limit my penalty to being ejected, not arrested.
Bush Republican: "He may have John Edward’s hair but, I really like him too."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously (and according to your FRProfiles) neither of you are Texans.
Any defender of the 2nd Amendment sees this position that Perry has grabbed for his own as the only correct one.
OTOH, RINORickieGoodhair's sudden discovery of our rights is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover the facts that Texans have spoken loudly and clearly against his "Trash-Texas ConJob" -- and that he is about to have his political @$$ kicked all across the State of Texas...
RINO Perry is no champion of right causes; even a stopped clock is correct twice a day... His "support" on any issue contaminates, rather than helps it, IMO...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a native Texan -- and am one of those 260,000 -- but I'd rather be shed of RickyRINO than to have his phoney and self-serving "support" on this single issue.
Wow....it's not often you hear common sense out of a politician.
I'm nearly speechless.......
I agree with the folk who want private property owners to keep a wee bit of ownership control over their property.
But what I don’t get is why must one be licensed to carry a firearm? I will not seek a CHL, as I do not wish to be on the state’s list of gun owners. I would like the freedom to carry a firearm - in the open. Why do I need a license to take advantage of a freedom recognized in the U.S. Constitution?
There’s much to like in Rick Perry, but he is as much a fan of BIG Government as his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion. He needs a short leash.
I've been shooting for 31 years. I served in the Marine Corps for 6 years. I've shot numerous courses of fire including building clears and other "shoot/no shoot" training exercises.
And yet this moron still thinks people like me need to be "licensed and trained" to EXERCISE A RIGHT?
Don't get me wrong, I laud his efforts to try and reign in the anti-gun forces out there trying to make more and more places off limits to those who take their self-defense personally. I just don't the rest of his "tone" about our RKBA.
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.