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.
We need 49 more states to follow suit.
Gun bans = unconstitutional
Period
Probably the same person who wants to ban smoking in all public places.
How can an inanimate concealed object that cannot be seen be compared to speech which can be heard? Your comparison is not plausible.
Yes, but if that business provides no security for its patrons, then you are advertising a gun-free zone for criminals to exploit.
And even then, an invited guest/ employee would not lose their right to concealed carry on their person or in their vehicles, while on the property.
2. Private Property/Public Acccess Owner = A person who owns a business, but their business is open to the public, i.e. a restaurant, an auto parts store, etc....
IMO, in case #2, if a person keeps his weapon concealed, the property owner has no say in whether he allows guns or not. Gun ownership is a constitutional right and if that is extended (logically, IMO) to being able to carry it for self defense then a guy who invites the public into his business has no right to selectively deny a person his constitutional right.If he could, then he could have 'Whites Only' signs legally.
Well put. 'We the People' acknowledged that our right to own & carry arms is uninfringable/ inalienable, -- and that we are all bound to support and defend our inalienable rights.
And make private property owners strictly liable for the criminal acts of others if they exclude guns.
Make it clear that violating a “no gun rule” is not a crime, and the only involvement of the government is to take action against trespassers who refuse to leave when asked.
The feds and their facilities are “special” under the law, so disarmament can’t be stopped there. But let it be know that no state official or facility will be used in enforcing, apprehending, or incarcerating anyone violating a federal facility gun ban.
And perhaps criminalize the carrying of guns by federal officials outside of their duties/facility, unless they have a state citizen carry license. (still working on this one)
How can an inanimate concealed object that cannot be seen be compared to speech which can be heard? Your comparison is not plausible.
You don’t want smoke to yellow and mess up your gear.
Allowing a property owner to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising a God given right as defined in the Constitution is not consistent with a free society. Our rights are defined by the Constitution and Amendments. A private property owner should not be allowed to take those rights away regardless of how noble they think their motivations are.
Frankly, I would too.
I'm in favor of encouraging people to carry -- everywhere -- because I believe that is the best deterrent to crime that exists. I'm only saying that some others may disagree, have the right to disagree, and that the government shouldn't force them on their own private property.
Me, I LIKE guns being on my property.
Hell, no. I welcome guns on MY property.
> Why do you ~want~ the 'right' to ban concealed arms? Why do you think guns fall into such an objectionable "category"?
I personally don't want that, nor do I find guns objectionable (see earlier comments). I'm just thinking about a neighbor who might have religious, personal, or other objections to my carrying my gun onto his property. I don't have a problem respecting that. That's all -- I'm saying that my RKBA doesn't necessarily trump his personal property rights -- on HIS property.
I invite guns on my property, whether for sport, personal protection, whatever as long as it's legal activity.
Agreed.
Property owners have a right to make their own decision.
I agree.His attempts to shove legislation down our throats disgusts me.The Trans Texas corridor is not a done deal yet.Hiking up cigarette taxes,trying to sell our lottery,attempts at hpv injections for our little girls,and the list goes on.He does make sense for once on the gun issue.A Marine on an earlier post described his extensive weapons training and I am sure he,as I,have papers from the Federal Govt.saying we were properly trained in their use and safety.I paid my dues as the Marine did.Why pay more for the right to our second amendment?I carry and could care less who likes it.My family comes first before some politician with an armed bodyguard.As been said many times,out of sight,out of mind.
The Theory of the Stopped Clock proves itself once again.
Openly carrying or wearing inappropriate items is unacceptable. Carrying properly concealed arms is not only constitutionally acceptable, it is an uninfringeable right.
Banning those things in my shop is within my rights, and personally I think that guns fall more into that category than into personal characteristics like skin color.
Why do you ~want~ the 'right' to ban concealed arms? Why do you think guns fall into such an objectionable "category"?
I personally don't want that, nor do I find guns objectionable (see earlier comments).
I see your earlier comments highlighted just above. They are contradictory.
I'm just thinking about a neighbor who might have religious, personal, or other objections to my carrying my gun onto his property. I don't have a problem respecting that.
We are all obligated to support & defend our right to carry arms. - You should have a problem respecting those who refuse to abide by our Constitution. Can you agree?
That's all -- I'm saying that my RKBA doesn't necessarily trump his personal property rights -- on HIS property.
How is your carry of a concealed weapon "trumping" his property rights? Why are armed citizens seen as threats to 'property'?
I invite guns on my property, whether for sport, personal protection, whatever as long as it's legal activity.
Then why do you agree that your peers can infringe on your right to carry arms concealed?
Interesting question.
I'd be perfectly willing to allow a business owner to exclude "negros" on their private property as long as it was properly posted so that I'd know that it was a place I wouldn't want to do business with. This is a much different country than it was even just 50 years ago. Any business that tried to do this today would find it is not a paying proposition.
CHL Bump!
Absolutely. This is something I've supported in the past.
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.