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.
-- I'm saying that my RKBA doesn't necessarily trump his personal property rights -- on HIS property.
How is the carrying of a concealed weapon while on his property "trumping" his property rights? -- Why do you and he see armed citizens as threats to 'property'?
The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. It does not force my neighbor to put up with whatever I feel like doing on his property,
You were invited to be on his property. You are carrying concealed, as usual; - why would he know, -- and why would he object?
even if what I'm doing is protected when I'm on my property or in public. my RKBA is not infringed by my neighbor's wishes, since it's my choice to go on his property or stay off.
Why must you 'choose' to be disarmed when visiting your neighbor? - Why does he object to our right to carry? And why do you agree with his theory that armed citizens are threats to 'property'?
Of course, if I should negligently kill a few bystanders, I’ll probably lose my house and spend time in jail. Or maybe not.
There is no "maybe not" in this scenerio.
You can do what ever you want, but in this circumstance you are not going to beat the rap or the ride.
It's nice to see a governor exhibiting some good common sense.
Creating gun-free zones just makes safe zones for those with very bad intentions. Those who are intent on mass murder certainly don't care about the penalties of such laws, but those types of foolish "gun-free zone" laws make it a lot easier for mass murderers to kill a lot more law-abiding folks.
You can do what ever you want, but in this circumstance you are not going to beat the rap or the ride.
I think there is a solid “maybe” in some scenarios.
Or the most excellent suggestion by the fictional Governor of Wyoming in “Molon Labe:” anybody wearing their sidearm open on their hip pays NO sales tax.
Not in Texas.
Or the most excellent suggestion by the fictional Governor of Wyoming in “Molon Labe:” anybody wearing their sidearm open on their hip pays NO sales tax.
The example of diseased cooks is one of putting people in immediate danger. Prohibiting patrons from carrying weapons doesn’t put them in immediate danger. It depends entirely on the circumstances of the business, which is why the business should make the decision.
I can not remember some disinformation I had given on a previous post as per open carry in Texas.I was wrong.For the last few years I have been open carrying and it was no big deal.It still is not,but I don’t anymore.I do abide by the law.But one thing I have noticed is,when people see that,they have a tendency to leave you be.As they should.
It’s all talk, just like all the empty promises he made during the elections for governor.
I was over by Fort Worth city park yesterday, and there are signs all over the place stating no guns allowed.
> Why do you and he see armed citizens as threats to 'property'?
I don't. I see armed citizens as citizens exercising our Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA. Not a threat at all, to property or anything else. I'm a strong believer that an armed society is a polite society and I like polite people.
I have a neighbor-friend who is uncomfortable around firearms. It seems you have a problem with my choice to respect his wishes and leave my gun in my car when I enter his property. It's his property, and my gun -- my choice has no effect on anyone else.
> You were invited to be on his property. You are carrying concealed, as usual; - why would he know, -- and why would he object?
He knows me, he knows I carry, and he may ask me if I'm carrying. If I want to visit him, I have the choice to lie or leave my gun in my car. That's my choice, and I would ask you to not take offense at my choice, whichever it is.
> Why does he object to our right to carry?
He does not object to our right to carry, only with carrying on his private property. Well, I respect that, you do not. Okay, seems pretty simple to me, and we (you and I) can "agree to disagree" on which is the better tack, with no harm to either of us.
> And why do you agree with his theory that armed citizens are threats to 'property'?
That's not his theory -- he merely is made uncomfortable in the presence of firearms. Perhaps he was scared by a gun at an early age, maybe his parents were wimpy-ass liberals and taught him guns were scary, I don't honestly know. I have tried to argue him out of his belief, unsuccessfully. Oh well.
It's a simple matter of courtesy, as I see it. I take my hat off in another person's house for essentially the same reason. I'm not out to prove a point or grandstand, I'm only visiting my neighbor.
Anyway, I certainly do NOT agree with his point of view. My point of view is as follows:
Armed citizens are NOT threats to property. Armed citizens are the best ready defense against threats to property, and life and limb as well.
I hope this clears up your understanding of my position.
This isn't about the issue of free speech or even the issue of guns. It's about the rights of private property owners to determine what happens on their property.
In the example I've given, both guns and unbridled free speech are unwanted by the private property owner.
What do you think of the smoking laws?
Don’t conflate concealed carry laws with trespassing laws. They are very different and carry very different penalties. Noone in Texas is proposing a repeal of any trespass laws. I think everyone agrees with you that business owners have the right have rules about what’s allowed on their property and to kick people out for not following those rules. Noone wants to change that. The proposed change relates only to carry laws, not trespass laws. If this change goes into effect businesses can still make any rule they want (including rules about carrying guns) and kick out and refuse service to people who don’t follow those rules. The question here is whether the government should imprison people for years for carrying a gun.
That's easy. HELL NO!
My RKBA is clear and guaranteed by the Constitution. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I believe an armed society is a polite society and I like people who are polite.
I may (and I believe, should) choose to exercise restraint with regard to carrying, and respect a business' rules about what I carry into their shop or club and under what conditions. I may also choose to take my patronage elsewhere where my gun is welcome.
But if I break those rules, I should only be told to leave, just as if I wore an obscene t-shirt or didn't have shoes on. Just because it's a gun shouldn't earn me any greater penalty.
And for simply having a gun on my person, in public, there should be no penalty whatsoever, as long as I'm acting within legal bounds and not making trouble.
I'll even go so far as to not charge the government for my services as a keeper of the peace, since I'm doing it on essentially a volunteer basis. (Only half joking...)
That's not his theory -- he merely is made uncomfortable in the presence of firearms. Perhaps he was scared by a gun at an early age, maybe his parents were wimpy-ass liberals and taught him guns were scary, I don't honestly know. I have tried to argue him out of his belief, unsuccessfully.
Ok, - it is his ~belief~ that armed citizens are threats to his concept of 'property'; - thus he [and millions like him] believe that their property rights give them the power to infringe on our enumerated right to carry; - anywhere on their private property, - home/business/leaseholds/condos, etc.
Oh well. It's a simple matter of courtesy, as I see it.
He does not object to our right to carry, only with carrying on his private property. Well, I respect that, you do not.
I respect the 'private home as a ~castle~ doctrine', but not when it is used to infringe the carrying of arms on all private property.
I see these infringements on carrying arms as a refusal [by millions of our peers] to abide by constitutional principles, not as ~mere~ differences of opinion between polite people.
"-- I hope this clears up your understanding of my position. --"
Okay, seems pretty simple to me, and we (you and I) can "agree to disagree" on which is the better tack, with no harm to either of us.
Seeing we both believe in our right to carry, can't you understand we are both being harmed by those who disagree, and who pass 'laws' or make 'rules' to that effect?
Balding Eagle
This isn't about the issue of free speech or even the issue of guns.
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.
I could not agree more. Thanks for adding common sense and logic to this discussion.
> I see these infringements on carrying arms as a refusal [by millions of our peers] to abide by constitutional principles, not as ~mere~ differences of opinion between polite people.
So I gather.
I suppose our discussion hinges on the presumed extent of the word "infringed". I have generally taken it to apply to those in a position of federal power. You claim it applies to all citizens, even on their own private property.
I must say, I don't see anything in the Second that denies your claim.
> Seeing we both believe in our right to carry, can't you understand we are both being harmed by those who disagree, and who pass 'laws' or make 'rules' to that effect?
I certainly understand the harm from those who pass laws and make rules that restrict my right to carry. OTOH, simple disagreement -- difference of opinion -- does me no harm per se.
What you have convinced me, though, is that I need to ask my neighbor how he would vote on state and local restrictions on the RKBA. In the past, his statements have always related only to his own property, and he claims to have no problem with my RKBA in all other places. But I will ask him, to be sure he isn't voting against my rights.
Thank you, tpaine, for an illuminating exchange!
Thank you both...
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.