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.
It sounds like he 'gets it'. Good!
Now we need 48 or 49 more just like that (on this issue, anyway).
I’d like the ability to carry in National Parks. When you are in the backwoods, you have only yourself — no Park Ranger will come in time if you meet a hostile 2- or 4-legged creature.
I love this man. He gets it.
Some points added to Perry’s column. It’s funny how the Democrat’s arguing from a property rights standpoint. I love Texas.
The only limitation I would accept on concealed carry would be on private (NOT public) property. I think there may be instances where the property owner should have a right to choose whether visitors:
I think Perry was overstating it for effect; "anywhere" is a little too broad.
Exactly so.
I would not, however, support a law that forced a private business owner to act against their own beliefs on their own property. We already have enough of those laws.
He may have John Edward’s hair but, I really like him too.
Perhaps I'm missing something -- I hate to find myself in agreement with a Democrat.
I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do with my private property or my private business. Are you saying you support the government forcing a private business owner to accept concealed firearms on their private property if they don't want to?
As a customer, if a business owner doesn't want my gun in their place of business, that should be his right. It's likewise my right to take my patronage elsewhere because I don't like his policy.
What's the problem with that?
Public property is something else entirely, of course, and public concealed carry should be the law in general.
We're on the same page. Any public place or facility, and any facility where I'm paying for the right to use it, should allow me to carry my legal firearm.
I'm only thinking that there are already too many laws telling private citizens what they can and can't do, and I'd hate to see a law that forced businesses to allow something they didn't want on their property, even if I supported that particular item. Ya never know, next they might pass a law requiring that businesses allow two ugly men sloppily French-kissing each other. Oh wait, I think they already have that law...
How about the right of a business owner to allow smoking on their property? It’s perfectly legitimate to point out the hypocrisy of the dem’s sudden discovery of property rights.
Absolutely.
As one who smoked for 10 years, and quit (let's see...) about 30 years ago, I think smoking ought to be allowed in any private establishment at the discretion of the property owner. As a performing musician, I have enjoyed the smoke-free atmosphere of the bars and clubs I play in, but I don't like the fact that it's mandated. It should be the property owner's decision.
I do support reasonable smoking restrictions inside (not outside) public buildings, as a courtesy to non-smokers. Even when I was a smoker, I preferred going outdoors for my smoke breaks. But there ought to be indoors areas for smokers, for inclement weather and so forth -- in public buildings.
Try rephrasing that and see if you still agree with its premise: "Are you saying you support the government forcing a private business owner to accept negroes on their private property if they don't want to?"
The thing is the private property owner is already allowing people without a permit to carry illegal weapons on the premises as long as he doesn't find out about it; it's something criminals do every hour of every day. There's no stopping someone from violating the 30.06 sign if they want to. The only purpose the sign serves is to keep the law-abiding from carrying there. And even then it doesn't apply to LEOs. And a lot of permit holders have more training with firearms and firearm safety than the average LEO.
It could be argued that my having a concealed hand gun on my person does not effect any other person. My smoking in the company of others does. I am a smoker and do accept certain restrictions, but again as with the no gun sign a business with a non smoking policy will also loose my patronage.
Ping!
Ummm, that's a little different. Suppose I put up a sign saying "No tank tops, no obscene t-shirts, no bare feet", etc. That's not about the person, it's about objects. If I say "No negroes" or "No Italians", etc. it's not something the person can choose to accommodate (e.g. by leaving their firearm at the door, putting on shoes, or covering the offensive t-shirt) in order to patronize my business.
Constitutional rights pertain to people, not objects. My RKBA is -my- right, not my -gun's- right. I can choose to leave my gun home, or display instead of conceal it. But I can't change my skin color or heritage. So the laws about non-discrimination have -some- rational basis -- although I still don't like laws that tell me what I can and can't do on my own property.
> The thing is the private property owner is already allowing people without a permit to carry illegal weapons on the premises as long as he doesn't find out about it; it's something criminals do every hour of every day. There's no stopping someone from violating the 30.06 sign if they want to.
True, but that's not "allowing", that's only "unwilling to conduct a search". If the private property owner was adamant about no firearms, they could install a metal detector (or whatever) at the door.
> The only purpose the sign serves is to keep the law-abiding from carrying there. And even then it doesn't apply to LEOs. And a lot of permit holders have more training with firearms and firearm safety than the average LEO.
Well, yeah, that's often so. You have some good points and I don't claim to have bullet-proof answers. I guess I start at the point of saying "private property is the basis for a sane and stable society" and hate to diverge too far from it with government regulations. Hmmm, food for thought.
[”As a customer, if a business owner doesn’t want my gun in their place of business, that should be his right.”]
OK, that makes sense, except you’re forgetting that according to the current law, not only can the owner bar you from carrying concealed weapons, but violation of that doesn’t merely mean you’re kicked out of that establishment.
It means that the state is then obliged to prosecute you for a weapons violation.
So, allow property owners to refuse them, but don’t make it a crime if they’re seen carrying... just throw them out, and arrest/prosecute if they give you any trouble about it.
To expand a bit on what I said, if you allow armed LEOs in past the 30.06 sign, then you are acknowledging that the problem is not the weapon itself, but the background, training, and intent of the person carrying it. Requiring a CHL insures that the person carrying has a clean background, has undergone proper training in both the law and safety, and intends on only using it in dire circumstnaces — much the same as an LEO.
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.