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 may differ only on terminology. I would call discrimination if the policy said "no blacks" or "no cripples" or "no people with blue eyes". But "no people carrying boom boxes"? "Obnoxious t-shirts"? "Barefoot"? That's not discrimination per se because the prospective customer can easily leave the boom box at the door, cover the t-shirt, or borrow a pair of shoes. High-end restaurants typically have rentable ties and jackets in case you arrive without one. I don't have a problem with dress codes.
Yes, if a store owner wants to keep guns out, he should install detectors. Otherwise, I'm liable to walk in with my gun concealed, if I want to. Although frankly I'd prefer to spend my money in a shop that respects my RKBA better.
I agree that a concealed carry licensee is a plus in a place of business, for a number of good reasons.
I'm just saying that some business owners might not agree, and it should be their right to act on that on their own private property. Just as it is my right to not patronize their business.
Right. And the same should be true of carrying a gun into a business which prohibits them. Ejection should be the limit. Of course, if I then raise a ruckus, I'm asking for further trouble, and probably would get it. But the law should only step in if I'm making trouble. Simply carrying a gun is most emphatically NOT making trouble.
Good for him. Kudos to Perry for getting one right.
The distinction I'm making is between discrimination on the basis of race (or gender or handicap, etc.) on the one hand, and things like clothing, accessories, etc. which unlike your skin color can be left home or at the door.
As a private citizen I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do with my private property. If I open it to the public (like a business) I will accept that I have to let -all- the public in. But I do not accept that I also have to let them carry any possession they please into my shop as well. Boom boxes? Broadswords? Wearing only a thong? 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.
As a customer I have the right to take my business elsewhere, and I probably would.
Completely agree. My car is my personal property, and if my employer allows personal vehicles on the business property, then he must put up with whatever legal items I have inside my car. If he doesn't want to do that, don't provide a parking lot on site. If I don't like the conditions, I'll find work elsewhere.
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 purpose of an honest government is to protect individual life and property and protect private contracts. Freedom of association begins with one person's choice to not associate. Thus freedom to disassociate comes before freedom to associate which requires two or more persons to agree.
Jim Crow laws were bad laws. Discrimination laws and anti-discrimination laws are bad law. They force associations and force disassociation. They violate the person's inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They're equal rights and thus one person's life liberty and happiness doesn't trump another person's life, liberty and happiness.
The democrat leaders fancy themselves as all seeing, all knowing. Unless, of course, it has to do with them obeying laws they make for us unwashed. Corzine today apologized to the unwashed of New Jersey about not wearing a seat belt, after he toured the state encouraging them to be sure and “buckle up”. Today on the way home from the hospital his driver went through a 50 mile an hour zone doing 70 mph. So the democrats leadership are immune from the laws the rest must obey.
A normal, law abiding, neighborhood with guns is usually a safe neighborhood.
In the 'boonies', where it can be as simple as you vs critter, generally all the Park Rangers can do is sift the scat and look for remains, unless they happen to be there--and there is no guarantee that their sidearm would keep you from being lunch. In all fairness, they do move some more aggressive critters to the far ends of the parks, but there are no guarantees.
With the 'official' discovery of cougar in the badlands and breaks along the Missouri River up here, I won't go into the boonies without (at least) a .45, and given my preferences would carry a rifle as well.
It would be even nicer if we could simply reestablish the idea that human life takes precedence, should be defended against predators of any ilk, and the means to do so should be kept close at hand.
I disagree. My right to protect myself trumps your right not to "feel uncomfortable", which is the only actual consequence that you face from people with CCW---a group that peer-reviewed studies have PROVEN are statistically much more law-abiding than even the general populace---much less the "criminal class".
Frankly, if I was a business owner, I'd post signs saying "CCW's Welcome Here".
In some states you are free to carry openly, but in this day and age, many people would freak out depending on where you are. Check your state and local laws.
As for ending up on the State's list, recall that under the Clintons the BATF was indeed using Brady background check data to build a database. If you have ever purchased a firearm at a gun shop which went out of business, they are required to turn their yellow sheets over to the BATF(E), which, doubtless has used them to enhance that database, and which may have been part of the reason they have declared war on FFL holders and caused so many to go out of business.
In short, there is a very high probability that you are already with us on a list somewhere, and we might as well hang together...
As for licensing and the Constitution, I see it as an infringement as well, and I understand you apparent view of it as gunowner registration, simpler than registering guns. We only need one to carry concealed weapons in my state, whether they are a firearm or other dangerous weapon, which leaves me a wide variety of otherwise prohibited tools I can carry where there is some overriding federal or other restriction on concealed carry, so in my state, there is actually some benefit to the broader based permit.
Philosophically and Constitutionally, I shouldn't need a permit to carry any weapon (much less to simply acquire one as in some states), but as a practical matter, until that too can be addressed, it helps avoid being arrested.
No matter how seemingly benign, all government should be kept on a short leash, the tendency to usurp power is second-nature.
We have a definition problem here.
1. Private property owner = A person’s property THAT IS NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC ACCESS ACCEPT AT THE PROPERTY OWNER’S EXPRESS PERMISSION. This is like his home or his private lake or ranch.
2. Private Property/Public Acccess Owner = A person who owns a business, but their business is open to the public, i.e. a restaraunt, 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.
Frankly, if I was a business owner, I’d post signs saying “CCW’s Welcome Here”.
Imagine the publicity and customer loyalty a policy like that would attract!
I agree with you, though I would add a provison that makes the private property owner liable in the event someone is injured or killed as a result of NOT being able to carry, and as a result, NOT being able to defend himself.
Since all involved in this are law abiding people, just as we all must obey the law when we don’t particularly like it the property owner must also obey the law and follow the Constitution even though he/she does not agree with it. Just because you own property does not mean you can tell someone else that they have to give up their right to defend themselves on his/her property.
Why are they opposed to conceal carry on their property. Are they afraid of an accident? Or are they politically motivated?
I realize that you want to be nice and respectful to the property owner but if they demand you cannot exercise your second amendment right then they are not being nice or respectful to you. And that is their right but they cannot violate the Constitution and they will just have to accept the fact that law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves wherever they are.
God given rights do not stop on someone's private property.
Carry, but remember the 3 S’s.
Do you prohibit people from exercising their First Amendment rights on your own property?
I'll wager that you do, or certainly would if someone who you invited to be on your property decided to set up a 'soapbox' and harang those around him about the wonders of Liberalism as practiced by the late Soviet Union.
Great Idea!! I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe some enterprising business(es) will see and implement this notion.
Arms are more than 'accessories'. We have a basic right to carry them, - which shall not be infringed.
etc. which unlike your skin color can be left home or at the door.
You provide arms lockers at your door?
As a private citizen I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do with my private property.
As a private citizen I don't like the my peers telling me what I can and can't do with my private property. - According to our Constitution, I can carry arms.
If I open it to the public (like a business) I will accept that I have to let -all- the public in. But I do not accept that I also have to let them carry any possession they please into my shop as well. Boom boxes? Broadswords? Wearing only a thong?
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"?
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.