We need more guns in churches, schools, and courthouses! But only if you have a license.


Perry: Allow Concealed Handguns Anywhere

AUSTIN, Texas -- Republican Gov. Rick Perry, pondering how to stop the kind of mass killing that left 33 dead at Virginia Tech, said Monday he believes Texans should be allowed to carry their concealed handguns anywhere.

Under current law, secured airport areas, hospitals, courthouses, bars, churches and schools are among the places where weapons can be banned, even if someone has a state license to carry a concealed handgun, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Perry said he opposes any restrictions.


"The last time I checked, putting a sign up that says 'Dont bring your weapons in here,' someone who has ill intent on their mind -- they could care less," Perry said. "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."

Perry made the remarks at a news conference after meeting with U.S. 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.

About 260,000 Texans who have undergone mandatory background checks 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.

What about bars and family courts where tempers never flare?? I am sure the Governor meant to include these places as well.

So the Capital Murder defendant with no prior convictions and a concealed permit gets to hang on to his gun through closing arguement? Like most absolute statements this one has some boggling implications.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clay A.:
So the Capital Murder defendant with no prior convictions and a concealed permit gets to hang on to his gun through closing arguement? Like most absolute statements this one has some boggling implications.

---

Fear not Clay, CHL's are suspended when indicted for a felony. CCH's include CHL status, and in the cases I have worked where defendants had a CHL, DPS was quite speedy in revoking them.

Further, despite the law, I believe an elected judge of a court of record has control over what enters his courtroom.

One of the arguments for the original law was that we would all be safer if the criminals thought their victim might be armed. But, whether that is right or not, there are clearly some places that guns should not go. I have to assume the governor knows that. I am not sure a cross-fire would have saved that many lives in Blacksburg. Might not Cho have just moved on down to the next classroom?

Would this also mean that members of the state legislature would be armed while on the floor in heated debate? Maybe it's not a bad idea after all.

I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that this is going to be unpopular, but I quit doing business with two places (one was a bank) that would not let me bring my S&W into the premises( I had a CHL then). I told the managers that they might like being victims of preventable crime, but I did not. Seems like I have the minority view on this one.

[This message was edited by Bob Cole on 05-02-07 at .]

Hi Bob. How are you? HB 2110 from last leg. session, supported by state rep from Tyler and Smith County CDA Matt Bingham, gave CDA's, DA's and CA's the right to defend themselves as they see fit. I support anyone who takes advantage of this right, and I understand those who may not choose to do so.

In the vast majority of places, it is a good idea to allow CHL's to bring their handguns. It's been proven that guns in the hands of citizens prevents crime and saves lives.

When a concealed handgun stops a serious crime, it never gets more than a small article in the paper, and thus is not well known. For example, we all remember the Luby's Cafeteria massacre a number of years ago, where a maniac drove into a Luby's, and then started shooting everyone in sight. I forgot how many people he murdered before the police took him out, but it was a great number.

Some time after that, someone else did the identical crime in Alabama, but he "only" murdered 3 people before someone with a licensed handgun shot him, and stopped the killing. Hardly anyone remembers the 2nd rampage, because it was stopped before the number of dead was extraordinary.

It seems to me that there is no need to bring your heat if there are plenty of armed cops around. Thus, I feel it is acceptable for DPS HQ, for example, to ban guns by non-officers. Moreover, I think any private person or business should decide whether to allow those with licensed handguns to come on their premises or not. But publicly funded places, such as college campuses, as a general rule, should allow CHL handguns. They save lives.

Having said that, I must confess I do not have a CHL, and have little desire to carry a pistol with me. I just don't worry that much about crime. I usually carry a long gun in the truck, but it's primarily for shooting skunks.

I've thought about getting one, but it's not really a priority for me.
I also can't help but wonder if things a V.T. would have been any different if CHL's had been all over campus. On one hand, maybe. But what about if Student #1 goes towards the sound of gunfire w/his lic. handgun and student # 2 comes from other end of hall. #3 comes from upstairs and # 4 comes from downstairs - all with legal CHL's. Who knows who is there to try and save the day and who is the deranged individual on the rampage. Throw cops into the mix. They come storming in and see bodies everywhere and 5 people w/handguns, what's going to happen next?
And to think that this guy wouldn't have done what he did b/c there might be people around w/CHL's packing heat is about as crazy as he himself was.
I'm sure if could have saved lives. I'm also sure it could have just as easily added to the confusion and mayhem. I can tell you there are alot of people out there that could get their CHL's that I wouldn't want packing pistols. Some might say that about me. I just don't see someone not committing a crime b/c they think someone might be carrying. I just see them shooting first b/c they didn't want to find out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry Breen:
It's been proven that guns in the hands of citizens prevents crime and saves lives.

---

Really? Not that I'm saying it's false, but I would be surprised to find that that statement had been "proven." I do remember the cases you mentioned, and in fact that was the only one of note that I was able to come up with when asked a few days ago. Of course, I can think of several cases in which citizens were shot with their own guns, or guns that were stolen from other legal gun owners, not counting the dozens of cases in which burglars have stolen guns from houses and done who knows what with them afterwards.

If you hve studies or other such that does prove the statement, please direct me to where I can find them. I would like to be able to speak with more authority about the effect of CHLs on crime than I was able to with my anecdotal evidence mentioned above.

There's no need for all this fuss. The governor will change his mind on this issue just like he did on immigration. Before the election when he wanted votes, he was ready to close the border and stop illegals from coming in. After the election, that wasn't so important but now a guest worker program is, so we'll just have to see which way the wind blows.

Who was it that said, "Don't take your guns to town, Son - leave your guns at home, Bill - Don't take your guns to town"?

[This message was edited by JMH on 05-03-07 at .]

I read an excerpt of a book by a fellow whose name, if I recall it correctly, was Grossman. He believed that the world is divided into most folk "sheep", a few predatory types "wolves", and those few who choose to face the threat head on and deal with it "sheep dogs". The difference is almost exclusively in attitude. Having decided you will remain aware and prepared and will take decisive action if necessary is the principal distinction.
I have chosen to be a "sheep dog" and remain prepared and willing to face the threat. I resent anyone who believes we are safer taking the "fangs" away from those who are ready and willing to act to protect themselves and others. I enjoy the advantages of retaining my TCLEOSE commission even as a prosecutor, as well as a boss and judges who understand the value of armed and prepared individuals in the courthouse to defend others. But I do NOT believe any free citizen not otherwise precluded from owning a firearm should be denied the same choice.
For those who choose to be "sheep", I do not begrudge them that option, but no one has the right to force that choice on another.

Wes,

Get a copy of "More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws," by John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press. I believe Lott is an economics professor at Yale. This is a large statistical study of gun ownership and it's effects on crime.

As an aside. A few years ago I was waiting for my laundry to wash at the laundrymat, and picked up a Newsweek to read. I started reading an article about how Florida was about to pass the nation's first "shall issue" concealed handgun law. The article was full of dire predictions from lots of really smart people about how hot-heads would start blowing away people in traffic jams, etc. etc. if the bill passed.

For balance, they quoted some yahoo from the NRA who predicted that nothing of the kind would take place. That was about it: lots of smart policy types on one side predicting blood in the streets, and one spokesman from the NRA on the other.

Well I looked at the date, and sure enough, the magazine was about 15 years old. Of course, Fla., and now, almost all states have passed such laws, and there has not been anything like the predictions of the smart set. The hack from the NRA was right. It was pretty funny.

And here's one anadote. Britain has made it extremely difficult to own any kind of firearm. One of their big problems is the high burglary rate of farm houses, etc. in the "countryside." Burglars know that the farmers are not armed and as a result, are extremely bold in breaking into their houses. They are of course far from a police response, and the burglars know they can break-in with little danger.

I prosecute in 3 rural counties, and burglaries of ranch houses are almost zero. I suspect the main difference is that burglars know that Texas ranchers tend to be heavily armed, and very dangerous if you break into their home, while English farmers are known to be unarmed, and thus not dangerous.

In that same vein would be "Ruby, don't take your love to town" or "Hey Joe (where you goin' with that gun in your hand)"

But maybe this Man in Black classic is what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure AP and ScottD know this too.

DON'T TAKE YOUR GUNS TO TOWN
Johnny Cash & The Tennessee Two
(Johnny Cash)

A young cowboy named Billy Joe
grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wonderlust
who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
and combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out
Don't take your guns to town, son
leave your guns at home, Bill
don't take your guns to town

He laughed and kissed his mom and said
you're Billy Joe's a man
I can shoot as quick and straight
as anybody can
But, I wouldn't shoot without a cause
I'd gun nobody down
But she cried again as he rode away
Don't take your guns to town, son
leave your guns at home, Bill
don't take your guns to town.

He sang a song as on he rode
his guns hung at his hips
he rode into a cattle town
a smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar
and laid his money down
but his mother's words echoed again
don't take your guns to town, son
leave your guns at home, Bill
don't take your guns to town.

He drank his first strong liquor
then to calm his shaking hand
and tried to tell himself at last
he had become a man
a dusty cowpoke at his
began to laugh him down
and he heard again his mother's words
don't take your guns to town, son
leave your guns at home, Bill
don't take your guns to town.

Filled with rage then Billy Joe
reached for his gun to draw
but the stranger drew his gun and fired
before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor
the crowd all gathered round
and wondered at his final words
don't take your guns to town, son
leave your guns at home, Bill
don't take your guns to town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JMH:
Who was it that said, "Don't take your guns to town, Bill - leave your guns at home, Son - Don't take your guns to town"?

---

I agree with Terry. I have nothing to fear from guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, but I DON'T want guns in the courthouse by citizens.

Crime is outta control in alot of parts of the State, Wes, and having had a friend killed who might not have been had he been armed, I favor good folks defending themselves lawfully. Almost every week it seems some nut is walking in somewhere killing people. I, for one, think the law abiding citizenry need to be able to defend themselves.

[This message was edited by GG on 05-03-07 at .]

Here's a link to an interview with John Lott regarding his book mentioned above.

You can also read an excerpt from his book here.

And here is a sample of the arguments made on both sides in the debate. I did note that this article mentions that CHLs may or may not decrease crime rates, but most scholars seem to agree that CHLs do not increase crime rates significantly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GG:
In that same vein would be "Ruby, don't take your love to town" or "Hey Joe (where you goin' with that gun in your hand)"

But maybe this Man in Black classic is what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure AP and ScottD know this too.

DON'T TAKE YOUR GUNS TO TOWN
Johnny Cash & The Tennessee Two
(Johnny Cash)

---

I'll accept your answer. Would have accepted Johnny Cash OR Billy Joe's Momma.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GG:
I agree with Terry. I have nothing to fear from guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, but I do want guns in the courthouse by citizens.

---

Not sure if this was a typo or correct. My fiance practices primarily family law. As previously mentioned, these cases normally have a higher emotional state than most cases we see in criminal court - other than sexual assaults or cases w/child victims - Not to say that they are all like this, but a vast majority of divorce or child custody cases involve heated emotions. Personally, I for one would not like for the angry, soon to be ex-spouse to be able to bring his handgun to court for a Temporary orders hearing or final hearing on custody. Nor would I want the other party, His or her Mom &/or Dad or new significant other to be bringing theirs b/c the soon to be ex is probably bringing his or hers. I'm all for CHL's and for people with the CHL to be able to carry. I just think that there are certain places where they shouldn't be able to. I also say that while cringing at the thought of P.D. and Deputies and Troopers having to gritt their teeth and keeping their cool when the driver of the car they've stopped gets out with handgun on the hip, not knowing if it's being legally carried or not until after further contact or noticing that the person in front of them in line at the store is carrying. I can't even begin to imagine the pucker factor.

In all honesty, I really don't think allowing them to be carried anywhere without restriction would cause a great increase in the numbers carried. I doubt there are people that have NOT gone and got their CHL's because they can't carry their weapon to the courthouse or the places where alcohol is served. People that want to carry go and get them and abide by the laws governing that ability to carry b/c they don't want to lose that ability.

Finally, bottom line is that there are people out there that haven't obtained a CHL, but COULD if they wanted, that I hope and pray never do b/c I wouldn't trust them to carry a weapon. Just as there are people that can (and have) gone out and got driver's licenses and drive around (very poorly) on the same roads as I. Just as there are people practicing law that have passed the bar exam that probably shouldn't.