TX Gov. Perry: Allow concealed handguns everywhere.

[mawilson 2,133]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perry: Banning pistols isn't the answer

Governor says licensees should be free to take them anywhere for protection

By CLAY ROBISON

2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry said Monday that Texans who are legally licensed should be able to carry their concealed handguns anywhere, including churches, bars, courthouses and college campuses.

"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 they are," he said.

"The idea that you're going to exempt them from a particular place is nonsense to me."

Perry commented to reporters after he and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt had met privately with educators, mental health experts and law enforcement officials to discuss the recent shootings at Virginia Tech University. Leavitt and other Cabinet officials are traveling around the country to discuss school and community safety practices in preparation for a report to President Bush.

The governor's remarks aren't likely to result in widespread changes in Texas gun laws, particularly this late in a legislative session that must adjourn by May 28.

But the comments elicited sharp responses, and Perry's stance puts him at odds with a major political ally, the Texas Association of Business, over the right of employers to continue to ban firearms from their property.

"We're not in the Wild West anymore," Tommie Garza of Houston, executive director of Texans for Gun Safety, said of the governor's idea. "It doesn't seem like the sensible thing to do."

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who sponsored the concealed handgun law as a state senator in 1995, said he agreed with Perry that "we need more guns in schools in the hands of responsible people."

But he drew the line at allowing guns in bars. "People get drunk there, and their aim is not as good," he said.

Current law prohibits the carrying of firearms, even by handgun licensees, into bars, schools, most areas of college campuses and courthouses. Churches can ban them, and governmental bodies can prohibit licensees from carrying pistols into public meetings.

Companies also can prohibit their employees from carrying weapons onto their property. The Senate has approved a bill to allow handgun licensees to leave their weapons in their cars on company parking lots, but the TAB and many employers are trying to kill that legislation in the House.

Asked about carrying a pistol into a bar, Perry said, "I think that a person ought to be able to carry that weapon if they are legally licensed to."

The governor responded less clearly when asked whether Texas should submit mental health information on some individuals to a national database used for background checks.

Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech on April 16, had purchased two handguns, despite having been declared mentally ill.

Senate Bill 1755 by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, which hasn't yet been heard by a Senate committee, would cover people who have received court-ordered inpatient mental health services or who have been declared mentally incapacitated. But it wouldn't apply to people like Cho, who was a mental health outpatient.

There are privacy requirements under federal law that must be considered, Perry said.

Austin Bureau reporter Peggy Fikac contributed to this story.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html

Forgive me for not reading all the posts. As a law enforcement officer I must say that I am apalled. (sp) Last thing I want is to have to be concerned about is if the person I am having contact with, or their family members that are present, having a concealed weapon. That could cost me my life. Not to mention that it would allow people who want to be "cops" to carry guns and who knows what they may actually do. This guys is nuts! I don't know what he is smoking, but it has really clouded his judgement. So many lives would be put at risk. How many poeple would mistakenly be given permits that shouldn't have? We already know that the system for gun permit checks doesn't work or VA Tech wouldn't have happened. This really blows my mind.

Exactly my point. He seems to be using the VA incident as an opportunity to push a very general proliferation policy while ignoring the specifically identified problems that caused that incident to happen in the first place...

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

[mawilson 2,133]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

Yeah, I wish

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

Yeah, I wish

don't make the platy find you

[mawilson 2,133]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

Yeah, I wish

don't make the platy find you

Do you think he can be had for $15-20?

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

Yeah, I wish

don't make the platy find you

Do you think he can be had for $15-20?

maybe if you give him enough beer

[russ 1]

It really depends on the gun. My Walther P-22 can not be decocked without a trigger pull, I think that it is safer cocked with the safety on. (It is a terrible ccw gun anyway, I would never carry it). 1911's are better off cocked with the saftey on as well. My Makarov PM has an automatic de-####### when the safety is enganged. It also has no firing pin safety (Don't drop it from 100 feet...)

In the US, police almost always prefer to carry with a round chambered, no saftey, half-cocked, with a heavy trigger pull. (Which is why Glocks area so popular with cops I guess - only way you can carry them)

None of this matters though, since concealed weapons should be holstered and properly concealed. They don't just "go off" on their own, even being dropped.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

[Mags 112]

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

Yeah, I'm at LEAST $25.

mags can be had for about $15-20

mags will probably disagree

oops not that mags

Yeah, I wish

don't make the platy find you

Do you think he can be had for $15-20?

Without a doubt!

Edited May 3, 2007 by mags

[patiently_waiting 0]

In the US, police almost always prefer to carry with a round chambered, no saftey, half-cocked, with a heavy trigger pull. (Which is why Glocks area so popular with cops I guess - only way you can carry them)

None of this matters though, since concealed weapons should be holstered and properly concealed. They don't just "go off" on their own, even being dropped.

Why would I carry a weapon if it wasn't hot seeing that I never know what I am coming up on. I lose valuable seconds by having to rack my weapon to make it hot. Those seconds can mean a life.

[homesick_american 1]

Why is everyone hell-bound on debating a point that I did not make? All I am saying is that the more guns you have rotating in the population the more gun-related deaths you'll have.

But that isn't true. Look at Canada. Look at Switzerland. Both countries have very high rates of gun ownership but do not have near the death rate that the US does. Guns make it easier to kill people, but that doesn't mean that once someone has a gun in their hand they go on a killing spree.

[homesick_american 1]

Revolvers are absolutely more reliable than semi's, but modern semi's (Beretta, Sig, Glock, etc.) are almost as good as revolvers, to the point that the debate on reliability is outweighed by the capacity to hold more ammo. 99% probability with 6 shots, or 98.5% probability with 12? Easy choice.

Either way, have fun telling your sister-in-law that you know something she doesn't!

Haha...I didn't mention my SIL anywhere, but her dad was a Marine so she probably already knows that. I have no personal desire to own a gun but if I did purchase one it would probably be a shotgun since those are best for home defense. My eyesight isn't too good so I need something a bit more accurate than a handgun.

Best post by a "non-supportive" gun person yet. An actual solution, not "guns kill. Get rid of guns." Good job!

Thanks. I grew up in a red state, surrounded by responsible gun owners...so I guess I have a different take on the issue.

But, here's the opposition to that:

More restrictive background checks: Criminals don't get checks. Sure, they may stop a wacko from "legally" obtaining a weapon, but is that going to stop them from "illegally" obtaining one? Killing people for no reason is already against the law, but that doesn't stop wackos from doing it. A stricter background check won't either.

Perhaps not, but it may assuage some peoples' fears. People know damn well that you can't prevent every crime from happening.

A ceiling on how many firearms an individual may legally own: Regardless of numbers of firearms owned, most people only have two hands! (And if your argument is for them to not own so many so they can not sell so many, once again, the "legally" part comes into play here. It's already illegal for people to buy/sell guns in numbers without a license.)

Yeah, but what's to stop someone going out with a duffel bag full of guns? Nuttin!

Bans on certain types of weapons/ammunition, etc.: This is probably the most debatable (and thusly, most realistic) ban possible. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Remember the "Brady Bill"?) imposed restrictions on certain types of weapons, ammo capacity, etc. What it did do was stop people from "legally" obtaining prohibited weapons. What it did not do was reduce gun violence with those types of weapons because most gun violence is done by those that "illegally" obtain weapons. (and in a related note.... can someone please give me an account of an incident where an American was "bayonetted" to death in a crime?)

Again this is correct, but you could apply those exact same arguments to the war on drugs, where there is a near-total prohibition on narcotic substances yet people continue to do drugs...and the gun rights crowd usually backs up the DEA 100% and doesn't lament the utter futility of the war on drugs. How is this any different?

You see, you cannot reduce gun-related crime by passing laws that restrict those who choose to follow them. Those people aren't criminals! You can reduce gun related crime by ensuring those that break the laws have more severe punishment, by taking away the underlying causes of gun violence, and by training and educating people about guns.

I'm all in favor of more severe punishment for gun crimes, but it does seem that the NRA isn't. Until the NRA gets on board, this is just a pipe dream.

A few pages back, there was a post about not needing a gun because the "threat of violent crime is so low, it's not necessary." (erekose, I believe?) I would almost agree with that, as you almost agree to having a gun "for home defence" but here's why I'll have one:

Because you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

If someone's breaking into my house at night, trying to harm my wife or myself, I'm not going to shout "get out, I'm calling 9-1-1" while I'm trying to stab them with a kitchen knife. I am, however, going to put a .357 magnum hollow-point through the door (at about crotch-level) and calmly call 9-1-1 saying "yeah, someone's trying to get in my house, I think they need an ambulance."

I hope I never "have to" use my gun. But I sure feel a helluva lot better knowing I have it. Am I scared I'm going to be a victim of a violent crime? Not really. But if I am, I have a feeling I'm going to be less of a victim than my counterparts that "will not own" a .357 magnum.

Like I said before, I've never felt the need personally to own a gun for my own self defense, and I lived alone as a young single woman in one of America's most violent cities (Dallas). I felt safe behind my locked door. A locked door is much better than a gun any day when it comes to deterring an opportunist. Common sense and street smarts takes care of most of the rest.

[homesick_american 1]

It really depends on the gun. My Walther P-22 can not be decocked without a trigger pull, I think that it is safer cocked with the safety on. (It is a terrible ccw gun anyway, I would never carry it). 1911's are better off cocked with the saftey on as well. My Makarov PM has an automatic de-####### when the safety is enganged. It also has no firing pin safety (Don't drop it from 100 feet...)

In the US, police almost always prefer to carry with a round chambered, no saftey, half-cocked, with a heavy trigger pull. (Which is why Glocks area so popular with cops I guess - only way you can carry them)

None of this matters though, since concealed weapons should be holstered and properly concealed. They don't just "go off" on their own, even being dropped.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

People see guns drop onto the ground and go off on TV and in the movies...they think it's going to happen to them. Not many people are willing to throw a loaded gun with a chambered round on the ground repeatedly to assure themselves that it's not going to go off. When I had to handle my father's firearms (usually to get them out of the way) I was probably much more ginger with them than I needed to be, but better safe than sorry. I don't know how to handle a gun at all, except veeeeeery caaaaaaaaaaaarefully.

[patiently_waiting 0]

It really depends on the gun. My Walther P-22 can not be decocked without a trigger pull, I think that it is safer cocked with the safety on. (It is a terrible ccw gun anyway, I would never carry it). 1911's are better off cocked with the saftey on as well. My Makarov PM has an automatic de-####### when the safety is enganged. It also has no firing pin safety (Don't drop it from 100 feet...)

In the US, police almost always prefer to carry with a round chambered, no saftey, half-cocked, with a heavy trigger pull. (Which is why Glocks area so popular with cops I guess - only way you can carry them)

None of this matters though, since concealed weapons should be holstered and properly concealed. They don't just "go off" on their own, even being dropped.

i can see carrying locked, as in a magazine inserted and one under the firing pin with safety engaged. i can't see the hammer cocked though, that's asking for trouble.

People see guns drop onto the ground and go off on TV and in the movies...they think it's going to happen to them. Not many people are willing to throw a loaded gun with a chambered round on the ground repeatedly to assure themselves that it's not going to go off. When I had to handle my father's firearms (usually to get them out of the way) I was probably much more ginger with them than I needed to be, but better safe than sorry. I don't know how to handle a gun at all, except veeeeeery caaaaaaaaaaaarefully.

You should always treat a weapon as thought it is loaded until you can do a condition check and insure there is no live ammo in the chamber. Extreme caution is the best way to go!

[Otto 83]

You should always treat a weapon as thought it is loaded until you can do a condition check and insure there is no live ammo in the chamber. Extreme caution is the best way to go!

You mean people shouldn't twirl them on their finger?

And now even kittens are 'arming up.'