Mr. Perry said: “A person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the 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 nonsense.”

This spot on as our Texas governor is leading the way to a more rational policy. In fact many concealed gun pemit holders already take the weapons into forbiden areas where there are no detection people or devices. I know I do (if the gun is properly concealed, no one knows you have one).

If we create disarmament zones and remove the means for me to protect myself, who now carries the responsibility of my safety?

Personally, I like the European concept. Military personnel with automatic weapons in the terminals and at check points.

Chechnya showed everyone no target is out of reach.

Baaah. What did Russia do in response to Chechnya? Besides, you could use any number of the US school shootings to support your argument. I’m not so much worried about an Islamic terrorist attacking our schools as I am fellow students. An American version of Chechnya would result in one flattened country somewhere in the world.

AZ_Redneck on May 2, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Moreover … because the feds have imposed a gun free zone around K-12 schools, who is responsible for protecting the children?

Fact is, no one. From the federal level down to the little municipality, there are no duty clauses up the wazoo.

If my kids were in public school, I would be a tad concerned. Chechnya showed everyone no target is out of reach.

Courthouses and airports I can see the point of a ban.

Limerick on May 2, 2007 at 1:25 PM

I believe my personal safety is my responsiblity. If we create disarmament zones and remove the means for me to protect myself, who now carries the responsibility of my safety?

The state? The TSA?

In the “Wild West,” you weren’t required to go through a permit process to carry a weapon. I’m much less worried about licensed weapon carriers in bars (or anywhere else for that matter) than I am licensed drivers.

Blacklake on May 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Your argument reflects licensing does not produce responsible parties. So why license a firearm?

The licensing of a firearm places restrictions on a citizens inalienable right to bear arms. The firearm is only a tool that can be used as a weapon.

Regarding a tool. Matches are a tool. If I carried them to public place, would you see an arsonist? What about carrying a chain saw down the street? Does everyone see a mass murderer?

If you want to license weapons, should we propose going after knives, sharp sticks and rocks next?

I’m not sure it’s a great idea to allowed guns in bars. The wild west wasn’t a liberal utopia by any means but they’d check their weapons at the door.

Otherwise, it’s a terrific idea. woot.

jdpaz on May 2, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Myth Number 1: The western American frontier was wrought with uncontrolled babarism and chaos.

Gun grabbers rely on Hollywood stereo-tying to make their point. Nigh noon, train robbery, etc. You would think that it was a constant shooting gallery if all your reference material was Clint Eastwood (no disrespect to Mr. Eastwood).

If you read Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes, you will find wild wild west, wasn’t quite so wild after all. Moreover, the apalling violence of the wild west was nothing compared to a modern dis-armed city. The wild wild west would be labeled boring by nanosecond attention span citizens. Apparently, the bad guys new they faced sudden death if they stepped over the line. Darn near everyone carried a gun.

What you will come away with after reading this book is an armed society is a polite society.

Regarding bars; If you don’t like guns in bars, you shouldn’t go in.

If you have posted on this before I apologize for missing it but I am curious as to your position on students with ccw in college environments or even high school. Are you advocating more for the professors or staff to carry than the students?
I’m not anti-ccw but just curious where you think the line should be drawn if at all.

He’s simply suggesting that we remove the blanket bans which, as a matter of fact, is a great deal MORE observant of private property rights than current law, under which certain private businesses are REQUIRED by law to FORBID carry on their property.

Businesses would still be free to “opt out” and forbid concealed carry on their premises, as is their right. I and others like me would simply stop patronizing their establishments then.

One other point on Texas law – there is no minimum BAC level when carrying. It’s not .08 It’s anything.

You cannot drink alcohol and carry legally with your CCW.

Not quite true. The law states that it is unlawful to carry while “intoxicated”, “intoxicated”, according to Texas CHL law, being defined under Section 49.01 of the Penal Code, which means either:

A) Having a BAC of 0.08 or higher OR

B) Not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body (in other words, failing the “sobriety test” since this is the same definition used for traffic stops).

Still, I wouldn’t drink and carry myself, nor would I recommend that anybody else do so. You wouldn’t drink a couple of beers before going to the range either, would you? Not to mention that should you, Heaven forbid, ever find yourself in a situation calling for the use of deadly force, would you really WANT to have your skills impaired even in the slightest? Milliseconds count, after all.

I’m just saying that it’s not illegal.

Perry got my vote in the last election, while holding my nose.

I am breathing freely again!

RushBaby on May 2, 2007 at 3:19 PM

I’m right there with you.

Anyway, as I keep telling people, Texas is the true promised land. You’ll not find a better place anywhere in the world.

I agree with one of the other posters. Perry doesn’t have the power to do squat. Nothing else is going to be introduced by the legislature this session. I think he’s mostly just grandstanding. But, is is refreshing to here him reiterate and enforce the constitution.

BTW, private businesses/residences can and do have the power to prohibit firearms on their property through the posting of the 30.06 sign.

The Machine on May 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Yeah like Bush used against steroids and human smuggling. Works great. We’re fixing to have a steroid use’n, bubble headed baseball player take the all time Homerun lead. What 15 HR’s away. Take the record from a respectable honest man!

Pistols for Pandas

- The Cat

You cannot drink alcohol and carry legally with your CCW.

I don’t think that the Gov. is talking about private residences. He’s talking about places of public accommodation. For example: A restaurant may be private property and a private business but they still have to obey laws concerning sanitation, handicap access, and the anti-discrimination laws, because they are places of PUBLIC accommodation.

If it is public policy to allow law abiding, licensed, people to be armed by carrying concealed weapons, then it ought to be public policy to allow the licensee to decide when and where to be armed as opposed to allowing others to arbitrarily create victim disarmament/mass slaughter zones.

Since the movement to allow widespread conceal carry began in 1987, THE ONLY PLACES WHERE MASS MURDERS HAVE OCCURED HAVE BEEN IN GUN FREE ZONES.

Drtuddle on May 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

“Bully Pulpit”

.

I am breathing freely again!

There’s a reason gun store robberies are rare. As crazy as these mass murderers are, they DO NOT attack anyone who may be armed. They look for sheeple.