Perry says concealed guns should be allowed everywhere

[dfwcre8tive]

Perry says concealed guns should be allowed everywhere
11:05 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 1, 2007
By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News
choppe@dallasnews.com
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070501_lj_perry.2809a5ce.html

AUSTIN – Texans who have concealed-weapon permits should be allowed to carry their guns anywhere in the state, including churches, courthouses and bars, Gov. Rick Perry said Monday.

Currently, state law prohibits concealed weapons in certain places, including private property where signs are posted disallowing the guns.

But after meetings with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt about the rampage at Virginia Tech, Mr. Perry took issue with the idea of barring weapons from campuses.

"It's time for us to have that debate in Texas from the standpoint of whether or not a law-abiding citizen in the state of Texas can take their appropriately licensed and permitted weapon anywhere in this state, whether it's on a college campus or wherever," Mr. Perry said.

The governor said deranged individuals don't pay any attention to signs that bar guns on certain premises and that citizens ought "to be able to protect themselves from that standpoint."

Asked whether such a wide- open weapons policy would include bars and courthouses, 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."

With only four weeks left in the legislative session and no proposed bill that would remove restrictions on where weapons can be taken, it's unlikely state policy on concealed weapons will change soon.

But the governor signed a bill into law Monday that prohibits law enforcement from confiscating legally held weapons during emergency situations. The bill was prompted by reports of police collecting guns from Katrina victims in New Orleans.

Linda Siemers, president of Texans for Gun Safety, said that as long as states cannot filter out those with mental illness from having guns, the existing restrictions should not be lifted.

She pointed out that the killer at Virginia Tech legally bought his guns despite his history of mental problems.

"Carrying guns to work and to church is a terrible idea," Ms. Siemers said. "Businesses and nonprofits should make the rules for what happens on their property."

Especially because of the emotions and anger sometimes sparked in the workplace, "we feel it would be very irresponsible" to dictate to a business whether it should allow guns, she said.

Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, who considers himself a gun-rights advocate, said the state should continue to limit the places a person can carry a gun.

"The governor is looking at this issue through the wrong lens," Mr. Martinez Fischer said.

Staff writer Karen Brooks contributed to this report.

[freewaytincan]

yeah, having guns everywhere is really not going to improve the situation.

and did anyone else get the airsoft gun banner ad? these context-based ads still get me.

[rantanamo]

please don't let guns into work. Yesterday was a big lay-off day at my(former) office. There was a lot of tension in there. Would rather have just angry people than a shootout. Otherwise, I don't know. I just hope that we really examine this issue, meaning looking at data rather than an emotional decision before it is decided either way.

[freewaytincan]

and please, please not on campuses. granted, the reigning attitude at sam houston is apathy, but still.

[RobertB]

Concealed weapons as a deterrent to crime? A family in Houston would beg to differ.

March 30, 2007, 3:33PM
Alleged Metro bus shooter appears in Houston court

By BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The 24-year-old man accused of fatally shooting another passenger during an argument on a Metro bus Wednesday appeared in court this morning.

Prosecutors said Garrett Mallot first pulled a knife, then a .357-caliber Magnum pistol during the dispute with Otis James Francis, 31, as the two rode a Metro bus in the 11700 block of Westheimer around 11:45 a.m.

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Katherine McDaniel said today that Mallot was getting on the bus and the two began arguing after Francis brushed Mallot's arm.

"That guy said he was going to kick my ass," Mallot told authorities. He told police he then pulled a knife and Francis repeated the threat.

Mallot, who had a license to carry a concealed handgun, then shot Francis in front of more than 20 passengers, McDaniel said.

Francis rushed to the front of the bus, where he collapsed and died, McDaniel said.

If convicted, Mallot faces a punishment range of 5 to 99 years or life in prison. Mallot's attorney, Alvin Nunnery, was not immediately available for comment.
I would propose two amendments to the concealed carry law:

* Significantly enhanced penalties for felonies committed by the owner of a concealed carry permit. These penalties should be strongly emphasized during the required concealed-carry classes. Bottom line: you may consider carrying a gun to be your 2nd amendment right, but with that right -- a license to kill -- comes responsibility.

* How is a weapon a deterrent if it's concealed? If you want a deterrent, it needs to be visible. Enough with the "don't ask don't tell" -- require weapons to be clearly visible at all times. If gun proponents think the *possibility* of a gun deters crime, how much more of a deterrent is the *certainty* of a gun?

I'll leave it to others to find the statistics on how much more likely it is to be shot by someone you know, while in the "safety" of your home, than by some stranger on the street.

[Quiz03]

* Significantly enhanced penalties for felonies committed by the owner of a concealed carry permit. These penalties should be strongly emphasized during the required concealed-carry classes. Bottom line: you may consider carrying a gun to be your 2nd amendment right, but with that right -- a license to kill -- comes responsibility.


So someone who legally carries a gun and commits a crime involving the gun should have greater punishment than someone who illegally carries a gun and commits the same crime. That is an absurdity.

[aceplace]

Seems like a reasonable objection. Why penalize someone for taking a safety class, registering with the state, etc...

[freewaytincan]

the more responsibility or authority you are entrusted with, the higher the consequences when you misuse them. if you work at a fast food joint and you don't wash your hands, you might make a few people sick. if you work at a nuclear power plant and neglect a couple of safety regulations, you could kill thousands.

[aceplace]

the more responsibility or authority you are entrusted with, the higher the consequences when you misuse them. if you work at a fast food joint and you don't wash your hands, you might make a few people sick. if you work at a nuclear power plant and neglect a couple of safety regulations, you could kill thousands.So you're saying that people should pay less of a fine for speeding if they are driving without a license?

That follows from your theory, because a drivers license is a way that the state entrusts someone with authority and responsibility. Thus, you would say that a speeder with a license should pay a heavier fine because he is not only speeding, but also abusing his responsibility... but the unlicensed speeder is not abusing any authority he was never given in the first place.

If your theory is taken to its logical conclusions, it violates the real-world test, the smell test, and probably any test given in Logic 101.

[mgd323]

Relevant article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

"Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society."

[RobertB]

So someone who legally carries a gun and commits a crime involving the gun should have greater punishment than someone who illegally carries a gun and commits the same crime. That is an absurdity.
Hmmm... looks like I just got whacked in the back of head with my own boomerang!

Now, if someone can just shoot down (so to speak) my other argument -- that weapons should be worn in plain sight -- my day will be complete.

"He wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to fear" - Willie Nelson, Pancho and Lefty

[aceplace]

Now, if someone can just shoot down (so to speak) my other argument -- that weapons should be worn in plain sight -- my day will be complete.OK, I'll try.

If licensed gun carriers could not conceal their weapon, then criminals would be better off because they could do a better job of selecting their victims.

On the other hand, if any prospective victim could potentially be packing, a criminal would be uncertain as to his physical safety. Thus, concealed carry has a greater deterrent effect than a visible weapon.

[psukhu]

Why is it that the US has more gun murders per capita than other industrialized nations?

Is it because guns are more available to the average person or is it because of something else in our culture? (or both)

[tamtagon]

Why is it that the US has more gun murders per capita than other industrialized nations?

Is it because guns are more available to the average person or is it because of something else in our culture? (or both)

Both.

[hamiltonpl]

Regrettably, most murders now committed with a gun could just as easily be committed with a knife or other weapon. I don't think the murder rate would decrease a whole lot if we banned guns.

People who wanted to do bad things could still buy them on the black market. We would just extend all the violence that comes with the black market for drugs to include the black market for guns. It could actually cause more problems.

But by the way, I think Perry's proposal should be told, "ADIOS MOFO."

[tamtagon]

Regrettably, most murders now committed with a gun could just as easily be committed with a knife or other weapon. I don't think the murder rate would decrease a whole lot if we banned guns.

I do. If you kill with a knife, you're gonna get your hands dirty. If you kill with a gun, there's usually some physical distance allowing emotional disconnection.

[psukhu]

Regrettably, most murders now committed with a gun could just as easily be committed with a knife or other weapon.

Don't forget about crimes that require a gun, but usually end up with nobody killed. Car jackings, bank robberies, etc.

[RobertB]

Since I brought up the case as an argument against concealed handguns, it would be intellectually dishonest not to post this:

June 5, 2007, 6:13AM
Charge dropped in case of Metro bus shooting
By KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4862410.html

A murder charge against a man accused of fatally shooting another man on a Metro bus in March has been dropped, according to court records.

A Harris County grand jury Friday considered the evidence in the case and declined to indict Garrett William Mallot, 24, court records show.

Mallot was alleged to have shot Otis James Francis, 31, after the two were involved in an argument on the bus in the 11700 block of Westheimer shortly before noon on March 28, police said at the time.

Mallot had been free on a $50,000 bond posted shortly after the incident, court records show.
The comments on the Houston Chronicle stories are usually utterly vapid and useless, but one notes "A social misfit with two priors for fighting on busses messed with the wrong guy. Too bad for both of them but the witnesses backed Mr. Mallot." No way to quickly validate the poster's assertion, but if true, it implies that the shooter may have been faced with an imminent threat. And what I've always heard is that you don't draw a weapon if you don't intend to use it.

The conclusion is that the law was followed. The moral issues involved, of course, are much murkier. The law says I can shoot and kill someone who is stealing my wallet. But I am left to face God and tell Him that I sent a man to his final judgement over $45 and some credit cards.

[Spjz]

The conclusion is that the law was followed. The moral issues involved, of course, are much murkier. The law says I can shoot and kill someone who is stealing my wallet. But I am left to face God and tell Him that I sent a man to his final judgement over $45 and some credit cards.

RobertB, I believe that in order to use deadly force, your person must be in imminent danger, which is not the same as your wallet being in imminent danger. In the Houston Metro case, was the victim armed? If he was not armed and the shooter took his life, he could very well be guilty of murder. Often the DA must consider what a jury would think and not what a prosecutor or judge would think. It is possible that Mr. Mallot shot the unarmed(?) Mr. Francis and due to Mr. Francis' prior rap sheet (scumbag?) most jurors would not consider a finding guilt and instead award Mr. Mallot with a medal, even though the law would say otherwise.

[RobertB]

RobertB, I believe that in order to use deadly force, your person must be in imminent danger, which is not the same as your wallet being in imminent danger.
I think in Texas, at least, it's still justified. In fact, I recall a bill passing this year (a "castle law") to eliminate the requirement that you withdraw and attempt to convince an intruder to leave ("pretty please go home, Mr. robber sir"?) before using deadly force.

And I can see the justification, from both a legal and a practical standpoint. The guy who was killed near the ATM in Oak Lawn -- shot in the face and dying in his new bride's arms -- I think he had already given the money to his attacker. And I don't think the law should allow a situation where someone assaults or robs you, and you get sued for defending yourself.

I'm just agonizing over an issue that can't be legislated. The law defines what you *can* do. But only you can define what you *will* or *should* do. I'm not sure that's a subject that is taught during a Concealed Weapons training class. Maybe it can only be taught at the church/synagogue/temple/mosque/new-age-conciousness-center down the street.

[JDawgboyATX]

Hello this is my first post on here. I just wanted to say its not just workplaces, schools, or churches that people would be able to carry guns. Add in Nightclubs, bars, and other entertainment places and you have a very deadly situation. Try going down 6th street here in Austin one night if everybody is allowed to carry a gun and see what happens. I dont even want to think about it. :2ontome:

[downtownguy25]

Is there not a rule with your chl that you can not be intoxicatedand have your gun, even with this change of law, I would assume that would still be in place.

[Quiz03]

Carrying a concealed weapon while Intoxicated is a Class A misdemeanor PC 46.15. (i think) The city wasn't forcing Club Blue (for example) to have metal detectors to prevent people with a CHL from attending, its for the people who illegally carry weapons.

[aceplace]

I think in Texas, at least, it's still justified. In fact, I recall a bill passing this year (a "castle law") to eliminate the requirement that you withdraw and attempt to convince an intruder to leave ("pretty please go home, Mr. robber sir"?) before using deadly force.

And I can see the justification, from both a legal and a practical standpoint. The guy who was killed near the ATM in Oak Lawn -- shot in the face and dying in his new bride's arms -- I think he had already given the money to his attacker. If a robber knows that you cannot use deadly force as a FIRST resort, why should he leave? You can argue with him til you're blue in the face while he puts your jewelry into a sack.

Your second point is also cogent. A robbery is not a reasonable act. And someone threatening you with violence is not being reasonable. Why should you be legally compelled to be reasonable with him?

[Quiz03]

Robbery is an inherently dangerous felony

[X Factor]

99.5 % of Robbers show up with a weapon to use. They do not knock on the door to ask if it is ok. They are there to cause harm and to take your possessions. The old law said that you had to make an attempt to flee before using force, ie. run in to the closet and then if he finds you blow him away. The new law takes that away, but don't get me wrong you just cant cap someone because they are in your front yard, they have to be forcefully trying to enter your residence. The hope with the new law is to change the robbers mind because now they know that the law is on there side and it is relatively safe to rob a house. but if he knows that he can be shot when he enters the house without the owner having to flee it may change his mind. The Castle Doctrine is not a free pass to kill by any means, it just gives more power to the law abiding citizen and makes it a little more dangerous for the crook.

[RobertB]

I've detailed my moral issues above, but when the would-be assailants have an AK-47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47), even I would be moved to lay down the hurt -- even after the "immediate danger" is past.

Armed homeowner thwarts home invaders
07:37 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 1, 2007
From WFAA-TV stafff reports
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080207dnmethome.d06caa29.html

DALLAS — An attempted home invasion ended with what police called an all-out gun battle early Wednesday in a North Dallas residential neighborhood.

Police said four heavily-armed men attempted to break into a house in the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive near North Central Expressway and Royal Lane at 2:30 a.m.

The homeowner had a gun and opened fire on the suspects. He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.

One was found dead in an SUV several blocks away from the crime scene. Another was taken to Baylor University Medical Center in very critical condition. The homeowner was not hurt.

A third suspect was taken into custody and the fourth fled the scene. An AK-47 assault rifle was found near the suspects' vehicle.

Police said a gunshot victim who showed up later at Parkland Memorial Hospital may be linked to the home invasion attempt.

While investigators said the homeowner was within his legal rights to fire on intruders, he may be subject to charges because he left his property to pursue the robbery suspects in his vehicle.

The homeowner, whose name was unavailable, was taken into custody for questioning. No charges had been filed against him.
For reference:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg/300px-AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg
:eek:

[Mballar]

99.5 % of Robbers show up with a weapon to use. They do not knock on the door to ask if it is ok. They are there to cause harm and to take your possessions. The old law said that you had to make an attempt to flee before using force, ie. run in to the closet and then if he finds you blow him away. The new law takes that away, but don't get me wrong you just cant cap someone because they are in your front yard, they have to be forcefully trying to enter your residence. The hope with the new law is to change the robbers mind because now they know that the law is on there side and it is relatively safe to rob a house. but if he knows that he can be shot when he enters the house without the owner having to flee it may change his mind. The Castle Doctrine is not a free pass to kill by any means, it just gives more power to the law abiding citizen and makes it a little more dangerous for the crook.
Traditionally speaking,the use of deadly force in the defense of property has rarely ever been supported by U.S. law.

[I45Tex]

I've detailed my moral issues above, but when the would-be assailants have an AK-47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47), even I would be moved to lay down the hurt -- even after the "immediate danger" is past.
[indent]Armed homeowner thwarts home invaders
07:37 AM CDT on Wednesday, August 1, 2007
From WFAA-TV stafff reports
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080207dnmethome.d06caa29.html

DALLAS — An attempted home invasion ended with what police called an all-out gun battle early Wednesday in a North Dallas residential neighborhood.

Police said four heavily-armed men attempted to break into a house in the 9000 block of Woodshore Drive near North Central Expressway and Royal Lane at 2:30 a.m.

The homeowner had a gun and opened fire on the suspects. He pursued them as they fled, hitting at least two of them, police said.

One was found dead in an SUV several blocks away from the crime scene. Another was taken to Baylor University Medical Center in very critical condition. The homeowner was not hurt.

A third suspect was taken into custody and the fourth fled the scene. An AK-47 assault rifle was found near the suspects' vehicle.

Police said a gunshot victim who showed up later at Parkland Memorial Hospital may be linked to the home invasion attempt.

While investigators said the homeowner was within his legal rights to fire on intruders, [b]he may be subject to charges because he left his property to pursue the robbery suspects in his vehicle.

Any word on whether he was vindicated? It would have been extremely hard to do what he did.

[hamiltonpl]

Traditionally speaking,the use of deadly force in the defense of property has rarely ever been supported by U.S. law.
True, but a brand spanking new Texas law now provides a defense to prosecution for defending your property. I like it when it comes to my house, but not somebody's ipod.