http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html Perry: Banning pistols isn't the answer Governor says licensees should be free to take them anywhere for protection By CLAY ROBISON Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments Recommend 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.
Come on Max, it can't be that bad. Picture yourself at church, kneeling in prayer and noticing that the man front of you has a gun sticking out of the back of his pants, what could be more comforting?
You will in any state that isn't red. If you're not a felon, you can "open-carry" unrestricted in the states that are yellow.
Here we go again. Concealed is concealed. If you are 'made", you should be subject to fine. Picture yourself at church, kneeling in prayer and your hear gunshots ring out in the back of the church as a gunman walks into your church and starts randomly shooting churchgoers.
I know Max. I can understand the argument. I can even agree with it up to the point that there is an abundance of handguns out there, and the law abiding citizens will have a harder time getting a handgun. Criminals know where to get them from without having to go through the background check.
I can guarantee, if it ever becomes legal to carry a concealed weapon into a bar, the murder rate in this state will double.
Bars fall under the 51% rule as it is. No guns allowed since at least 51%of profit comes from liquor sales. Bars are definitely somewhere where guns should NOT be allowed. The only problem is that you can have one in your car and simply walk out to a bar, retrieve it, and go back into the bar to use.
i hear ya. but not every criminal is a criminal before they use their gun in a criminal fashion to begin with. having a gun makes it easier to begin being one with violent consequences.
But then again, a criminal can be violent with a knife, a rope, a car, a screwdriver....whatever he can get his hands on. This happened the day before yesterday...A local petty criminal didn't have access to a gun, so he attacked a warehouse security guard with a knife. The security guard used his sidearm to protect himself. Granted, you can make the argument that if the criminal had a gun, the attack may have been fatal, but what I am saying is that he didn't have access to a gun, even with the system we have now, and the security guard used deadly force to protect himself from the bad guy. Nobody died. If the security guard, who is not issued a sidearm but used his own, was not allowed to have a sidearm because of a No gun law, he may have been the victim of a deadly crime.
ok..couple of things: 1. people aren't criminals until they've committed a crime. we don't know who will be a first-time offender. my understanding is the guy at VA Tech was a first time offender. he's a criminal now. he bought a gun with no problem. 2. i just tire of the argument that criminals will use something else. of course they will. but i like my chances against a criminal with a rope better than i like them against a criminal with a gun. you don't see a lot of mass murder with rope, generally.
Yeah...that #2 argument is pretty weak for the mass attack. I guess I am speaking of the more personal type crime...Break ins, muggings, hold ups... I think we can go back and forth in debate all day. The question is how can our society be disarmed? How will the government take guns from those that legally own them and now are being told it is illegal to own them. Is it matter of only making it harder for gun owners to own a gun? I will admit that I would feel a lot better if every gun owner had to go through an 8 hour course similar to a CHL class just to own a gun.
