Politics

You’re uneasy? How about us?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

But Texas senators, still a bit edgy about whether security at the domed Statehouse is tight enough, huddled behind closed doors Tuesday to discuss what else can be done — even after several million dollars have been spent making the Capitol secure.

Full story.

“I’m not a big supporter of having metal detectors at the Capitol,” said Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen . “If someone wants to shoot a senator or a lawmaker or someone else, they can do it after we leave the building at night. All this security is more of an inconvenience to the general public than anything, in my opinion.”

NB: Sen. Hinojosa has an A+ grade from the NRA — not all Democrats are anti-gun. And he’s right: what good is all this security at the Capitol building? What happens when you leave the building?

And that’s a key thing to consider. Why is there security at one building? What are you supposed to do outside that building? You know…. like the rest of us citizens. What makes those people within those walls worthy of greater protection? Why is their life more important than the life of my child?

 

…questions linger about the new Capitol security, which allows anyone with a concealed handgun license to bypass security screening at the doors.

Because guns are allowed in the Capitol for the first time, some senators have questions about what their staffs should do if someone with a gun comes into their office. What should lawmakers do if someone pulls a gun in the gallery during a session?

 

 

The interesting thing is the article demonstrates the ignorance of the lawmakers. They didn’t know about the cell phone alert service, they didn’t know about the buttons in the committee rooms that can summon assistance… and it’s obvious they don’t know that CHL-holders are good, law-abiding people. Yes, any group can have a bad apple, but on the whole CHL-holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the citizenry (yes we have data, search my blog because I’ve posted it numerous times before).

So what do you do if someone with a gun comes into your office? Well, where is that gun? If it’s like most CHL-holders, we’ll have it in a holster, on our belt, and hidden away. You’ll never know, and so what you can do is just go about your business like you do every day.

But if someone opts to go crazy well…. you could consider shooting back. I know many lawmakers have CHL’s and carry on the legislative floor. Or, you could be like the rest of the sheep and cower and wait to die. Fight or die, your choice.

The Capitol building should be like any other public ground: open and free, equal to all. It doesn’t have any special powers to ward off evil. Evil can happen there just like it happens in parking lots and sidewalks. If you care about your personal safety, take responsibility for yourself and be pro-active in what you can do about it.

 

Utah fixing Utah

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

It looks like Utah is working to deal with the issues present in their concealed weapons permit process:

SB34 » Out-of-state gun owners who seek a Utah concealed-weapon permit — which is popular because it is recognized by most states — may soon first need to obtain a permit from their home state, if available.

The Senate voted 28-0 on Friday to give preliminary approval to SB34, which would make the change. A final vote is expected next week.

I think the reporter made an error. If my armchair Internet research is right, it’s actually SB36.

This is why HB 356 was introduced in this Texas legislative session. If Utah fixes their situation, I wonder if Rep. Burnam will withdraw his bill from consideration.

From Alice Tripp:

Utah state records show over 5,000 Texans are carrying with a Utah concealed handgun license.  The majority of this number don’t have dual residency, and didn’t obtain their license while visiting or living in Utah.  Most got their license right here in Texas from an instructor offering the Utah license.

Texas doesn’t allow their license to be offered outside the state.  Many feel Utah is “meddling” in other states’ business.

You might be interested in knowing that folks carrying a handgun with an out-of-state license are not allowed past the metal detectors at the Texas Capitol, only because DPS verifies every licensee.   This simply isn’t possible with an out-of-state license and includes Texans carrying with a Utah license.

We’ll see how things pan out.

Texas homeschooling bills – updated

/ hsoi

I received word back from HSLDA about the 3 homeschool-related bills introduced in the current Texas legislative session.

Read the updates.

My take? You can debate the merit of the intentions behind the bills, but from a legal perspective they are bad bills.

ATF’s Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

BAFTE has released a Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns. (h/t to TXGunGeek)

TXGunGeek is right: it’s not a ruling (as was floated around last week), it’s just a study. But the study of course is going to lead to things.

Right on the first page of the PDF is this:

All interested persons may submit comments on this study.
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202)648-9601.
Faxed comments may not exceed 5 pages.
All comments must include name and mailing address.
ATF encourages submission of comments no later than May 1, 2011.

So folks, make sure you comment.

But when you comment, please please please… make it a useful comment. No harsh language. No irrationality. No propaganda nor hysterics. We need well-conceived, fact-based comments. We need to provide useful information. Keep it short, keep it sweet, but keep it useful. Whatever you submit will reflect not just on you but on gun-owners throughout the USA. Be thoughtful.

My first reaction? What’s “sporting purpose” got to do with it? In our post-Heller post-McDonald world, what does “sporting purpose” have to do with anything any more?

SOTU 2011

/ hsoi

Just read the transcript of President Obama’s State of the Union address.

It’s typical of SOTU speeches, in tone, content, and delivery.

I’m happy to hear No Child Left Behind is being left behind, but let’s see if the replacement will truly be any better. More details needed.

Freeze domestic spending. Veto anything with earmarks. That sounds like a good start. Consolidating and cutting .gov programs and agencies. That should also lead to the loss of a lot of .gov jobs… not sure how he’ll swing that in a time where we want job growth, but again, let’s wait and see what the details will be like.

So, it’s a big sweeping speech, like SOTU’s are to be. Let’s see where it goes from here.

A little word substitution

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Would you have the same outrage if this was about free speech?

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is going to introduce “Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011”.

Let’s take her press release and do a little word-substitution:

 

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today announced that next week she will introduce the Common-Sense Speech Act of 2011, which would require all states that allow residents to speak in public to have minimum standards for granting permits.

Senator Boxer said, “The tragic events in Tucson earlier this month are a reminder of why we need common-sense speech laws. This measure will establish reasonable permitting standards for Americans who wish to speak. According to a recent poll, more than 60 percent of respondents believe there should be a reasonable permitting process for those who wish to speak.”

Senator Boxer’s legislation would require all states that allow residents to speak to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to speak.

Currently, two states do not permit residents to speak, while three states, including Arizona, allow residents to speak in public without a permit. The other 45 states require residents to obtain permits to speak, but the majority of these states would not meet the standard set in this bill.

 

 

Words can be even more damaging than a gun, but if anyone tried the above, they’d be rode out on a rail.

Your 2A rights are what maintain your 1A rights. Lose your 2A rights and your 1A rights aren’t far behind.

 

Tom Givens on gun control

/ hsoi

If you support gun control, you need to read this article.

In light of the Arizona shootings, Tom Givens of Rangemaster articulates his thoughts on the matter. Tom discusses the laws and mechanisms already in place that could have kept Jared Loughner from purchasing a gun, but how no one with the authority to do anything did anything. He also touches on the topic of “high capacity” magazines.

Tom speaks with facts, with reason, and with data. He’s not about emotional appeal, he’s about what makes logical sense.

Homeschooling-related bills for the 82nd Texas Legislative Session.

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

There are (at least for now) 2 homeschooling-related bills in the 82ns Texas legislative session.

SB 207 – relating to requiring certain students leaving public school to provide documentation necessary to ensure an accurate calculation of dropout rates.

HB 196 – relating to requiring certain students leaving public school to provide documentation necessary to ensure an accurate calculation of dropout rates.

Quick look and the text appears to be the same in both the House and Senate bills.

No, bad bill. Oppose. I LOVE the phrasing… that leaving the failed public school system for a better education via homeschooling is considered dropping out.

HB 132 – relating to the issuance of a driver’s license to a person who has not obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent.

HSLDA is opposing this, but I’m not 100% sure why. My guess is because it enumerates “home school” (in Texas, homeschooling is generally not enumerated, falling under jurisdiction of “private school” and it is best kept that way). I’m going to contact HSLDA for clarification.

Updated: I contacted HSDLA to ask for more details as to why they oppose.

Here’s their more detailed response to SB207 & HB196.

Here’s their more detailed response to HB132.

I agree with their reasoning. You can debate the merit of the intentions behind the bill, but from a purely legal perspective they are bad bills.

Gun-Related Bills for the 82nd Texas Legislative Session.

/ hsoi

The 82nd Texas Legislative Session is in full swing.

Here’s a few 2A-related bills to keep an eye on (actually since we’re talking Texas State, it’d be Article 1 Section 23 of the Texas Constitution)

SB 354 – Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education.

I’m curious about one thing here. The bill allows private institutions to prohibit legal carry. If an institution opts to do so, how is the public supposed to know about it? As far as I can tell, the bill doesn’t specify. Section 4 of the bill mentions amending PC 46.035 such that collegiate sporting events can only prohibit with 30.06 notice, but what about non-sporting event times, like just strolling around campus on a Tuesday? To remain consistent with the rest of the law, notice of prohibition should be given through proper 30.06 notice; if a private institution wishes to prohibit, they’re going to have to post 30.06 signs all over campus.

I’ve emailed Sen. Wentworth’s office requesting clarification.

My guess is they would have to give notice under 30.06.

SB 321 – Relating to an employee’s transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee’s employer.

Cursory reading of the text, and the bill seems good.

HB 681 – Relating to an employee’s transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee’s employer.

This is the House version of SB 321, and the text appears identical.

Doing a detailed search of the 82(R) – 2011 Legislature for any bill having the subject “Weapons (I0887)” (thanx Jay!), here’s a bunch of others. I’m only listing those of direct relation to “gun rights” (e.g. not listing HB 48).

HB 25 – Relating to the carrying of certain weapons in a watercraft.

HB 77 – Relating to the carrying of certain weapons in watercraft.

Looks to just add “watercraft” along with “motor vehicle” to a few parts of the Penal Code. Seems to be 2 bills for the same thing.

HB 86 – Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education.

Not the same as SB 354, but close.

HB 145 – Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.

HB 298 – Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.

Both going for the same thing. They’ll hopefully reconcile and merge.

HB 181 – Relating to an exemption from the sales tax on handguns, rifles, shotguns, and ammunition.

HB 242 – Relating to the authority of certain retired peace officers to carry certain firearms.

HB 356 – Relating to the recognition of a nonresident license to carry a concealed handgun.

That one is a bit contentious. If you’re a Texas resident and wish to carry a concealed handgun, you must have a Texas CHL. Obtaining say a Utah permit and then carrying in Texas via reciprocity wouldn’t be able to fly. Yes you could still have a Utah CHL, but as a Texas resident you’d be required to have a Texas CHL.

HB 698 – Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain persons attending a school board meeting.

That’s nice and all, but how about allowing the general public to also carry there? Look, if someone is going to come in and start doing evil things during a school board meeting, why should only the board members be allowed to defend themselves? Why not the general public? A CHL-holder is unlikely to be the evil-doer, and an evil-doer is going to do their evil regardless of any law. Why create privilege?

SB 285 – Relating to exempting certain judicial officers from certain requirements for obtaining or renewing a concealed handgun license and to the authority of certain judicial officers to carry certain weapons.

HB 750 – Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on certain premises of or locations associated with schools or institutions of higher education.

Updated: HB 750 was filed after I originally wrote this. So there are now 2 House bills (HB 750 and HB 86) and the one Senate bill (SB 354). All have similar but different text, so there’s going to have to be some work to reconcile things.

I get the feeling this is going to be one of the bigger issues of the legislative session.

 

Folks: contact your Texas State Senator’s and Representatives to let them know your stance on these bills. Furthermore, if you support these bills, urge your Senator or Representative to sign on as a co-author of the bill.

Finally, if you have not joined the Texas State Rifle Association, you should. Many of the things we enjoy in Texas came by way of the hard work of the TSRA and Alice Tripp. Support their efforts. (Disclosure: I am a TSRA Life Member, but otherwise have no connection to the TSRA; I just like supporting them and encouraging others to do so as well).

H.R. 308 – misguided

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Rep. Carolyn “Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy (D-NY) has introduced H.R. 308 “to prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.”

Contact your Congress-critter, tell them how you feel about this.

This is misguided and will only serve to cripple law-abiding citizens. It will not stop crazy. It will not stop evil people from doing evil things. It will cripple good guys from being able to do good things. Consider Business Week Magazine’s recent article about Glock:

Walter garaged his RV and began zooming around in a Porsche, pitching the Glock to force after force. In late 1986 the Miami Police Dept. ordered 1,100 pistols, followed closely by Dallas, San Francisco, and others. “It’s the wave of the future,” said the chief in Minneapolis, who authorized Glocks for his officers. In December 1986, Curtiss Spanos, a cop in Howard County, Md., fired 16 rounds in a 30-minute pursuit of two armed robbery suspects. The Glock saved his life and his partner’s, he told The Washington Post. “There would be two dead officers if I didn’t have the 9 millimeter gun.”

And that from an article with an anti-gun bias.

Sure, that’s police. What about civilians? Well, Tom Givens has had nearly 60 students — private citizens — involved in and that survived incidents because they were carrying their gun. Tom has a presentation that highlights 10 of the incidents and of those while the average number of shots fired was about 4 rounds, the high end was 11. Eleven. So a good guy might be dead today if he was arbitrarily limited, and a bad guy would still be out there doing bad things.

Furthermore, if the legislation understands that capacity matters — because they’re making an exception for law enforcement — why are We The People being subject to this? Are we not as deserving of the ability to protect ourselves and our family? Do they consider us incapable of being responsible and being able to stop evil?  The acts of one lunatic and we need to cripple the millions of other law-abiding citizens?

Once again, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp said it best:

 

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.