An editorial in yesterday’s Austin American-Statesman about the “guns on campus” debate.

We are not supporters of the state’s 1995 law allowing qualified adults to get licenses to carry concealed handguns. But, as is often the case with hot-button issues, the extremes predicted by both sides during that debate have not materialized.

We have not, as opponents opined, reverted to some kind of Wild West existence with shootouts at high noon and other times of the day. Somehow, we have remained a fairly civilized society.

And we have not, as proponents predicted, seen a raft of incidents in which pistol-packing Texans stepped to the fore to protect themselves and others through their deft use of concealed firepower.

First, I’d say you haven’t been looking that deep as there certainly are reported incidents of both. But you are more likely to hear stories of shootings than of non-shootings? Why? Because crimes are reported, but non-crimes are not. I know of a person that pulled his car over to deal with a phone call. A man came out of the woods, heading towards the car with the wrong look in his eye. Driver noticed and bailed out of the car meeting the man with his drawn gun. The man thought better and left. No crime reported, no story to hear about. This sort of thing happens more often than you think. So it’s difficult to quantify such things because of what we are able to and not able to collect data on.

Nevertheless, we do remain a fairly civilized society. But “fairly” isn’t 100%. Bad things can and do happen, and responsible people who care about themselves and their loved ones take steps to be prepared to minimize the impact of bad things happening.

Despite what some advocates say, Patterson reminds us that “this is really not about the kid carrying a gun to class so he can defend himself against a mass Virginia Tech murder,” he said, referring to the 2007 incident in which 32 people were killed by a gunman at that Blacksburg, Va., state university.

“It’s about the nursing student that goes to class at weird hours at UTMB in Galveston and has to walk back to a parking lot in darkness, or the lady with a protective order against a former lover or spouse,” Patterson said.

We’d like to think that even people in those situations could find ways to feel safe without packing a pistol. Perhaps we are naive.

It’s easy to be tough from behind a keyboard, oh editorial writer.

How about you tell that tiny woman I recently encountered in class… tell her what she should do to not just feel safe, but do something proactive about her safety.

Tell my female friend that’s a teacher at a Texas college and thus has to walk alone to her car, to the classroom. She can’t have a 24/7 bodyguard. She can’t have escorts. And if you are so willing to tell a woman she’s not allowed to take care of herself, are you willing to take a huge step back in women’s rights?

I’d think the AAS would be all for women’s rights… rights to choose… it’s her body, she can do what she wants with it. So, why are you so willing, so steadfast, in denying women their rights?

Yes, I think perhaps you are naive.

Sorry. Overwhelmed. But some good news from the Texas Legislative session regarding the gun bills.

SB 321 (parking lot) passed the Senate floor. Nice.

HB 681 (parking lot) is out of committee. Apparently there were some changes, so we’ll see how it fares on the floor and reconciliation. But so far, so good.

CHL on campus (HB 750) was heard in the House committee and passed out. Looks like HB 86, HB 1167, HB 1356, HB 2178, all variations on the theme, were left pending in committee.

Looks like SB 354, Senate version, is going to be heard in Committee on Tuesday March 22.

Range bill passed Senate committee. Good.

Looks like things are moving along nicely.

Support the TSRA. If you’re a gun owner in Texas, you owe a lot to the TSRA.

Cracked.com on gun owners and gun ownership. (h/t Unc)

Paints with a broad brush, but a fairly accurate broad brush.

SB 766 is now scheduled for public hearing on March 7, 2011.

Support this bill. Our shooting ranges need protection. The protection offered here certainly doesn’t excuse true problems, negligence, etc.. It does help to protect against frivolous lawsuits and witch hunts.

Here’s one I have mixed emotions on: H.R. 822: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Basically, national reciprocity.

On the gut level, I like it. Means I could carry in California. The wording strives to honor the state’s laws and intentions. That’s all good.

But yet, this bothers me because it isn’t honoring a state’s intentions. California wants to consider most US Citizens as untrustworthy (they’d rather let everyone smoke pot than background-checked citizens carry guns… yeah, which is more dangerous, but I digress): they are may-issue to their own residents, and they won’t honor licenses from any other state. If California wants to behave that way, why shouldn’t we let them? This federal bill steps over state’s rights.

Now, here’s your NRA presser about it. And yes, that’s all right and good. But the analogy they make is using drivers licenses:

It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As far as I knew, recognizing drivers’ licenses was also a state thing, just so happens all 50 states (and the various territories) recognize the drivers licenses from all 50 states. At least, that’s the impression I’m under. Consider Texas Administrative Code Title 37 Part 1 Chapter 15 Subchapter E Rule §15.92

The Department grants like reciprocity for driver licensing to residents of other states.

(1) Nonresident recognition in Texas of licenses held by persons from other states, territories of the United States, provinces of Canada, and the United States military service is based upon Texas Transportation Code, §521.029, and administrative policies. Thus:

(A) residents of other states, including the District of Columbia but excluding United States territories and the provinces of Canada, who are at least 16 years of age may drive in Texas on a valid license from their home state, as a Class C or Class M driver only.

Looks like the state is granting it, not the Fed. However, is there something codified in Federal law that forces all states to honor each other’s drivers licenses? Or perhaps if not formal law, incentive (e.g. all states have the drinking age at 21, but that’s merely uniform not Federal law… but it was Federally coerced because .gov said if you want to keep getting federal road funding you’ll up your age thus every state did). I honestly don’t know and my Google-Fu is weak this morning. If you know and can reference the section of Federal law that grants this, that would be appreciated.

And even if you look at Section 2 “Findings” in H.R. 822’s text, it does provide justification as to why the Fed can do this. But yet, it’s hard to say. There are ways to justify it, there are ways to not justify it (because there are legit places for the Fed to override the State, and places where they overstep). Hrm. I’ll just say I’m unwilling to gain a win for my side, no matter how much it benefits me, if it’s not the right way to get the win. I want a clean win. Would this be a clean win?