…. it’s criminal (potentially)
It’s so good….
…. it’s criminal (potentially)
Politics
A Damn Good Question
In light of the Foot Hood shootings, many people are asking this question.
Of all the places you’d expect someone to be armed, wouldn’t it be a military base? We trust them with massive amounts of weaponry when they’re overseas doing their jobs, so why can’t we trust them here?
On a side note, the officer that stopped the killer did exactly what has to be done these days: direct and immediate confrontation. Still, 3 minutes went by, many people died and many more wounded. How might things have been different if these soldiers were able to do what they’re trained to do?
On Voting
“I’d vote for them, if they had a chance of winning.”
I never understood that sentiment.
You know what? If you vote for them, they will have a chance of winning!
Ever notice that people only vote for a “possible winner” but then all we ever get in office is a Certified Loser?
If only we could too…
Look at what I saw in my backyard a couple weeks ago:
Mind you I live in the city of Austin, tho obviously not downtown. There’s some flood control plots that run behind my house and coupled with the few hundred undeveloped acres connecting through (again, all for flood control and other “naturalization” stuff by the City), yeah we get all sorts of critters including deer and coyote. But for a city deer, he’s pretty good looking, isn’t he? Of course the majority of the deer we see on a daily basis are does and fawns or much younger bucks, but still the deer population in my backyard is pretty healthy. Over the years we’ve watched the same does come around, watched their children be born and grow up. And the deer population grows, unchecked.
The City seems to grant this is a problem. City of Austin recently passed an ordinance outlawing the feeding of deer. I know other similar legislative attempts have been made to control the deer population. Trouble is, the deer are oblivious to the hard work of our legislators. They don’t see your pretty flowers and landscaping as improving your house’s curb appeal… .no… the deer just see it as food. And the deer problems increase, because there’s a lot of this food about. The only threat to these deer are all the SUV’s driven by soccer mom’s with mobile phones glued to their ears. Unfortunately that’s not enough of a control measure.
Seems allowing hunters to hunt in urban areas is working to control the deer population. Whodathunkit?
I can understand people getting their panties in a wad over firearm-based hunting within city limits. But why not bow hunting? Mr. Buck above wasn’t but 25 yards from me. Certainly proper guidelines could be set down and the deer population could be better regulated. Furthermore, if the hunter didn’t want the venison, I’m sure the Capital Area Food Bank would be happy for the donation. Hell, Austin being Austin, I’d even find it acceptable if they made it a requirement of getting the “within the city hunting permit” to donate at least half of the meat to the CAFB.
But for now, all I can do is dream… and watch the deer play in my backyard. Hrm. Now if I could just get some buffalo roaming and antelope playing out behind my home too.
Go Vote
Today is election day in the US.
Go vote.
I know the races may not be that glamorous, but they’re still important. If you don’t know what’s on the ballot or how to vote, then Google is your friend. Find your local county clerk’s office or local election board and find out what’s on your ballot.
Here in Texas, we’re voting on 11 Texas State Constitutional amendments.
Here’s the Texas Libertarian Party’s take.
Be mindful of the language/wording. If you’re not sure what something means, look it up. Don’t just look at the surface “oh that sounds good” or “that sounds reasonable, why would anyone want to vote against that?”. Consider the deeper, long term impacts. For instance, Texas’ proposed amendment 9 — I fail to see why that should become a “right”. Bob S. considers the bigger picture:
Access to state beaches is already protected, probably too much, so why do we need another amendment. This one forces people who aren’t on the shore to grant access if the shore line changes over time or due to natural causes (hurricanes for example). No one should have to give up their property or control of their property without due compensation. I don’t see the amendment providing for that.
So it sounds like a “no brainer” to vote yes on that, but don’t let your surface reading influence you. Think deeper. When in doubt, don’t codify it into law. If it’s that important, if it’s that necessary, it will be able to happen (again) down the line, and hopefully with more discussion and debate behind it. But if it’s a bad thing and get rushed into law, especially a Constitutional amendment, it’s going to be difficult to undo the damage. Government should be minimal and slow.
Texas CHL Caliber Restriction
Via Bob S. I get to meet a couple Cranky Chicks with Guns.
Just so happens they too are in Texas, and in visiting their blog for the first time their current post is regarding Texas CHL and Caliber Restrictions. Sarah asserts:
However, the State of Texas also interferes with CHL holders when it comes time to select a carry gun. You must, to be legal, carry at least a .32 caliber. Yes. Really.
I am not a lawyer and this is certainly the first time I’ve heard anyone consider this notion. But my reading of the Texas CHL laws, specifically GC §411.188 “Handgun Proficiency Requirement”:
An applicant many not be certified unless the applicant demonstrates, at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a handgun of .32 caliber or above.
So as far as I can tell, the .32 caliber minimum only pertains to the qualification portion of the licensing process. I don’t believe it pertains to actual carrying. My guess is this may be done to avoid people qualifying with a little gun then going out and carrying a big gun they can’t handle… some way to “work the system” and thus partake in potentially dangerous activity. That’s just my guess as to the reasoning behind the restriction. But as far as I can tell, you could qualify with a big gun then carry a little gun.
Nevertheless, it’s still a good point being raised. What if all you can handle is a .22 pistol? Maybe age or a medical condition limits your ability. Why should those people be denied?
I’m going to ask a few people about this. I’ll post responses when/if I get them.
Updated: Asked a few knowledgeable people and confirmed that yes, there is nothing pertaining to caliber when it comes to carrying. Yes there’s the .32 minimum for the proficiency requirement of the licensing process, but that’s all.
Pretend ‘Gun-Free’ School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction
David Kopel’s latest article is published in the Connecticut Law Review. Electronic version available here. The abstract:
Most states issue permits to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection to an applicant who is over 21 years of age, and who passes a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. These permits allow the person to carry a concealed defensive handgun almost everywhere in the state. Should professors, school teachers, or adult college and graduate students who have such permits be allowed to carry firearms on campus?
In the last two years, many state legislatures have debated the topic. School boards, regents, and administrators are likewise faced with decisions about whether to change campus firearms policies.
This Paper is the first to provide a thorough analysis of the empirical evidence and policy arguments regarding licensed campus carry. Whether a reader agrees or disagrees with the Paper’s policy recommendations, the Paper can lay the foundation for a better-informed debate, and a more realistic analysis of the issue.
Seattle Gun Ban Goes To Court
Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels, enacted a city-level ban on guns in public places such as public city parks. The problem here is the Mayor is attempting to have city law preempt state law, which it cannot. Even the Washington State Attorney General says this doesn’t hold water.
Consequently, a lawsuit has now been filed.
Ruth Bowman of the Seattle City Attorney’s office, said the city’s policy was put in place to protect “our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens, our children.”
Ah, they played the “won’t someone think of the children” card. So explain to me how putting law-abiding parents at a disadvantage does anything to enable those parents to protect their children. It’s not like criminals are going to obey this city ordinance, and the criminals are the ones you need to protect your children from. Or did you forget what sort of person might carry a concealed handgun? Carrying a gun does not automatically equal bad evil dangerous person. Yes bad people carry guns, but good people do too… precisely because we know there are bad people out there.
Even more open carry thoughts
Sebastian has been one of the gun bloggers discussing open carry a great deal in recent days.
Earlier today I wrote a bit more about my own thoughts on open carry and how I’m just not into it for myself because I don’t carry to make a political statement. Now Sebastian writes on a critical question that comes up in this discussion:
Ride Fast has a question:
What I would like to hear from Mr. Cramer and others who support not openly carrying, is just how do we acclimate people to open carry without actually open carrying? Or is Mr. Cramer advocating we give up on open carry altogether? I can’t support that and never will.
I would ask why acclimating people to open carry is an important goal for the gun rights movement? Because doing that really only benefits the small number of people who want to openly carry. To me that’s a step 36 thing, when we’re on step 12.
Now you have to back up and look at Ride Fast’s post. But frankly he answers his own question and Sebastian furthers it.
Dramatic change is not going to work. People just don’t like change, or perhaps better is to say that most people don’t like big changes really quickly — especially a change that could invoke negative feelings (like seeing a gun on someone’s hip). Recent years have been very big on anti-gun, but it is slowly changing. Heck, in the past year a lot has changed in that regard and many more people are warming up to guns and gun owners. But taking giant leaps into open carry just may not work for the masses. Again, it’s well likely to scare the sheep.
Case in point, as soon as I posted my earlier bit, a buddy of mine posted an experience he had at a local bank. And he wasn’t open carrying at all. Heck, it sounds like it was possible they went purely on the knowledge that he had a concealed handgun license. And folks, this is in Texas.
I just don’t think the sheep, on the whole, are ready for us to jump into open carry.
But now we have Bushmaster putting ads in Maxim magazine. Savage Arms advertising in Boys’ Life magazine.
So this is how you do it. Like Ride Fast said, it was a slow haul through advertising and other avenues. Honda started an ad campaign. Kinda like Bushmaster with Maxim, eh? It’s a slow process of allowing the mainstream to see us and think nothing of it all.
Sebastian continues along the lines I also feel, that if you’re open carrying to make a political point, it’s a passive show and the message received by the viewer may not be the message you wish to convey. I know Ron’s a good guy, but the man at the bank did not and assumed the worst. It’s better to be able to engage people actively, so you can explain, so they can ask questions and you can answer and ensure they are receiving the message you’re trying to send.
So should we not open carry at all in the meantime? No. To some degree you still have to have it out in the open. Just realize that that avenue is going to be a rough road and cannot be the only road. I’m happy to discuss things with people. When I go to the gun range, I have to walk outside with my guns and range bag to load them into my car and I’m sure neighbors have seen me. You shouldn’t hide what or who you are, but on the same token, like anything else, we have to be mindful about flaunting it in front of others. You don’t win people to your way of thinking by rubbing their noses in something they have a problem with.
Updated: OK. Yeah… Linoge gets the win here. 🙂 I’ve been swayed, at least enough to go back and think about it more, as it pertains to open carry as a political statement and then how I personally wish to conduct myself with regards to carrying openly.
Thank God She Had A Gun
A serial rapist.
Let me repeat that again.
A serial rapist.
Raping elderly women.
Law enforcement officials suspect a home invasion in Leon County is connected to a serial rapist who has been terrorizing elderly women in rural areas of Texas for months.
On Saturday, police say a man broke into the home of an 81-year-old woman.
The woman had a handgun and managed to fire several shots, scaring the man away.
A more detailed account of the string of sexual assaults here.
But of course, we should ban guns. They can only do bad and horrible things. Old widows? They don’t need equalizers. There is no such thing as self-defense for all.
And I guess the only reason that 81-year-old woman had a gun was to compensate for the size of her penis.
</sarcasm>
Stuff From Hsoi 