Texas House Bill 1893 is to be heard today. With 5 authors and 65 co-authors there’s some strong backing for this bill in the House. JR provides his input.
If you live in Texas and haven’t contacted your Representative yet, today is the day. You may also want to contact the members of the House Committee on Public Safety and let them know — briefly and politely — of your desire for them to support and pass this bill.
Texas Senate Bill 730 has made some progress. “Local” coverage here. Official record here, but since action just happened there’s not a lot of detail other than “status: out of committee” and “vote: ayes=7 nays=0 pnv=0 abs=0”.
Updated: Yes, it’s actually out of the Senate now, not just committee (their website wasn’t fully updated when I posted… lag). An article. From that article:
The bill drew fire from business leaders, who called it an affront to property rights. Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, warned that it could also spark more workplace gun crimes – particularly at a time when more and more people are losing their jobs.
“People could go out to their car, get their weapon and go after their supervisors or co-workers who hadn’t been laid off,” Hammond said.
I’m still torn on the property rights issue, I admit. But then, I’m OK with concealed carry so if I had a business with employees and an office building there’d be no 30.06 sign out front. I’d rather be surrounded by good guys and hope that all I hired were good guys.
As for the “people could go out to their car” argument well… remember that people could also go out to their car to get their gun and stop the carnage created by someone “going postal”. As well, if someone wanted to go postal but they knew lots of armed employees were around so their little rampage wouldn’t be that productive, it just might serve to deter the rampage in the first place. But in the end, someone bent on going crazy is going to go crazy and we can’t do much to stop it. What we can do is stop abridging law-abiding citizens.
Whenever people talk about “gun control” (in a manner other than “use both hands”), far too often what you hear from them is emotional arguments (see here and here and here). If you hear any data or facts, it’s usually vague and incorrect, or just a flat out lie (tho usually well-intended, but that’s what paves the road to Hell). While I can’t fault people for going with their emotions, legislating and regulating a citizenry because of how you feel usually doesn’t make for sound policy. Facts, hard data, and research make for a more solid foundation upon which to build. So if you want such things regarding guns, Gary Kleck is the man to turn to. For those that will offhand dismiss him as being an NRA shill, he’s not. Read the article.
Apparently one of the Flyer’s senior editors, Michael Finger, went through the class just a little while ago, without mentioning to the Rangemaster folks who he was or his intent to write a story. The story is factual and accurately depicts the process that beginning students go through at Rangemaster. Apart from the whole “clip vs. magazine” thing (minor nit), it’s a good article. Give it a read.
While I can understand the open carry folks being upset about this, I think it’s reasonable. There’s a lot of other related legislation working its way through, and there is a high risk of confusion and misunderstanding which could lead to more things failing than succeeding. Long term, we want success, and if it takes a little more time to get there, I think patience is a good thing. Let’s take the wins we can get, one step at a time. Meantime, if you want to see open carry in Texas, continue to work positively, lobby, write your State Representative and Senator, and build momentum and understanding throughout the community and State. Don’t be a sore loser, that will only hurt your cause.
The Wall Street Journal has an article on new calls for the “assault-gun ban.” And they seem to get a few things right, but much of it is the same old misconceptions. But you know, I can understand this. Recall, I used to be in the camp of the ignorant so I can understand where all this comes from.
…assault weapons, or guns that can fire rounds more quickly than standard weapons
Oh, so that is what an assault weapon is. So pray tell me, what exactly is a standard weapon? I’d go out on a limb and guess they’d say revolvers would be such a thing, but then you get guys like Jerry Miculik:
So I guess revolvers would be “assault weapons” too. Maybe a standard weapon is your arm throwing a rock?
In November [2008], a record 1,529,635 background checks were performed on firearms sales, up 42% from the same period a year earlier, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A 24% year-over-year increase followed in December [2008], with similar increases so far this year [2009].
Background checks are considered a measure of sales because they are required during any sale of a new weapon from a federally licensed retailer, or if a weapon is sold or reclaimed from a pawn shop.
I admit I don’t know how it works in other states (tho I reason it’s the same since the 4473 is a Federal form), but I know here in Texas if you have a concealed handgun license you can just show your license and they skip the background check. Why? Because if you have a valid concealed handgun license you’ve been background checked far more extensively and thoroughly than the “insta-check” does, and that you still have the license means you’re still in good standing. So I would reason while the above numbers are certainly a good indicator, I wouldn’t use them as absolutes because with the millions of concealed handgun license holders in this country, I’m sure a few of them bought at least one firearm in the past few months so the real numbers are likely higher.
“Democrats have finally gotten it,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “The message they’ve gotten is if they become gun-control advocates, they are going to suffer at the polls.”
Uh huh. Note that while people love to paint gun-owners as knuckle-dragging Republicans, there are a lot of Democrats that own guns too. Whether their knuckles drag or not remains in question.
When AG Eric Holder stuck his foot in his mouth earlier about bringing back the “assault weapons” ban other top Democrats, like Pelosi and Reid were quick to distance themselves from him. They know they’ll be looking for a new job if they breech the matter. The whole matter of giving Washington D.C. a vote and how that bill has gun rights squarely as an issue within it… the Democrats know how they proceed on this matter will greatly affect their future re-election efforts because how they proceed in it will tell exactly how they feel on the matter. It’s wonderful to watch them squirm. I mean, they love to scream about “rights” and now when something comes along that improves rights that they don’t necessarily care for… oh, how amusing it is.
The weapons used in the Alabama shootings “are military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently,” wrote a coalition of groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a joint release on Wednesday. “Today we call on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal assault weapons ban.”
Of course… the Brady’s. They seem to love to dance on the still-warm graves when they can use it to further their agenda.
But still, tell me… how will banning any sort of gun serve to stop people from going crazy? Look at the UK. Guns are more or less banned; people still go crazy and commit horrible acts. Banning objects does not stop people from going crazy and doing stupid and/or terrible things.
And let’s also ignore something else. Consider the millions of “assault weapons” owned in this country by private citizens. Have we gone crazy? Have we all instantly turned into blood-thirsty maniacs hell-bent on destruction? How many people today didn’t go on a killing spree? We tend to focus on the one that did bad and ignore the millions that do good. Consider this yourself when you’re driving around town. There are hundreds or thousands of other cars on the road all around you. You pay them no mind because they are going about their own business and never tread on you. But then there’s that one asshole that cuts you off and nearly runs you off the road, and that’s the asshole that you focus on and ruins your whole day. Thus because that asshole was driving one of those evil SUV’s (probably painted black at that), we must call for a ban on all SUV’s because of that one asshole that ruins it for the rest of us, right? Is that a logical train of thought?
Under current federal law, anyone over 18 years old can buy a semiautomatic assault rifle from a licensed gun dealer as long as the buyer passes a background check verifying that he or she isn’t a convicted felon or mentally ill, among other things. Unlicensed dealers, such as those at gun shows, may sell semiautomatic assault rifles to anyone of any age without conducting a background check.
So are you saying there’s a problem with current federal law? If you don’t like where the line is drawn, pray tell me where do you want the line to be drawn? Well, we already know that answer… you don’t want a line at all because if there are no guns there’s no line to draw in the first place, right? So if we have no guns, then that means no guns period. Not even for the police, not even for the military. No wait you say? Those people should have guns! Ah, so you see some merit in people having guns. So what sets those particular people apart from the rest of us citizens? A uniform? That the State grants them authoritiy? Ah, a dangerous road we’re heading down.
And those unlicensed dealers? They’re private citizens performing private transactions. If they don’t do it at gun shows, they’ll do it in their homes or at other locations. It doesn’t matter. So you say, ban this too… any/all private sales. So, a father can’t sell or transfer a gun to his son now? But note… no matter what laws you wish to institute, it’s only going to stop the Good Guys, the law-abiding. Once again we must remember that a criminal — by definition — doesn’t obey they law. They will still sell, or more likely steal, whatever guns they want. The laws we have don’t stop criminals from doing bad things, so more laws won’t stop them. You say it’ll make it harder for them to get at things, but anyone with enough determination in this world can get and/or do whatever they want to. You only truly make it harder on the Good Guys. Why would you want to do that?
Hrm… this went on longer than I expected. But it’s the same old things. Folks, it is terrible when someone does a horrible thing like a mass killing. If they chose to use a car and rammed it through a crowded farmers market killing many people, we wouldn’t be calling for a ban on cars. When someone used airplanes and flew them into buildings killing thousands, we didn’t call for a ban on airplanes. But when someone uses a gun, we call for a ban on guns. Why? In any of these cases the object the crazy person used didn’t cause the destruction, it was the crazy person.
Perpetuating lies and misconceptions about firearms does little good. Like any lie, eventually it will be exposed and the credibility of the liar will be damaged, and then your cause will be hurt even more. If you don’t like guns that’s fine, but learn the truth about them. Truth will only serve you better in the long run.
Thank you for contacting me about federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen’s constitutional right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self-protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens’ Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law and meting out longer sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Greil then called Public Safety at 11:24 p.m. and spoke with them for 13 minutes, according to her phone records.
Within one minute of Greil’s call, Public Safety had contacted Borough Police, Cliatt said. Minutes later, Public Safety and Borough Police officers were canvassing the area. The officers had already begun their patrol at 11:29 p.m. when Public Safety received a second call with a similar report.
So basically, call goes in and it takes about 5 minutes before formalized law enforcement shows up on scene to start working. If we look at the Virginia Tech data, every minute Cho killed at least 3 people and shot a total of 4. So in 5 minutes of response time, a little math shows us that 20 people would be shot, at least 15 killed. Now, it took 80 minutes before the campus alert system notified the students. Go ahead, do some math.
The article continues:
At 12:40 a.m., when the threat was found to be credible, the University sent out the first warning messages via the Princeton Telephone and E-mail Notification System (PTENS). Students told the ‘Prince’ that they received the message between 12:45 and 12:48 a.m.
So it took 76 minutes for them to determine the threat was credible. Then it took an additional 5-8 minutes before students received word. Go ahead, do the math.
The article continues:
Executive Vice President Mark Burstein said he was “extremely satisfied” with the emergency response. “Both our Public Safety department and the Borough Police reacted quickly. The speed with which they responded was very reassuring,” Burstein said in an interview at around 2:30 a.m. Saturday. “Our notification systems worked well.”
Well, I guess the system functioned correctly, but even then 5-8 minutes is a very long time. Again, do the math.
The article continues:
Cliatt also praised the University’s response, adding that she did not believe the 80-minute gap between the first report and the notification of the campus community was unnecessarily long.
“The things that took place in that time period obviously took 80 minutes,” she said, noting that all “action steps” taken during this period were necessary. “Canvassing the area, getting access to prox information to see if various dorms had been accessed, convening the task force, putting together the alert message, all those things take time,” she explained.
All those things take time. Killing at least 3 people and shooting a total of 4 every minute… that takes time too.
The article continues:
Cliatt also emphasized that the University considers the fear and anxiety caused by emergency alerts when deciding whether a threat is sufficiently credible to merit issuing an alert. “The safety of our community is our top priority, and that includes both the physical and the emotional safety of our campus,” she said.
Ah, the emotional scarring of our children. Because fear and anxiety of the sheeple is more concerning and emotionally scarring than seeing your friend die in your arms, or a parent dealing with the loss of their child.
Thankfully in this situation it was just someone exercising poor judgement and I hope they are dealt with accordingly. But it still demonstrates failure of these systems to truly keep people safe.
HB 1893 (and SB 1164) has been introduced to the Texas Legislature. So like any good citizen, I took the time to write my elected officials. My State Representative is Valinda Bolton. She has a “C” grade from the NRA. One thing I appreciate about Rep. Bolton is every time I write her I do receive a prompt reply (well-run office/staffers). In the past the reply letters (always snail mailed, tho I sent her email) were rather boilerplate in nature and were generally of a “thank you for writing and sharing your comments on whatever matter with me, when/if it comes up I’ll study all sides of the matter and make the best decision possible, thank you drive thru.”. I’ll admit, I don’t expect a personalized letter, but it’s very difficult to tell from boilerplate letters exactly where she stands on an issue so I can know how she’s likely inclined to vote on the matter. So this last time when I wrote to her regarding HB 1893 I actually made comment on that to her. To my pleasant surprise, her latest response to me was not a boilerplate at all. It answered my specific questions, used specific talking points from my email to her, and given the attribution at the bottom of the letter it does appear she actually composed the letter. So she’s got my respect for doing that.
Allow me to reprint the full text of her letter.
Dear Mr. Daub
I am sorry if you felt the previous responses to your letters were boilerplate. In fact, while we do use a basic template for all our constituent correspondence, the body of each reply is specifically tailored to each individual.
In reference to your request for my stance on guns, I do support the right of Americans to own a gun. I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them. However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool. Thus, I cannot support allowing the carrying of concealed handguns on college campuses. While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management. As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
I hope this answers your questions about my stance on gun-related issues. I do appreciate you writing to me and sharing your thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
Valinda Bolton
Texas State Representative
VB/mh
I don’t have a copy of my email to her, but in it I did mention the UT shootings and how the situation was aided by students going back to their dorm rooms, fetching their deer rifles, and shooting back. I also mentioned how we don’t need to just consider unique incidents like mass shootings by a crazy person, but consider daily mundane issues such as a girl walking across campus late at night — mugging, robbery, sexual assault, rape, etc. as these are things well worth protecting against as well. So to Rep. Bolton’s credit, she did work to address my specific message to her, and again I do appreciate that.
So, let’s start to look at Rep. Bolton’s response.
I do support the right of Americans to own a gun.
That’s a good start, and explains why her NRA grade isn’t an “F”.
I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them.
A few things here:
So guns are only useful if you are responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry them.
Can a college student not be responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry a concealed handgun? It sounds like she believes that cannot be the case. Let’s not forget, all college students are not 18-21 years old, and I say that because the “responsible” portion is certainly arugable there. 🙂 What about folks that opt to go back to school later in life? That 40-year-old single mother that opts to attend night classes to better her lot in life so she can get a better job to better provide for her children.
Given the requirements in the Republic of Texas to obtain a Concealed Handgun License, you’re going to have to be a responsible, well-trained individual in order to obtain that license to carry a concealed handgun. So Rep. Bolton, according to the laws of our State, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun is responsible and is well-trained. So… why can’t they carry their concealed handgun on campus?
Continuing:
However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool.
Why? And note she used the word “feel.” I understand this, “feel” vs. “think” because I carefully choose the use of those words myself. The implication is using her emotions to make this decision, not her reason, not her logic, not facts, not reality. Just how she feels.
While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management.
Yeah, and look how well they handled them. Again back when Charles Whitman went crazy, students obtained their deer rifles from their dorm rooms and shot back; this helped to reduce the damage Whitman could inflict from that point on — armed citizens fighting back made a difference. And is the implication there that private citizens cannot have this training? That private citizens are incapable of doing such things? Oh yeah… gotta let someone else handle it; can’t fight my own fights, gotta let mommy or big brother protect me and fight my fights. Remember, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Police tactics have changed in the past 10-ish years regarding such “active shooter” situations, with current tactics understanding that the sooner the attacker/shooter/criminal is engaged the better. Old tactics were that the first officer on the scene needed to wait for backup then work to engage the situation, reasoning being that it would be suicide for a single officer to arrive and immediately engage. Now tactics are for the first officer on the scene to engage immediately, because doing otherwise only increases the body count of innocents. So, to minimize damage the first person on the scene needs to engage immediately. If there’s not a police officer right there right then, then who are the first people on the scene, and use a little logical extrapolation as to who can respond first.
As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
“Most.” So ok, what about those that don’t have such a luxury? What are they supposed to do? As well, must now there be enough public safety officers available for all the women on campus? What happens after a football game when you have a large flow of people, a need for general crowd control, but then a need by some to want to be accompanied to their car? How can such services feasibly be offered? What are those women supposed to do? Furthermore, is under the watchful eye of a public safety officer the only way a woman is supposed to move about? Ms. Bolton, I’m sure you yourself prefer to walk about in your daily life without having to have someone there watching over you all the time. Or if you do prefer that someone else tail and watch over you and be responsible for your personal safety, you must realize that not all of us are like that. I know a lot of liberated women that prefer to take care of themselves. Why would you deny your sisters that ability?
So Rep. Bolton, while I understand how you feel, I respectfully think you need to revisit your feelings on the matter… perhaps even setting your feelings aside and applying some thought to the matter.
You generally have more success to argue based on facts than emotion. So, let’s lay out the facts on these so-called “assault weapons.”
Brady Campaign, yes they are merely like hunting rifles. Go look at the actual mechanics of the action. Compare and contrast, look at actual firearms… we’ll wait.
Stuff From Hsoi 