Just read the word that SB 1164 and HB 1893 have been introduced to the Texas State Legislature.
If you live in Texas, contact your State Senator and State Representative and let them know your opinion on the matter.
RKBA
Self-Defense for all
I’m in my mid-30’s. I’m a big guy (6’3″, 200#). I’m strong. I’m physically fit. I actively practice an empty-hand martial art.
One might argue that I’m able to take care of myself should someone attack me. Why should I need a gun to defend myself? Just knock ’em out with my fists or subdue them with a hold or something, right? Of course, that assumes that anyone would mess with big ugly me in the first place…. no one should mess with me, I don’t look like an easy target. Well, assumptions are fine, and I’m sure if I come across as food to some predator that I don’t come across as an easy target. But when there’s a pack of jackals about, they can take down a lion. Your biggest, baddest sport fighters lose a match now and again. No one is immune. But for the sake of argument, let’s say I am because of my state.
Is the world filled with people like me? No, not really.
Look at Kellene. She admits to being 200 pounds, 5′ 2.5″, and out of shape. Does she not have a right to defend herself?
How about disabled folks? I see folks on motorized wheelchairs buzzing around town, but I always wonder what stops some degenerate from taking advantage of them?
How about the elderly? Is a big and fit 19 year old attacking a 75 year old man with a cane, hip replacement, and pacemaker really a fair fight?
Perhaps you could argue I don’t need a gun because I’m fairly equal or dominant by myself alone. I wouldn’t agree, because I know wolves travel in packs, because I am not so arrogant and blind as to think I’m invincible and “it could never happen to me”. What I would like you to explain to me how and why the above people, who don’t have the same advantages I do, should be denied an equalizer. Why should they be relegated to be weakened prey? Are their lives not important? They have every right to self-defense.
And so it begins
The chOsen One claimed he wasn’t going to take our guns, that he wasn’t going to tread on our Second Amendment guaranteed but God-given freedom. I knew he lied then, his “change.gov” policies made it clear he lied, and now they’re trying to gain momentum by claiming it’s for the good of stoping drugs and violence in Mexico. Read about it here, and here, and here, and here.
This is dangerous waters Mr. Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are treading into. With history of the previous AWB, basically the Congress got a major housecleaning after 1994. Bill Clinton even acknowledges losses were due to the passing of the AWB. If Mr. Obama wishes to have a long legacy, this is not the route to take.
Updated: and here. and good stuff here. and more here.
Updated 2: Seems Pelosi is saying no. (h/t to SayUncle). Sounds like someone knows she’ll be looking for a new job if she even thinks about going there. Still, it’s quite evident such things are on the mind of this President, Adminstration, and Congress… we must remain vigilant.
People don’t write bullshit, computer’s do.
Because we all know, inanimate objects do things all by themselves.
We need a ban on computers… it’s the only way to keep our children and Interwebtubes safe, dontchaknow.
Women, firearms, and self-defense
Funny how some things come together.
Today I made a post and then I receive a comment from Kellene Bishop from Women Of Caliber. Never heard of her or her group before, but I’m starting to read her blog and she presents some good food for thought. She is of course geared towards women and self-defense issues.
Then I’m reading over at Joe Huffman’s blog and he links to the brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondant.
Kellene, looks like some good stuff for your cause.
Firearm Refresher Course
I was sent this today.
“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” — Thomas Jefferson
- An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
- A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
- Colt: the original point and click interface.
- Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
- If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
- If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
- Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
- If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
- Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
- The United States Constitution, ©1791. All Rights Reserved.
- What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
- The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
- 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
- Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
- Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
- You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
- 911: government sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.
- Assault is a behavior, not a device.
- Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
- If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
- Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
- You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
- Enforce the gun control laws we already have; don’t make more.
- When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
- The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Guns in your car vs. employer property rights
In a 3-0 decision, the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in support of allowing employees to store legally owned firearms in locked, private motor vehicles while parked in employer parking lots. I wonder how this will affect efforts here in Texas, such as HB 1301 and SB 730.
I’m torn on this issue, because it’s a mix of personal rights to self-protection and property rights. Here’s some debate on the matter:
- The NRA on Parking Lot Gun Laws and the Right To Transport Firearms. I’m sure you can guess which side they come down on.
- Daniel White from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner on Personal Rights vs. Property Rights. He believes personal rights trump.
- John Lott on Gun Owners v. Property Rights. He comes down on the side of property rights, especially due to workplace troubles with OSHA and other Federal law compliance.
- Reason Magazine’s Steve Chapman asserts that property rights trump.
- JR over at A Keyboard and a .45 has a good point-counterpoint piece on the matter. His poll results.
- Does your car count as an extension of your property? Seems to vary from state to state (in Texas it does count).
- Would you really want to keep your gun in your car since that’s inviting a break-in? And it’s not exactly handy to you when you might need it (but sometimes it’s handy enough).
And if you spend a little time with Google, you can find a lot more on the debate.
Lawmakers defend the right to bear arms at work
News 8 Austin (Time-Warner Cable’s 24-hour Austin news channel) has a piece about how the Texas State Lawmakers are allowed to carry concealed weapons on the Capitol grounds and onto the House and Senate floors, but your average citizen doesn’t have that same ability.
“A citizen carrying a concealed weapon with a permit can come in to the Capitol and walk around and visit legislators at their offices,” Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) said.
Citizens may be allowed to carry guns on to Capitol grounds, but their privileges are not the same as legislators. Members can and do carry guns on to the House and Senate floors, without restrictions. Citizens who visit those areas by way of the gallery have to pass through a metal detector and cannot enter with a gun.
“I don’t think that people who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon should be restricted from bringing a gun in to the gallery,” Hinojosa said.
Note: a Democrat legislator said that.
What confuses me tho is a later comment by another lawmaker. Actually, let me splice this with her former comments:
It’s a known fact among state lawmakers that some of their colleagues carry guns at the Capitol.
Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) supports the concept and also supports an open-carry law.
“It’s a matter of safety for the members of the House,” Riddle said.
… [insert above comments from Sen. Hinojosa] …
Riddle disagrees and said it’s because the Department of Public Safety guards know the lawmakers but typically don’t know the public.
“The difference is pretty elementary…we are well known,” Riddle said.
I’m a little confused. First, I thought Rep. Riddle was in process of drafting open carry legislation. Maybe it’s just a rumor because until we see it, it’s vaporware. But it does seem to conflict with her above statements.
But what I really don’t get is the reasoning that “we’re known” so that’s ok. Remember in 2006 when US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney wasn’t recognized by US Capitol Police? The guards may not always know you, and just because you might be a lawmaker doesn’t somehow automatically make you a person that won’t do something stupid or act in a rash manner.
Maybe the DPS guards and lawmakers don’t know all of the public, but I can tell you something they can know: what a Concealed Handgun License tells you about a person. If a Texas citizen holds a Texas Concealed Handgun license that means:
- You have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records
- Not be under a protective order
- Not be chemically dependent
- Not be of unsound mind
- Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, student loans, etc.
- Have 2 sets of fingerprints taken, one sent to the FBI for checking
- Multiple background checks, including with the FBI
- Complete required training
- Must be able to possess and/or purchase a firearm, which on the BAFTE 4473 form states
- You cannot be under indictment in or convicted of any court for a felony or any crime where you could be imprisoned for more than one year
- Cannot be a fugitive from justice
- Cannot be an unlawful user of or addicted to any sort of controlled substance
- Cannot be adjudicated mentally defective
- Cannot have been dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces
- Cannot be subject to a restraining order
- Cannot have been convicted of domestic violence
- Cannot have renounced your US Citizenship, and must be a US Citizen
- Then of course go through yet another background check before you can purchase the firearm
So as you can see, if you hold a Texas CHL, you’ve got to live a pretty clean life: not just a clean life up until now to get the license, but if you want to keep it you have to continue to live a clean life. So if someone possesses a Texas CHL, you may not know much about them but the police don’t refer to them as the “I’m a Good Guy” card for nothing. A CHL holder has been vetted by the system as a good citizen, and they have to remain a good citizen to retain that CHL. This doesn’t mean CHL-holders are angels — they’re human and make mistakes like anyone else can. But take a look at the crime statistics of Texas CHL holders vs. the general public: here, here, and directly from TxDPS. Nothing is perfect, but the crime rates by CHL holders are vastly lower than the general populace.
To me, this difference is pretty elementary: you’re a Texas resident CHL holder, you’re one of the good guys.
Texas Legislation Alert: HB 1301
In the Texas Legislature, SB 730 has already been introduced. Now HB 1301, the House companion bill, has been introduced.
If you live in Texas, contact your State Representative (and your State Senator too, if you haven’t chimed in on SB 730).
The first pig with lipstick
John Longenecker talks about the very first pig with lipstick on it.
Stuff From Hsoi 