Yesterday, the Texas Senate overwhelming and very quickly passed a bill that would allow THEM to carry concealed handguns where normal citizens could not.

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said the measure that would allow legislators, statewide elected officials, some former legislators and some state employees to carry their concealed weapons in bars, churches and hospitals and at sporting events and other places they are currently prohibited — including businesses that post signs outside saying concealed handguns are prohibited.

“This bill is really about logistics,” Patrick said earlier, when the bill was approved by a Senate committee. “We go from one place to another — maybe five or six places in one evening for functions and events — and we may be faced with either leaving (guns) in the car or taking them inside and violating the law.

“This bill is just to solve that problem.”

It’s not like us mere peasants could ever face that problem… no. How nice of them to grant themselves privilege. Meantime, campus carry struggles in the legislature.

I did see Wentworth voted against this: good for him.

The linked-to article was also updated with this:

Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, just released the following statement on why he voted against allowing lawmakers to carry their concealed weapons in additional places:

“Today, I voted against the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 905. As a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights, I could not in good conscience grant myself a privilege that I had failed to first grant law-abiding citizens. Concealed handgun license holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere they go. In my judgment, if we are going to expand when and where Texans can legally carry a concealed firearm, we should start with our citizens — not our lawmakers.”

Good for him.

Texas State Representative Lon Burnam (D-90, NRA “F” grade) recently introduced HB 2807 – Relating to creating an offense for the unlawful possession or transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon.

There’s much that is wrong with this bill. What bothers me the most? Not just how it uses failed language. Not just how it places emphasis upon cosmetics and not upon anything of actual worth and meaning. Not just how it’s knee-jerk legislation. Not just how it criminalizes my ability to instruct children in gun safety and responsible gun use. But how it places undo burden upon the law-abiding. Why are there people who insist upon making the lives of good honest people more difficult and more cumbersome?

Looks like Rep. George Lavender (R, District 1, “A” grade from the NRA)  has filed HB 2756 “related to the authority of a person who has a license to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun.”

I’ve given the bill text a read and it looks like what’s been done is go through the Texas law books and cross out or repeal portions of the law pertained to concealed carry. For example: “who possesses a [concealed] handgun”. I’m not sure anything was added, I unfortunately don’t have the time right now to do a side-by-side comparison of the submitted bill vs. the present books.

I’d like to hear reader thoughts on this.

My initial reaction is this may not go far enough for many open carry advocates. Many of them have changed from advocating “open carry” to advocating “constitutional carry”, the difference being that 2A is all the “license” needed so no other regulations should be on the books. So what this really comes down to is a continuum and how far along it you wish to go.

As well, if I’m understanding the bill, you are still going to have to be licensed to carry, it just doesn’t matter if it’s open or concealed. That might make the CHL Instructors happy because suddenly a need for their classes won’t go away (like the income that goes with it). But could it create more hassle for citizens and law enforcement? Perhaps, because someone will freak out about a “man with a gun”, LEO has to check it out. Or perhaps LEO’s just start randomly checking.

I’ll be curious to hear what the NRA and TSRA have to say on this. My feeling is, from a political standpoint it’s good to start talking about this, it’s good to start crafting legislation and see how people stand on it, how business and special interest react. But it may be too big a leap yet for people to make. But as I said, on the continuum, it may be a small enough leap that people could accept (i.e. it won’t get all “wild wild west”, there’s still licensing to ensure only good people can do this). Who knows. We’ll see. Sometimes it’s better to chip away at the stone instead of dynamiting the entire quarry.

University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa is worried that the proposed legislation to allow concealed carry on campus could make schools unsafe.

Hrm. What is Mr. Cigarroa basing this upon? Facts? Data? Supporting evidence?

No.

Chicken Little.

Cigarroa says parents, faculty and campus law enforcement agencies have expressed concern that the law could lead to an increase in campus violence.

Geez. You’d think being the head of a University that he might have access to scholarly research and data, history, and might even know something about basing decisions on facts.

Spare me.

“We’re saying that you can’t have more than 10 [bullets in a clip],” she said. “That’s common sense, as far as I’m concerned.”

So please tell me… how is that “common sense”. How it is that 9 is then OK, but 11 is somehow suddenly evil?

Please tell me. Where is the “common sense” here?

Cripes.

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?