The debate over gun rights has taken an interesting and complex twist in Texas. Governor Rick Perry, in reaction to the massacre in the “gun-free zone” of Virginia Tech, now says that Texas state law should allow licensed gun carriers to bring their firearms everywhere — churches, schools, and businesses. Perry’s initiative would render moot signs on buildings forbidding entry to those who carry concealed weapons, as long as a permit had been issued (via Hot Air):
Texans who have concealed-weapon permits should be allowed to carry their guns anywhere in the state, including churches, courthouses and bars, Gov. Rick Perry said Monday.
Currently, state law prohibits concealed weapons in certain places, including private property where signs are posted disallowing the guns.
But after meetings with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt about the rampage at Virginia Tech, Mr. Perry took issue with the idea of barring weapons from campuses. …
The governor said deranged individuals don’t pay any attention to signs that bar guns on certain premises and that citizens ought “to be able to protect themselves from that standpoint.”
Asked whether such a wide- open weapons policy would include bars and courthouses, Mr. Perry said: “A person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the state if they are licensed and they have gone through the training.
“The idea that you’re going to exempt them from a particular place is nonsense.”
This would make sense for state property. After all, the government of Texas owns it, and can set the rules as it sees fit. That would have applied to Virginia Tech as well, a public university, whose state created the gun-free zone that failed to deter Seung-hui Cho, the mass murderer who killed 32 unarmed people. If the people of Texas want to allow licensed carriers onto their public property with their firearms, more power to them.
However, the state of Texas does not have the right to impose that on private property owners. A bar, restaurant, church, or private school should be allowed to determine whether they want to allow guns on their own property. Churches, for instance, might have a religious objection to the use of firearms. Perry advocates the same argument that activists for smoking bans use — that private businesses are a public accommodation, and that the safety of the public overrules the wishes of the property owners.
I tend to sympathize with the notion that so-called “gun-free zones” work in practice to identify large groups of law-abiding, disarmed citizens who can easily be victimized by violent lawbreakers. That doesn’t give the state the right to tell me, as a church pastor or a bar owner or a private-school headmaster that I must allow guns onto my property. I should be able to set that policy for myself.
Conservatives who applaud Governor Perry’s approach should think twice about the ramifications for private property. Let Texas set the policy for its public property, and leave churches, businesses, and homes to the people who own them.
“Currently, state law prohibits concealed weapons in certain places, including private property where signs are posted disallowing the guns.”
Why should state law prohibit such carrying?
Striking this from the law still allows private property owners to post their buildings: carrying a gun onto posted property would still likely be a trespassing violation. As such, I don’t see this law change as a violation of property rights.
As an aside, maybe the Captain can push on the DiFi corruption issue. This is something blogs might be able to mainstream, to the benifit of the country; getting rid of the culture of corruption, and all that.
As much as I’d advise against it, I think property owners have the constitutional right to declare their business a security-free zone. Customers are just guests, not partners.
Covered it weeks ago. Where were you?
Captain wrote “However, the state of Texas does not have the right to impose that on private property owners. A bar, restaurant, church, or private school should be allowed to determine whether they want to allow guns on their own property.”
I have to disagree. One does not check ones right to security when entering a private entity. If, and only if, the state was to pass a law noting that entities that prohibit self defense on their premises take 100% of the responsibility for that persons safety and 100% of the liability for failure to provide such security, then I would say the law was just.
The idea that a private entity can both prohibit effective self defense while also denying responsibility for that defense is a loser.
Didn t the old western saloons have a “check your firearms at the door” policy? Please tell me why that was a bad idea.
I am informed that societies in which everyone is carrying are far more polite than societies in which they re not. That s the problem here in NYC. Handguns have been outlawed, and the outlaws and thugs know that they can prey on innocent citizens whom they know to be unarmed, using their illegal weapons as leverage.
the state of Texas does not have the right to impose that on private property owners
Wrong.
The State (as in Texas) has multiple rights to determine what may take place on private property. If you stop and think about this for a minute, the ludicrousness of this statement should take away your breath.
Do we really need to build a list of activities that states may prohibit or regulate that take place on private property?
Please say no.
Captain Ed is missing one point.
Current Texas law prohibits concealed carry by CHL holders at several venues, regardless if that venue is public or private property, and in the case of certain types of private property, regardless of the wishes of the property owner.
For instance, if I own a bar, or a racetrack, a private school, or a baseball field where a school-sponsored baseball game is being played, I cannot permit CHL holders to carry there, even though I own the property.
To that extent, the Texas legislature has seen fit to substitute its own judgement for that of the property owner. S that particular horse is out of the barn.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Texas CHL law currently prohibits carrying in to a myriad of types of property, including airports, courthouses, hospitals, schools and amusement parks. Given that context, I don’t think Perry is talking about requiring owners to allow carry on thier property — I think he is talking about removing the statutory prohibitions from the Texas code.
The bottom line….there is nothing ‘conservative’ in the idea that property rights trump any other personal right and the right to personal security trumps all.
With all due respect, Cap’n…Texas has already imposed restrictions on private property, particularly in Austin. They call it a “smoking ban.” Whether you choose to allow smoking in your establishment has been decided for you, and there is nothing you can do about it. Several bar owners in the area have tried to fight it, to no avail….sorry times we’re living in, when the government can tax a perfectly legal item out the wazoo, then turn around and tell you that you cannot use that item in public, nor can you allow that item to be used on your private property should you want to.
So the precident is already there for Texas government to tell private property owners or managers to do what they’re told or face the deep pockets of Ronnie Earle and his band of merry State’s Attorneys.
I agree with that with private property, whether the issue is guns or cigarettes, the property owner rules, but unfortunately, even though Texas is a conservative bastion, sort of, the Libs rule in Austin and it’s private property? What private property?
While property owners have the right to determine who can do what on their property, I would like to see state law remove restrictions on where CHL holders can carry their weapon. If a property owner wants to ban guns on his or her property, they can, just like they can ban country music, fast food, or whatever. But a property owner who doesn’t want guns on his property shouldn’t have more protection than one who doesn’t want other things on his property.
I’d also like to see some reasonable accomodation for semi-public places that would make it practical to have a CHL without having to leave your gun home all the time. For example, a rule allowing CHL holders to leave their gun in their car in the parking lot even if the property owner refuses to allow guns on his property or a general rule allowing CHL holders to have their gun in their car anywhere they can legally go (in their car).
EI
First of all, good for Gov. Perry!
The governor said deranged individuals don’t pay any attention to signs that bar guns on certain premises and that citizens ought “to be able to protect themselves from that standpoint.”
At last! Somebody who gets it!
Cap’n Ed wrote:
That doesn’t give the state the right to tell me, as a church pastor or a bar owner or a private-school headmaster that I must allow guns onto my property. I should be able to set that policy for myself.
A good point, but I suggest (as does Phelps) that Perry means removal of the statues that make it a crime to carry in certain places. For example, here in No. Carolina, a concealed carry permit does not allow one to carry in
There are other exemptions as well. Depending on where one is caught with a concealed weapon and possible extenuating circumstances, it’s a FELONY to have one in a prohibited area. Doesn’t really matter if you had it holstered and “concealed”; get caught, go to prison. So, why even bother… which is EXACTLY what I think some of the statute’s authors were thinking when they wrote the law.
If Texas is anything like No. Carolina, the state government and sheriffs are very careful about who gets a CCW; they don’t just hand them out willy-nilly. There are significant requirements in the form of background checks and training. Given the EXTREMELY low number of crimes committed by CCW holders around the country, I’d say that the various state and county governments are doing a good job in vetting the applicants. So, therefore, why give honest citizens a permit to carry a gun for self-defense but then stick them with a huge list of places where they CAN’T carry it?
—————–
(1) NORTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LAWS. http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf
First, Texas should remove the “concealed” provision from its carry law. Accidentally exposing a gun should not be a crime.
Second, the penalty for carrying a gun on private property against the wishes of the landowner should exactly the same as the penalty for carrying a feather duster on private property against the wishes of the landowner – ordinary trespass law should apply, adding additional penalties for permit holders is not justified.
While I dont like it, I do see that private property owners have the right to deny firearms on their property. On the other hand, they should be held responsible when someone who has a concealed carry license is victimized on their property.
Wednesday Night Podcast: Truth and Hope Report
Bringing you an informative mix of news and commentary, we talked about the following on the Truth and Hope Report:
It’s Great to Be An American
-Unconservative Conservatism
-Down the Path of Depravity
-Davy Crocket and Democrat Pork
-Pigeon…
There’s a sign on the main door of The Sixth Floor Museum, formerly known as the Texas School Book Depository, prohibiting firearms on the premises. If only they had put that sign there in November 1963 . . .
Ed,
Governor Perry is out of his mind if he thinks citizens should be allowed to carry weapons into court.
Courthouses MUST be able to prohibit firearms. My court’s metal detectors caught a husband bringing a gun in for a contested family law hearing. The weapon was confiscated as he did not have a concealed carry permit. He left, missed the hearing, bought another gun and killed himself an hour later.
He apparently intended to kill his wife, himself and God knows who else in the courtroom that day. Concealed carry or no, firearms do not belong in family court.
You don’t have gang troubles where you are. We do in California. There is NO WAY witnesses will testify in gang matters when gang-bangers in the audience might shoot them on the spot. Some of those guys don’t give a rip about getting away afterwards. Concealed carry invites gun-smuggling.
I can’t worry about whether my powder is dry or my ammunition is fresh.
I’m just going to bone up on my nunchuck skills. And I may perfect my bowhunting skills as well. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills.
One day, we’ll realize that any restriction, at all, on the second amendment, is a restriction in the right of self-defense. Our founding fathers never intended for us to walk around undefended, and they felt that responsibility lay first and foremost with the individual protecting himself. Any other concept would have made them laugh. That being said, it’s not just about firearms. I can, for instance, get a CHL, but that’s a Concealed HANDGUN License. I still can’t carry telescoping batons, nunchucks, tonfas, or any other non-lethal weapon. Funny, they’ll let me carry a gun, allow me to use it, even though there’s a MUCH greater chance of the perp being killed (well, basically the same in my hands either way, but that’s a different subject). Those things should NOT be restricted at all.
As to being allowed to carry on private property, this is fine, if it really is private property. However, if you then open your doors to the public for business, you have a myriad of other laws to follow, so this one shouldn’t be a problem: You can’t take away someone’s constitutional right by refusing them entry. Period. Remember the anti discrimation laws? Can’t refuse service based on race, color, creed, etc.? With no good reason to search, you have no idea whether Joe Blow is carrying or not, and you don’t have the right to search him, therefore you don’t have the right to determine what’s in his pockets beyond what the laws say is legal.