Tag Archives: gun control

State news

Burger chain: You can pack, just not in the open

Now that Whataburger has declared that people carrying guns in the open won’t be served in its Texas restaurants, let’s be sure we understand something else.

Texas also has a concealed carry permit provision, meaning that Texans can carry a handgun hidden under their clothing. The only people who’ll be allowed to carry openly are those with concealed permits.

So …

If you have a concealed carry permit and you want to go to Whataburger for a big ol’ burger, you’re entitled to do so.

That’s my understanding.

Whataburger staffers aren’t going to frisk customers walking into their establishments to ensure they aren’t carrying weapons. The company, based in Texas, is merely banning those who have a gun strapped to their hips — in plain sight. The open-carry law takes effect in January.

After all, the concealed carry law that the Texas Legislature enacted in 1995 was meant to keep these firearms hidden from view and deterring bad guys from doing something they shouldn’t be doing for fear that the person next to them is packing a pistol.

Bon appetit, y’all.

legal news, national news

Your guns are safe … honest

Given that social media commentary becomes part of the public domain once it’s posted, I want to share a thought from a friend of mine who put this out there.

“Is it just me, or did I miss the President saying he wanted to confiscate all guns? No one wants your f****** guns!!!! What I want is a conversation of whether or why gun violence is an epidemic in this country and what we can do about it. For beginners, you folks on the other side need to convince me why adding more guns is the answer. And I’m skeptical about defending yourself from the government, because right now quite frankly some gun owners scare me a helluva lot more than the government. Thanks for listening.”

My friend is a lawyer. He’s a smart fellow — and not just because I happen to agree with him.

Gun-rights advocates keep saying things that aren’t true, starting with their false claims that President Obama wants to take our guns away from us. After that, the lies spin off into fairy tales about martial law, seeking to suspend the Constitution and a conspiracy to get Barack Obama elected to a third consecutive term.

Another friend of mine actually told me — to my face — that he believes the third-term conspiracy actually has merit. I laughed out loud.

My friend’s request is a reasonable one, which is to have a rational conversation about whether there’s a way to stem the flow of guns in our society without doing harm to the Second Amendment, the one that guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Can’t we have that conversation without the crazy talk that comes mostly from one side proclaiming that it’s all a plot to take away our guns?

 

national news, political news

That’s the ticket: blame the victim

National Rifle Association board member Charles Cotton has exhibited an amazing capacity for heartlessness.

He has placed the blame for the shocking shooting deaths of nine Charleston, S.C., church members on one of the victims.

Despicable.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/nra-board-member-blames-clementa-pinckney-charleston-shooting-119202.html?ml=po

Cotton’s narrative goes something like this: One of the victims is state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, who voted against legislation allowing South Carolinians to carry concealed handguns. Had the measure passed, according to Cotton, the victims would be alive.

According to Politico: “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton responded to the post on Thursday afternoon. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

Pinckney, who was pastor of the church where the carnage occurred, is responsible for this tragedy. Did you get that?

What in the world is Charles Cotton, a Texas NRA board member, thinking in trying to blame one of the victims killed in that rampage?

Suppose for a moment that someone in the church was packing a pistol when the gunman opened fire. Is the NRA board member certain that he or she could have stopped the shooter on the spot — without anyone else suffering grievous injury or death on the melee?

Good grief! It’s been only four days since the tragedy erupted in that house of worship.

Can’t there be some sort of cooling-off period? Can’t we wait a reasonable length of time before leveling blame? And for crying out loud, can’t we declare “hands off!” the memory of one of the victims of this senseless act?

 

State news

Open-carry still causes concern

4 Comments

Concealed-handgun carry legislation was thought to be of concern when the 1995 Texas Legislature approved it.

It has proved effective in at least one regard: Thinking that motorists might be carrying a gun with them has made other motorists a lot more circumspect if they get cut off on the street.

Now the 2015 Legislature is considering an open-carry bill. This one give me pause.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/14/open-carry-bill-poised-clear-texas-house/

Why is that? I’m concerned about what some have indicated might become a problem — which is that someone carrying a handgun openly could become a target in the event shooting starts somewhere.

Interesting, yes? I share that concern.

The bill got stalled today in the Texas House of Representatives on a procedural glitch. It’s likely to come up in a day or two and the House is likely to approve it.

I’d bet real American cash that Gov. Greg Abbott would sign it if gets to his desk.

That doesn’t alleviate my concern about open-carry legislation becoming a state law.

I continue to wonder whether carrying guns openly on one’s holster created a safer society back in the old days when it was customary. Will the presence of guns being carried in the open today make us safer than the belief that someone is packing a pistol under his jacket or in her purse?

I still have my doubts.

 

national news

Sarah Brady fought gun-control fight valiantly

If anyone deserved the right to believe in gun control, it had to be the wife of someone wounded grievously by a madman firing a handgun at the president of the United States.

The advocate was Sarah Brady, the wife of the late White House press secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head by John Hinckley — who sought on March 31, 1981 to assassinate President Reagan. Sarah Brady died today at the age of 73.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sarah-brady-gun-control-advocate-dies-at-73/ar-AAapGeK

Hinckley ended up being acquitted by reason of insanity and he’s spent his time in a hospital ever since.

Meanwhile, Sarah and James Brady became advocates for gun control. James Brady died in August of complications relating to the terrible head wound he suffered.

The Bradys had become enemies of gun-rights advocates, such as the National Rifle Association, which occasionally took great delight in vilifying them for their sincere views on the firearm control.

They had reason to believe as they did. They insisted courageously in the face of intense criticism that the Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of firearm ownership did not preclude additional controls being placed on the sale and purchase of weaponry.

That didn’t matter to the NRA or to other firearm-owners-rights groups.

They saved lives. “In the history of our nation, there are few people, if any, who are directly responsible for saving as many lives as Sarah and Jim,” said Dan Gross, the president of the  Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement.

Sarah Brady was a ferocious advocate for what she believed. May she now rest in peace.

national news

Wyatt Earp: Now there was a gun control freak

1 Comment

Texas is inching closer toward a law that would allow residents to carry guns openly, where everyone can see them.

The state Senate has approved a bill allowing it, prompting the debate yet again about what the Second Amendment says and what its authors intended. Are all citizens given the right to “keep and bear arms,” or is it referring to the “well-regulated militia” having that right?

Let’s save that one for another day.

But a friend of mine, Benny Hill, reminded me today that Wyatt Earp perhaps was one of the earliest advocates of gun control.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

Good ol’ Marshal Earp used to keep the peace in Tombstone, Ariz. How did he do it? One way was to require everyone entering his town to check their firearms as the proverbial front gate. No guns allowed, said Earp. He just kept ’em locked up until the folks left town.

Would anyone dare consider Earp to be a soft progressive, a flaming left-wing liberal intent on taking everyone’s gun away from them? I doubt it sincerely.

Yes, he had good reason to confiscate temporarily people’s guns. Crime was running rampant in the Old West town. It was worse in Tombstone, apparently, than in most places.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in January 2011: “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

Imagine someone trying that tactic today. Imagine as well the reaction from, say, any gun-owner-rights advocacy group — no need name names here — to the notion of surrendering your sidearm while you entered any city in America.

Gun laws were a lot tougher than they are now. And to think so many Americans keep wishing for the good old days.

 

Uncategorized

On second thought …

Second thoughts usually are more reasonable and rational than first thoughts.

With that, I am having second thoughts about something that burst forth from my keyboard the other day about John Hinckley, the assailant who nearly killed President Reagan and gravely wounded White House press secretary James Brady.

I suggested it might be worthwhile to try Hinckley for murder, given that Brady died this past week from complications related to the brain injury he suffered when Hinckley shot at the presidential party in March 1981.

The earlier post is attached here:

R.I.P., James Brady

Medical authorities have ruled Brady’s death a homicide. Hinckley was acquitted of the attempted assassination by reason of insanity.

Thus, the question: Should we try Hinckley for a crime after he’s been judged to have been insane when he committed it?

A Washington, D.C. jury rendered that verdict after the assassination attempt. I’m wondering now how another jury could rule differently were he charged and tried for murder in connection with James Brady’s death.

It’s tempting, I suppose, to try Hinckley for murder. Given that he’s been acquitted already for the very same act, it’s reasonable to ask: To what end?

Uncategorized

Prosecute Hinckley for murder? Why not?

Murder carries no statute of limitations, meaning that prosecutors have no time limit to bring charges against someone accused of such crimes.

Thus, it is possible that 33 years after nearly killing then-White House press secretary James Brady, the man who shot him might face murder charges upon Brady’s recent death.

James Brady’s death ruled a homicide

Medical authorities have ruled Brady’s death a homicide, as he died of complications from the gunshot wound to the brain he suffered as John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan. Brady was the most grievously wounded in the hail of gunfire in March 1981. He never recovered fully, although he later became an advocate for gun control.

Should prosecutors now charge Hinckley — who was acquitted of all charges on grounds of insanity — with murder in Brady’s death? Yes.

The gunman took someone’s life. The law is quite clear on what he did that day in Washington, D.C. Why should it matter that the victim — Brady — lived more than three decades after that terrible event? He’s now gone, the result of that terrible gunshot wound.

John Hinckley was the assailant. He’s now a murderer.

Prosecute him.

Uncategorized

Sandy Hook didn't stop anything

4 Comments

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t that mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supposed to be the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to end gun violence in America?

Weren’t we supposed to have been shaken to our core, energized in an unprecedented way to seek an end to this madness?

I thought so, too.

Silly me.

Check out the map here and ask yourself: Why has this violence continued?

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook

Seventy-four.

That’s the number of school shootings that have occurred since Sandy Hook, where 20 first-graders and six teachers were killed by that single madman, who then shot himself to death.

The latest incident occurred near my hometown of Portland, Ore., where a 15-year-old Reynolds High School student walked into a locker room and killed a 14-year-old freshman instantly with a single bullet. The shooter then took his own life.

We’re outraged yet again. President Obama said after the Portland tragedy that “we’re the only industrialized nation” where this kind of violence occurs with such regularity.

I don’t have the answer. Nor do I know where to find it.

The Second Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t believe it says everyone in America — regardless of their mental condition — has the same rights to a firearm as most of the rest of us.

There must be a way to prevent them from putting their hands on deadly weapons — and putting our children at such horrifying risk.

Uncategorized

Carry guns in the open? I don’t think so

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, is taking heat from her liberal supporters for advocating a law that allows people to carry guns openly.

The Democratic candidate for governor is making a mistake with that one.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/06/davis-takes-friendly-fire-gun-issue/

Texas’s concealed handgun carry law has worked better than I ever thought it would. However, there ought to be some restrictions on where and how people can pack heat. The concealed carry law works. Why broaden it?

I can remember when the concealed carry law debate began in 1995. Our newspaper opposed it. Why? We believed street-corner shootouts could occur in cases of road rage gone amok. We were wrong.

However, I remember vividly my boss at the time, publisher Garet von Netzer, questioning then-state Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, about the law. Bivins supported the legislation allowing concealed handgun carry. Von Netzer asked Bivins point-blank — no pun intended — “If it’s such a good idea, why don’t you just allow folks to strap six-shooters on their hips? For that matter, why not allow them in the Capitol Building?”

The question caught Bivins flat-footed, if memory serves.

It was a good thing to ask then and it’s good to ask the likes of Wendy Davis now.

Concealed-carry laws are sufficient. Why change what’s working?