One of the things I am given to understand about the Ohio CCW law is that, like Texas, it forbids concealed carry in venues that serve alcohol (although Texas draws the line at 51%, thereby making it OK to carry in most restaurants that incidentally serve alcohol).  As I’ve written before, I think these laws end up leaving people in needless jeopardy.

It turns out that there was a licensed CCW holder within five feet of the shooting.  What did he do?  He stood there in fear because he was disarmed due to being a law-abiding citizen.  While we can’t say with 100% certainty that this armed citizen could have brought this to a successful conclusion, the fact that he never had the chance to do so because of the asinine fears of some GFWs is outrageous.

I also noticed something interesting in last night’s WFAA report.  All of the people attending the memorial service at Arlington Convention Center were required to pass through metal detectors.  I wonder what would have happened had a lawful CHL-holder tried to enter?  By state law, since the convention center is owned by the City of Arlington, they could not lawfully stop that person’s entry.  But I bet they’d surely try to discourage it. 

I was leafing through the Academy ad that came in today’s paper and found what looks like a good deal on a Marlin Model 60.  Academy is offering one for $99.86 from now through November 24th.  MSRP is $195, and a cursory online search shows retail prices running around $150 (although there appear to be some Gunbroker auctions that are running around $100 for a new one). 

I don’t have any personal experience with this model (I’ve got a Ruger 10/22), but from what I’ve heard it’s a good rifle that’s suitable for plinking around or even taking small game.

This year I didn’t buy nearly as much as I usually do on National Ammo Day (or week this time around).  I’‘ve got pretty good stocks of most of my major calibers hanging around from that monster purchase I made earlier this year.  However, I can always use some .22, so I bought 200 rounds of .22LR target and another 100 rounds of .22WMR for my Ruger Single Six.

I’ve just finished updating the DFW Gun Show list with updates for 2005, plus a couple of new listings this year.  There are five shows between now and the end of the year (including one this weekend at Big Town).  There are presently 19 shows scheduled for next year, with the possibility of more to come as promoters announce their schedules.

The owner of a ranch in Texas has created a system that allows people to shoot a .22 rifle via the Internet.

A controversial Web site, www.live-shot.com, already offers target practice with a .22 caliber rifle and could soon let hunters shoot at deer, antelope and wild pigs, site creator John Underwood said Tuesday.

The idea of a remote controlled gun does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling.  It appears that for now he’s got it set up in a controlled area with an attendant.  But it would seem to me that to be able to actually hunt with it you’d have to give the user more control over a larger area, which would seem to make it dangerous if the person on the other end was malicious or stupid and aimed indiscriminately.  At a minimum, I could see him taking a big liability hit if a trespasser got shot during hunting season by an Internet user.  He’d better have some serious warning signs at the edge of the property.

Under Texas law, a “peace officer” or a “magistrate” can demand identification and the CHL holder must give them both the license and the CHL if carrying.

GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license
holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person
when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder
display identification, the license holder shall display both the license
holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the
department and the license holder’s handgun license. A person who
fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by
this subsection is subject to suspension of the person’s license as
provided by Section 411.187.

It recently occurred to me that while I know who the obvious peace officers are, could there be other, not-so-obvious peace officers defined under Texas law?  Given that Texas law is a strange beast, it wouldn’t surprise me if this was the case, so I consulted the relevant state law on the topic.  It turns out that there are a lot of peace officers included in the law, and some of them are a bit strange, like “(34) officers commissioned by the State Board of Dental Examiners under Section 254.013, Occupations Code, subject to the limitations imposed by that section.”  I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason for this, but it leaves me with the mental image of a bunch of dental cops running around.  We’re the dental police and we’ve got a report of insufficient flossing.  You’re going to have to come with us.

Anyhow, there’s some good news in the statutes, since agents of the rat-bastard alphabet soup Federal agencies are considered special investigators under Texas law and are specifically excluded from the status of peace officers, which means there is no duty or obligation to show them a CHL or announce that you’re carrying.  I couldn’t find the reference any more, but I recall an incident at one of the Texas border checkpoints (located quite a ways from the border) where the CHL holder announced the fact and the agent drew on her.  Her companion in the car reached for his own concealed weapon, but didn’t draw.  Fortunately, the other agent calmed the first one down and no one got shot.  Perhaps this was a lack of training on the part of the Border Patrol at the time, or perhaps it was someone from a state where the citizens have no legal carry options.

Given the general attitude of our would-be masters in Washington, I’m not sure how Federal agents would react to an announcement that you were carrying.  I would be very reluctant to surrender a legally concealed weapon to a Federal agent.  In fact, Texas statute only gives peace officers the authority to disarm a CHL holder who is legally carrying (see link for Government Code, § 411.207) (and even then, the officer has to give the weapon back after the incident, unless the person is a threat or is under arrest).  I wonder if the Feds have gotten any training in dealing with armed citizenry?  It wouldn’t hurt for them to know the laws of the states they’re operating in (although I’m under no illusion that they give a rat’s ass about state laws, though).

The NRA finally made their official endorsement of George W. Bush for re-election today (or more accurately, the NRA Political Victory Fund did).  In addition to the above news release, they sent out an email (reproduced in the extended text section) that tries to rally members to participate in the Bush-Cheney campaign.

What I found interesting was the elephant in the room that Mr. Cox failed to acknowledge, specifically the President’s promise that he would sign an “Assault Weapons” ban renewal if it came to him.  Frankly, I don’t care if he didn’t think one would ever get to him.  That he would support such a thing tells me that he’s no real friend to gun owners, despite his past in Texas.  Sure, he’s better than John Kerry, but then a crack-addled syphilitic howler monkey with a case of diarrhea would be better than John Kerry.

So, I don’t think I’ll be enthusiastically running out to join the Bush-Cheney campaign.  If NRA really wants people like me to get out and vote for Bush, perhaps they’d be better served by sending out some of these to the members.

Below is the full test of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund endorsement press release.  (Note that I have added a bunch of verbiage here to prevent the EE Acronym Plugin from munging the first couple of lines, which breaks EE’s use of eval() in the templates).

NRA’S POLITICAL VICTORY FUND ENDORSES PRESIDENT BUSH!

Today, NRA’s Political Victory Fund (www.NRAPVF.org) endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election to the White House.

“On behalf of NRA’s four million members and tens of millions of American gun owners and sportsmen I’m proud to endorse President Bush for re-election to the White House,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “The differences between President Bush and John Kerry on issues of concern to gun owners and sportsmen couldn’t be clearer. John Kerry has never met a gun control bill he didn’t like. He has voted against gun owners more than 50 times as a U.S. Senator, and has accepted the endorsement of the Humane Society of the United States-one of the most virulently anti-hunting organizations in America,” Cox added.

“NRA stands with President George W. Bush on November 2,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President. “If you believe in freedom and want to preserve the Second Amendment for future generations, vote to re-elect President Bush and Vice President Cheney. In the United States we have a long tradition of hunting and sport shooting,” stated LaPierre. “President Bush and Vice President Cheney both love to hunt and fish. They know the Constitution guarantees people the personal right to bear arms. And, they want to pass the values of our Nation on to a new generation.”

President Bush: Friend of Gun Owners

• The Bush Administration stated, “that the text and original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms,” reversing the Clinton Administration position that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias;
• President Bush sent representatives to the United Nations with a clear message: we will not allow the UN to impose international regulations that would violate the Second Amendment and infringe on our sovereignty;
• George W. Bush respects America’s sporting and hunting heritage. His administration signed an agreement with 17 major sportsmen’s organizations to improve hunting and fishing access to Federal lands, and initiated a conservation agenda to protect millions of acres of forest, wetlands, and grasslands for future generations of hunters;
• As President, he gave money to prosecute federal gun crimes through Project Safe Neighborhoods and signed a national Right-to-Carry law for law enforcement officers;
• President Bush knows that holding the American firearm industry responsible for the acts of criminals is wrong. That’s why he supported the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” to prevent reckless lawsuits against lawful American businesses.

John Kerry: A Gun Owner’s Worst Nightmare

• Kerry voted in 2004 to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by deer hunters, siding with Ted Kennedy, and said in a CNN interview, “I think you ought to tax all ammunition more, personally, I think you ought to tax guns.” (“Late Edition,” Nov. 7, 1993);
• Kerry cast numerous votes to ban guns, and currently is a co-sponsor of S. 1431, which would ban all semi-automatic shotguns, all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, and many other guns commonly used by sportsmen;
• Kerry voted to effectively shut down gun shows in America; voted to hold firearm manufacturers responsible for the acts of criminals; and voted 11 times to impose waiting periods on law-abiding gun buyers;
• Kerry has a 100% voting record with, and earned the endorsement of, the Brady Campaign (Formerly Handgun Control, Inc.)-a group that says you have no right to own any gun. And, he repeatedly earns the support of PETA and the Humane Society of the United States-groups who openly want to ban all hunting in America.

Chris Cox summed it up well: “Without a doubt, John Kerry and John Edwards are the most anti-gun presidential ticket in our country’s history.”

Not understating the importance of the November 2 election for the future of our Second Amendment rights, Wayne LaPierre concluded, “The future of our freedom is at stake on November 2. Join with us, and ask your family, friends, and fellow sportsmen to join with us, in voting for a freer and stronger America. Vote to re-elect President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.”

There are a number of ways you can get involved with the Bush-Cheney re-election efforts:

1) The Republican National Committee (RNC) has put together a sportsmen specific 72-Hour Deployment plan. This entails sportsmen and sportswomen from “non-target” states traveling to “target” states to organize sportsmen during the last 72 hours of the campaign. A 72-Hour Task Force Volunteer must be willing to participate in grassroots activities such as walking door to door, mailing literature, and phone banking. He or she must be willing to commit at least five to seven (or even more) days of his time to the 72-Hour Task Force Volunteer Program (though if you can only volunteer a couple/few days, you will be utilized). Each volunteer would need to commit to arriving in the assigned target state no later than the evening of Thursday, October 28, and stay through Election Day. Travel and hotel expenses would be covered. In addition, volunteers will receive a per diem for food. (The RNC will make your travel arrangements.) If you or someone you know can help with this endeavor, please contact Angela Hill at (202) 863-8600 or via e-mail at: ahill -at- rnchq.org. WHEN CONTACTING ANGELA, PLEASE LET HER KNOW YOUR ARE AN NRA MEMBER AND SECOND AMENDMENT SUPPORTER!

2) Please contact your local NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC), who is a local NRA member spearheading our pro-gun volunteer campaign efforts. To locate your EVC, please visit NRA’s websites (www.NRAILA.org or www.NRAPVF.org) or contact the ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-VOTE-8683.

I suppose I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but Texas has negotiated three new reciprocity agreements since the last time I looked.  We now have reciprocity with Idaho, Utah, and Mississippi.  This brings the total to 19 states where Texans can carry (12 with direct reciprocity agreements, 2 where no permit is required, and 5 that recognize the Texas permit even without a reciprocity agreement).

There has been a rash of car breakins recently in the parking lot that Tarrant County jurors are instructed to use.  The lot is fairly remote, with jurors shuttled to/from by bus.  A remote lot with people guaranteed to be gone most of the day has proved almost irresistable to thieves.

One problem I can see here for people who carry concealed is that the usual action when confronted with a courthouse is to leave the gun in the car.  However, given the breakins, this seems like asking for trouble.  I think that any public building that requires you to disarm should provide guarded lockers in an area that is out of public view (don’t want to advertise too much).

At least with lockers you won’t be deprived of your rights until you enter the building…

While I’ve got guns on the brain (see last post), there’s one more law that I’d like the state to consider.

First, I’ve got to make a disclaimer.  I’m normally against using state power to curtail the rights of property owners.  I’ve got some serious reservations about this.  However, when personal safety is at stake, perhaps it is justified to do so.

Some companies post their parking lots as off-limits to firearms.  If the company is located in an area without any nearby public parking, this effectively disarms the employee on the way to and from their job.  I’d like to see this practice ended.  The idea that someone can be disarmed off of company property due to this kind of rule bothers me.  Truthfully, such rules don’t do much good, since someone who is determined to cause trouble will just ignore it (i.e. someone contemplating an office rampage probably won’t be worried about this rule).  Further, in that situation, an employee could potentially put an end to a rampage by retrieving his own gun from the parking lot (as happened in a college shooting incident not too long ago).

I’d heard that some state had done this recently, although I can’t remember which one right now.  I’m not advocating that states regulate what companies can do inside their buildings.  However, parking lots are generally more public (even if controlled access) and should perhaps be treated that way.

Hmm… it just occurred to me that this is similar to the argument used by the anti-smoking nazis to regulate smoking in bars and restaurants.  Perhaps this isn’t such a good idea after all, although I should note that once again I’m not for regulating what the company can do inside its buildings.  This one needs further thought.