Metro reverses ban on licensed concealed guns

By LUCAS WALL
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Concealed handgun permit holders no longer have to worry about the law looking over their shoulders as they board Metro buses and trains.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority board of directors unanimously approved a weapons policy change Thursday afternoon without discussion. The action removes a section of a 1995 regulation that stated no exception to the authority's weapons ban was provided for concealed handgun license holders.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3012899
- - -
As someone who works in the transportation industry, all I can say is (sigh!)

The ban only had an effect on law abiding carriers. The criminals didn't care. Another advance for freedom.

Either that, or you enjoy gunfights.

This is in TEXAS, land of "shoot-the-repo man-and-win-a-cupie-doll."

I'm relying on memory here as I haven't lived in Houston since 1995 (for which I am TRULY grateful):

There is a chain of cafeterias in Texas called "LUBY'S" and some guy drove his pickup through the front window of one in central Texas and started shooting up the place for apparently no reason. He was not a criminal until he parked his truck in the middle of the picture window and owned his guns legally.

What ensued was literally a "Gunfight at the OK Corral." Patrons pulled down and started shooting. When the smoke cleared there were several patrons down, and the nut was out of ammo, but the FUNNY part was this: NONE OF THE PATRONS GOT HIT BY HIM. They were all hit by other patrons.

An advance for the freedom to get SHOT by another citizen, I'd say.

The only shooting rampage that happened in a Luby's in Texas is described here:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/first100/1001214 (Houston Chronicle)

On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his pickup through the front window of a Luby's in Killeen, Texas, and killed 24 people. No other person inside the restaurant was armed. Hennard calmly walked through the restaurant, shooting innocent people.

Police responded and surrounded the building. After being wounded by a Texas state trooper who ran into the building and shot him, Hennard ran into a restroom and shot himself, and died at the scene.

In 1991, Texas prohibited concealed carry. One person in that restaurant, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp DC, normally carried a handgun in her purse (as many women do, regardless of the legality.) On that day, Dr. Gratia-Hupp decided to leave her .38 out in the car, and was unarmed.

Hennard shot and killed her father as he ran toward the gunman (trying to protect his family and other innocent people.) As Dr.
Gratia-Hupp watched, Hennard then shot her mother in the head. Mrs. Gratia looked up at her killer, then bowed her head before he shot her.

Dr. Gratia-Hupp's story is here: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

If Suzanna Gratia-Hupp had been carrying her handgun, she may have saved the lives of her parents, and of other innocent people.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Like the residents of the Warsaw ghetto. These people will rue the day when the Gestapo comes for them

write such unmitigated crap. You are obviously oblivious to the facts of the massacre. Only the criminal had a gun. Where the hell did you get your absurdly different version of the facts?

Because one can always be certain that gun advocates will jump all over any misstatement as if it were somehow a final, conclusive proof that guns are the greatest life saving devices on earth, and all of the deaths that resulted from guns which weren't misquoted can be safely disregarded as unmitigated crap. Sigh, tis truly an unfortunate occurrence when that happens.

takes a true story, and completely and totally distorts the facts beyond all redemption, it's the pro-gunner's fault for pointing out that his "story" is pure crap?

The Luby's shooting was one of the driving factors behind Texas's adoption of a "shall issue" CCW statute, because the law abiding people were disarmed while the criminal wasn't, and it caused a lot of people to die needlessly. To try and use it as an anti-gun talking point by changing the victims to shooters is intellectually dishonest in a best case scenario.

The gun advocate is not at fault for pointing out that an opponent has gotten their facts wrong. The gun advocate is at fault if s/he seizes upon the slip as "evidence" of some systemic deficiency in the perceptions of those who favor more responsible gun legislation. Anyone can mistake a factual particular. Doing so does not invalidate the formidable body of evidence in support of responsible gun control about which there is no mistake.

enemy action.

If the anti-gunners accidentally distorted things on rare occasions, that would be one thing. But it's a systematic attempt on their part. For example, most anti-gunners would have you believe that the 1994 AW ban banned machineguns, and that it's expiration meant that machineguns would become commonplace, and blood would run in the streets because it wasn't renewed. It's simply not true. Hell, even the legislation is falsely named. Of course, if they called it the "1994 bayonet lug ban", it wouldn't have the same emotional impact.

"Doing so does not invalidate the formidable body of evidence in support of responsible gun control about which there is no mistake."

Heh. Exhibit #1 on that: The drastic decrease in homicide after DC banned handguns.

Prohibition never, EVER works. All it does is ratchet up the level of violence as criminals compete for the illicit profits.

on two different occasions. In each instance, someone tried to kill me, and I stopped him from doing it. If I had not been armed, I would be dead.

I am an experienced shooter and armed citizen. I have carried a firearm of one sort or another almost daily for the past 25 years, in military service, law enforcement, personal protection, hunting, and sport shooting. In 30 years of shooting, I have never had an accidental discharge, nor committed an irresponsible act with a firearm. I have never lost my temper and used a weapon in anger.

Even while we are trading words on DU, I have a holstered .45 on my hip. When I leave my office, it is invisible under my suitcoat. You and I may have sat next to each other in a restaurant, or on the Metro, or in traffic.

I believe it is my responsibility to protect myself and my family. I know that the police have no obligation to protect us, and that the time between a 911 call and the arrival of a police officer may be a lifetime, literally.

All of this adds up to one thing: my attitudes about personal responsibility, personal protection, and firearms are diametrically different from yours. I respect those differences; the freedom not to carry a gun is part of our collective of liberties, as is the freedom to carry a gun.

If you dislike firearms or are afraid of them, then don't carry one. Nobody is asking you to. I'll exercise my right, and my responsibility, and continue to carry.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Although I sincerely hope you aren't trying to carry your gun on the metro where I live, because they're against the law here in the District of Columbia. It is one of the many reasons I am proud to live here.

You say that you have never used a firearm irresponsibly. I will have to take your word for that, as there is no way of knowing for sure whether there were possible nonviolent resolutions to the life-threatening incidents you described in which you did use your firearm on another human being. Many people's lives are threatened at some point, not all of them have guns, and not all who do not have guns die in the experience. Maybe in your case it genuinely was a choice of you or the other person, I don't know. I'm sure you sincerely believe that to have been the case, but you could be wrong, people often are and I'd wager that you too have probably been wrong once or twice in your life. Hopefully the times when you chose to shoot another human being were not among those times when you were wrong.

Many, many other times when guns are used, they are not used as responsibly as you probably used yours. While I can respect your point of view as an individual, from a macro point of view, when I see something which on rare occasion achieves a positive result, but the majority of the time produces a negative result, I have an obligation as a thinking person to question whether the world I live in would be better off without such a device - even if the price is giving up the occasional positive outcome. Even if I am one of the few whose lives are saved by guns, how much is that worth if the downside is hundreds of innocents' lives being lost to guns when the child stumbles across daddy's revolver or the woman mistakes her husband coming home late from work for a burglar?

Or even the not so innocent burglar who gets shot breaking into someone's home. Agreed, s/he's not supposed to be there, but burglary is not a crime which carries the death penalty in any country on earth. What makes it okay for the gun owner to assume the roles of judge, jury, and executioner and sentence to death a simple burglar who, for all you know, may have simply been hungry and breaking in to grab a sandwich? In the small town in Washington state where my parents live, the local paper ran a "crime" column which was typically filled with such hard core, dangerous crimes as the guy who let himself into so and so's unlocked house and stole half a pastrami sandwich and a beer. Plainly a fellow who deserves to die, right? Or how about the terrified woman walking along at night who blows away the young black guy who she could swear was coming to assault her, but in reality was just asking for a light?

How much innocent blood are you willing to accept being spilled by guns in order for you to have a gun the one legitimate time you genuinely need it? I'm glad you're a responsible gun owner, not everyone is, and very few have your level of professional training.

If someone is in my house, on my property, and are a danger to myself or my family, you better believe I won't hesitate to use my sidearm. I don't care if they are looking for a sandwich or want to harm my children, I will use whatever is at my disposal to protect my property and family.

Fascinating! You see this very clearly, huh? I dunno, for me, it just seems odd to me. Don't get me wrong, the law is plainly on your side, you get to shoot somebody who enters your house, but look at it this way: petty theft if just that - petty. There isn't a country on earth that would sentence you to the death penalty if you were to break into my house and you got caught. Maybe you'd do a year in prison, tops. If a police officer caught you breaking into my house, the police officer could not legally shoot you, he could arrest you and send you to jail, but that's it. If you broke into my house and stole a sandwich and a beer, were caught, and appeared before a jury, I don't believe that there's a jury on this planet, not even in the most primitive society, that would consider your crime to warrant the death penalty. I'll go farther than that, I'd say that even John Ashcroft would not consider death an appropriate punishment for your crime. But if, by purest randon, dumb luck chance, I should happen be at home when you steal a sandwich, I can shoot you dead and be patted on the back for it. And that doesn't strike you as being just the tiniest bit odd?

Why isn't it odd? Because during a "hot burglary", the odds of somebody getting injured or killed is much higher than for a "cold burglary".

Here's something even you might be able to understand: If you are drunk and on foot out in the road, you can be charged with being drunk in public. Around here, that's a violation, not even a misdemeanor, and there's a $76 dollar fine attached to it. If you are held by the police, it's only until you are sober and then you are released. Now if you're drunk and in the same exact spot on the road, but instead of standing there, you're sitting there in your car, that's a much more serious offense. You'll go to jail if convicted, you'll lose your license, you'll have to go through an alcohol program, you'll pay thousands in fines and attorney's fees, et cetera. Why? In both cases you're drunk, you're in the same exact spot, and nobody was injured. But the POTENTIAL of injury is MUCH higher if you're behind the wheel of a car than if you're just standing in the street. It's the same idea with somebody in your house illegally when you or your family is there.

I respect the right to own firearms. I respect the right to carry concealed weapons. I don't respect your "right" to shoot anything that might want to take your property. You should have the restraint to not shoot someone who's taking your big screen TV. You can buy another television, you can not give the criminal back his life. It's a selfish way of thinking. SELFISH and DANGEROUS.

decides to rape and kill you, you should "just lie back and enjoy it"?

The presence of a criminal in somebody's occupied house while committing a felony endangers the lives of all legal occupants of that house. That's why it's generally legal to shoot them. It's not defense of property, it's defense of PEOPLE. That's why spring guns are illegal.

I live a bit west of the District, so I don't ride the Metro there. I haven't been to Washington for about 15 years, but will comply with its laws if I have to go back.

1. Without getting into too much detail (because some things are better left unsaid on a public forum), I am 100% certain that each of the two men whom I shot were acting with the intent to kill me, and in one of those incidents, that individual was acting with the intent to kill a third party as well. I had to testify before a grand jury in each case, and each time the shooting was determined to be justified.

That doesn't make it any easier, though.

While I am mentally and emotionally prepared to defend myself and my family, I know the human cost of taking the life of another. I know what responsibilities I assume by carrying a firearm. I am not a shoot-em-up guy, who hopes that some scumbag will cross my path and "make my day," and maybe part of that comes from looking into the face of another man as his life ends.

Sometimes, I hope that I get Alzheimer's, so that I will forget when I am older; at other times, I am glad for my sharp memory, and wish to never forget.

2. I disagree with your position that any of my essential civil liberties should be subject to forfeit because of a potential for injury to ephemeral "others" (your "macro" argument.)

Using that argument, the Bush Administration would be justified in executing suspected "terrorists" without trial, because they might hurt "others". Anti-war protesters could be imprisoned just because their words might embolden the Iraqi insurgents, who might kill Ameican soldiers or civilians in Iraq.

I consider those ideas unconscionable; I suspect you do also.

Both the US Constitution and the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognize the right to life as one of the most basic rights we have as humans, and Americans- the right to self-defense naturally flows from that right to life, and keeping and bearing firearms is a legitimate way to exercise that right.

3. The arguments, offered before by anti-gun activists, that "because some people use guns irresponsibly, guns should be banned," "because some people are injured or killed accidentally by guns, guns should be banned," or "because some people shoot innocent people with guns, guns should be banned" are specious.

For your consideration, these arguments:

a. Some people use cars irresponsibly. More people in the United States are killed every year in automobile accidents than by all firearm-related causes; should the Federal government outlaw cars?

b. Some people use food irresponsibly. More Americans die each year from obesity-related conditions, diabetes, and foodborne diseases, than die from all firearm-related causes; should the Federal government outlaw food?

c. Some people use sex irresponsibly.... are you prepared to outlaw sexual activities for some citizens in furtherance of a "greater good?" After all, "hundreds of innocent lives" are ended by AIDS each year.

Consistent logic, consistent application. Since I live by applying principles to practice, I oppose outlawing any of the above activities, and I also oppose outlawing the right to self-defense (or the means to exercise that right).

4. You have made the argument that your life is worth less than that of people whom you do not know, who have the potential to be harmed by a firearm. I value my life, and those of my family, higher that that. Because of our basic difference in valuing our lives, we will probably not end in agreement. I appreciate reading your opinions, though, and hope you have appreciated reading mine.

Maybe we both can benefit from it.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

What a thoughtful and thought-provoking response, I really appreciate your expending the time and effort to share your experiences and views.

Wow, where to begin, you raise so many interesting points. First of all, my heart goes out to you for the emotional burden you must carry as the consequence of your experiences. I can't begin to imagine what it must be like (for anyone other than a truly sociopathic personality) to go through life knowing that another human being who walked and talked and loved and had a future and people who cared for him or her does so no longer as a consequence of my action. Even when one has the benefit of absolute confidence in the necessity of the action, it still must be a very hard thing to live with. You have my sympathies.

With respect to individual rights versus collective goods, yep, you're right, that's a slippery slope alright. But I don't think you can paint it as absolute as you're trying to. I'm thinking about, for instance, Germany which, owing to its Nazi past, has passed laws outlawing racist hate groups. Germany, like us, generally protects free speech, but, in this one specific instance, owing to their unique history and the historically unprecedented cost of their last exploration into racist thinking, they've collectively decided that their safety and the safety of the rest of the world demands that this specific form of expression never again be tolerated. Are they wrong to do that? Damn, I don't know, I honestly can see both sids of that issue and I'm not sure that the German policy is the right one. But I'll tell you this, I think the world's a whole bunch safer place because of it.

I'm not sure you can dissociate rights from cost benefit analyses. Sure, the right to live is pretty damn basic. But what if I'm a drug company and I produce a new drug that will cure a disease in one out of ten patients. It will kill the other nine. Should the FDA approve such a drug for public consumption?

You raised the standard automobile analogy, that perennial favorite of gun advocates. I'm sorry, but I've always thought this was a flawed argument. Automotive transportation provides a collective benefit so great that it is no exaggeration to say that our society could not function as a modern society without it. And for every instance that a drunk climbs into a car and runs over a pedestrian, there must be at least a million instances of automobiles being used to transport workers to jobs, food to grocery stores, children to schools, patients to hospitals, etc.. In other words the benefits of automobiles vastly outweigh their costs. Yet, despite those benefits, were those proportions to change, say, if, every time you stepped into an automobile, there was a 50-50 chance of the vehicle exploding and killing the occupants, I daresay we would not be using automobiles, no matter how great their advantages might be. So cost benefit considerations always apply.

Let's compare that to guns. Every time a person fires a gun at another person, something destructive is going to happen, somebody or something is going to get hurt, because that's what guns do: they blow holes in things, they don't cure cancer. Maybe that's justifiable, maybe it saves a life, then again, maybe it doesn't, maybe somebody freaks and shoots an innocent, uses their gun for the commission of a crime, whatever. In honesty, how often do you imagine guns are being used well versus how often they're being used badly? Half the time? A quarter of the time? Less? Well, didn't we just agree that if cars killed people half the time they were used, we wouldn't be using them? You still want to compare guns to cars?

You talk about the right to self-defense. Okay, fair enough, that's a reasonable right to assert. The tricky bit though is the subjectivity of assessing when you're being threatened. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, you do not have the right to blow away innocent people whom you mistakenly perceive to be threatening. My problem with guns is the irrevocability of their "defense." It you use nonlethal force to defend yourself, mistakes can be remedied. If you shoot me, we'll never know whether I was truly coming to assault you, or just looking for directions to the nearest 7/11.

Gun advocates always seem to frame their issue in the context of personal safety, that somehow guns make them safer. Yet, when you look at other countries, such as those in Europe, which either ban or tightly regulate guns, what you find is that per capita homicides a substantially lower than here. Plainly having everyone armed to the teeth is not making the US a safer place to live. How do you reconcile that?

One last bit of food for thought. When you have the opportunity, as I have had, to live and travel in other parts of the world, one of the things that strikes you is how much less fearful much of the world is relative to ourselves. Okay, not in Afghanistan or Sudan, but I mean in places like Canada and most of Europe, you'll find that people often leave their homes unlocked, they don't live in terror of being assaulted as they walk down the streets. I think in many respects Michael Moore had a point in Bowling for Columbine when he observed that, in this country, we live in an insanely fearful culture. Our media never passes up a chance to report on a homicide, because they know that death and destruction are what will keep Americans glued to their television screens; it's what confirms their perceptions of their world as a hostile and terrifying place. There's something wrong with that situation. Most people aren't trying to kill us, most people do not have evil intent, yet, we end up making the world a more dangerous place that it was by treating everyone we meet with fear, suspicion, and hostility - it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is just a thought, not even a theory, but maybe part of our problem is that we're so focussed on arming ourselves against perceived threats lurking in every shadow, we've made for ourselves a world in which, lurking in every shadow, there is somebody who is scared, heavily armed, and consequently, a danger. Maybe that's a merry-go-round we need to hop off of.

I'll write back on this after a good night's sheep.... er, sleep.



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

"Although I sincerely hope you aren't trying to carry your gun on the metro where I live, because they're against the law here in the District of Columbia. It is one of the many reasons I am proud to live here."

As compared with, say, Crystal City, Alexandria, or Arlington, VA, where not only are handguns legal, but they MUST issue CCW permits to all who ask for them and who are not felons?

"How much innocent blood are you willing to accept being spilled by guns in order for you to have a gun the one legitimate time you genuinely need it?"

Considering that there are between 8,000 and 15,000 homicides in the US annually, and between 700,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses in the US each year, the question is how many innocent people are you willing to see killed each year so that you can have the false sense of security that gun control apparently gives you?

Okay, it's my turn now, let's see, how about: for every time a gun saves a life, 1.3 million baby girls are accidentally shot by their brothers playing with their daddies' revolvers! Gosh, that was fun! See, two can play at this game, and my fabricated numbers mean just about as much as yours. Sorry, but until you can furnish stats from a respectable, impartial source that hasn't been bought and paid for by the gun lobby (and no, the fevered imaginations of the denizens of the Gungeon don't count), your breath trying to convince me that guns never harm a soul and save lives by the billions is just as wasted as mine is trying to convince you of the contrary.

You didn't answer the question. What's the gun homicide rate in DC per 100,000 residents, where guns are virtually illegal, as compared to the places around DC, where guns are legally available and can be legally carried concealed with a permit?

The gun lobby doesn't "buy and pay for" those stats which are collected by the Federal Government, do they? So why do you refuse to answer the question? Could it be because you know what the statistics will show? How about DC's homicide rate of 44 per 100,000 in 2003, or 46 per 100,000 in 2002? Compare this with Arlington's homicide rate of under 3 per 100,000 in 2002. Guns are legally available in Arlington, but not in DC. Feel free to look up Alexandria, et cetera on your own.

These figures are from the FBI. They are NOT subject to debate. And YOU LOSE.

someone cuts in front of them in line or steps on their toes.

Let's pull out the gun? "Take that you inconsiderate a**hole!" BANG BANG

Believe it or not people have been killed for less.

At least in Arizona most folks who are a packing' sport their handguns in holster's within plain view. I feel more comfortable there ... like it should be in the wild wild west.

Very few people truly need concealed handgun permits. Sport them in plain site ... and gee, bet nobody's gonna call you a wimp?

If you got angry at someone and you had a gun, would you shoot them? If not, why do you assume that shooting would be the norm if "someone cuts in front of them in line or steps on their toes?" If someone is so unbalanced that they'd go off over that, chances are they'd already have a criminal record and not be eligible for a permit anyway.

every damn day. I'm stable but hum ... I'm not sure about you. LOL

or are you the only one having fantasies about shooting those you get upset with?

You push every argument into the insane. My main point is NOT about banning guns. No, not at all. My point is that the *vast majority* of those who feel that they must carry them to the grocery store or "Taco Bell" should wear them on their hip or in a holster, i.e., out in the open.

I've owned guns and have been taught gun safety since the age of 12 y.o. Therefore, I'm not your enemy here.

My main point is that there is up to 20% of the USA population that is certifiably "clinically depressed" at any time. Although I fully support the second amendment, I also, sure as shit am a little taken aback by people who wish (or feel they MUST) hide the fact that they are packing' to the surrounding public. I also submit, abeit I have not been shot, many people with CONCEALED hand gun permits may not be mentally sound. Who knows? That's why it's the *concealing* of the weapon that is my concern.

Finally, as I mentioned before - many people in southern Arizona carry their handguns out in the open. If you honestly feel a need, live in the country, or have a GOOD REASON to carry them on the metro, shopping or to church services, then kindly display the fact that you have a weapon.

you get people to stop freaking out and the cops to stop harassing us when we carry openly, and we'll carry openly. Sound fair to you?

in snap protected holsters. Hell, it would have prevented all the carnage when some freak goes nuts at an office or fast food restaurant etc.

My main bone of contention is that, with rare exception there are very few people who should carry concealed weapons. That's just doesn't settle well with me personally for obvious reasons,i.e., large numbers of people obtaining concealed handgun permits.

OK, you have my respect and support with the above position.

:pals:

there are a lot of people who DO have a problem with unconcealed carry. I know this first hand. Until you change all of their minds, and it gets to the point that I can carry unconcealed without people calling the cops and freaking out, I'll carry concealed....legally.

Look, over 30 states have legalized conceal-carry since the 1980's, and we've still to see murder rates skyrocket. You'd think that, if people were going to go nuts with legally licenced handguns in droves, they would have done it by now.

that since 38 States have gone to "shall issue" CCW permits, blood has NOT "run in the streets" as we were promised it would. Same deal with the "assault weapons" bans expiration...

Tyler Durden fantasized:

What ensued was literally a "Gunfight at the OK Corral." Patrons pulled down and started shooting. When the smoke cleared there were several patrons down, and the nut was out of ammo, but the FUNNY part was this: NONE OF THE PATRONS GOT HIT BY HIM. They were all hit by other patrons.

Was it a dark and stormy night?

You should embellish it a little more and submit it in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/

The Luby's massacre in Killeen, Texas occurred before Texas liberalized its concealed weapons laws. The only person who had a weapon in the cafeteria was the culprit. The incident was used as an example of why citizens carrying licensed concealed weapons could possibly be of benefit in certain rare situations.

Tyler Durden, you ought to read about it before going off half-cocked.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/metropolitan/96/10/15/lubys.html

As a poster below pointed out, you were very very wrong about the circumstances.

As others have mentioned, your "recollections" of this incident are TOTALLY wrong.

Of course, I never expect the "Anti-Gun" crowd to let FACTS get in their way!

Like I needed another one.

A pity, there's some good birdwatching to be done down in Texas, but it's just not worth getting pumped full of lead by some drunken, trigger-happy rambo wannabe indiscriminately cutting loose whenever they feel like it.

"REACH FOR IT, MISTER!"

right? And that possession of a CCW permit is one of the strongest signals that a person obeys the law and is NOT a criminal, right?

Do you avoid all of those states as well?

when we will be greatful for our right to bear arms. My husband is both a progressive and a superior marksman with a conceal carry permit. He is ALWAYS armed when he leaves the house. If he had been in that Lubys, that nut would have been dead.

On the way home from work, before the change in the policy?

I mean, if that person has a license issued by the state for a firearm, and is considered "OK" because he/she has a license, what's the difference between that person and someone else? A licensed person is a licensed person . .

:shrug:

..but then again it is TexAss...

:eyes:

Do you think only the rich who can provide for thier own transportation should be allowed to have access to a firearm for self defense? :eyes:

Before the restriction was removed, what would you expect someone to do with their concealed weapon when they need to take a bus somewhere?

:shrug:

...or a church...or a stadium?

I think the major concern many of us who support gun control laws have is not the abstract principle of gun ownership, or your right to have one in your own home, but when you bring said gun into a public setting (one we might be in).

I think the major concern many of us who support gun control laws have is not the abstract principle of gun ownership, or your right to have one in your own home, but when you bring said gun into a public setting (one we might be in).

If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon that means a license to carry it concealed in public settings. You don't need a license to carry a concealed weapon in your own home. If a license allows you to walk around in public or drive down the street with a concealed gun, why shouldn't it allow you to have the gun on a bus? The restriction was pointless.

Access to schools is restricted to students and employees and others who have been granted permission to go there. There are lots of things you can't take into a school, like bottles of liquor.

Access to a stadium is restricted to that provided by the language on your ticket to enter. You can't carry a bottle of liquor into a stadium either.

Likewise, churches are owned by corporation-like entities. They have the right to restrict access and control what people bring into them as well.

our society is so gear to screwing the poor its rediculous.

I'm glad Texas is atleast a bit progressive in a few regards. If you are applying for a concealed carry liscense its usually $100+, but the rate is way lower for those who are impoverished.

Also if you did manage to get one, but if you relied on a bus as your transporation you were effectively made into a criminal. Now those who cant afford thier own vehicle dont have to be disarmed.

And like most gun control laws, all this was doing was ensuring that poor people were unable to defend themselves.

Gun control used to be 100% about racism. (watch BFC, Moore touches on this) Some say that's changed, but frankly I don't think so. But it's INDISPUTABLY now about classism. If you're rich and white, you can legally own anything you want, including machineguns and tanks in most states. If you're poor? Too bad. BTW, care to guess what demographic comprises a disproportionate majority of poor people?

When gun control advocates say "we want to keep guns out of the wrong hands", the hands in question are almost all not white.

DoNotRefill spewed:
it's INDISPUTABLY now about classism. If you're rich and white, you can legally own anything you want, including machineguns and tanks in most states. If you're poor? Too bad.

I call b.s. big time. Bet you can't offer ONE fact to back up your claims. People of ALL races, classes, religions, etc. are united in wanting to eliminate dangerous weapons from society.

People of ALL races, classes, religions, etc. are united in wanting to eliminate dangerous weapons from society.

So does that "diversity" make it any better?

There are also people of ALL races, classes, religions, that want to restrict the rights of others.

Just because you are being all inclusive there, doesnt mean that its right.

There are also people of ALL races, classes, religions who want to protect the right of others to keep and bear arms. FWIW I'm Mexican-American.

As for the first part of your statement...
I call b.s. big time. Bet you can't offer ONE fact to back up your claims.

So you deny that is the case? Are you actually fucking claiming that the rich can buy things that the rest of us cannot?

You are completely, and totally fucking ignorant if you believe that not to be the case. You must live a sheltered life.

is going for $2500 for a gun that's worth around $200, just because it's papered in the Jim Crow system that is the National Firearms Act, what possible other conclusion can you come to?

Or when you hear about an attempted ban on "Saturday Night Specials", (notice the anti-gunners have dropped the original word "N*ggertown" from it now to hide the racism) which are inexpensive guns that even the poorest minority can afford, how can you come to a different conclusion?

Gun control was always about keeping minorities disarmed. In the 1940's, a State Supreme Court ruled that gun control laws didn't apply to whites, because the legislative intent was only to disarm blacks. They actually SAID that. In New York City, the Sullivan Law was designed to keep "swarthy immigrants" disarmed. Now, those laws would be considered facially unconstitutional, so the anti-gunners, knowing that most minorities are poor, instead switched to keeping guns away from the poor.

Every time you hear an anti-gunner say "we need to keep guns out of the wrong hands", ask yourself "who are the wrong hands?" The answer is DARK hands.

Of course, he IS both rich AND white...

Concealment is deception, right?

We wanta be honest here.

I'd be all for issuing one to everybody who could legally have one. Unfortunately, that would REALLY slow mass transit down.