anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10

[O6nop]

If CHLers were allowed to bypass the metal detectors, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to publicly reveal yourself as having a weapon? That would defeat the purpose of concealed carry.

[GrayGhost]

If CHLers were allowed to bypass the metal detectors, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to publicly reveal yourself as having a weapon? That would defeat the purpose of concealed carry.

I'm sure the whole idea is to prevent ANYONE from entering with a firearm. We'll see how it shakes out.

[Keith B]

If CHLers were allowed to bypass the metal detectors, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to publicly reveal yourself as having a weapon? That would defeat the purpose of concealed carry.

Not really. All you would have to do when you approached the DPS officer at the deterctor was flash your CHL badge.. umm I mean card and they would allow you to pass; the same process that is supposed to happen at the State Fair.

[stash]

I can see it know. We who have CHL's will be denied access but a special exception will be made for the politicos with CHL's.

[davidtx]

I can see it know. We who have CHL's will be denied access but a special exception will be made for the politicos with CHL's.

Wouldn't there have to be a law change in order for them to keep CHL's out?

[stash]

I can see it know. We who have CHL's will be denied access but a special exception will be made for the politicos with CHL's.

Wouldn't there have to be a law change in order for them to keep CHL's out?

Sorry dt, don't know the answer to that. I am not sure but I thought I read once that judges with CHL's can carry in places that we cannot. But if it requires a law change, who better to do that than the lawmakers who work at the capitol.

[A-R]

I can see it know. We who have CHL's will be denied access but a special exception will be made for the politicos with CHL's.

I agree that is a distinct possibility. Because - as we all should know - our elected representatives and their staffs are more important than lil ol' you and me.

[Dragonfighter]

It's time for metal detectors at the Texas Capitol
Austin American Statesman
EDITORIAL BOARD
Updated: 8:54 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010
Published: 6:36 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

It's time for a painful realization, one we fear is painfully overdue.

It's time to acknowledge the dangerous world in which we live, complete with the dangerous combination of too many guns in the hands of too many people who perceive too many motives to inflict harm on others.

It's time, sad to say, to require visitors to the Texas Capitol to pass through metal detectors. It became clear last Thursday when a man let loose with at least five gunshots after he exited the Capitol after a peculiar encounter with staffers in Houston Sen. Dan Patrick's office.

Fausto Cardenas is jailed on third-degree felony charges stemming from the unsettling incident in which nobody was hurt.

"Today, we got a warning shot — literally," Patrick, R-Houston, and a champion of gun owners' rights, said on the day of the shooting. "This could have been a tragedy."

Are they planning on moving the detectors out onto the steps, the sidewalk? Sheeesh, this guy was outside.

[Bob Landry]

Liberal editorial writers, regardless of training, still behave like Liberal editorial writors.

[Kinetic]

He discredits himself from the start by speaking of CHL holders in terms of public safety. CHL is not about public safety and it never was. It is about personal safety, personal protection. Just another attempt to skew the facts by an anti gun fool.

[A-R]

For what it's worth, submitted this letter to Statesman this morning:

*****
RE: January 26 Editorial
Your confusing mishmash of an opinion, diluted with insincere conflict over recommending metal detectors at the state Capitol, is just typical anti-gun propaganda.
Gov. Perry is wrong to convey that concealed handgun licenses are an answer to public safety. CHL is for self defense.
Likewise, you are wrong to suggest that banning all guns will improve Capitol security. As you wrote, “criminals, by definition, have little respect for the law,” and metal detectors are not fail safe nor all encompassing deterrents.
How does infringing law-abiding citizens’ right to self defense improve security? Why should licensed citizens be made less secure so that you may feel (but not actually be) more secure?
The safety of our elected representatives and others inside the Capitol is no more important than my safety walking from my car to the entrance, which you want to mandate I do unarmed.
*****

[O6nop]

If CHLers were allowed to bypass the metal detectors, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to publicly reveal yourself as having a weapon? That would defeat the purpose of concealed carry.

Not really. All you would have to do when you approached the DPS officer at the deterctor was flash your CHL badge.. umm I mean card and they would allow you to pass; the same process that is supposed to happen at the State Fair.

I guess I'm not sure how metal detectors work. If you flash your card (and obviously others will see you doing it, exposing you as a CHLer), Do they turn off the machine, or provide a way to walk around it (thereby exposing you as a CHLer)?
I've haven't been to the State Fair in the last 15 years or so, I don't know how that works, either.

[Keith B]

If CHLers were allowed to bypass the metal detectors, wouldn't that mean that you'd have to publicly reveal yourself as having a weapon? That would defeat the purpose of concealed carry.

Not really. All you would have to do when you approached the DPS officer at the detector was flash your CHL badge.. umm I mean card and they would allow you to pass; the same process that is supposed to happen at the State Fair.

I guess I'm not sure how metal detectors work. If you flash your card (and obviously others will see you doing it, exposing you as a CHLer), Do they turn off the machine, or provide a way to walk around it (thereby exposing you as a CHLer)?
I've haven't been to the State Fair in the last 15 years or so, I don't know how that works, either.

They could make it easy and just approach a DPS officer out in front of the detectors, state you are a CHL and carrying. They would ask to validate your ID, and then allow you to walk around the detector. As far as anyone non-CHL seeing it, they could just assume you are a VIP that gets special treatment. I doubt anyone who is not familiar with CHL's would ever figure it out.

[O6nop]

They could make it easy and just approach a DPS officer out in front of the detectors, state you are a CHL and carrying. They would ask to validate your ID, and then allow you to walk around the detector. As far as anyone non-CHL seeing it, they could just assume you are a VIP that gets special treatment. I doubt anyone who is not familiar with CHL's would ever figure it out.

I can't imagine that, first thing you know, people will be screaming about their rights being violated because certain people are getting more privileges. This is what CHLers would or should do. If offered that special privilege we should turn it down. After all, we really don't want more privileges or rights than any other citizen. Otherwise, I'd think we were hypocritical. If we don't have to go through the detectors nobody should.
If we want anti's to acknowledge our rights, we should be sure to acknowledge theirs.
Actually, what I'm saying is we should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the ridiculous idea of metal detectors, not already conceding to it.
Am I wrong?

[stevie_d_64]

I actually like the Austin American Statesman...