Witam!
... i garsc refleksji do ktorych moze pobudzac problematyka pozwolenia na bron w jednym z najbardziej permisywnych w tej materii spoleczenstw:
Some Thoughts on the Texas Concealed-Weapon Law
Richard C. Rhodes is a law graduate, an ex-Marine, and a former Federal agent who enforced our national gun laws in the Philadelphia region. After leaving government, he was a guest lecturer to police departments on behalf of the National Crime Prevention Institute. For several years, he co-operated with the Dallas Police Department on crime-prevention programs, writing a book which they used and giving public lectures. He has been involved with law-enforcement, handguns, and handgun training for over 40 years. For more than 35 years he has studied gun crime and gun laws and has written on the subject for the past 20 years.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are mostly those of the author, or where not his, some attribution or reference is given. Nothing here should be considered to be legal advice. Anyone acting upon any information contained here does so at his or her own peril. This information is offered as a guideline for further study or as an aid in seeking professional advice.
Prohibitions by Municipalities and Businesses of Concealed Weapons
The concealed weapon law was publicly debated over several years to become perhaps the most scrutinized law in memory in Texas. One of the most hotly contested issues was where the carry of concealed weapons would be prohibited. The eventual list was quite broad in its coverage.
Yet, even before the first permit was issued, municipalities and businesses began to erect barriers to the legitimate exercise of the rights granted under that law. Many ordinances were passed prohibiting concealed weapons on municipal property. Many business put up signs prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons onto the business property.
Signs on Municipal or Commercial Property That Prohibit Concealed Guns.
Vernon's Revised Civil Statues, Article 4413(29ee) License to Carry a Concealed Handgun.
Article 4413(29ee), Section 32. Rights of Employers. This article does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this article from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business.
Many municipalities and private companies have taken the above statutory language as authority to erect signs which announce that No Concealed-Guns Allowed or a sign with similar language. The legality of this practice is questionable.
The Attorney General for the State of Texas issued an opinion on August 30, 1995 in which his office says that the intent of Section 32 is ambiguous. Because the word "employer" is used, it can be strongly argued that Section 32 relates only to employers posting signs that prohibit employees from bringing concealed-weapons onto the business premises. On the other hand, if the section had said "... prohibit employees ...," instead of "... prohibit persons...," there would be little doubt about the intent.
But, the AG's opinion goes on to say that the legislative history of Senate Bill 60, however, did not intend to preclude private property owners from excluding license holders carrying concealed handguns...
However, until someone is charged with Criminal Trespass for entering past a No Guns Sign, under 4413(29ee), and an appeals court rules on the arrest - or the Legislature clarifies the law, or a new AG issues a different opinion, No Guns Allowed signs are effectively the law in Texas. After all, if a business owner can enforce a "No Shirt-No Shoes-No Service" policy, then he can likely restrict concealed-weapons - unless there is a clear contrary indication in the law. In the meantime, the best hope for resolving the issue is a process of education. I think that many businesses and municipalities can be convinced by the force of logic that putting up "No Guns" signs is a bad idea.
So then, why do people want to put up these signs? Will they do any good? How do concealed-license permit holders feel about the signs? These and other questions will be addressed as we move along.
Why Do Concealed-Weapon Permit Holders Object to the No Guns Signs?
If a permit holder is forced to leave his or her gun in the car, then he or she is vulnerable in the parking lot, coming or going. It is in the parking lot that a person has the most likelihood of being robbed, assaulted, or in the case of a woman, being raped or abducted. It is clear that the first time this happens, the municipality or business who put up the No Guns Sign will be sued for a very large sum.
In many cases, where the sign comes as a surprise, or one forgets that a specific property has a sign, the permit holder must retreat to his or her vehicle and store the weapon. Now, the weapon is available to thieves who might break into the car. Moving a weapon from one's place of concealment to a car is a fairly obvious act.
The permit holder is deprived, while inside the posted building of the right to protect himself or herself, and of a possible opportunity to intervene to prevent serious bodily harm or death to others if an armed robbery or assault takes place. The first time a permit holder is injured or someone else is injured in a place where a permit holder (who would have had a handgun, except for the sign) is also present, lawsuits will ensue - with a good probability of favorable outcomes.
Permit holders are insulted by the signs. They feel like Lepers. They are made to feel like criminals. They have been carefully screened by the State of Texas. They have taken an intense course of instruction about the guns laws, the laws of self-defense, etc. And, they have shown a more-than-average proficiency on a firing range. A municipality or business is simply saying "We don't think we can trust you." The permit holders will tend not to trade with businesses who post the signs. Their displeasure will have a ripple effect to friends and family and even to those who do not have permits but believe in the program.
Are There Any Advantages to Prohibiting Concealed Weapons on Municipal Property or in Business Establishments?
What has been the history of shootings in municipal buildings and commercial properties? Aside from armed robbers, it has most generally been a disgruntled employee, or former employee, or citizens with a grudge against a municipal division or private firm, who have done the shootings. Or, it has been a distraught ex-husband or ex-boyfriend who came barging in and shot a municipal employee or worker in an office. Most of these shooters were (will be) on a virtual suicide mission. Many actually kill themselves after they shoot one or more innocent people.
None of these shooters would have been (or will be) slowed up in the slightest by a No Guns Allowed sign.
The man who shot more than 20 people to death in Luby's in Killeen, Texas, would not have paid any attention to a No Guns sign posted at the door. He rammed his pickup though a side window-wall!
It is statistically unlikely that a concealed-weapon permit holder will wantonly shoot someone in a municipal building, a city park, or a private business establishment. Once again, even if they do, no sign, of any kind, will deter them.
Look at the U.S. Postal Service. Most of the shootings there have been by disgruntled employees or ex-employees. Federal law prohibits the carrying of weapons, concealed or not, onto Federal facilities. Good grief, if there is any place that a citizen ought to have the right to go legally armed, it is the Post Office!
Consider a supermarket or a large discount store. How many times have you heard of a customer shooting a clerk or another customer? And for decades, there have been plenty of customers in those stores with illegally-carried handguns. Trust me, I know many, many of them personally.
But you have heard of robbers, or employees, or ex-employees shooting someone in a discount store or a grocery store. The facts, if one cares to examine them without the distortion of inflammatory rhetoric, are there for all to see.
Some businesses now prohibit their employees from bringing guns to work but do not prohibit customers who are licensed concealed-permit holders from carrying them on their person. This is a more enlightened position than a total prohibition, both from a business PR standpoint and logically. However, employees who have concealed-weapon permits should consider making whatever protest they feel comfortable with. Their employer is essentially saying, "We know that you have no criminal record, and that you have shown no propensity for violence, and that you went through a stringent background check and training course, but we don't trust you." A waiver can be issued with regard to a specific person, if an employer is willing to do it.
One of the arguments used to prohibit guns in buildings is that there is a concern that innocent people will get caught in a crossfire, and that it is better to take your chances with an armed robber or former employee with an Uzi, than to let anyone with a legal permit bring a weapon onto the property.
With regard to armed robbers: Years ago the smart advice was to give him what he wanted and not resist. But, in recent years, robbers have shown an alarming increase in a willingness to shoot robbery victims, even after they have given up their money, or jewels, or whatever. In fact, Justice Department figures now show that those who resist stand a much better chance of escaping without severe harm than those who passively give in.
On March 17, 1996, The Dallas Morning News reported a story about the wife of a jewelry store owner in Richardson, Texas, who shot and killed an armed robber. The robber was struggling with her husband in the confines of a small office in the store, yet the woman was able to shoot the assailant without hitting her husband. Good job! This is one more case where the fears of the squeamish and the perennial hand-wringers were not realized. It is interesting to note that the woman has a concealed-handgun license, although she did not need one to legally have a gun in her place of business. The information about the concealed-weapon license was buried in the next-to-last paragraph. How come no headline "Concealed Weapon Licensee Kills Armed Robber"? You gotta be kidding. That's not the way the media plays this subject.
With regard to the nutcase who comes ready to kill anyone in sight: It seems pretty hard to say that you should prohibit legal weapons and take your chances. Forget calling the police. Seldom could police respond fast enough to stop a shooter.
Suppose you have 20 employees. A former employee shows up with a pistol, several extra magazines of ammo, and a pump shotgun (not unusual). One of your employees or a customer has a concealed-weapon permit and a weapon handy. That permit holder shoots the nutcase and the bullet passes through him and wounds or kills an innocent person. The nutcase is disabled or dead. Which is better, to let the nutcase shoot 20 people, or shoot him and take a chance on wounding or killing an innocent person?
The above is a worst-case scenario. If the legal gun owner is using hollow-point bullets, which tend not to pass through a human target, or something like a Glaser Safety Slug (which is touted never to pass through a human target), and that person qualified on the range, and probably keeps his or her proficiency up to par - only the nutcase will be wounded or killed.
Dade County, Florida, kept meticulous records regarding concealed-weapon permit holders. Of the 21,000 permit holders in the county, over a six year period, there were no known cases of a permit holder injuring an innocent person!
The public has been sensitized to innocent people being shot by various lurid media accounts. In all major cities, innocent bystanders are wounded or killed. These are mostly in drive-by shootings or when drug dealers or other low-lifes shoot it out in a confined area, such as a housing project. These people have no regard for human life. In fact, many of them enjoy killing people. It also gives them status among their peers. As an aside, most urban police departments quit using .357 Magnum revolvers when they saw that officers in a shootout in an apartment or house might wound or kill someone in the next apartment or room, with bullets that passed through walls.
But, you say, I don't want guns in my place because the more guns, the more likely someone will lose their temper and start shooting. This is the classic argument - or concern, if you will. There has never been any scientific correlation between more guns, more violence. All such attempts to claim this are based on faulty data or just simply fabrications. There is no evidence from the many states with concealed-weapon laws that the presence of guns by permit holders has increased violent encounters in commercial establishments or municipal buildings.
In the rural area where I have lived for the past several years, there is seldom a robbery of a residence, or a serious assault on the highway. People know that almost everyone has at least a shotgun in the house, and that a very large percentage have guns in their vehicles. And there is very little, a nearly-insignificant amount, of shootings in anger. It is common in rural areas for police to find a handgun in a vehicle, check the criminal record of the owner, check to see if it is on the stolen list, and return the weapon at the end of the traffic stop. Of course, in Texas you can legally carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in your vehicle.
When a criminal or a nutcase approaches an establishment with a No Guns sign, he or she can be assured that no legal concealed pistols are inside. Permit holders will go to great lengths to avoid losing the right that they fought so long to get. A more sensible policy might be to post the following sign:
LICENSED GUN HOLDERS WELCOME!
Before you laugh that one off, think about it - long and hard, no matter what your bias against guns may be. Businesses hire armed private security guards all the time, who taken as a group, may not possess as good judgment or ability to handle a handgun as the average concealed-weapon permit holder. Why should a business turn away what is in essence a free security guard? Albeit, a very temporary one.
Public eating places often provide free food and drink to police officers who stop by. The officers are a deterrent to robbers, and so on. I can remember getting such preferential treatment when I worked as an armed private security patrol officer while in law school. When I worked as a Federal agent in Philadelphia, there was one bar in South Philly where many of us were known to hang out after work. You know, in an area of rather high crime, that bar was never robbed. Amazing!
Maybe eating establishments ought to put up a sign offering "Concealed-Weapon Holder Discounts." Granted, it would not be as obvious to a criminal that an armed person was on the premises, but over time having a reputation for catering to armed customers would make the rounds of the criminal underground. Of course, you might lose some of your customers, those who believe "guns are evil." Still, something to consider.
Suppose that you, Geraldine, manage an office. You post a No Guns sign. One or more of your customers is a concealed-weapon permit holder. Let's call one Sam. Sam will not carry his gun into your office, because he wants to stick to the letter of the law. A disgruntled customer, or employee, or ex-employee, or robber will not be deterred by the silly little sign.
So, one day Sam is sitting talking to you when in comes Sally, whom you fired last month. Sally has a concealed handgun in her purse, but no permit. She has ignored the silly little sign outside about no guns. She has murder on her mind. She shoots you! Sam's gun is in his car, just as my friend Doctor Suzy Gratia's gun was in her car when her parents were murdered right in front of her in Luby's. Sam can only sit there and watch. But Sally's rage is so great that she turns and pumps the remaining rounds into Sam. He also dies.
Now, two people are dead. It's not over. Sam's heirs sue you and your company for several million dollars because your sign prevented Sam from being armed as he was authorized by state statute. Because he was not armed, he too died in the shooting. Geraldine's heirs also sue.
Surely You Can't Carry a Gun Into a Bank
In the public's mind if you say "Gun" and then "Bank," the first word that comes into their mind is "Robbery."
In an article in The Wall Street Journal, (March 5, 1996, page B1) there is the following statement: "Federal law prohibits taking guns into banks, ...." Bank security people with whom I have spoken know of no such Federal law. I searched the United States Code for any criminal law that prohibits carrying a gun into a bank. I can find no such law. Maybe I missed it in my search. You cannot carry a gun (or other dangerous weapon) into a Federal facility (See: 18 USC Sec. 930), but a bank is not a Federal facility. The bank-robbery statute (18 USC Sec. 2113) talks about entering a bank with the "intent" to commit a felony, but is silent about the act of bringing a gun into a bank.
On Friday morning, March 8, 1996, I called the FBI office in Dallas. I was transferred to a voice mail for someone in that office. I asked if they could help me for an article I was writing by citing the Federal law that prohibits the carrying of guns into banks. On March 18, I got a call from the FBI office in Dallas. The man at the FBI said that he was unaware of any Federal law that would prohibit someone from carrying a concealed weapon into a bank. He suggested that I call the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, who regulates banks, and ask about the possible existence of a law that would prohibit someone from carrying a gun into a bank. Maybe when I have a couple of weeks of spare time I will tackle that call. I sent a Fax to The Wall Street Journal, asking them for a clarification. I also sent a letter to an editor I know at the WSJ to follow up on my Fax.
In response to my letter, on April 18, 1996, The Wall Street Journal, on page A2, ran the following correction:
Taking guns into banks isn't expressly prohibited by federal law, as a March 5 article on concealed-handgun laws incorrectly stated, although laws in some states do prohibit it.
Thank you WSJ for setting the record straight.
So, I will assume that there is no such federal law. You should NOT make that assumption, but should pursue the matter on your own before you carry a gun into a bank, even if you are a permit holder.
Let's start with a sound premise. It is not a good idea to rob a bank. If you use a "dangerous weapon or device" while engaged in a bank robbery, you could face a $10,000 fine and 25 years in jail if convicted. If you kill anyone, or force anyone to go with you out of the bank, you could face the death penalty! (See: 18 USC Sec. 2113) In any event, there is no parole for Federal crimes. You will serve the time. Secondly, a higher percentage of bank robbers are arrested than for nearly any other major crime - about 80%. Banks have cameras. Bills have serial numbers. The FBI investigates bank robberies, and so on. Bank robbers are apparently among the dumbest of the criminal element.
But, for now, with regard to restricting concealed-weapons in banks by concealed-weapon permit holders in Texas, logic is largely triumphant. At least for the present, a large number of Metroplex (Dallas/Ft. Worth area) banks have decided against posting No Guns Allowed signs.
In the first place, it is almost beyond reason that a permit holder would rob a bank. If someone has never had any brush with the criminal law, it is unlikely that they will turn to bank robbery after they get their permit. Also, banks have cameras. Permit holder's photos are on file with DPS in Austin. And why would anyone bother to get a permit and rob a bank? Since the first bank was opened, bank robbers have ranged this country, without the benefit of concealed-weapon permits.
There is also a question of legal liability. Suppose you go to a bank (or any store, for that matter) and are forced (because of a No Guns sign) to leave your gun in your car in the parking lot. On the way out of the bank you are robbed or assaulted, or if you are a woman, you are raped. The bank would no doubt be sued for preventing you from protecting yourself as the concealed-weapon statute intended.
I am told by someone in bank security, that in Houston permit holders have come into banks with No Guns Allowed signs and demanded that their guns be held in secure storage until their business is concluded. Of course, banks have no ready place to secure a customer's gun, so one side is going to have to give - or the matter will be settled in the courts or the next legislative session.
Then there is the PR concern. Why offend your customers who are permit holders, friends or family of permit holders, or customers who are in agreement with the passage of the concealed-weapon bill? Allowing guns won't offend your anti-gun customers. After all, in 99% of the cases, the other customers will not know that a customer is armed. In truth, if they knew, some would feel better about their safety while in the bank.
If a customer should ask why a bank (or any business) does not have a No Guns sign, one could always reply, "Because it probably is not really legal to do so." Armed with copies of legislative floor debate, the dubious Attorney General's opinion, and the comments of the sponsors of the bill, even the most skeptical could probably be convinced.
Liquor Stores - An Interesting Study
One would assume that the concealed-weapon bill prohibits carrying a gun into a liquor store. First, there is all that money. And all that beer, wine, and liquor. In general, alcohol and guns don't mix. But that is not relevant if the alcohol stays in the bottle, as it does in a liquor store. The statute prohibits carrying concealed-weapons into a premises where 51 percent or more of the revenue is derived from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption. That's a bar, a tavern, a club - not a liquor store.
As to all the money in liquor stores (as one manager was quick to point out). There are many, many other businesses that handle as much money, take a bank for instance, or a grocery store, or a large discount store, or ....
In the first large, well-known liquor store I visited, one of the two front doors had a sign citing the Texas Alcohol Beverage Code and the Penal Code - up to 10 years and $5,000 fine for carrying a weapon inside. But that relates to other than concealed-weapon permit holders. If a liquor store wants to keep out concealed- weapon permit holders who carry guns, it appears that they must post a sign that comes under the V.T.C.S. article 4413(29ee), section 32, which permits a business owner to post notices prohibiting license holders from bringing guns into the store. And as we have seen, this is open to legal challenge.
In this store, the sign relating to 4413(29ee) was posted on the wall in the manager's office. Even under a provision with dubious legal underpinnings, this is not "notice" by any common legal definition.
In talking to two managers about the pros and cons, and about the philosophy of allowing or not allowing legal guns into the store, it was the usual. One man, who obviously thought all concealed-weapon holders were macho cowboys, started right out by talking about all the money in the store. I said, "Then I gather from your comment that you think you are likely to be robbed by someone who has a concealed gun permit." The answer was a long circumvention, which ended up with a discussion of how too many people are driving with one hand and using cell phones. I just stared in disbelief.
We shifted gears. This manager spoke of how long it had taken to improve the image of liquor stores in the mind of the public. He talked about how the industry wanted liquor stores to be a place, among other things, where a lady can come in her tennis clothes on the way home and feel safe. I never got a satisfactory answer as to how allowing permit holders to wear concealed weapons in the store would tarnish the new Disneylike image of liquor stores - or make the store unsafe.
And by the way, Mr. Manager, if that lady in the tennis dress happens to be a concealed-weapon permit holder, she will probably start buying her wine somewhere else. And if that lady in the tennis dress had to leave her legal gun in her car and she is assaulted in your parking lot, be prepared to dig into your deep pockets. Real deep.
But for now, logically there is no difference between an auto-parts store and a liquor store as to whether permit holders are allowed to enter with concealed weapons. Except that liquor stores are robbed much more frequently than auto-parts stores. Then perhaps, the anti-gun manager is missing an opportunity to balance the scales by allowing permit holders to bring concealed weapons into the store. But, as one manager said, we will have to get more experience with the law to see what needs to be done, to see if any changes need to be made. As far as he is concerned, in the meantime, concealed-weapon permit holders will only cause problems, none of which he could exactly put his finger on.
"We Did it to Protect the Girls"
A while back, I lived part of the week in an apartment in the Dallas area. I had become good friends with the manager. One day I noticed that they had put up a No Guns sign on the entrance to the office of the manager. The manager and I had a long discussion about the usefulness of the signs. I pointed out that I would abide by the signs, and that meant, among other things, that if I were in her office when a disgruntled tenant or evictee came in with a gun, I would not be able to protect her. My gun would be at home or in my vehicle. She agreed that the signs made no sense and forwarded to her bosses a draft of this article. When I left Dallas to resume full time living in the country, the No Gun signs were still on the apartment office.
If I were the manager of an apartment project and I had concealed weapon permit holders among my tenants, I would invite them all in for free coffee and cake anytime they wanted. Managers make decisions that often tend to infuriate tenants. And most people who get evicted no doubt feel that the manager did them wrong. Thus, once again, the threat is not from those who have concealed gun licenses, but from those who do not and who will ignore the signs. In no way, can one of those signs ever "protect" the manager or her associates.
In a town of 25,000 population in Texas, there had been No Gun signs on the local office of a nationwide stock-brokerage firm. All along, I had intended to go in and talk with the manager about the signs. But, one day I noticed that the No Gun sign had been taken down. I went in and asked for the manager, whom I knew from a long time back. He was busy, but the assistant manager and I chatted. She was completely confused about why the signs had been put up in the first place. The best that she could come up with was "We did it to protect the girls." She talked about the money that changed hands in that office, and so on, as if that made it some special target for violence. The real threat would come, it seems to me, from a client who lost a bundle of money on a bad bit of stock advice. Signs would not stop that irate person if they wanted to come in with a gun and settle the score.
Finally, we came to no real answers about why the signs had been put up or they were taken down. I have yet to have a one-on-one discussion with the manager or owner of a business where that person could cite any valid reason for putting up the signs. Most blamed it on lawyers who told them they needed to do it to limit liability or on some far-out theory of crime and criminology that could not pass muster in Criminology 101 at the local junior college.
I noticed a No Guns sign in a retail store in a small Texas town where I traded. I sent the manager, whom I knew well, the draft of this article (before this paragraph was added) and a letter in which I pointed out that I knew of one man who shopped in the store who always carried a handgun. That man had been arrested for armed assault on a police officer! I pointed out the absurdness of keeping me and others with carry licenses out of the store, yet being at the mercy of the lawless who would ignore the signs. In a few weeks I noticed the No Gun signs were down. When I asked the owner, he said his wife had told him they "needed" to put up the signs. It had something to do with liability, he thought.
There Are Some Legitimate Signs
The concealed-weapon law requires that certain businesses and establishments post a sign warning that guns are prohibited by state statute. For example, any place that derives more than 51 percent of its income from the on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, must post a sign. So too, hospitals and nursing homes which are chartered by the State. At least the hapless concealed- gun permit holder is not likely to walk inadvertently into such a place.
But I Don't Want One of These Gun-toting Cowboys Around Me!
This gets back to the image that the Wild West was a dangerous place, because everyone wore a gun. With a couple of notable, and understandable exceptions, the Wild West was a much safer place than Dallas or Houston (or any large city) today.
In their treatise, Shall Issue : The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel write exhaustively about permit laws. The report is published by:
Independence Institute
14142 Denver West Pkwy
Suite 101
Golden, CO 80401
One section is entitled: The Wild West, or What if Everyone Carried a Handgun?
The authors point out that in the Wild West most of the murders were done by "bad" men who hung out in local saloons and shot each other - and where sobriety was thought proper only for Sunday school teachers and women. Then, there were some shootouts between macho idiots who wanted to preserve their honor.
One study, for example, was of the Sierra Nevada mining towns of Aurora and Bodie. There was one saloon for every 25 men! Nearly everyone carried a gun. Yet, other than the drunken shootouts in the saloons, or those that spilled onto the streets from saloons, and the shootouts to preserve honor, crime was virtually non-existent. The robbery rate was 7% of the rate in New York City. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown (partly due to a profusion of brothels, no doubt).
The experiences of Aurora and Bodie were repeated throughout the West. One study of Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, found that all together the towns had less than two criminal homicides per year! A study of the Texas frontier from 1875-1890 found that burglaries and robberies (except for bank, train, and stage-coach robberies) were essentially non-existent.
It is interesting to note that the Texas Legislature (in our concealed-weapon law) specifically prohibited guns in saloons. There was a good historical precedent for that. It is also interesting that crime in rural areas, where most everyone has a gun, (up to 87% admit to owning guns), robbery, burglary, and crimes of violence mirror the low rates of the Wild West, in comparison with large urban cities.
So much for the "We don't want Dallas and Houston turned into Dodge City" argument. In truth, if you could have done away with the saloons, Dodge City would have been a model community with respect to crime.
The report by Cramer & Kopel can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.portal.com/~chan/research/crame...hall-issue.html
It is must reading for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of Concealed-Handgun laws in various states.
I Just Don't Trust Those Concealed-Weapon Permit Holders
There is a general lack of understanding of who the permit holders are and the extent of the background check and the thoroughness of the training.
I took the course in a small rural town. One might expect at least there to have a class full of Rednecks. Not so. Some of the members of the class were: a judge, a female school teacher, the chief of security at a VA hospital, a state employee who is also a championship pistol shooter, a pharmacist, a retired insurance executive, a former Federal agent (me), and so on.
Both state and FBI fingerprint records and criminal records are checked. Local checks are made by DPS or others regarding the applicant. You can be disqualified for even something like failure to pay back a student loan. You cannot have a history of substance abuse, and on and on. The standards one must meet are the highest in the nation. I half-jokingly said that it was easier to become a Federal agent than get this permit.
My first set of fingerprints were returned as unclassifiable. One source in Dallas (who sees the flow of applications for a very active instructor) told me that he saw as many as 30 percent of fingerprint cards being returned as unclassifiable. Check with your police department and ask them how many times they have been asked to re-print a person they have arrested. Have no doubt that DPS is doing a first-rate job of screening handgun-permit applicants.
The Concealed-Weapon course is 10-15 hours. There is an emphasis on conflict resolution, the laws relating to self-defense, and the civil and criminal consequences of the misuse of deadly force. For the first time, many gun owners are faced with a serious consideration of the various ramifications of their firing of a weapon. There is a written pre-test and a written final exam, and with substantive questions on them - not questions like "How many bullets in a six-shooter?"
Gun safety is gone over and over in the classroom. In order to qualify on the range, you must shoot a .38 caliber or larger revolver or a 9mm or larger semiautomatic. No .22 Derringers here! If you shoot a revolver, you are restricted to carrying a revolver. If you shoot a semiautomatic, you can carry either a revolver or a semiautomatic.
Then to the firing range. The course of fire goes from 3-15 yards, the distance at which most, if not nearly all, gun fights take place. And don't scoff at shooting at 3 yards. There are plenty of reports of police officers firing at suspects at a distance of 3 yards and missing. I have the report from the New York City Police Department for a recent year with a summary of every shot fired by or at a NYC officer. There are lots of "missed at 3-7 yards" entries.
"Safety" is the key word on the range. The course is one of timed and rapid fire, with a total of 50 rounds. The passing score is high enough that it seems unlikely that someone could pass without some prior range practice. In our class, the championship pistol shooter shot a pattern with a .45 semiauto so tight that after the first few shots, all his shots went through the hole he had opened with those first few shots! That's the guy I want at my table in a cafe when robbers come in and decide to shoot up the place.
In all, the Texas program is the best, the most stringent in the nation. Other states are sending representatives to Austin to study it. Yet, we have had a barrage of attacks on the program, even before the first permit was issued. People in other states who have had a similar law for years cannot understand that Texans, of all people, they say, are so up in arms over the gun permits.
Yes, there will be a few permit holders who get in trouble. One man already has shot and killed someone who attacked him with fists as a result of a minor traffic accident. Some people have been quick to judge this incident as an example of the "bad things" that will happen with concealed permits. Most of the sidewalk experts have no idea of the complexity of the laws of self-defense. Every case has nuances that must be considered in detail. In fact, the grand jury failed to indict the man who fired the first fatal shot by a concealed-weapon licensee in Texas.
One letter writer to the newspaper suggested that a police office who had been punched in the nose a couple of times would not respond with deadly force. I have written columns and letters over the years supporting police in some uses of deadly force where the public and the media had been critical of the police officer's judgment, department policies, and so on. However, the records of police departments nationwide show a substantial number of uses of deadly force to be questionable, even indictable offenses. The point is that in the split second one has to decide whether to use deadly force, nobody, not civilians, not police, always does the "right" thing.
Will Police Officers Be In More Danger With So Many Guns in Cars?
One night on a TV network news broadcast, (I think it was on NBC), a Captain from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) was asked about the new concealed-weapon law in Texas. He said that he was concerned for his men with all those guns out there - assuming I suppose that all the permit holders were going to be putting more and/or new guns on the highways. I shook my head in amazement. By any analysis, the law will make it safer for DPS officers, police, and other law enforcement officers.
Since Texans have had automobiles, a substantial number of them have carried handguns in their cars and trucks - illegally (there is an exception for travelers - more or less). Thousands of police officers have made traffic stops where law-abiding citizens had a handgun concealed in the car or truck. Yet, one is hard-pressed to recall any instance where a person without a criminal record, or who was not engaged in illegal activity, shot a police officer or DPS officer during a traffic stop. Again, there are thousands upon thousands of stops each year where there is an illegal handgun in the vehicle - carried by people with no criminal record, and who have never engaged in criminal activity.
Plenty of officers have been shot during traffic stops by those engaged in criminal activity, or shot by those with criminal records. "The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics - 1994" shows the following:
Persons Identified in the killing of law enforcement officers
1984 to 1993
942 officers killed
Prior record of assailant:
Prior criminal arrest 72%
Convicted on prior criminal charge 56%
Prior arrest for crime of violence 37%
Prior arrest on murder charge 5%
Prior arrest on weapons violation 38%
And so forth.
So now we have a class of people who have no criminal record, and statistically no propensity for criminal activity: concealed-weapon-permit holders. Are they going to be shooting cops over a speeding ticket or for running a red light? Not very likely. More importantly. The statute provides that if a permit holder is stopped by a peace officer, the permit holder must display his or her permit if asked. And if that person has a gun on or about his or her person, he must voluntarily display both the concealed-weapon permit and a driver's license.
In addition, the officer has the right (by statute) to ask the permit holder to surrender the weapon until the traffic stop (or whatever) is concluded.
For years, many of those who now have permits carried guns in their vehicles. When an officer stopped them for a traffic violation, the officer never knew if a gun was in the vehicle. Now, the officer will know if the gun is there (not many permit holders are going to lie) and can ask to take temporary custody of the weapon. How is this a threat to an officer? In truth, any previous threat (real or perceived from the law-abiding) has been substantially removed - with regard to those who have the concealed-weapon permit. Protect officers - issue more permits. Legalize more of those unaccounted-for guns in vehicles.
There has been no big upswing in the sale of handguns since the concealed-carry law passed. Most of the guns in vehicles have been there for years. Few people needed to buy a new gun once they had a permit. I share all officers concerns for safety when they make a traffic stop. Any stop might be the one that gets them shot or killed. For a DPS offcer to walk up to a stopped vehicle on the highway, especially at night, is flat out an act of courage. But, I submit that the concealed-weapon law has made the officers safer, not more vulunerable, as some contend. Some experienced law-enforcement officers with whom I have spoken agree with me.
A substantial number of the permit holders are ex-military, ex-law enforcement, competitive shooters, handgun hunters - that is, those who have lived with and shot handguns for many years. Some day, we will no doubt see a case of a permit holder assisting an officer who is in trouble with an armed criminal.
(Note: Since I wrote the above paragraph, I came across a page on the NRA website called "Armed Citizens and Police Officers." Several stories tell of armed citizens who have come to the aid of officers who were under assault or had just been shot. In several cases the assailants were wounded or killed by the citizen. One "save" took place in a bank. In Arkansas, a trooper was shot. A passing female motorist stopped and held the assailant at gunpoint until help arrived.)
Take a look at some remarkable stories at:
Armed Citizens
In truth, many civilian gun owners shoot more rounds on the range in a month than some officers do in five years. Gary Kleck, a respected researcher from Florida State, estimates that civilians kill about 1500 to 2800 felons per year, about 2.5 to 7 times as many as police. Not especially because the civilians are better shots. But because the civilians are more often the victims of violence. They are the ones being confronted with the threat of deadly force more often.
Legal Guns in Restaurants That Sell Alcoholic Drinks
I agree with the law that allows the carrying of concealed-weapons into restaurants where alcohol is served. To do otherwise, is to make a mockery of the bill's intent. So, the legislature was careful to say that legal guns were prohibited only in places were 51 percent or more of the revenue is from the on-premises consumption of alcohol. The law does provide that a concealed-permit can be revoked if the holder is intoxicated (as defined by statute).
But one can safely predict that other than traffic confrontations, there is a potential for misuse of a concealed gun in a restaurant that serves alcoholic drinks. I can only hope that concealed-gun owners will treat themselves like a "designated driver" and not drink (certainly not more than one drink), with meals. The whole state (and nation) is watching. The first shooting by someone who has had even one beer in a cafe will open the floodgates of protest - whether the shooting is justified or not.
Places Where Concealed Weapons are Prohibited by Statute
Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed-weapons by permit holders in the following places: (These are the broad categories, and in some cases I have paraphrased the law to simplify a category. The actual wording often gets even more detailed and restrictive.)
In a place that derives more than 51 percent of its income from the on-premises sale and consumption of alcohol (bars, taverns, clubs, etc.)
Where a sporting event is taking place.
On the premises of a correctional facility.
On the premises of a hospital or nursing home (licensed by Texas).
In an amusement park.
On the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
At any meeting of a government entity.
On the premises of an educational institution.
On the premises of a polling place on election day or during early voting.
In any (state) government court or office used by the court.
On the premises of a racetrack.
Into the secure area of an airport (the area past the metal detectors or any inspection point).
"Premises" does not mean a street, driveway, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area adjacent to a prohibited building or site.
Thus, a concealed-weapon permit holder may drive up to a hospital, or other prohibited premises (see above) and leave his or her gun in the vehicle in the parking lot. It must be concealed from view, of course.
The statute is clear on this. The Attorney General Opinion of August 30, 1995 is clear on this point about parking areas not being part of a premises.
Federal law prohibits the carrying of a weapon, concealed or not, into any Federal facility, which includes the Post Office.
To prohibit a permit holder from carrying his or her handgun into a fire station in Plano, Texas, for a meeting of a social group, makes little sense to many. But, that is the law in Plano today. Somewhat ironic, too, in that one of the champions of the concealed-weapons bill is a former Mayor of Plano and now a State Senator - the Honorable Florence Shapiro. Plano is but one of hundreds of similar situations throughout Texas.
Concealed Handguns in City or County Parks
In the Plano Ordinance, it is noted that municipalities cannot restrict permit holders from carrying concealed weapons into city parks. The Texas Attorney General's opinion DM-364, issued August 30, 1995, says in the Summary "The legislature, in the concealed handgun law, has specifically taken away from a municipality the authority to prohibit the licensed carrying of concealed handguns in a city or county park."
Media Bias
During the long period while the concealed-weapon bill was being debated, many, if not most, in the media railed against its passage. Now that it is law, the same bias exists. Granted, The Dallas Morning News has printed a number of letters supporting the law. But on Sunday, March 10, in Section J, page 1, under WEATHERVANE, the News published the following:
License to do what?
A belligerent mororist showed a frightening new way to bully other drivers last month in Dallas, just a week after Texas' first fatal shooting involving the new concealed handgun law. According to a police report, a 45-year-old truck driver, cut off by a man in a Jaguar, stopped to get a license plate number. That's when the driver pulled out a handgun, declared he held a gun license and waved a piece of paper, presumably a concealed handgun permit. The truck driver, after backing away, replied: "A license to do what?"
If the driver of the car "waved a piece of paper," it was not a concealed handgun permit. The permits are laminated cards nearly identical in size to a driver's license. The permits have a photo of the permit holder. In the upper left hand corner are the words "CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE." So, on the surface, it appears that the driver of the car was using the license law for his own purposes, without benefit of an actual license.
Noting that this incident happened "just a week after Texas' first fatal shooting involving the new concealed handgun law, " is another way of saying, "See, first a fatal shooting, now a bully flashing a gun. We told you this law was not a good idea." So transparent. Ah, the subtle use of language to advocate a position. Lawyers and newspapers are experts at it.
The truck driver is said to have stopped the car driver to "get a license plate number." Get real! What would he do with a license plate number? Turn it into the police as a complaint against a rude driver? Why do people, who have not had a collision, usually stop someone? To start an altercation, that's why. If the truck driver wanted a license number, he could have gotten that from the rear of the car. He did not need to approach the driver close enough to see a gun and/or a piece of paper in the driver's hand. Again, get real, Dallas Morning News.
The News said that this was a new way to "bully drivers." Oh, really? A truck driver pulls you over, comes up to your window, probably uttering some choice phrases. The car driver was no doubt scared witless. So, the display of a weapon, which averted a further confrontation, makes the driver a "bully"? I'm sorry, the truck driver appeared here to be the bully.
Set aside for a moment the question of whether the car driver had a concealed handgun license. Implicit in the comments by The Dallas Morning News is that nobody should display a gun "simply" to avert a further confrontation. Dr. Gary Kleck estimates that in any given year citizens perhaps use weapons 2.5 million times to protect themselves. Many, many, many of these instances are where a gun is only displayed, and the threat of violence from another person or group of persons is nullified. The grandmother who is now president of the N.R.A., is fond of telling how she was accosted by a group of "toughs." She pulled her pistol. One of the toughs shouted "The Bitch's got a gun," and they took off. This scenario is repeated thousands of times a year.
I am not saying that every time someone comes up to you in a threatening manner, you should pull a gun. But especially in the case of large mismatches in age or size, or numbers of potential assailants, the display of a gun is often appropriate. Women, who are often faced by violent men twice their size, find that a gun is about the only "equalizer" available. In the incident cited above from the News, if the car driver been a 98-pound woman, would the News have called her a "bully" if she had displayed a gun to the oncoming truck driver - permit or not?
In the wake of a fatal shooting in one of the Ft. Worth "Driveway Robberies," a woman noticed a man following her. She called her husband on the cell phone. As the lady parked in her driveway, a thug put a gun to her head through the window. Suppose that lady had been carrying a gun in the car. Should she have waited until the thug's gun was pointed at her head, or should she have pulled her gun as soon as she saw the man approaching the car and shouted out, "I have a gun, and I will shoot!"? That's not a hard one, is it?
The lady's husband did come out of the house with a gun. The thug(s) fled. The husband said that he would have shot the potential robber, but his wife was "in too close proximity" to the robber. I mention this because it goes to the argument that citizens are not trained with guns and can always be counted on to fire guns without regard to others around them.
(The following is repeated from an earlier section because I think it also show the media bias on this subject:)
On March 17, 1996, The Dallas Morning News reported a story about the wife of a jewelry store owner in Richardson, Texas, who shot and killed an armed robber. The robber was struggling with her husband in the confines of a small office in the store, yet the woman was able to shoot the assailant without hitting her husband. Good job! This is one more case where the fears of the squeamish and the perennial hand-wringers were not realized. It is interesting to note that the woman has a concealed-handgun license, although she did not need one to legally have a gun in her place of business. The information about the concealed-weapon license was buried in the next-to-last paragraph. How come no headline "Concealed Weapon Licensee Kills Armed Robber"? You gotta be kidding. That's not the way the media plays this subject.
I hope that the media will resist the temptation to slant news and report it selectively in order to show how the concealed weapon bill is "failing." Given their track record, I don't hold out much hope.
The Brady Law and Concealed-Weapon Permit Holders
As if anyone needs to be reminded, the Brady law prescribes a 5-day waiting period before a dealer can deliver a handgun to a purchaser. In an undated memo to firearms dealers, the ATF said in part: "A firearms dealer can, after January 1, 1996, transfer a handgun to an individual who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun issued within the past 5 years, and who is 21 years of age or older, without a waiting period as required by Brady." If you have questions about this, call your local ATF office or ask your firearms dealer to show you a copy of the above memo.
On Balance - A Safer Environment in Which to Live and Work
There will always be violent confrontations of one kind or another. Civilians and police will continue to make errors in judgement with regard to the use of deadly force. But on balance, the concealed-weapon law will make Texas a safer place. At a minimum, it will allow many people to go out, especially at night, without the constant fear that they will become a victim of violent crime.
Where are the "No Guns Allowed" Signs ?
The Texas State Rifle Association now has its Web page up - at
http://www.tsra.com. You can send them any locations that are posting NO GUN signs or other information you care to about gun laws, etc. The TSRA page also has a wealth of information about gun laws, legislation, and the shooting sports.
Texas State Rifle Association
Update: December 1996
Dr. Suzy Gratia Hupp has been elected to the Texas House of Representatives. One of her campaign platforms was to work toward abolishing most, if not all, of the places where concealed-weapon permit holders are now forbidden by the law to carry their guns. Criminals and deranged people don't respect signs or artificial boundries, so Suzy should bring a lot to the party in Austin. She has been there. Remember that her parents were shot to death in front of her in Luby's Cafeteria. There are no signs today in Luby's prohibiting licensed concealed-weapons on the premises. Could it have been any other way? Most of the handwringers know only what they read in the newspapers or see on TV. Go get 'em Suzy!
E-Mail
If you send me e-mail, it would help if you have experience with guns, gun crime, police work, security work, social work, or something that allows you to talk about real problems and real solutions, not just some queasy feeling you have in the pit of your stomach about the evil of guns. I have copies of most of the significant studies and polls about guns and gun crime in recent years.
I have had several requests to use all or part of this treatise in a college paper, as part of a seminar, and so on. I welcome such use. Do drop me an e-mail note and tell me who you are and where you plan to use the material. It is the most important feedback I get.
Legislative Update:
Some changes to the Concealed Carry Law in Texas, and associated statutes, were passed by the Legislature in 1997 and signed into law. For an outstanding summary of the changes - and some commentary on several changes - please check out Paul Barnett's work at:
Texas HB 2909 (Concealed Carry Law)
Back to the list of Topics in this Section
Back to Richard's Home Page
Richard C. Rhodes
April 21, 1996, Revised July 4, 1997
za:
http://www.neto.com/RCR/bangun.html
Pozdrowienia
, któr± dziadek przed wojn± zakopa³ = karany
