Don't Mess With Texas... Especially Its New Gun Law
Texans and guns.
Back in 2006, Dick Cheney shot a man in Reno, err, Kingsville, in South Texas. In the face, while hunting quail in an open field. On a 53,000 acre spread.
He claimed (and experts disbelieved) to be at least 90 feet from his victim, an elderly hunting partner. No charges ensued, and it was played for laughs nationally because nobody died. Still, the guy got seriously riddled in the face, head and upper body. He was in the hospital for weeks and will carry shrapnel the rest of his life.
That near-tragedy happened in a largely unpopulated environment. Today, vast suburbs now exist that were rural two decades ago, so the following was bound to happen: Some years ago, 3,000 mainly undeveloped acres were annexed by the city of Fort Worth and placed under its urban firearms ordinance.
This didn't sit well with the gun lobby. As far as they were concerned, rules for how close a hunter, on city land, could be to a home or school shouldn't be determined by the, um, local government.
Fourth of July fireworks near homes and businesses certainly matter from a safety standpoint, but guns? What are you, a communist?
So in '05, the legislature co-opted municipalities by setting the limit on hunting in these areas: not within 150 feet of "homes or occupied buildings." That's right: just 50 yards, half a football field. Great quarterbacks are known to throw the ball farther than that, and I guarantee you their arm velocity is much less than a Remington 12 gauge over and under.
The upshot? Since the law passed four years ago, the Dallas Morning News now reports:
{E}ach year ....frantic callers have flooded North Texas 911 lines on the opening day of dove hunting season with complaints about noise and the proximity of hunters to their homes.Police Chief Todd Renshaw of Frisco {north of Dallas}, said he knew of no related injuries, but in some cases shotgun pellets rained down on homes and businesses.
And to him that means hunters are simply too close.
"I'm a hunter. I hunt dove. But there are places in Frisco where I have hunted that I don't any more, because it's just too close to civilization."
A pending bill in the current session of the legislature increases the distance from 150 to 1,500 feet for schools, day care sites, residential subdivisions, apartment complexes, parks and outdoor recreation areas. The Texas State Rifle Association (the Lone Star wing of the NRA) has supposedly signed off on the increase, and that's a good thing.
Ah, but they're happy to be magnanimous for a big reason. The more important law they want from the Texas legislature is almost in the bag: the right to bring a gun to work!
There's already a state law -- fairly recent -- allowing concealed weapons, yet one of the exemptions lets employers choose to keep guns off their private property, whether an office, chemical plant, factory, etc. The new law will take away the bosses option, granting workers the right to keep guns and ammo stored in their vehicles, parked on-site.
The argument offered for the change by supporters, with a straight face, is that driving to work in these tough economic times is just too dangerous, and people need a pistol to get to their job alive.
It's going to pass despite opposition from the powerful business lobby.
Hey, Bob in accounting? Your days of complaining about overtime pay may be finished. And when that creepy co-worker gets the pink slip, try to be away at lunch.
POSTSCRIPT: Pro-gun forces are pushing several other pieces of legislation that have been filed this session. The most disturbing would actually repeal the existing requirement that when stopped by law enforcement, a Texas concealed handgun licensee must show their permit if they are carrying their handgun.
In other words, a person with a loaded gun in the car -- and a permit to carry it -- won't have to let the officer know they're packing heat when pulled over at, say, 2:00 AM after a night of drinking. Currently, those carrying have to show their permit so the officer at least knows the full potential of the situation he or she is dealing with.
We already know cops are armed. It seems only fair they should know if we are, and many in law enforcement think this bill is terribly misguided.
The Texas arm of the NRA, however, proudly endorses it on their website. Then again, they loved cop killer bullets, too. The "true colors" of these gun obsessives are showing.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A comment repeatedly asks jackson to define cop killer bulllets. Why should he? Federal law defines them in detail, and has for over two decades.
The term cop killer bullets is legitimate and understood as political shorthand for "armor piercing ammunition
Polling always showed support from rank and file cops in police departments, for OBVIOUS REASONS. (Civilians agree. In fact, 75% also support the assault weapons ban, which expired in '04.) Yet the NRA has historically been opposed.
One claim stuck, that the ban would impact ammo for hunting and target practice. Not true, but it scared legislators who can't afford to be tagged for defeat by the NRA. The only way to get enough votes, and at least ban the bullets from handguns, was by exempting rifles and sporting purposes. I worked on the Hill during the process, that's how it went.
A small cadre on the right still insists this is imaginary, despite that it's been painstakingly defined in federal statute since '86. This denial is more inexplicable than Britney Spears' comeback!
Law enforcement supports the ban, it's effectively saved their lives in untold numbers over many years, and the NRA didn't stand with them. That's what matters.
Obsessive commenting and excessive "gun minutia" blows.
Actually federal law does NOT define CKBs.
What federal law defines are "armor piercing" bullets.
Now I know this is pretty confusing to the less firearm saavy folks, but just as I said before, there are different types of armor and what defeats them varies by armor type.
Let's look at the military definition of "armor piercing". In this case, they are talking about the ability of a bullet to defeat particular thickness of rolled annealed steel, usually on the order of about 1/2 inch at 300 meters. Not too many cops walk around wearing 1/2 inch steel plate armor - not at 20 pounds per square foot.
The "armor" in military "armor piercing" parlance is often called "hard" or "metallic" armor. this is not what body armor is usually made of. Body armor is usually called "soft" armor. It is very important to note that hard and soft systems defeat projectiles in very different ways and that what is stopped by one may not be stopped by the other and visa versa.
What the federal law defines as "armor piercing" has nothing to do with the bullet's ability to defeat body armor and is actually more in line with the military version except that instead of focusing on performance, it focuses on construction and that many of the bullets banned by the current federal law actually perform no better against body armor than a standard FMJ (confirmed by body armor testing and certifying labs such as HP White).
Cont. from below:
It is also important to note that the current federal definition of "armor piercing" was devised because a separate proposal at the time which was performance based was so poorly written that it very easily could have including a lot of rifle ammo used for hunting.
So, what have we learned today?
1. "Armor piercing" and "cop killer bullets" capable of defeating standard police issue body armor are NOT the same things and the terms are NOT synonymous
2. Federal law does NOT define "cop killer bullets"
3. "Armor piercing" is still a very subjective term
"Polling always showed support from rank and file cops in police departments, for OBVIOUS REASONS. "
As a LEO with prior military service and time as an arms instructor, I can tell you that a lot of firearm info believe by the rank and file cops is simply wrong. I sometimes get a headache trying to explain to them things like "no, the shockwave of a .50 BMG will NOT make your head explode if it passes within 6 inches of your head", the differences between interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics, that constantly rechambering the same cartridge can cause bullet creep, that sticking their finger in the barrel of a perps gun will NOT save them, etc.
"(Civilians agree. In fact, 75% also support the assault weapons ban, which expired in '04.) "
Most civilians mistakenly think "assault weapons" are machine guns. I know because I run into this misperception all the time.
"One claim stuck, that the ban would impact ammo for hunting and target practice. Not true,"
Again, the original proposal very easily could have. The reason is that the language of the original proposal included ammo which could be used in a handgun and would defeat a very low level of body armor.
Let's look at that, as it tripped up Obama and FactCheck.
We have what we call "handgun" ammo and "rifle" ammo. This means the ammo was ORIGINALLY designed for use in that particular platform. For example, the 9mm is typical "handgun" ammo while a .308 Winchester is typical "rifle" ammo.
Now, here is the rub: I can buy a rifle which fires 9mm ammo and I can buy handguns which fire .308 Winchester ammo.
By the wording of the original proposal and subsequent attempts to pass similar language (this is where FactCheck.
"The Texas Rifle Association, however, proudly endorses it on their website. Then again, they loved cop killer bullets, too."
Jackson, how about you take a stab at DEFINING what a "cop killer bullet" actually is.
HINT: Teflon does not make CKB
ANOTHER HINT: Hollow points aren't CKBs
Some more info for you to digest in coming up with a definition of a CKB:
Black Talons are not cop killer bullets, nor were they banned.
Hello Jackson! Anyone home?
Anyone?
Wow. I didn't think this would be such a tough question.
OK. Let's edumcate Mr Williams here.
First, let's talk about body armor and cops: Unbeknownst to many people, the term "bullet proof vest" is wrong. It is "body armor".
Body armor comes in six defined levels per the National Institute of Justice. Those levels are I, IIa, II, IIIa, III, and IV in ascending order of protection. This is also an ascending order of weight, bulk, heat retention, and rigidity, meaning a level III vest is a lot heavier, bulkier, hotter to wear, and more rigid and movement restraining than a level II vest. Anyone who has worn level III or IV vests can attest to them being akin to being a turtle in a shell. Basically the levels are designed around the caliber, weight, and velocity of the bullets.
A level I vest can stop a .22LR, but not a 9mm, .44 Magnum, or a centerfire rifle. Level II can stop some types of 9mm, but not .44 Magnum or centerfire rifles. Level IIIa can stop a .44 Magnum, but not centerfire rifles.
OK, so, now we have to ask, "What do cops normally wear?" The answer is level IIa to IIIa, but usually no higher than level II. They feel this strikes a good balance between the threat on the street and the cops' degree of comfort and performance.
So, now that we have that out of the way, it should be pretty clear that what can penetrate a cop's vest is going to depend on what he is wearing and that it really doesn't take anything special to defeat it. It should also be clear that a "CKB" would pretty well have to be a handgun round as any centerfire rifle is likely to go through a cop's body armor.
So, first criteria for a CKB is it must be a bullet fired from a cartridge originally intended to be used in a handgun.
Next since body armor comes in different levels, and a level IIa vest isn't even rated against things like normal bullets from .357 Magnums or .44 Magnums, our definition will have to be somewhat sliding.
Therefore, the second criteria for a CKB is it must be designed to defeat body armor OF THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL for a bullet of that caliber, weight, and velocity. IOW, if the body armor is rated against a 124 grain 9mm traveling 1000 feet per second, a CKB has to be a 124 grain 9mm traveling 1000 feet per second and can defeat that body armor.
In the real world, such things basically don't exist.
" Currently, those carrying have to show their permit so the officer at least knows the full potential of the situation he or she is dealing with."
Any smart LEO knows not to assume someone is unarmed, simply because they don't show a permit. And the truly dangerous people aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with a permit or even have a permit.
"The Texas Rifle Association, however, proudly endorses it on their website. Then again, they loved cop killer bullets, too. The "true colors" of these gun obsessives are showing."
Only in Ted Kennedy's head does such a thing as cop-killer bullets exist. Any bullet can kill a cop.
"Any smart LEO knows not to assume someone is unarmed, simply because they don't show a permit. And the truly dangerous people aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with a permit or even have a permit."
EXACTLY! We do NOT rely on permits to tell us the threat posed.
All very interesting. However, none of what you say is in any way an argument for NOT being required to tell a cop who pulls you over that you have a permit and are currently carrying a loaded weapon. As the blog points out, at least the officer will know the full potential of the situation he or she is dealing with.
You're not opposed to that, are you?
And besides, why the assumption that people with permits are going to be angels when pulled over at night after being out? You're right that no cop would assume such a thing. All the more reason that a permit holder who is carrying be required to make it clear up front.
Showing the permit also has a good side, perhaps. I had a boyfriend who always speeds, and always got pulled over for it. Since he got his concealed permit, he has found that it has gotten him out of a ticket for speeding more than once.
"However, none of what you say is in any way an argument for NOT being required to tell a cop who pulls you over that you have a permit and are currently carrying a loaded weapon. As the blog points out, at least the officer will know the full potential of the situation he or she is dealing with."
No, we will not.
"Since he got his concealed permit, he has found that it has gotten him out of a ticket for speeding more than once."
Weren't you claiming not to know anyone with a CCW permit?
BTW, if I were the one pulling him over, he'd still get a ticket. Speeding leads to far more tdeaths than firearms do.
"You're not opposed to that, are you? "
I'm not opposed to it or in favor it. It's just something that's completely pointless and runs the risk of creating a false sense of security where officers can get hurt.. There isn't a single (intelligent) cop who is going to walk up to a car @ 2am with his guard down so low that if the person in the car does or does not presents a permit, he'll be more or less cautious.
I'm not making any assumption that people with permits are going to be angels. Quite the opposite actually. For the safety of the officer, all people should be considered equally dangerous when you pull them over at 2am in the morning. Whether they present a permit or not should not change that fact.
The phrase "what's the freakin' point?" comes to mind with stuff like this. Talk about feel-good legislation.
The Preamble of the Constitution says that government is supposed to "promote the general welfare." This does not happen when the gun-nuts think that we won't really be the GodBlesstheUSA until we regress back to Dodge City, circa 1885. I have no desire to live in that kind of insane milieu, thank you very much. I'm quite happy here on the South Side of Chicago, as far from Texas as I can be.
Ah yes, the "wild west" argument. Too bad it just isn't true.
Ironically, Chicago is more like the "Wild West" than any place in Texas.
The whole "Wild West" argument is invalid anyway, as the "Wild West" was less wild than many modern urban centers where law and order is nearly nonexistent, what little that does exist is steeped in corruption.
You would think with the scores of news strories about mass shootings, school shootings, church shootings, disgruntled employee shootings, etc etc that people would have figured out the people who are hell bent to shoot people already have the guns anyway.
That being realized, you would think it would be obvious that MORE law abiding citizens should be allowed to have access to weapons at the work place, preferrably in a concealed place.
In the Luby's shooting, Susanna Gratia Hupp left her handgun in the car because Texas handgun laws at the time required her to do so. Both her mother and father died in the attack while her gun sat useless in the car.
This makes me wonder how many of these crimes like at Virginia Tech would be prevented if someone with a gun stood up and said "Hell no" and ended the attack before it began.
I'm just saying. I keep a gun close by at night because I know the sound of a shell entering the chamber will scare off anyone with two brain cells.
Could you tell me what the name of the bill is that says that legislature will increase the distance from 150 to 1500 feet for hunters?? It just seems a little unreasonable to have a difference of over 1350 feet. Also, I don't understand people would need to "pack heat to get to thier jobs alive?" Although our economic times are rough right now, that doesn't mean that people's lives' are at danger.
I do agree with the right to bring a gun to work. It's the second ammendment. People should afraid because who knows the background of the person carrying the gun. They may have killed two people already and we won't even know it. To me, it is quite dangerous to have "innocent" americans carrying guns, especially in public areas where young kids may be proned to the influence of having one in the future. Honestly, who needs to carry guns other than the authorities (police officers and the like) ?????
"Also, I don't understand people would need to "pack heat to get to thier jobs alive?" "
Depends on where you live and work Maybe they are going to stop at a mini-mart on the way to or from. Maybe car jackings happen a lot.
"To me, it is quite dangerous to have "innocent" americans carrying guns, especially in public areas where young kids may be proned to the influence of having one in the future."
Many "innocent" Americans have military or police backgrounds and most states require at least some training. Additionally, the point of concealed carry is that the firearm is concealed, IOW cannot be seen by "young kids".
"Honestly, who needs to carry guns other than the authorities (police officers and the like) ?????"
Again, depends on your situation. Legally armed law abiding civilians stop or prevent many, many crimes every year. Cops can't be everywhere and according to several court decisions, the police are not obligated to protect you. As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you our job often begins AFTER the crime has been committed.
you just never know when you want to have it out with your boss or co-worker
As for that difference of 1,350 feet - you might feel a little differently if you were awaked on Sunday morning to the sound of shotguns blasting continuously and were afraid to let your kids or pets out in the back yard for fear of them catching a wild shot.
You do understand, I hope, that shotguns have a very limited range?
Great thread!
Everyone screaming about what will happen if people bring guns to work. Guess what? They do now!
They have been. The author of this piece ends it with a scenario of a disgrundled employee getting pink slipped; Mr Williams, things like this happen every year.
You're too dim to realize that maybe employees need more protection than the crappy security provided by most employers. When the Lubby's shooting took place, Texas had repealed a gun law that would have allowed the patrons to carry a concealed weapon into the restaruant, possibly saved a few lives. How many incidents do you know of where a armed man walked into a poilce station? NONE! That's why they should be permitted to carry them to work. Of course no one is going to bring an AK-47 to work unless they have ill intent on their mind. But people like you would prefer that I have no protection and cower under a desk, waiting for my bullet.
You would be safer working around gun fanatics that were armed than anal -retentive anti gun people.
Don't mess with Texas.
And they are complaining about Mexico.
In Mexico they have strict gun laws so that ONLY the crooks are armed. THAT is what happens when you take away the right to bear arms. The crooks are also the cops, and they are free to prey on the citizens that they are supposed to protect.
Here is an idea for business owners in Texas and is GUARANTEED to work! ELIMINATE ALL PARKING LOTS!!!
Jackson Williams isn't quite clear when he states:
"So in '05, the legislature co-opted municipalities by setting the limit on hunting in these areas: not within 150 feet of "homes or occupied buildings.
The '05 rules only applies to "shotgun, air gun, BB gun or bow and arrow on tracts of 10 acres or more" .
IOW, for rifles and handguns you have to be quite a bit farther away. BTW, the effective range of a full-choke shotgun is only about 40 yards, though there is no doubt that the pellets can carry farther than that - it is just that their velocity and pattern are such that they quickly become less and less injurious.
For anti-gun nuts facts and the truth are foreign things. The fact is that to BAN guns you have to allow the companies to have totally free access to search their employees vehicles at any time and for any reason. They will have to be able to look for things such as drugs, alcohol, guns, pornography, union literature, and any things the employer does not like. This is a violation of the rights of employees, and that of course is of NO concern to anti-gun nuts.
There are times when it is appropriate to have the right to search such vehicles, such as when they are driven in secure areas within the business and employees may be taking company property out. But to state that they have the right to search a vehicle at any time when it is on company property is absurd.. I find it very UNLIBERAL to give companies such power that the police don't even have. It is people such as Willians who will keep Texas from becoming a Blue state again. They are more concerned about being anti-gun, than fighting for the rights of the people of Texas.
Nobody said businesses have a right to search employee vehicles. You're dreaming that. In the 14 years since Texas passed a concealed carry law, one of the exemptions has always allowed business owners, if they so choose, to deny employees the right to bring guns and ammo onto the private property of the business. That's all. To stretch that out as if someone is advocating businesses searching employee cars is bizarre. No business in Texas has done such a thing, or would. I doubt it would even be legal, and there's not a single case of some employee saying, "No, I insist that I be able to have guns and ammo loaded in my trunk when I go to work."
Sorry, hasn't happened. The removal of this particular exemption is a cure for which there's no illness. And the blog entry only deals with that exemption and the other matter of how far a hunter must be from civilization. This blog entry wasn't some "anti-gun" rant at all. At least not the blog entry I read. Some of these comments, however, are "pro-gun" rants.
Guns in the workplace?
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Firearms in the parking lot, locked up in a vehicle, but not anywhere else on the property.
....and apparently a way to keep them from ambling through the front door and into Human services after a layoff? How, pray tell? Honor system?
Too many guns are around already - they need to be severely limited.
No one in their right mind need an automatic AK-47 or similar for hunting purposes or to solve an argument.
If they use it for hunting, then it's not hunting - just a bad shot.
Too many accidents happen because of careless use of guns.
There is no Militia in Texas - they need to re-read the 2nd Amendment - it's quite a long paragraph !!
"No one in their right mind need an automatic AK-47 or similar for hunting purposes or to solve an argument. "
This law has nothing to do with AK-47s.
Full-auto AK-47s are already very strictly controlled items under the auspices of federal laws passed in 1934, 1968, and 1986 (the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban had nothing to do with full-auto firearms). Ownership is expensive and getting approval to own is a long process.
Semi-auto hunting rifles have been sold in the US for over 105 years.
"There is no Militia in Texas"
Actually, yes, there is. Please become familiar with Title 10 US Code 311, state defense forces, and read Perpich v. DoD 496 U.S. 334, 352
"they need to re-read the 2nd Amendment "
You need to read the Heller decision.
Heller has nothing to do with with this blog entry, and nothing to do with whether an employer should be FORCED to allow employees to store personal weapons and ammo on the employer's private property simply because the worker is employed there. Your guns and car are yours, but when it comes to storing your wepons on my private property, there is no equivalance, as someone commented, between your car/weapons and my right to control what's allowed on my private property. That's as it should be and as it has been.
Indeed, Scalia, who wrote the 5-4 Heller opinion, went out of his way to make it clear that "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...
Dozens of challenges to gun control laws nationally since Heller have been rejected, largely because of the Scalia passage. Without this change by the legislature, there's little doubt a Texas business owner's right to keep guns off his/her property would be upheld as perfectly acceptable. Because it is perfectly acceptable.
I agree with the commenter named Mamselle. The subject of the blog entry isn't even about second amendment gun rights.
The gun fanatics apparently think so, however, because they merely saw the word "Gun" in the title and jumped like a Pavlovian dog. And they are telling us, intriguingly, that they believe a relatively new concealed weapon law in Texas (only 14 years old) must now allow workers to bring their guns and ammo onto the private property where they work, regardless of the private property rights of the factory owner or office owner who employs them and wants no weapons on his/her property.
That's just a bogus notion, period, regardless of whether or not the Texas legislature agrees. A concealed carry law doesn't mean you can carry a weapon wherever the hell you want. There should be wise restrictions, and a respect for property rights, whether it's a residential or a commercial property. Besides, the Texas legislature isn't known for wisdom or brilliance, anyway. It's historically known for being about 90% full of idiots, both the republicans and the democrats.
The age of the law has no bearing on the issue.
"That's just a bogus notion, period,"
Your opinion.
" a respect for property rights"
Whose property rights trumps whose?
The age of the law matters because it points up how inane the whole thing is.
Concealed carry laws are not "enshrined" in the sense property rights are, much less a concealed carry law that's only 14 years old. Property rights matter. A concealed carry law is just current policy. To insist on an equivalence between the two is nonsensical.
A business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity, etc. That's as it should be. But telling a property owner that he/she MUST allow employees to load up weapons and ammo on the owners private property is way, way, way beyond the pale. I suppose that's why, as of last July, only eight states had seen fit to disrespect a business owner's property rights http://www
This point isn't even debatable, really, and the only reason the Texas legislature is ignoring the logic is because it's a conservative state and they are beholden to the gun lobby....a
The dead guy's rights, obviously.
So, maybe none of these bozos remembers how the phrase "going postal" came into being? Disgruntled postal workers going back into work and the killing sprees - how much more convenient if they were allowed to bring guns into work and not have to go home to get one. So if someone stressed out and being given the keys to the curb flips out, he's got a weapon handy, right?
Going postal? How many incidents were there of postal employees 'going postal'? Was it an epidemic, or a blown up, media hyped incident that became a catch phrase? Criminally minded people give not one whit what the concealed carry law is. They are criminals. Usually safe in their assumption that if there is no LEO around, they are the only ones armed. Now if I am armed to protect myself, or loved ones, I become the criminal. I would rather be a criminal, than hide under my desk, or behind my closet door waiting for whatever the 'criminal' decides to do.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
