Campus Carry

I've started a blog dedicated to the issue of licensed concealed carry (of handguns) on college campuses. The address is CampusCarry.com. Now, I won't have to post "guns on campus" news here on my personal blog.

Wedding Photos

HERE are Anna's and my wedding photos.

Anna cropped some of the photos to show better when viewed on a computer screen, so if you're trying to order a print and having trouble with the cropping, check to see if the original, uncropped picture is posted HERE.

You can buy a photo book of the wedding photos HERE.

HERE are the honeymoon photos.

Here is a short video of Anna rappelling down a waterfall:

Healthcare Reform

In the great healthcare debate currently reverberating throughout the hallowed halls of our nation’s Capitol and throughout our living rooms, offices, and Facebook pages, we are constantly reminded that more than half of all bankruptcies are the result of unpaid medical bills and that approximately one and a half million Americans lose their homes every year because they can’t afford their medical expenses. We’re told that 64.4 million Americans under the age of 65 spend more than ten percent of their income on healthcare, and we’re led to believe that only a complete retooling of America’s healthcare system can right these wrongs. But 64.4 million is only about 20% of Americans. Only one half of one percent of Americans will lose their homes due to insurmountable medical bills, in any given year, and only one tenth of one percent of all Americans will be forced into bankruptcy. Isn’t there some way to help these people, without bankrupting our nation trying to provide complete medical coverage to every man, woman, boy, and girl in the United States?

I’m neither an economist nor a healthcare professional, and I certainly haven’t followed the healthcare debate as closely as many others have, but I can’t help but think that, in our nation’s rush to divide along polarized party lines, there must be at least one or two viable options we’ve ignored. A recent study by the Labor Department found that the average American consumer spends 5.7% of his or her paycheck on healthcare (one third what the average consumer spends on transportation). And it seems reasonable to assume that the average consumer isn’t bankrupted by those costs and won't lose his or her home. So why couldn’t the government implement healthcare reform specifically designed to help people who spend more than a certain percentage of their annual income (perhaps based on a person’s tax bracket) on healthcare?

Essentially, what I’m suggesting is that—rather than paying for every man, woman, boy, and girl in the United States of America to run to the doctor and then the pharmacy every time they get the sniffles—the U.S. government look into adopting affordable major medical coverage as the public option. This could provide not only an option for people who can’t afford full coverage and don’t want to see their lives ruined by medical bills; it could also provide an option for employers who can’t afford to offer full coverage to their employees.

By offering this coverage as both a standalone health insurance plan and as a supplement to private health insurance, the government would allow private insurance companies to offer cheaper coverage to people who already have the government major medical plan. For example, a person earning $30,000 a year might be covered, under the subsidized government plan, for any treatments or procedures costing more than $3,000 in a given year. And that person could still purchase private health insurance (at a significantly lower rate than currently available) to help cover expenses that fall below that $3,000 government deductible.

It’s clearly not a perfect or fully thought out plan, but I think it has potential. Yes, it would still result in a significant burden on the U.S. government, but that burden would likely be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars less than the plan currently before Congress.

My Op-Ed In the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

This is several months old, but I just got around to posting it:

http://www.douva.com/sccc/fwst_oped.pdf

Concealed Carry is Allowed in the Texas Capitol

Some opponents of the legalization of concealed carry on Texas college campuses have argued that concealed carry is restricted at the Texas Capitol and that legislators who support concealed carry on campus clearly want a double standard for themselves.

In truth, the only place in the Texas Capitol where concealed carry is restricted is in the viewing galleries of the House and Senate, when the House and Senate are convened (per Texas Penal Code §30.06[e], §46.035[c], and §46.035[i]). During those times, those two small balconies are secured with metal detectors and armed state troopers.

In a February 17, 2009, interview with News 8 Austin, Rep. Charlie Geren, Chairman of the House Administration Committee—the committee charged with overseeing security measures in the House gallery—explained the presence of the metal detectors, which were installed at the beginning of the 2009 legislative session, by stating, "The big challenge for DPS is not protecting against someone with a handgun; it's someone who comes in and wants to blow people up."

Legislators with concealed-handgun licenses are still allowed to carry concealed handguns on the floors of the House and Senate, and the metal detectors securing the galleries are turned off as soon as the bodies adjourn each day.

Concealed carry is always allowed throughout the rest of the Capitol, including in the committee chamber where the Texas House Committee on Public Safety held the March 30, 2009, public hearing on Texas House Bill 1893, a bill aimed at legalizing concealed carry on Texas college campuses.

In fact, Texas legislators aren’t even allowed to restrict concealed carry in their own Capitol offices. Therefore, it’s more than a little unfair to suggest that they’re looking to require anything of public colleges that they don’t already require of themselves.

It is simply not reasonable to compare an open college campus the size of a small city to an easily secured area, like a balcony, where metal detectors can ensure that the area is gun free in more than name only, and where visitors are never out of the sight of armed state troopers.

Rep. Geren ended the February 17 interview by stating, “"I'm thinking [the metal detectors] will probably be there until the end of session, and then we will relook at the policy.”

Debunking ABC's 20/20 Episode "If I Only Had a Gun"

The April 10, 2009, episode of ABC’s 20/20, titled “If I Only Had a Gun," features a demonstration/experiment intended to show the improbability of a civilian with a concealed handgun stopping a mass shooting.

The most obvious shortcoming of the 20/20 demonstration/experiment is that it focused on a quick draw scenario in a small, single classroom, not a protracted massacre spread over multiple rooms, as was the case at Virginia Tech, Columbine, the recent civic center shooting in Binghamton, NY, etc. Even the NIU shooting took place in a large hall full of hundreds of students and lasted 2-3 minutes.

The demonstration/experiment was clearly designed to promote the argument that mass shootings happen too fast for individuals with concealed handguns to respond. Proponents of this position ignore the fact that at least one surviving victim of the Virginia Tech massacre spent five minutes talking to a 911 operator on her cell phone and listening to gunshots getting closer, before being shot by the gunman. She survived, but her professor and ten of her classmates lost their lives. Proponents of this position also ignore the fact that surviving victims of both the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings hid under their desks and watched the gunmen reload. It's hard to believe that students and faculty members who had time to dial 911 and/or who had a window of opportunity while the gunmen reloaded would not have had time to draw a concealed handgun, take aim, and fire.

A more subtle problem with the experiment is that the test subjects used concealed holsters to which they were introduced only a couple of hours earlier. And they had their vision and dexterity limited by paintball helmets and gloves. It takes a lot of practice to draw from a concealed holster, even without those inhibitors.

A third, much more egregious problem with the staged scenario is that the individual who played the gunman was a HIGHLY trained individual who not only knew there was an armed “student” in the room but also knew WHICH student had a concealed handgun and WHERE he or she would be sitting. Pitting a firearms instructor who has undergone years of training, who knows the scenario is staged and therefore isn't suffering from the same debilitating effects of adrenaline that a real gunman would experience, and who knows the location and identity of his only armed opposition is not a realistic simulation of a typical multiple victim shooting scenario.

Finally, in the episode’s analysis of the demonstration/experiment, the hosts play up the fact that one of the subjects “came close” to shooting a fellow classmate who ran in front of her while she was firing; however, the show never directly addresses the fact that none of the subjects actually shot any innocent bystanders. None of the scenario outcomes were made worse by the presence of one civilian with a concealed handgun. And no mention is made of the fact that the student running through the middle of the classroom would have been an easy target for the gunman, had the gunman not been facing armed resistance.

The fact that the scenario was set up as a quick draw test, the fact that the demonstration utilized concealed holsters with which the subjects were not intimately familiar, and the fact that the gunman had the distinct advantage of knowing both when and where he would face armed resistance completely discredits this demonstration/experiment as an accurate examination of whether or not a concealed handgun license holder could stop a mass shooting. The experiment might have gained a bit of credibility if it had included among the test subjects one or two licensed civilians who carry concealed handguns on a daily basis.

Instead, many aspects of the experiment just come across as silly. For example, it's difficult to fault someone who thinks he’s in a handgun training class for not immediately responding to a surprise attack perpetrated by an outsider who enters the class wearing full paintball gear, especially while the entire class is, coincidentally, also wearing full paintball gear. It's safe to say the test subjects might have had good reason to suspect that the shooting wasn't real.

At one point in the episode, the narrator concedes that concealed handguns have been used to “scare off” assailants in the past; however, no mention is made of the countless incidents where concealed handguns have been used to safely and successfully SHOOT assailants. And the only examples of self-defense shootings cited by the episode are clips from surveillance cameras, used to show examples of civilians firing handguns in self-defense and either not hitting their targets or firing too close to other civilians.

Despite all of the episode’s talk about the danger to bystanders, it does not present any examples of self-defense shootings where bystanders were actually caught in a crossfire or hit by stray bullets.

The episode presents a strongly biased anti-concealed carry position as if it were the irrefutable, scientifically proven gospel truth. In reality, the only thing this 20/20 special proves is that many members of the media strongly oppose the idea of civilians owning and, particularly, carrying firearms for personal protection.

###

"Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Handbook: Texas Edition:” http://www.studentsforconcealedcarryoncampus.com/

Additional blogs/essays about 20/20’s “If I Only Had a Gun:”

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-anti-gun-hatchet-job-on-2020.html

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-news-has-amazingly-bad-piece-on.html

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/abc_on_self_def.php

Misleading/Biased Associated Press Article about Recent Mass Shootings

This Associated Press article is the epitome of shoddy, lopsided journalism: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Apr07/0,4670,LegalGunmen,00.html

To say that the article, titled “Licensed to kill? Gunmen in killings had permits,” is misleading is a massive understatement. By pointing out that some of the gunmen possessed state-issued permits to own guns (Texas does not require a permit to own a gun) and then talking about legislation pending in the Texas legislature that would allow holders of Texas concealed handgun licenses to carry concealed handguns on Texas college campuses, the article blurs the line between the permits required in some states, such as Texas, to CARRY a gun and the much less stringent permits required in other states, such as New York, to simply OWN a gun.

The article never states which gunmen actually had permits or what types of permits they had. The only specific example cited is Jiverly Wong, the gunman in the civic center shooting in Binghamton, NY, who had a permit to OWN the two handguns used. If anything, that shooting demonstrates that the stricter gun control laws (such as requiring a permit to own guns) in states like New York do not, as gun control advocates suggest, prevent this type of tragedy.

This op-ed I wrote for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (April 1, 2009) cites statistics showing that citizens—specifically Texans—have nothing to fear from concealed handgun license holders: http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1293901.html

The most absurd line in the AP article reads, “Nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.”

Any thinking person is left wondering, “Legally entitled to fire his weapons AT WHAT?”

Here is the full text of the article:

Licensed to kill? Gunmen in killings had permits

By DEBORAH HASTINGS

They had more in common than unleashing carnage — nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren't getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts "to pass any similar law."

Gun control issues would only produce "a long and divisive fight," they said, at a time wen Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol — where legislators can carry guns — bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn't have signs saying guns weren't allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon — there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas — to bring guns on campus.

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right. In Tennessee, lawmakers made progress this month toward allowing guns to be carried in state and local parks.

"I think you're seeing a continuing change of culture," Vogel said. "I think the gun lobby wants to take away any stigma to gun ownership. I think they feel emboldened, like who's going to stop them?"

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws. "Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It is time for families and communities to grieve and to heal," it said in a prepared statement.

Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak — just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts. Whether they have a gun permit or not.

On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said. Earlier that day, the ethnic Chinese immigrant from Vietnam mailed an envelope to a Syracuse television station. In it were his gun permit, photos of him smiling while hoisting shiny, big handguns, and his driver's license.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong's Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

"In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun," said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. "No one likes to see things fall through the cracks and it looks like this guy fell through the cracks."

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong's gun permit.

In New York City, gun permits are reissued every three years.

Yet, regulations differ only slightly between states, Chamberlain said. "They're fairly typical — don't be a felon, don't be a drunk, don't beat your kids or your wife. Don't be so mentally unbalanced that you need be in an institution."

To Chamberlain, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time.

"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."

To Vogel, the answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.

The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.

"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Much of the confusion about whether Jiverly Wong had a permit to carry a gun or simply a permit to possess a gun stems from this photo from News 10 in Syracuse, NY.



At first glance, it appears that the permit is a carry permit; however, if you look at the vertical text on the right side of the face of the permit, you’ll see that it says “TARGET SHOOTING – HUNTING.”

According to the New York State Police website, “ONLY A QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER or SELF-PROTECTION LICENSE ARE FULL CARRY LICENSES.”
This is how a “TARGET SHOOTING – HUNTING” license is described by the NY State Police website:

(1) SPORTSMAN – (Target and Hunting) – For the underlined purposes, firearms may only be transported between your residence and an authorized target shooting range, a legal hunting area in New York State and while actually afield hunting.

The requirements to obtain a New York State “Target Shooting – Hunting” license are not nearly as stringent as the requirements (page 10) to obtain a Texas concealed handgun license.

Of course, even if Mr. Wong’s permit had been a full carry license, that wouldn’t change the fact that he carried his guns without also having his license in his possession (a violation of NY state law), that he carried his guns into a “gun free zone” (NY state law prohibits the possession of firearms “upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes”), and that he violated numerous state and federal laws by murdering thirteen people. A carry permit does not ENABLE a person to commit premeditated murder.

“Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Handbook: Texas Edition” – http://www.studentsforconcealedcarryoncampus.com/

ProtestEasyGunsLIES.com: The Truth about “Assault Weapons” and Gun Control – http://www.protesteasygunslies.com/