Jeremy Alford
Capitol Correspondent

DailyComet.com

BATON ROUGE — State Rep. Ernest Wooton, the former sheriff of Plaquemines Parish whose district once included portions of lower Lafourche, will again be pushing concealed weapons as a policy issue in this year’s session.

But it won’t be in the same form that garnered the Belle Chasse Republican headlines around the state in 2008 and 2009 when he steered a controversial and unsuccessful bill that would have allowed concealed handguns on college campuses.

So far, it appears that Wooton is shelving that push, which was opposed by several colleges including Nicholls State University.

In its place, Wooton has filed another bill that could help Louisiana shore up “reciprocity agreements” with other states and maybe even land a few new ones. Reciprocity agreements mean states agree to accept one another’s policies.

In the case of House Bill 9 by Wooton, that means concealed weapons.

Wooton’s bill would allow reciprocity between Louisiana and another state when a concealed-handgun permit is issued to someone at least 21 years old — the age requirement that currently exists in Louisiana.

Several state legislatures around the country are considering similar bills this year to ensure consistent concealed-weapons policies.

In theory, without Wooton’s proposed change, there’s a chance that Louisiana might lose its reciprocity status with other states.

Wooton, chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee, is also the author of House Bill 16,

which adds to the types of certifications required to be a concealed-weapons instructor.

Present law requires instructors to be certified by the Council on Peace Officer Standards and Training as a firearms instructor or by the National Rifle Association as an instructor for civilians and law enforcement.

Wooton’s bill requires that instructors certified by the National Rifle Association also be certified as an instructor in “basic pistol shooting, personal protection in the home or personal protection outside the home.”

Both concealed-handgun bills are expected to be debated during the spring regular session, which convenes March 29.

To view Wooton’s bills, go to www.legis.state.la.us.

Capitol Correspondent Jeremy Alford can be reached at

jeremy@jeremyalford.com.

By Olympia Meola

Richmond Times Dispatch

The Republican-dominated House of Delegates advanced a slew of Second Amendment-related bills yesterday.

They ranged from a bill that would repeal the one-gun-a-month limit on handgun purchases, to shielding applicants for concealed-weapon permits, to protecting some Virginia-made guns and ammunition from potential federal regulation.

In all, about a dozen gun bills cleared a preliminary hurdle in the House yesterday and are up for a final vote today.

Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, sponsor of House Bill 49, argued that the rationale for the state’s one-gun-a-month law, enacted in 1993 under then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, has been “neutered” because of technological advances.

Handguns are subject to the national instant-check system to verify that the purchaser is not prohibited from buying a firearm, Lingamfelter said. And, he added, some people like to buy one gun for personal protection and another for target practice.

“In reality, one gun a month does not stop crime,” Lingamfelter said. “Criminals who are inclined to break the law don’t obey this one.”

But Del. Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico, countered that people can now buy up to 12 guns a year. He raised concerns that with a repeal of the law, the state could be the source of gun purchases for across-state sales.

He asked Lingamfelter if he could “really state that a citizen of the commonwealth is legitimately inconvenienced by not being able to buy more than one handgun a month?”

The House also gave initial approval to House Bill 854, which would shield from liability people who defend against intruders in their home.

House Bill 69, which declares that firearms and ammunition made in Virginia and retained here would not be subject to federal regulation, cleared the initial hurdle in the House. So did a measure introduced by Del. R Lee Ware Jr., R-Powhatan, that would shield from public view applications for concealed-handgun permits without written consent of the applicant.

Milwaukee – Wisconsin

Journal Sentinel

Two prominent law enforcement officials are ready to back Wisconsinites’ ability to carry concealed handguns with a permit if the law includes tough gun regulations that have been hard to obtain.

We have long been opposed to concealed carry for Wisconsin. But an argument, being made by Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and District Attorney John Chisholm, makes sense to us. The state should have this law if it is truly part of a larger package that includes closing the gun show loophole, making it a felony to act as a straw buyer and also a felony to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

Law enforcement officials feel that their hands are tied. While it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin, the penalties for doing so are among the weakest in the country.

Last week, Flynn told the Editorial Board that his frustration mounts after his department arrests someone carrying a gun, but the person is punished with a relative slap on the wrist.

We all should be willing to live with concealed carry if it is part of comprehensive firearm reform and if prosecutors are given the ability to severely punish those illegally carrying guns.

In other words, the trade-off is worthy if also included are tools that, as Flynn describes it, make it just as dangerous for folks to carry illegal guns as they think it is to go without them.

In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a felon to be in possession of a firearm. But for a non-felon, the offense is most often a misdemeanor.

It’s clear: Something drastic needs to change in the state to make people rethink carrying handguns. In certain areas of the city, gunshots can ring out at anytime because of a perception that, on the streets, carrying a gun is simply a matter of necessity.

Of course, such a new law won’t make all bad guys rethink guns. And if concealed-carry legislation is crafted, it should be done with reasonable access for law enforcement to the database so they can know who’s carrying; to the public so it can gauge whether the law is resulting in more death or injury; should mandate adequate firearms training for permit holders; and retain private property owners’ abilities to restrict guns from their premises (particularly bars).

And getting caught with a concealed gun but without a permit should carry significant penalties.

While crime in Milwaukee has decreased for an eighth consecutive quarter, the number of illegal guns out there should concern everyone. This should be as evident to the pro-gun folks as to the anti-gun folks.

Wisconsin is one of two states without concealed-carry laws. And, no, we don’t believe that more people carrying concealed guns will suddenly make all criminals afraid and that crime will go away.

We know that those traditionally opposed to concealed carry fear that such a law will result in Wild West shootouts. There is little evidence that this is a widespread problem in those states with concealed carry.

The issue of concealed carry could crop up in the governor’s race. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, vying for the Democratic nomination, has been particularly outspoken on the topic. We’d urge him to take another look. To us, the trade-off is worth it.

But let’s be clear: Without these other tougher parts, there should be no give on concealed carry.

By Andrea Watkins

MyFoxHouston.com

Andrea Watkins - Reporter

HOUSTON – A would-be robber is shot to death by a tire store owner in north Houston, and officers are searching for three suspects who got away.

The shooting took place after 8 p.m. Wednesday at the 11100 block of Bauman Road.

Police say four men tried to stage a robbery at the El Mante Tire Shop at the 11000 block of Bauman Road at approximately 8:30 p.m. Wednesday. The store owner, who has a license to carry a concealed handgun, drew his weapon and started shooting.

One robbery suspect died in the shop, but three others escaped in a black Mercury Mountaineer with chrome rims. They were also able to steal some property, but police would not say what was stolen.

Houston Police Department homicide detectives are investigating the shooting.

The store owner made a brief visit to his shop early on Thursday morning, but told FOX 26 News that he would not comment on the shooting.

by BRAD WATSON
WFAA-TV

Debra Medina - GOP Candidate

DENTON – Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison have taken up most of the attention in the fight for the Republican nomination for governor, but gun-toting Debra Medina says she should be heard, too.

Medina, who is running for governor as a Republican, courts the Libertarian-Tea Party wing of the GOP, and is a strong supporter of gun owner rights.

The right to carry a gun isn’t just a principle to Medina, it’s also protection.

“I’m interested in protecting myself from the crime and I think our leadership needs to be more vocal in reminding people of that,” she said.

Medina, who doesn’t hold a concealed handgun permit because she claims it’s government interference, keeps a semi-automatic pistol in her car while campaigning. It’s a legal arrangement; the Texas State Rifle Association says is okay as long as the weapon stays out of sight in the vehicle.

“I recognize, as our founders did, that the police can’t get there fast enough,” she said.

The Second Amendment rights issue loads well into her anti-tax, pro-life and Tea-Party oriented campaign. But, during a stop in Denton County,she said the green kind of ammo – money – is hard to come by, which makes it hard to compete with Perry and Hutchison.

She’s airing a TV ad in just five cities this weekend, which isn’t enough to sharply broaden her name statewide. But, she hopes to raise her single-digit standing in polls to qualify to appear in two upcoming statewide debates.

“There are many Texans who don’t know they have another choice, and it’s really important that I’m on that stage so they recognize this is a three-man race,” she said.

Medina said she doesn’t accept the role of spoiler. She campaigns to be taken seriously and is ready for any serious challenge to her safety.

“And it goes with me everywhere I go,” she said while packing up her gun in her vehicle.

By ERIK SCHELZIG

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – It’s been the year of the gun in Tennessee. In a flurry of legislative action, handgun owners won the right to take their weapons onto sports fields and playgrounds and, at least briefly, into bars.
A change in leadership at the state Capitol helped open the doors to the gun-related bills and put Tennessee at the forefront of a largely unnoticed trend: In much of the country, it is getting easier to carry guns.

A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.

Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.

The trend is attributed in large part to a push by the National Rifle Association. The NRA, which for years has blocked attempts in Washington to tighten firearms laws, has ramped up its efforts at the state level to chip away at gun restrictions.

“This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right of self defense by law-abiding Americans,” says Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist. “We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack.”

Among the recent gun-friendly laws:

- Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.

- Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.

- Montana, Arizona and Kansas have allowed handgun permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions expunged or their full civil rights restored.

- Tennessee and Montana have passed laws that exempt weapons made and owned in-state from federal restrictions. Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a .50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up to five miles and is banned in California.

The AP compiled the data on new laws from groups ranging from the Legal Community Against Violence, which advocates gun control, to the NRA.

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” Gallup’s most recent annual crime survey in October found 71 percent opposed such a ban.

The NRA boasts that almost all states grant handgun permits to people with clean criminal and psychological records. In 1987, only 10 states did. Only Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia now prohibit the practice entirely.

“The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures,” said Kristin Rand, legislative director the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. “They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost them their seats, even though there’s no real evidence to back that up.”

Tennessee’s new laws came after the Republican takeover of the General Assembly this year, but most other states that loosened restrictions didn’t experience major partisan shifts. Most of the states where the new laws were enacted have large rural populations, where support for gun rights tends to cross party lines.

While some states have tightened gun laws during the same period, the list of new restrictive laws is much shorter. In 2009 alone, more than three times as many laws were passed to make it easier on gun owners.

New Jersey’s 2009 law limiting people to one handgun purchase per month is the most notable of the more restrictive laws. Other examples this year include Maryland’s ban on concealed weapons on public transit and Maine’s vote to give public universities and colleges the power to regulate firearms on campus.

The most contentious of Tennessee’s new gun laws was one allowing handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. It took effect in July after lawmakers overrode a veto by the governor. Last month, a Nashville judge struck down the law as unconstitutionally vague, but supporters have vowed to pass it again.

A similar Arizona law that took effect in September allows people with concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven’t posted signs banning them.

While Tennessee’s law was in place, many bars chose not to let customers bring guns in. Likewise, more than 70 communities have opted out of allowing guns in parks.

“People go in there and start drinking and then they want to start a fight. What are they going to do if they got a gun in their hand?” said Larry Speck, 69, who works at an auto repair shop in Memphis. “I’ve got a gun permit and I’m not carrying mine in there even if they have a law.”

Chattanooga retiree Ken Hasse, 71, said he worries about the possible consequences of allowing people to carry their guns in places like parks. “It’s going to tempt somebody to use one,” he said.

Supporters of expanding handgun rights argue that people with state-issued permits are far less likely to commit crimes, and that more lawfully armed people cause a reduction in crime. Opponents fear that more guns could lead to more crime.

Academics are divided on the effects of liberalized handgun laws, and determining the impact is complicated by the move in several states to close handgun permit records.

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

“They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events,” Rand said. “The idea that you’re making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts.”

The flood of legislative victories in Tennessee after many years of frustration now has some gun backers aiming for a whole new level of freedom: No permits at all.

The permit laws “are an extra burden on people to exercise essentially a constitutional right,” said John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.

—

Associated Press writers Lucas L. Johnson II in Memphis and Bill Poovey in Chattanooga contributed to this report.

By James Gleason
The Lakeland Times

Written by Bob Adelmann

New American

Fort Hood Commander

Soldiers trained in the “art of warfare” are not allowed to carry personal self-defense weapons on base as one of the unhappy results of the long war against guns in our society. 

While many questions about the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, by Major Nidal Hasan remain unanswered, there is one question for which there is a clear and unequivocal answer:  Why didn’t the soldiers return fire? 

Fort Hood is the largest active duty post in the world, covering more than 340 acres outside Killeen, Texas, quartering more than 50,000 troops, and an additional 27,000 family members and civilian support staff. It is the final check point for embarkation to Iran and Afghanistan for the 1st Cavalry Division. Each soldier has had a final medical clearance. Each has been carefully and rigorously trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare. 

And so, why, in the face of withering determined fire, did no one use their weapon to return fire and put down the attacker? Why did it take 10 minutes before a civilian police officer was able to neutralize this individual? 

The answer: Because they couldn’t. They were unarmed. 

Fort Hood is, in fact, a “gun free” zone, proclaimed and enforced by regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by President Clinton in March, 1993. 

Those military regulations are very specific: Army Regulation 190-14 “prohibits the carrying of non-Government owned weapons or ammunition” by RA (Regular Army) personnel. 

And so, just like in the Virginia Tech and Columbine High School attacks, the perpetrator took advantage of the “gun free” zone, knowing that receiving return fire wasn’t likely to occur before he had inflicted heavy casualties upon his victims. 

All of this stems from the flawed (but oft-repeated) assumption that “guns are evil”, that “guns kill people”, and therefore (it follows that) all guns must be confiscated and removed from society — even from those trained to defend our country! 

For instance, here comes Chicago Mayor Daly, responding to the query about whether he thought Islam had anything to do with the Fort Hood massacre: 

“Every day in society people are getting killed, unfortunately. America loves guns, we love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis.”

And this, from Paul Helmke of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

“America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, policy stations and now Army bases.  This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.  Enough is enough!”

Let’s look at some “inconvenient” facts overlooked or ignored by such people and organizations. 

Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., from the University of Maryland, and William M. Landes, from the University of Chicago Law School, in their extensive and highly regarded analysis of the presence or absence of firearms during the commission of “multiple victim public shootings”, said:

“Our results find the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws…We show why [these] laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.”  [Emphasis added.]

None of this is “new” news, of course. The reader is free to access Gun Facts at www.gunfacts.info for a quick reference guide on gun control issues. Some of the myths exposed (with backup source material) include:

•  Concealed carry laws increase crime. (No.)
•  People with concealed weapons permits will commit crimes.  (No.)
•  People do not need concealable weapons. (Yes, they do.)
•  Police are against concealed carrying by citizens. (No, they aren’t.)

Common sense about the matter rarely makes it into the public discussion of the Fort Hood attack, with this exception: On CNN on Monday night (November 9th), anchor John Roberts asked Mrs. Mandy Foster, wife of one of those wounded in the attack, how she felt about her husband being “scheduled for deployment in January” to Afghanistan.  Mrs. Foster responded:

“At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?”

On Tuesday, November 20th, Press Secretary Gibbs told reporters that President Obama “asked every agency involved…to investigate why this happened, how this happened and to ensure that they can tell him that it won’t happen again.” 

Until laws against carrying weapons are repealed, and freedom to “bear arms” restored, more such attacks are not only possible, but remain likely “to happen again”. 

It’s just common sense.

By BILL HANNA

Star-Telegram – Fort Worth

Clayton Smith

FORT WORTH — A lawsuit filed by two Tarrant County College students claiming that TCC violated their free speech rights by limiting their ability to stage “empty holster” protests has been set for trial Jan. 12.

TCC asked for a 60-day continuance to prepare for trial, and attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Clayton Smith and John Schwertz, did not object.

TCC attorney Angela Robinson said the trial will focus on the merits of the lawsuit. Austin-based ACLU lawyer Lisa Graybill said a settlement appears unlikely.

“Based on the posture taken so far, it looks like a trial will be necessary,” Graybill said.

TCC limited students to designated free speech zones and required students to give advance notice and apply for a permit to protest. The lawsuit says those requirement violate free speech and should be removed from the student handbook.

Last week, a temporary restraining order was granted that allowed the students to wear empty holsters and hand out fliers. Schwertz said the protests, which weren’t allowed in classrooms or hallways, encountered no problems.

“It was a pretty smooth process,” Schwertz said, adding that students staged protests at the Northeast, Southeast and South campuses.

He said more students are interested in joining the group, which is advocating that licensed concealed-handgun owners be allowed to bring their weapons onto college campuses. A bill filed during the last legislative session failed to pass.

But Schwertz said he hopes that the lawsuit will make it easier for student to express their views on TCC campuses.

Based on the posture taken so far, it looks like a trial will be necessary.”

Lisa Graybill,
Austin-based ACLU lawyer

By Maria Cramer and Peter Schworm, Globe Staff

Boston.com

The security guard who fatally shot a patient who was attacking a doctor in a Massachusetts General Hospital psychiatric clinic said today he had done what anyone would have done and he was happy that the doctor was recovering.

“I just did what anyone would have done, ma’am, that’s all,” Paul Langone said in answer to a group of reporters’ questions as he walked to a car outside the family’s home in Reading.

“I’m OK. I just want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the Carciero family,” said Langone, referring to the family of Jay Carciero, the man he shot.