TexasCHLforum.com

Leave it to lobbyists and journalists (two of America's most beloved demographics) to find a way to game the beefed-up security system at the Texas Capitol.

And while helping themselves, they've helped everyone see the full folly of what is now going on at the building when it comes to guns.

Back in April, the State Preservation Board, over the opposition of Gov. Rick Perry, its chairman, voted to install metal detectors at the Capitol in the wake of a shooting incident outside the building in which nobody was hurt.

We, reluctantly, are on record as supporting the use of metal detectors. We don't like it but view it is a sad nod to the reality of life in a society in which there are too many guns in the hands of too many people who shouldn't have guns.

So we applaud the Preservation Board for the metal detector decision. But board members expressed no support for making the Capitol a no-gun zone — like all courthouses and schools around the state. It remains perfectly legal to carry a loaded rifle into the Capitol. We hope such a move would raise some eyebrows and catch the attention of security folks, but it's legal.

And so is carrying a concealed weapon for folks who have concealed handgun licenses. Why anybody needs to carry a concealed handgun in the Capitol is beyond us, but, we suppose, there might be a tourist or two who pack their pistols along with their cameras, maps and sunscreen.

Here's where the nonsense (and the lobbyists and journalists) comes into play. Under the system now in place at the Capitol, metal detectors are in place to screen out illegal weapons — including concealed handguns carried by folks without concealed handgun licenses.

But if you have a CHL, you get to bypass the metal detectors and whatever lines might form at them. So if you tell the folks who are checking for concealed guns that you legally have a concealed gun, they wave you in. And that makes the cost of a CHL a sound investment for folks like lobbyists and journalists who are frequently in and out of the Capitol, especially when the Legislature is in session.

The American-Statesman's Mike Ward recently reported about lobbyists arming up for the session by taking the concealed handgun course. Many have no interest in carrying a weapon.

This isn't about shooting. This is about shooting past the lines at the metal detectors.

"For 140 bucks, plus a $2 handling fee, it's worth it," lobbyist Bill Miller said recently after completing the course.

Journalists, including some at the Statesman, are planning to take the course for the same reason.

Crazy, isn't it? Who would have thought the concealed handgun law ever would have anything to do with expedited entry to the Capitol?

We understand the attempted logic behind what is going on. Anyone who has a CHL has undergone a criminal background check, so there is no need to worry about them carrying a gun in the Capitol.

In another reminder of the nonsense of the new system, Ward reported Friday that many state employees — who don't have to go through the metal detectors — do not go through criminal background checks.

Here's the simple solution. Lawmakers should give the State Preservation Board the authority to end this folly by banning guns — concealed or otherwise — in the Capitol. It's the right and safe thing to do.

Even better, the Legislature should ban guns at the Capitol

We promise, we won't think anyone who takes such action would be any less Texan for doing so.

The American-Statesman's Mike Ward recently reported about lobbyists arming up for the session by taking the concealed handgun course. Many have no interest in carrying a weapon.

Douva wrote:What is the Austin American-Statesman's opposition to somebody getting a CHL just to get past security? It's the same principal as letting people with CHLs bypass the instant background check when they purchase firearms. Since there isn't a process in place to issue special credentials to lobbyists and journalists who've passed background checks (though there probably should be), what is wrong with letting them use the CHL system?

Lighten up, --the worst thing that is likely to come of this is a few journalists becoming better educated about the concealed handgun licensing process.

Mike1951 wrote:

The American-Statesman's Mike Ward recently reported about lobbyists arming up for the session by taking the concealed handgun course. Many have no interest in carrying a weapon.

Based on experiences posted so far, these journalists and lobbyists who never planned to carry a gun will get a huge surprise when they are directed to enter through the regular line unless they are carrying.

Keith B wrote:Maybe the state should make it a disqualification for CHL if you are a lobbyist.

Keith B wrote:I should clarify that. Disqualification if you are a lobbyist for anything OTHER than a pro-gun rights group. We have our lobbyists too.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Douva wrote:What is the Austin American-Statesman's opposition to somebody getting a CHL just to get past security? It's the same principal as letting people with CHLs bypass the instant background check when they purchase firearms. Since there isn't a process in place to issue special credentials to lobbyists and journalists who've passed background checks (though there probably should be), what is wrong with letting them use the CHL system?

Lighten up, --the worst thing that is likely to come of this is a few journalists becoming better educated about the concealed handgun licensing process.

Excellent Point!!!