Dallas Morning News 050807
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:20 am
Today's editorial page featured an above the fold objection to CHL privacy and parking lot carry.
The thrust of the privacy objection was that "State licensing is the essence of public business and the information blackout would be an outrage." Along with "The public deserves an open process as reassurance that only qualified applicants are getting permits that allow extra convenience to use deadly force."
And "Common Sense senators . . ."
And then they point out the extremely low percentage of checks that actually take place. Of course this may be because people don't know they can, or are afraid of reprisals if they do, but the number is nonetheless low.
And then they object strenuously to parking lot carry while noting that CHL hasn't caused blood in the streets.
My reply, which if published I expect to be expurgated:
You sit in your bully pulpit and decry a need for "common sense" but only if it's common with your sense.
First of all, Concealed Handgun Licenses are not related in any way to conducting public business, they are for private parties to be allowed by the state to carry concealed handguns.
Second of all, if the ability to check on CHL status somehow provides a "reassurance that only qualified applicants are getting permits . . ." who is doing all of this putative checking, and why are they checking so few?
The above are great examples of specious arguments, thank you for providing them.
As far as persuasively citing abuses stemming from the process, I can tell you that shortly before I was laid off by (business name submitted) in 2001 I received notice that (I recognized the person's name as an (business name submitted) HR person, but the check was conducted as private) had checked my status as a CHL holder. Can I prove that (business name submitted) laid me off in preference to someone else because I had a CHL? No, but considering an interview I had with HR a few months before I strongly suspect it played a role. HR got a complaint that someone "feared" me because I had a CHL, neither rational or common sense, but I got interviewed anyway.
Another abuse, although not in Texas, occurred recently and was a trigger for this legislation, when a newspaper published a list of concealed carry licensees in Virginia, claiming "the people have a right to know whose carrying guns around them."
And as far as parking lot carry is concerned, if, as you point out, CHL holders are so much more law abiding than the general public, as you suggest about the other legislation, what harm will accrue from passing it? As it stands right now, CHL holders must either not carry to work, surrounded by road rage and carjackers, or park off the company lot.
A company saying that CHL, or even recreational shooters without CHLs, may not possess firearms in the company lot disenfranchises the CHL holders and prevents the recreational shooters from going directly from work to the range or hunting, which can be a major inconvenience. And there is always the remote chance that a bad person will ignore company rules, kind of like Virginia Tech, and the ability to stop that murderous rampage will be reduced, unlike Appalachian School of Law.
If this is published would you please see to it that (business name submitted) is changed to "company name provided" or some such? They already dislike me there and six years later I wouldn't put it past them to take vengeful action.
Signed:
My apologies if it's long winded and seems angry, my 21 going on 12 stepson came home at 1am this morning and decided that I needed to hear ESPN radio in my bed from his room. I have been up since then.
The thrust of the privacy objection was that "State licensing is the essence of public business and the information blackout would be an outrage." Along with "The public deserves an open process as reassurance that only qualified applicants are getting permits that allow extra convenience to use deadly force."
And "Common Sense senators . . ."
And then they point out the extremely low percentage of checks that actually take place. Of course this may be because people don't know they can, or are afraid of reprisals if they do, but the number is nonetheless low.
And then they object strenuously to parking lot carry while noting that CHL hasn't caused blood in the streets.
My reply, which if published I expect to be expurgated:
You sit in your bully pulpit and decry a need for "common sense" but only if it's common with your sense.
First of all, Concealed Handgun Licenses are not related in any way to conducting public business, they are for private parties to be allowed by the state to carry concealed handguns.
Second of all, if the ability to check on CHL status somehow provides a "reassurance that only qualified applicants are getting permits . . ." who is doing all of this putative checking, and why are they checking so few?
The above are great examples of specious arguments, thank you for providing them.
As far as persuasively citing abuses stemming from the process, I can tell you that shortly before I was laid off by (business name submitted) in 2001 I received notice that (I recognized the person's name as an (business name submitted) HR person, but the check was conducted as private) had checked my status as a CHL holder. Can I prove that (business name submitted) laid me off in preference to someone else because I had a CHL? No, but considering an interview I had with HR a few months before I strongly suspect it played a role. HR got a complaint that someone "feared" me because I had a CHL, neither rational or common sense, but I got interviewed anyway.
Another abuse, although not in Texas, occurred recently and was a trigger for this legislation, when a newspaper published a list of concealed carry licensees in Virginia, claiming "the people have a right to know whose carrying guns around them."
And as far as parking lot carry is concerned, if, as you point out, CHL holders are so much more law abiding than the general public, as you suggest about the other legislation, what harm will accrue from passing it? As it stands right now, CHL holders must either not carry to work, surrounded by road rage and carjackers, or park off the company lot.
A company saying that CHL, or even recreational shooters without CHLs, may not possess firearms in the company lot disenfranchises the CHL holders and prevents the recreational shooters from going directly from work to the range or hunting, which can be a major inconvenience. And there is always the remote chance that a bad person will ignore company rules, kind of like Virginia Tech, and the ability to stop that murderous rampage will be reduced, unlike Appalachian School of Law.
If this is published would you please see to it that (business name submitted) is changed to "company name provided" or some such? They already dislike me there and six years later I wouldn't put it past them to take vengeful action.
Signed:
My apologies if it's long winded and seems angry, my 21 going on 12 stepson came home at 1am this morning and decided that I needed to hear ESPN radio in my bed from his room. I have been up since then.
