Posted on 09/17/2006 3:28:05 AM PDT by 2Am4Sure
Fifteen years ago next month, an armed man drove his truck through a Luby's restaurant in Killeen and opened fire upon the crowd, killing 23 patrons and wounding 20 others before turning the weapon on himself.
As a direct result of the Oct. 16, 1991, Luby's incident, in 1995, Texas lawmakers, led by Suzanna Gratia Hupp (whose parents were both killed in the massacre), passed a law that allowed Texans to obtain a concealed-carry handgun permit.
Concerns were raised that the new concealed handgun law would create more problems than it would solve, turning residents into armed vigilantes who would turn to weapons to resolve minor disputes.
For one Texan, that concern was not only unsubstantiated, but one that, to him, has been proven false time and time again.
"If everyone in this state qualified to hold a concealed handgun license," said Texas Department of Public Safety certified instructor Lloyd Leppo Jr., "no one would ever need a weapon in the first place."
To obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun, one must be at least 21 years of age, submit a photo and fingerprints for a background investigation and pay a fee, pass both a written test covering laws pertaining to deadly force and gun safety and a shooting accuracy test.
Applicants also must be up to date on all student loans, must not owe back child support or taxes and must not have a Class A or Class B misdemeanor, or have been convicted of a felony.
"Citizens can rest assured that whoever holds a license has been investigated by every qualifying agency there is," Leppo said. "The cream of the crop in society is the only people who can qualify for a CHL in this state."
Obtaining a permit to carry concealed handguns in the state of Texas requires a 10-hour course during which residents learn about self-defense techniques, gun and child safety, and state laws regarding use of force and licensing requirements.
The course for obtaining a permit includes teaching applicants how to avoid the need to use a concealed firearm. When a criminal looks for a victim, he knows what he's looking for, Leppo said.
"Our goal is to teach people how not to be that victim," Leppo said.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, criminals decide that when the costs of committing a crime will be too high, they are less likely to commit it. The possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds in favor of the potential victim. Studies have shown that rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who do not resist.
Leppo is not alone in thinking that the situation at Luby's wouldn't have escalated the way it did had the concealed handgun law been in effect.
Several Luby's patrons had weapons in their vehicles, including Hupp and Copperas Cove resident Kirby Lack. Lack, critically injured in the Luby's massacre, now holds a concealed handgun permit.
"I always carried it in my truck, but not on my person," Lack said. "I've always thought that if I had been allowed to carry a weapon on me, then things may have turned out differently for a lot of people at Luby's."
Lack said it was important enough to this country's forefathers to allow citizens to carry firearms, and he thinks it's still as important today.
"Just because you have a license, and have a gun on your person doesn't mean you have to use it," Lack said. "But having a bad guy know you're armed is a great deterrent to them."
The responsibility of having a license and knowing the laws that go along with it are stressed to applicants going through the course. "People need to know that being licensed carries with it a great responsibility," Leppo said. "The course also teaches the other side to carrying, and using, a concealed weapon."
Last January, we were in Wyoming on one of those snow coach things going into Yellowstone. Our driver was telling about an incident at McDonalds in a small town there. Someone came in holding a drawn weapon for the purposes of holding up the McDonalds cashiers. Our driver laughed and said, "This is Wyoming -- a bunch of the patrons pulled THEIR weapons." End of robbery attempt.
I always cite this incident when I argue for concealed permits.
In many places it is still ok to wear sidearms as long as they are in plain view. This is the way it should be which would cause a downturn in many crime stats.
That's the law in NH. A permit is only required for the purpose of carrying it concealed or loaded in a vehicle.
On the other hand, I've never carried a handgun other than concealed. I don't want anybody to know I have a weapon on my person or in my bag.
Yeah but if a majority of real men wore the in plain view it sure would make punks and robbers think at least twice.
"That's the law in NH. A permit is only required for the purpose of carrying it concealed or loaded in a vehicle."
Billorites ... don't forget you can also carry concealed if the gun and ammo is separate in NH without a permit. I.e gun in one pocket and mag in the other.
It's so easy to get a permit in NH.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
This part is a bit troubling. Sounds like if you're behind on making student loan payments or owe back taxes you're going to be deprived of your rights and can't get a permit.
And what exactly are Class A & B misdemeanors?
We have to be squeaky clean to get a Texas CCW. My only concern is the cost. I have to bay about 70 dollars for a renewal and I think that is entirely too much for a plastic card.
Most states are just looking for the added revenue a CCW generates.
Of course no one was armed on that trip as it's illegal to carry in a National Park.
It might have stopped or reduced the number of people hurt in:
Gunman Wounds 20 at Montreal College
I don't recall ever being in a National Park and not being armed.
Of course, that's just me.
I'm one of those radicals that believe fully in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and I've yet to find anything that says it is null and void simply because the land is owned by the US Government.
Which, by the way, according to that same US Constitution and Bill of Rights, is supposed to answer to me.
I don't flaunt it, but I will not surrender my rights simply because of where I happen to be at the time.
I can understand some degree of "control" on our land, but only as it relates to protection of animals from poachers.
An ottherwise law-abiding citizen should be able to exercise his/her 2nd Amendment rights at all times, most particularly on his/her own land.
And the National Parks belong to me, and to you, and to you, too.
If you're a citizen.
No mention that they had passed it before, only to have it vetoed by the latest Socialist scumbag to assume room temp.
It has created more problems than it solved. Sovereign Citizens have ceded their 2nd Amendment rights to government bureaucracies who will slowly burden the "right" with more and more restrictions over time.
Have you paid all your parking tickets? No CCW for you! (Soup Nazi Voiceover)
Best regards,
Good thoughts
Ping
(Still needing to get my CC)
It's on the list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.