Houston Chronicle. May 18, 2015.
Biker brawl: What happened in Waco should send a message to Texas lawmakers
So, let’s say you’re a Waco cop pulling up in your patrol car to a Twin Peaks restaurant that looks and sounds on a Sunday afternoon like a wartime combat scene, with bullets flying, people dying and bystanders diving for cover. And let’s say that the burly guys in jeans and leather jackets aren’t the only ones wielding weapons.
In the open-carry Texas most lawmakers this legislative session so devoutly seem to wish for, imagine the difficulty that cop would face as he or she tries to make split-second decisions about good guys and bad. Does the cop hesitate, knowing that the guy with the gun may be, not a gang member, but some would-be hero?
Those are questions for state Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, and the gang of merry gunsters who’ve made it their crusade this session to strip away any sensible gun measure still on the books in Texas. Whether it’s a sure-to-pass bill eliminating bans on the open carry of any and all firearms, or, in Stickland’s case, eliminating any kind of licensing, or, with Birdwell, legislation that would allow weapons on campus, the obsession with guns in this state - among GOP lawmakers, at least - is rampant. What happened in Waco on a Sunday afternoon, with nine people dead, twice that many injured and hundreds endangered, is unlikely to have any influence on these folks, despite the fact that polls show most Texans are content to keep gun laws as they are.
Imagine how much worse the Waco mayhem could have been. It took place at a busy shopping plaza, less than 30 feet from a Mexican restaurant at lunch time. True, 19th-century Waco was known as “Six-Shooter Junction,” but 21-century shoppers at a nearby Cabela’s or Best Buy weren’t expecting to be party to a Wild West shoot-out when they left home for the relatively upscale Central Texas Marketplace.
A Wild-West Texas, though, seems to be the ideal for the legislative gunsters we’ve sent to Austin, whose actions will result in more guns in more places with fewer safeguards. They’re besotted with the notion that the Second Amendment confers an absolute immunity against any attempt to protect the general welfare.
They are mistaken. There are sensible limits on every one of our constitutional rights, including the Second.
We’re not saying that the elected officials who have made gun rights their mission condone what happened in Waco. We are saying that the indiscriminate possession of guns is a danger that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t have to tolerate. With all due respect to the Second Amendment, we would expect them to show a little common sense, not to mention a decent respect for the sanctity of human life. Maybe it’s too much to expect those qualities from criminal biker gangs, but most of us expect higher standards from our elected officials.
___
Corpus Christi Caller-Times. May 20, 2015.
Open carry and Waco aren’t separate issues
We hear that the Waco motorcycle gang shootout is an entirely separate issue from the open-carry firearms bill speeding toward final approval. State Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, and state Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, said so, with the full authority of the highly informed. They chair important committees in the Legislature - committees that approved the bill.
Open carry is such a high priority that the Legislature expedited it ahead of passing a budget and making sure education and transportation are funded.
It’s only natural for the inquisitive to connect Sunday’s Wild West-style shootout in Waco - nine dead, 18 wounded, 170 arrested - to the open-carry bill. It’s not an agenda-driven question. But if it were, what better agenda to have?
Gov. Greg Abbott has said he looks forward to signing an open-carry bill - and hasn’t reconsidered in the aftermath of the Waco incident. The governor points out that the current absence of an open-carry law didn’t prevent the shootout. And we can’t dispute his logic.
But it was a bad-faith, nonresponsive answer to a question asked in good faith: What if open carry had been law when the fight broke out?
Abbott’s non-answer might be less unacceptable had he not been so indulgent of the Obama-hating fanatics who fantasized that a pending military exercise is a plot to take over Texas. He took their concerns seriously enough to commit the Texas Guard to keep an eye on the exercise. Yet he treats the Waco question like it’s off-topic and undeserving of an answer. Calling out the Guard costs money. Answering the question wouldn’t.
We have done our share of fantasizing what open carry in Texas would be like, long before the Waco incident.
And what we have imagined isn’t far-fetched. We have imagined, for example, criminals walking unarmed into convenience stores, banks and restaurants, grabbing handguns from the holsters of unsuspecting, law-abiding exercisers of open-carry rights, pistol-whipping them with their own guns, robbing the establishments at gunpoint, and maybe shooting a few bystanders on the way out just to let everyone know who’s boss. How else would self-respecting violent criminals respond in an open-carry environment? Think of the money they would save, not having to buy guns because they’re available in plain sight, on the hips or under the shoulders of Chuck Norris wannabes.
But we digress. Back to what would have happened in Waco. What, indeed?
What would have happened had the restaurant where the shooting occurred been filled with people openly carrying guns - or if there were just a few - who were not members of the rival motorcycle gangs? Would they have drawn their guns in self-defense, or left them holstered? Why wouldn’t the combatants have considered all armed unknowns a threat? Why wouldn’t they have shot first and asked questions later? How would the police who staked out the restaurant in anticipation of a fight - and who shot first and asked questions later - have differentiated the openly armed innocent bystanders from the combatants?
How can these not be legitimate questions? How can they not be asked in context of the open-carry bill? Seriously, what other context is there?
How could we, in good conscience, not ask these obvious questions? How dare our governor and lawmakers dismiss them?
Texas has prohibited open carry of handguns since 1871. The notion that Texans are oppressed if they can’t carry handguns openly is just a state of mind - a recent, irrational state.
Our agenda is for Texas to be a rational state.
___
The Lufkin Daily News. May 19, 2015.
Open carry laws may or may not reduce crime, but they don’t lead to more shootings
The Senate State Affairs Committee on Monday heard testimony on HB 910, a bill that would allow the open carry of handguns by licensed persons in Texas. (The Texas House had approved the bill in April.) It did not take long for opponents of the bill to cite the biker gang shootout in Waco as an example of how legally armed citizens would have made the situation even worse.
Austin’s Assistant Police Chief Troy Gay testified that the open carry was fine for rural areas but not for urban areas, and said a situation like that in Waco would only be made worse.
How so, Chief Gay?
Bear in mind the current laws that permit law-abiding citizens to be licensed to carry concealed handguns in Texas were borne of a tragedy in Killeen, just down the road from Waco. In 1991, a deranged gunman opened fire in a cafeteria. When the shooting was over, the gunman had killed 23 people and wounded another 20. The shooter then upped the tally of dead by fatally shooting himself.
In 1995, the Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law requiring all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License. Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the time of the shooting in which both of her parents were shot and killed, was the driving force behind the law. She testified she regretted leaving her gun in her car that day, rather than break any Texas laws.
The committee’s chair, Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, and Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, stated that what happened in Waco had nothing to do with this bill. It will be interesting to see how many of the gang members involved in Sunday’s shooting were lawful CHL holders.
Texas is one of six states that do not allow open carry. Our neighbors, New Mexico, Arkansas and Louisiana, allow open carry without a permit. Oklahoma allows license holders to carry handguns in the open. Shootouts have not been a problem there, and we doubt it will be here.
After yesterday’s testimony, the committee voted 5-1 to send the bill to the Senate while removing a House amendment that would ban law enforcement officers from stopping persons openly carrying a handgun to see if they were licensed. It will be interesting to see how the conference committee works out that detail. Regardless, Gov. Greg Abbott has said he will sign an open carry bill.
We doubt we’ll digress to the Wild West days; other states have not. We also doubt that open carry will make situations like the biker shootout in Waco any worse. A number of studies have found that CHL laws have or may have reduced crime. While critics of CHL and open carry laws dispute claims that such laws result in less crime, they cannot and do not dispute the fact that such laws certainly do not lead to more shootings.
Please let Senator Nichols know your thoughts on this bill.
___
Galveston County Daily News. May 19, 2015.
Official state symbols are an official waste of time
Lawmakers are probably feeling some serious pressure as the 84th Legislative session enters its final two weeks. There simply isn’t enough time in a single session to handle something as frivolous as the state’s problem-plagued school finance system when there still are so many gun-right measures to be passed, pro-choice rights to be quashed, religious freedoms to be protected and gay marriage roadblocks to be created. Oh, and let’s not forget that the state is in desperate need of an official crustacean.
That’s right, an official crustacean.
But have no fear, our official lawmaker is here.
State Rep. Wayne Faircloth has ridden in on the official railroad, the Texas State Railroad, wearing the state’s official shoe, the cowboy boot, and carrying a handful of the state’s official flower, the bluebonnet, to save the day.
Faircloth has introduced legislation to make Gulf shrimp the official crustacean of the Lone Star State. This would place the bottom feeder on a long list of items tagged with the distinguished Texas State Symbols designation.
We decided if our lawmaker can take time out of his busy lawmaking schedule to add to the list, we could take time from our busy editorial writing schedule to spend some time reviewing the list. And in the process, offer Faircloth a few suggestions for future sessions.
We have an official shoe, but no hat. Having a white Stetson on the list would seem like a no brainier.
We have an official dog, the Blue Lacy, but the state seems to have ignored the feelings of feline lovers, as it has no official cat.
We have no official ice cream. We all know that would have to be Blue Bell, but then we probably would need an official bacteria. Listeria seems like an obvious choice.
However, there is that nasty flesh-eating bacteria Vibrio vulnificus that can be problematic along the Gulf Coast. Since that is a big concern along the Gulf Coast, Faircloth might want to lobby for this one.
How about an official book? Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Texas Zek and the Longhorn? The Bible perhaps?
And how can this state not have an official gun?
We don’t have an official dialect. Faircloth could be pair that with an official state greeting and kill two birds with one stone. We vote for “howdy y’all.”
We certainly need an official action hero and think Chuck Norris fits the bill nicely. No one needs to know he is really from Oklahoma.
An official storm also could be added to the list of state symbols. This one would surely stir up some debate between the north and south. Should it be hurricanes or tornadoes?
We have no official dance, but the two-step seems logical. Lawmakers do it all the time - two steps in one direction, and then two steps in the other.
There is no official beer. No official poker game. No official festival.
There is no official agenda on the list, but we all know that one exists.
Faircloth’s heart might be in the right place - although it might be in his stomach after eating nearly three pounds of his favorite crustacean in 10 minutes - but we think he needs to get back to official official business.
___
Midland Reporter-Telegram. May 17, 2015.
First Amendment wasn’t meant to provide cover for hate
Pamela Geller, please don’t come to Midland.
Please take your group - the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) - and your messed-up, hateful, spiritually bankrupt cartoon contests elsewhere. In our view, you would not be welcomed.
While some celebrate your offensive behavior - one local radio station host said he would like to see Mecca bombed - and don’t care that you have no problems putting lives at risk, we don’t need you here. Not in Midland. Here, we can respect all West Texans, even when we don’t agree. We can make statements about the world we would like to see but not at the expense of our neighbor and his or her religion. Here, we know what the Constitution stands for and honor the document that is the foundation for this country. We don’t hide behind it when our words put people at risk.
There is no doubt that even the harshest comments don’t justify the actions of two men armed with assault rifles and bad intentions. Previously, we praised the work of one of Garland’s finest because he protected and served a community in a way that won’t be forgot anytime soon. The police did their job, allowing Geller to make the rounds on television, enjoy her 15 minutes, defend her hateful comments and use the First Amendment as cover.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And as far as we can tell, Geller and her group were never under a threat of having a government entity stand in her way. In fact, government worked with the group to provide security for the event.
Geller won’t be the first person to use the First Amendment as cover for preaching hate, just the latest nonsensical figure to come to the party. And we know there will be someone else who will spew racist, homophobic or sexist views. They might even attack a person’s religion, and when the cameras fire up, they will cry “First Amendment” like a youngster yells “base” when they are about to be tagged on the playground. We’d consider Geller every bit as childish as that youngster if her intentions weren’t so reprehensible.
Let us be clear: We are not saying Geller or anyone else deserves to die for any statements - no matter how offensive they are. In our book, they have violated the second great commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and their fate will be determined at a later time.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.