TX Governor suggests CCW should permit carry anywhere

Via Alphecca we have this story in about Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggesting that an approach to handling the “guaranteed victim zone” kind of situation displayed at Virginia Tech last month is to allow Texans to carry their concealed firearms anywhere. From the story Alphecca has linked:

Gov. Rick Perry, mulling ways to stop the kind of murderous rampages that recently left 33 dead on a college campus in Virginia, said Monday there’s one sure-fire solution he likes: allow Texans to take their concealed handguns anywhere.

Period.

Perry said he opposes any concealed gun-toting restrictions at all — whether it’s in a hospital, a public school, a beer joint or even the local courthouse.

This is an interesting suggestion and it deserves debate. I’m kind of in two minds about it. I believe, firmly, that had the “gun free zone” not existed at VT and if there had been a student or faculty member armed that day, Seung-Hui Cho would not have killed as many people. (Proof? No, I don’t have that, and neither does anyone suggesting the opposite. I just think the logic’s on my side of the debate.)

However, is it right and proper to demand that a private shop owner be required to allow armed patrons into his store if he had a real objection to them? This is a situation pitting 2 of the inalienable rights against each other: the right to self-defense and the right to private property (which should also confer the right to make the rules on that property.)

That said, we already make demands of business owners in what they can and can’t control on their property. Someone renting the upstairs apartment in their home cannot decline someone of a given race or religion, for example. Businesses must accommodate potential customers with mobility issues by installing elevators between floors and ramps in various places. A strict “no dogs allowed” policy must give way to a seeing-eye dog. There are all manner of restrictions we place on private property owners in the kinds of rules they are allowed to make. So why not restrict their ability to deny someone the tools necessary for self-defense? In the case of a concealed weapon, you’re not even talking about someone coming in obviously armed. In most cases, the shop owner would never know.

As Gov. Perry mentioned in the article, a sign on the door that says, “No Guns Allowed” will do precisely nothing against someone coming in with criminal intent. The argument that people who are armed automatically become belligerent and more likely to shoot first and ask questions later has not been borne out in places where shall-issue and Castle Laws have been implemented. To suggest that a person law-abiding enough to have gone through the training and licensing and background checks to acquire a CCW to begin with is automatically a clear and present danger simply walking in to a store with the firearm on his or her person flies in the face of the facts. It’s fear and fearmongering.

I must admit to leaning on the side of allowing CCW holders to carry their weapons everywhere but I’m certainly willing to have the debate in earnest.