Sporting Events

[hirundo82]

When I was out of state this summer I went to a minor league baseball game. In the state where I was this was not a prohibited location, so naturally I carried. The team I was rooting for lost, and I felt no compulsion, or even the slightest desire, to draw and gun down either the umpires or the other team. Just wanted to put in personal experience that shows that carrying at a sporting event does not mean the event will end in a bloodbath, as much as some people would like us to believe.

Can anyone come up with a good reason why sporting events should be off limits? Why were they even made off-limits in the first place? I can see continuing to prohibit carry at school sporting events, but that would seem to me to already be prohibited under §46.03 (1), "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted." So § 46.035 (2) wouldn't seem to me to be necessary at all if we were to make professional sporting events OK.

I was thinking about because of something that reminded me of the Houston Rodeo, and I was recalling how certain portions of that are off-limits because it falls under the definition of a professional sporting event.

[longtooth]

Alcohol & the high intincity of some fans.
It always appals me that the BGs are thought the best of. ie:he was such a good boy & never hurt anyone. Just got mixed up w/ the wrong crowd. (every day for the last ten yrs. & went right back to that crowd after getting out of TDC the 2nd time for armed robery & aggraveted assault)
The most law abiding citizens in the nation CHL holders are thought the worst of. ie: there will be killings over the parking places.
I love your story. Today I turned left into the fuel stop. It is always busy. A Man w/ no blinker sped up & darted right in front of me so that I had to break. It was the only unattended pump left. Never thought of it until you mentioned it but Kim(ber) on my R. hip never even entered my mind either.

[KBCraig]

Can anyone come up with a good reason why sporting events should be off limits?

I can't think of a good reason why any place should be statutorily off-limits except for the secure area of airports and the secure portion of jails and prisons. (And I don't really think airports and airplanes should be off limits, either.)

I don't believe any private property should be statutorily off-limits. Not bars, nor sports venues, nor churches, nor hospitals, nor private schools. I also don't believe there is any good reason why any government property should be statutorily off limits, including school activities and buildings. I'd make exceptions for judges to control the security of their own court rooms and chambers, but not the courthouse. Secure areas of jails and prisons, as noted above.

I like that 30.06 signs are invalid on government property, but it would be nice to see any "no guns" signage to be illegal, with penalties against the controlling authority. I'd strike the "meeting of a governmental body" exception to the exception.

I support private property owners' rights to restrict concealed handguns, no matter how silly and misguided they are. The 30.06 requirements do an excellent job of keeping CHLs out of accidental hot water.

Speaking of 30.06, it makes criminal trespass while possessing a concealed handgun, a Class A misdemeanor, rather than just Class C. It should be knocked down to Class C, the same as simple criminal trespass. (A non-CHL who commits criminal trespass with a "deadly weapon" also gets bumped up to Class A.)

I don't support forcing private property owners to allow concealed carry, even in their parking lots. But I'd love to see them face liability when they ban concealed carry, and someone is a victim of crime while left unable to adequately defend themselves.

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

As big as the "open carry", "Castle doctrine" and liability protection issues are...

I believe we have always needed to have, pushed above all else, the ability to compel, and under penalties to be defined by the state legislature to be levied against entities who would not normally provide secure, DISCRETE, and welcome facilities for CHL and other duly licensed citizens the ability to stow their firearms while within that facility or event...

No if's, and's or but's! Across the board...And if it is a cost to them? So be it...If they want to restrict on their property, and post the 30.06 provision, then bucko, they need to do this for us!

And no wiggling around crying to the government for funds to implement these changes!

Either this, or remove the signs...

I like what I remember what Utah did during the Winter Olympics a few years ago...Venue stowage facilities...

They (state of Utah) initially said they would provide that for its citizens...Then the IOC came in and U.N'd the state and they changed their minds...It was only after that that citizens like us roared about that and they (state of Utah and the IOC) apparently reversed its decision...

I didn't hear much after that...But its always been in the back of my mind to keep this issue on a slow simmer and see when it should be a good time to get the discussion and possible action back up on it...

[GlockenHammer]

The team I was rooting for lost, and I felt no compulsion, or even the slightest desire, to draw and gun down either the umpires or the other team.
--snip--
Can anyone come up with a good reason why sporting events should be off limits?

Your first comment reminds me of a pro-gun quip something like "60 million gun owners behaved peacefully yesterday".

As to why they should be off limits, I think one example might be the "hockey dad" who killed another parent in the stands during his son's game. Yes, I realize this is not professional, but it illustrates the reasoning.

Let me state the general--places that could conceivably be off limits to carry would be the ones where otherwise peaceful law abiding citizens (you know, the ones that actually qualify for a CHL), might "lose it" and have their first error in judgment that results in a crime.

Places where I can see otherwise reasonable people turn into total jerks with complete loss of rational thinking include: druken or drugged people, fanatics at professional sporting events, and people involved in court proceedings (especially divorce court!).

Please don't flame me to badly on this one. I am not urging or recommending CHL off-limits here, I am merely acknowledging that there is some rationale to it. I personally think it should be the act itself that is illegal, not possessing a convenient means to commit an illegal act. That said, I would hate to see our many free states lose access to their carry rights because of these types of incidents (should they actually occur).

Places that DON'T qualify in my books include schools, amusement parks, churhes, polling places, near death chambers, etc. (Yes, I know some of these are legal know, but they were not at one point.)

Just a thought.

GH

[barres]

Let me state the general--places that could conceivably be off limits to carry would be the ones where otherwise peaceful law abiding citizens (you know, the ones that actually qualify for a CHL), might "lose it" and have their first error in judgment that results in a crime.

Places where I can see otherwise reasonable people turn into total jerks with complete loss of rational thinking include: druken or drugged people, fanatics at professional sporting events, and people involved in court proceedings (especially divorce court!).

I think that the most likely place where people can and will "just lose it" is on the highways. How many of us know someone or are someone that has been touched by "road rage?" And yet, we are still legal to carry as we drive, and Gasp there's no blood running down the street gutters as the antis would have us believe.

Responsible people make responsible decisions. Irresponsible people who make dangerous or even deadly decisions need to be prsecuted for their actions, not for the inanimate object they used in those actions.

[cyphur]

Can anyone come up with a good reason why sporting events should be off limits?

I can't think of a good reason why any place should be statutorily off-limits except for the secure area of airports and the secure portion of jails and prisons. (And I don't really think airports and airplanes should be off limits, either.)

Kevin

I don't want anyone who doesn't shoot regularly, and has had some sort of action training(whether its SWAT, MOUT, CQC, etc) to be shooting a gun in an airplane.

However, I do think having some sort of civilian certified force allowed to carry on airplanes would be a wonderful idea. Have a 1 week course for folks, get them up to speed on the variables and situational differences in an airplane, et cetera, almost like a mini-FAM course. I don't think that will ever happen, but thats about as close to civilian's carry in planes as I want.

[shootthesheet]

Some of those we have sent to Austin seem to think we aren't trustworthy. I have heard that the restrictions are put on us because of the public and the reaction some may have to things like open carry and school carry. I personally believe it is because they themselves are the ones afraid. They do little to do away with these restrictions because they feel we are all potential criminals or something little more than children.

It is my desire to completely do away with the states ability to regulate the wearing of firearms completely. We have laws to cover crime. We don't need anything restricting our ability to defend the innocent . And, I can understand prisons and even courtrooms while they are being used. But the rest are just ignorant. Maybe we cannot change the TX Constitution but we should at least be able to convince people smart enough to get elected that we are no threat in taking a gun inside a school or to a Friday night ball game. We have the stats from the last 10 years. All we need is someone willing to champion our cause. It is time to move for change in my opinion.

[Mithras61]

Some of those we have sent to Austin seem to think we aren't trustworthy. I have heard that the restrictions are put on us because of the public and the reaction some may have to things like open carry and school carry. I personally believe it is because they themselves are the ones afraid. They do little to do away with these restrictions because they feel we are all potential criminals or something little more than children.

I believe this phenomenon is what is called "projection" and is as much a reflection of what the arguer thinks they might do if they are allowed unrestricted access to a handgun.

Quite honestly, I don't understand most of the anti-gun arguments. The basic guiding principle should be (as many here have pointed out) that the actions allowed or forbidden (e.g. - killing someone) are illegal regardless of the tool used. The fact is (as was pointed out by a PhD & professor at Va Tech) criminals by their very nature don't respect laws and don't follow laws. Restrictions on firearms only restrict the law abiding people, not the criminals.

Making it illegal to carry into places only makes those places more unsafe for the majority of citizens who are law abiding. If you look at the recent history of this country, the majority of the mass killings are happening at places where the criminals KNOW there are no defensive weapons available. Yesterday's incident in Bailey, CO and the incident in Ontario a few days ago are illustrative. The gunmen in both incidents picked places where they were CERTAIN there would be no initial opposition. What do you think the real likelihood of someone going into a classroom and firing a warning shot would be if they thought the teacher and students were armed? They wouldn't do it because the return fire would be withering. Areas where firearms would be likely to end up in the hands of felons (like jails) SHOULD be off llimits to carry, but placing restrictions on carry to other locations makes no real sense.

[GlockenHammer]

I don't want anyone who doesn't shoot regularly, and has had some sort of action training(whether its SWAT, MOUT, CQC, etc) to be shooting a gun in an airplane.

However, I do think having some sort of civilian certified force allowed to carry on airplanes would be a wonderful idea. Have a 1 week course for folks, get them up to speed on the variables and situational differences in an airplane, et cetera, almost like a mini-FAM course. I don't think that will ever happen, but thats about as close to civilian's carry in planes as I want.

I happen to agree. Why is it that I must make this my job, my living, before I am trusted to carry on an airplane to ensure its security? Why isn't it possible for some other citizen to take the same training, to pass the same background checks, to pass the same proficiency checks, be allowed to do this? I would do this for FREE! I would spend my own money to get to the training, to take the tests, to maintain proficiency. And in return, when I travel on an airplane I will be packing and I will be vigilant. And I will not charge Uncle Sam for the service. Why is it that I must take a cut in pay and do this for a living every day before I am trusted to do this? Why?

[fm2]

Amen GH, cyphur & Mithras61. If they are interested in security & not the "appearance of security" there must be more of a chance for armed resistance on a plane. The BG's plan worked because our response was predictable. The BG's will not be defeated by banning cuticle scissors & tweezers.