Have a CHL? Skip the metal detectors in Austin

Status
Not open for further replies.

searcher451

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
2,516
Location
Oregon
From this morning's USA TODAY:

Have gun permit, will travel past
metal detector lines at Texas Capitol


By Jay Root
The Associated Press


AUSTIN — Everyone from lobbyists to lawyers and journalists is rushing to get permits to carry guns inside the Texas Capitol, where legislators already often tote pistols in boots and purses or stow them away inside their desks.

A unique loophole in a new security procedure means a gun permit is like a special-access pass into the domed building, allowing people who are certified to carry a gun to bypass lines at the metal detectors that were set up after a shooting incident earlier this year.

“Nobody wants to be the one standing in line behind 300 kids wearing the same colored T-shirt,” University of Texas political scientist Jim Henson said. “If you’re trying to get in and out really quick and there’s going to be choke points, well, people don’t want to have to deal with that.”

There’s now a frenzy for folks to get trained and licensed to carry a firearm, especially before the legislative session in January.

It’s not required that people have a gun to enter the Capitol through the express lane. Merely holding a valid permit, and presenting it at the entrance, will get them expedited entry.

“Everybody is doing it or is planning to do it,” said lobbyist Bill Miller, who has taken the required training and is waiting for his license to arrive in the mail.

The metal detectors were installed at the Capitol’s four public entrances in May, a few months after a man fired off a few rounds outside the doors of the main entrance. No one was harmed.

Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who is known to sometimes carry a .380-caliber pistol, vehemently objected to the metal detectors, saying he didn’t want to see airportlike security logjams at a Capitol known for its open and freewheeling culture.

Texas law allows people to carry a weapon if they have a permit and the gun is concealed.

A separate lane for license-holders had to be created so gun-toters could enter without having to pull out their weapons — or unconceal them — along with their wallets and keys.

Guns were previously allowed in the Capitol. With the arrival of the metal detectors, permit-holders now get their licenses scanned to make sure they are in good standing and their bags are put through an X-ray scanner.

The Department of Public Safety, which tracks data on gun permits, said it’s too early to tell whether there has been a surge in applications.

However, interviews with lobbyists, consultants and state officials show Capitol insiders are flocking to sign up for them.

It’s all been great for business, said Mike Cox, who has become the go-to guy to train political insiders on getting their permits.

“There’s been a burst of interest. They want to get that express tag to gain entrance to the Capitol,” Cox said. “It’s their job. They don’t want to be impeded by visitors on busy days when there are a lot of tourists.”

Cox has a shooting range just south of Austin, and lobbyists and others in the political in-crowd take his 10-hour class.

The students learn about nonviolent resolution techniques, listen to harrowing 911 calls and, to demonstrate the dangers of a firearm, horrifying videos are shown that include a graphic suicide and one in which a man accidentally kills his friend.

They also have to pass a written test on the course material and then must undergo a background check, get fingerprinted and pay about $260 or so in fees.

That lawmakers would take the trouble to install magnetometers and then allow weapons inside has drawn criticism from gun-control advocates, including the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which called the policy “ludicrous.”

Some tourists also were perplexed by the new procedures.

“Where’s the security come from if you can still get in with a gun?” asked Canadian tourist Clyde Ducharme, who went through the metal detectors one recent morning.

Lobbyist Michelle Wittenburg, who recently received her gun permit and has been signing up her colleagues so they can do the same, said the security at the Capitol is still strong because permit-holders aren’t the ones who would pose any threat.

“If you do have a CHL, then that shows you have gone through a background check and you’ve been vetted, so to speak,” Wittenburg said. “I don’t think those are the people that are going to cause your problems in the Capitol.”
 
Isn't it nice whe at least some form of goverment actually "gets it"!

I guess it is because our Govenor carries too so he realizes it's not the CHL holders you have to worry about.
 
We'll see if this makes it past the next legislative session. Letting folks carry guns around town is one thing, letting them pack heat inside the inner sanctum sanctorum of the state capitol, maybe that's a different matter altogether.
 
We'll see if this makes it past the next legislative session. Letting folks carry guns around town is one thing, letting them pack heat inside the inner sanctum sanctorum of the state capitol, maybe that's a different matter altogether.

Oh you gotta be kidding me. It's been legal to carry concealed inside the Texas state Capitol for many years already and nothing has come of it. I've carried inside that building several times. The metal detectors have only been there since February. Might want to read more about it than one bad article before predicting blood flowing in the streets.

Only in the last few months has it come to anyone's attention when an armed man (who was NOT inside the building and did NOT have a permit) fired his weapon on the front steps.

And besides that, why do you believe that an otherwise law abiding citizen will suddenly go on a crazed rampage just because he enters a building?

This whole thing is a panic reaction to a problem that doesn't even exist and it's certainly not a "loophole". I am so sick of seeing that word used by ignorant people in the media to describe any lawful use of a firearm.
 
Last edited:
Letting folks carry guns around town is one thing, letting them pack heat inside the inner sanctum sanctorum of the state capitol, maybe that's a different matter altogether.

Same old logic applies here...gun control only keeps the law abiding unarmed.
 
If I recall correctly, you can't carry in the actual House/Senate chambers even with a CHL. You can and have been able to carry elsewhere in the capitol for years with a CHL. The shooting incident was a domestic squabble with a female who worked in the capitol and a male who didn't. He wasn't allowed to see her in her office and went outside and randomly fired some shots on the capitol steps. He was not a permit holder.

Allowing CHLs in seems like no big deal as licensees are monitored for convictions, etc. and they scan your license at the door to check for the latest info on whether it's still valid. I don't see the problem.
 
Already like that in VA. You still have to go through the metal detectors but you just show your CHP to the Capitol Police officer and they wave you through. And this includes Open Carry and Concealed Carry.
 
I'm thinking about moving out of Michigan in a few years. Texas seems like a good choice, I just can't stand the prohibition on Open Carry.

Come down here and be one more vote demanding it. I think Perry is going to get re-elected and we should have OC in another legislative session or two.
 
It's really not entirely up to me. When I get back from Afghanistan, I'm going to be putting apps in with police departments in states that are more politically aligned with me than Michigan. I guess I'll see where the chips fall.
 
This is a dumb idea. A permit does not mean the person is not a threat. The fact is that now the permit has become less important in that it the person may not care if they are carrying a gun or not but just about bypassing a line at work.

Bad guys can and do get permits. Not all of the time but it has been known to happen. This is a bad security move on thier part and I hope they realize their mistake.
 
A few years back in Oregon's state capitol, at the Marion County Courthouse, a guy who was honked off about something or other ... well, here's a news brief on the initial incident:

Police in Oregon shoot man who rammed courthouse

November 13, 2005

SALEM, Ore. -- Police shot a man after he crashed a truck into a courthouse Saturday, ending a pursuit that began when, police say, he set fire to squad cars in a nearby town and shot at an officer who chased him.

The man drove the pickup into the Marion County Courthouse and hid in the building for three hours, setting at least one fire before police cornered him, police Capt. Jeff Kuhns said.


And a link to a resolution on the case:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august302006/millis_sentence_83006.php

In any event, things radically changed at the courthouse after this incident. The sheriff's department set up a one-person-at-a-time metal detector operation, staffed by two deputies, who don't smile much and take their time and allow nothing through, up to and including pocket knives bes designed for cutting string or digging the dirt from under your nails. My guess it that it would take but a single incident -- and it wouldn't have to anything nearly as dramatic as what happened in Salem -- to change the manner of things in Austin.
 
They already had an incident as referred to above, and security is tighter than it used to be. They used to let you drive up to and around the capitol within mere feet of the steps. Now they have automatic popup blockades in the entry drives and you have to have a code to get in. Otherwise, you have to wak through a somewhat lengthy open area to even get close to the building. Then, you'll see the state troopers both in and out of the building. They also have both open and hidden monitored cameras. During legislative sessions, it looks like they about double the uniformed trooper presence. These are full sworn law enforcement officers, not mere security guards. There is more I could go into about response teams and such, but you get the idea. To make it any more secure it would be like entering a prison or something, in my opinion.
 
asked Canadian tourist

That is funny right there, they found a tourist from a country that does not even let people leave home with a handgun to go to the range without prior permission government to give a negative opinion on what Texas is doing.




SALEM, Ore. -- Police shot a man after he crashed a truck into a courthouse Saturday, ending a pursuit that began when, police say, he set fire to squad cars in a nearby town and shot at an officer who chased him.

The man drove the pickup into the Marion County Courthouse and hid in the building for three hours, setting at least one fire before police cornered him, police Capt. Jeff Kuhns said.

And a link to a resolution on the case:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/a...ence_83006.php

In any event, things radically changed at the courthouse after this incident. The sheriff's department set up a one-person-at-a-time metal detector operation,

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august302006/millis_sentence_83006.php
then used the truck to smash the front of the courthouse open.


Oh brilliant. Now they can catch those people trying to bring pickup trucks into the building.
Anyone attempting to come in with a several thousand pound vehicle in the future will set off the metal detector!


Really does that seem logical? They wanted more security and found an excuse to install it. The security would not have stopped the individual cited as a cause for installing it though. He didn't walk through the front door, and I don't think he was hiding his truck in his pocket when he smashed through the building.
 
Last edited:
To say that "they wanted more security and found an excuse to install it" is a bit of a stretch, I think, unless you can define exactly who "they" happen to be. No one I know of in Salem, including (and perhaps especially) the deputies assigned to this duty on a daily basis, wanted to see this happen. The lawyers who frequent the place surely didn't want to see this; the daily inconvenience is oppressive. Likewise, the public who frequent the place certainly didn't want to see it happen, and for the exactly the same reason. IIRC, the county commissioners voted reluctantly to take extra security measures after the incident took place. This was a result of that vote. It doesn't make a lot of sense on a variety of levels, but given the extraordinary event, well, here we are in a post-9/11 world.
 
"They" being the people who work there, and the city that wants to better micromanage everyone in Salem coming through the doors.

Clearly a metal detector going "beep" would not have stopped someone from crashing several thousand pounds of metal into the building, which was the way he entered.
So while nobody wanted it to happen, and it was tragic and expensive, it became a convenient excuse to add additional security even though it would not have stopped the scenario it was being added in response to.
 
In Minnesota we have always been allowed to carry in the capitol building with a proper permit. You do have to notify the state that you may/or may not be carrying a gun in the capitol and on capitol grounds before hand (one letter stating your intent to the state, and a photocopy of your permit, is all that is needed, not a notification each time). If you do not receive a reply stating you are not allowed, then you are.

My instructor was sure to point this out to us, and give us instructions and a form letter of intent for use. He encouraged everyone to do so, just in case you are ever going to the capitol.

I believe the logic is that the right to defend yourself should extend into the grounds where the rules are made and no one should be afraid to show up there (because of threats, fear of being vulnerable, etc). If there are more armed law abiding citizens in the capitol, there is less risk for everyone, including the law makers.
 
TexasRifleman wrote: "And besides that, why do you believe that an otherwise law abiding citizen will suddenly go on a crazed rampage just because he enters a building?"

I've reread my post several times and I'll be damned if I can find where I made any such suggestion.
 
BuckSnort wrote:
I've reread my post several times and I'll be damned if I can find where I made any such suggestion.


Well, you insinuate that letting CCW in the Texas capitol is somehow different from carrying in the streets. If you didn't mean that it would be more likely to result in a shooting, what DID you mean by this statement:

Letting folks carry guns around town is one thing, letting them pack heat inside the inner sanctum sanctorum of the state capitol, maybe that's a different matter altogether.
 
Searcher451 Wrote:

It doesn't make a lot of sense on a variety of levels, but given the extraordinary event, well, here we are in a post-9/11 world.

You've captured, in a nutshell, the approach to domestic security by people that do not understand the threat. Why would a legislature vote to install metal detectors in response to a truck crashing through the front of the building? Why can't I take shampoo on an airplane? Not because either effort makes us safer, but because it is a visual, concrete reminder that "something" is being done (it's the wrong something, but it is something).

Which makes your earlier comment all the more strange:

My guess it that it would take but a single incident -- and it wouldn't have to anything nearly as dramatic as what happened in Salem -- to change the manner of things in Austin.

Maybe if someone shoots up the capitol in Austin they will install vehicle barriers?
 
I wish the capitol in Nashville did not keep people from carrying guns with metal detectors....kind of silly because there is no state law against it in Tennessee.....i guess the secretary of state decided to make a rule and keep folks out whether they are legal or not...stick up a sign and metal detectors....kind of sad when I help pay for the upkeep of that building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top