This version of the story quoted a Brady chapter member: “Suicide rates of college age students is already high. I'm not sure it would be good idea to bring guns on campus,” Yeah, 'cause the kind of person who would go through the 10-hour course and firing range training, etc. to get the CHL is exactly the type of person to whip out their .45 and eat a bullet when they get that C- back on their Calculus final.

Another version, from the Dallas-Fort Worth paper, also showed its bias: "About 260,000 Texans, who have undergone mandatory background check and training, are licensed to carry a concealed weapon, records show. In the last fiscal year, 180 licenses were revoked and 493 were suspended for unknown reasons, records show." I guess we're supposed to be scared of that 1/4 of 1 percent who couldn't hold onto their licenses. What do you want to bet most of those 493 "unknowns" were people who either 1) died, 2) moved out of state, or 3) just let their license lapse through no fault but their own?

The Dallas article also placed Gov. Perry's suggestion of "carry everywhere" across from a Democratic Rep's "but not on privately-owned property like someone's small business" stance. Take note - gun control is the only thing that'll make a Democrat actually care about private property rights!

Full disclosure: the San Antonio paper printed a letter to the editor of mine about the conundrum freedom-lovers of all stripes face with the issue of allowing private property owners to restrict concealed carry on their private property. I personally haven't been able to reconcile both sides' arguments and come down from the fence.

"gun control is the only thing that'll make a Democrat actually care about private property rights!"

Hehehe... good observation.

I believe in strong protection of private property rights. One of the most fundamental rights of a property owner is that of exclusion - i.e., not allowing someone or something on my property if I don't want it there. Although I am a CCW permit holder, I would be hypocritical if I did not also believe in the right of a private property owner to say he or she doesn't want guns on his or her property. What chaps my hide is when the government declares certain properties unilaterally off-limits by law - even though some owners of those types of properties would have no problem whatsoever with CCW permit holders carrying there.

Making those properties off-limits by law typically means a violation of that law is a criminal act (albeit typically a misdemeanor). If the government leaves it up to the individual property owners, first, you must have notice that the property owner forbids guns there - so, e.g., the store owner would have to put up signs saying "no guns" (just like "no trespassing" signs in the woods let you know when you've crossed on to someone else's property). Second, if you enter the property and the owner discovers your gun, they tell you to leave - you leave. No crime committed. If you stay, then they get your for trespassing or maybe even disorderly conduct/creating a disturbance (depending on how you handle it).

I think it is equally wrong for government to override the rights of private property owners by passing legislation saying that any CCW holder has can legally carry their gun there, regardless of the wishes of the property owner, just as it is to ban legal concealed carry in certain places. Some restaurant owners don't have a problem with legal gun owners carrying concealed in their establishments, others do. Let them decide for themselves.