PDA

View Full Version : so what is "ok" to carry?


jesus_chrysler
10th December 2007, 06:40
Is there any rules on what you can carry? or is it what ever you can conceal? does it have to be a hand gun?

I wish that when these people would do such stupid crimes with guns (i.e. shoot up a mall) that one time there would be a conceal and carry civilian there to stop them. show them what real gun holders can do!

wandrur
10th December 2007, 08:24
My permit (Colorado) states specifically that it is a "concealed handgun" permit. So...it wouldn't allow me to walk around with a shotgun tucked under a trench coat or anything like that.

mray55
10th December 2007, 15:42
One Story I remember happend in Texas. Around 1992 if I remember correct. Dallas area a man shot and killed his girlfriend at a mall. Another man saw it and retrieved his 44mag from his trunk and shot through the door of the man leaving the parking lot. The perp was DOA and two days later the man in the parking lot turned himself in. The grand jury no billed the case. Rumor had it the Grand Jury wanted to pay for the mans ammo. This I saw on the local news when I lived in Garland. It was shortly after that when the conceal carry law passed in Texas. Maby some of the texas folks will be able to find the news report and post it. I am sure there are many such reports out there but never make the national news.

DudleyDoRight
11th December 2007, 08:44
Here in New York the bastard or his family would sue you and most likely win. Best bet is to carry a revolver and leave the scene immediatly.

humpbackbob
11th December 2007, 09:01
One Story I remember happend in Texas. Around 1992 if I remember correct. Dallas area a man shot and killed his girlfriend at a mall. Another man saw it and retrieved his 44mag from his trunk and shot through the door of the man leaving the parking lot. The perp was DOA and two days later the man in the parking lot turned himself in. The grand jury no billed the case. Rumor had it the Grand Jury wanted to pay for the mans ammo. This I saw on the local news when I lived in Garland. It was shortly after that when the conceal carry law passed in Texas. Maby some of the texas folks will be able to find the news report and post it. I am sure there are many such reports out there but never make the national news.

That sort of thing has occured here in Texas more than once. It catches the evening news for a day or so. I used to print all the applications for concealed handguns for the whole State. It used to be around 50K a year. Post 911 the applications went to over 300k and have remained at that level ever since. There is plenty of folks packing down here. The only rise in shooting incidents has been by the Police. Understandable I suppose since they don't know who's carrying these days.:gun

Crash03
11th December 2007, 19:18
"Civilians" use their guns to prevent and end more violence than you'd believe. You're just not going to see i in the press. In fact there have been 2 "recent" school shootings that were ended by an armed citizen.


Oh, sorry, about your question. I say carry the largest caliber round you feel comfortable and competent shooting. I like a .40 or .45

jaws
11th December 2007, 19:23
"Civilians" use their guns to prevent and end more violence than you'd believe. You're just not going to see i in the press. In fact there have been 2 "recent" school shootings that were ended by an armed citizen.


Oh, sorry, about your question. I say carry the largest caliber round you feel comfortable and competent shooting. I like a .40 or .45

The one recent church shooting was ended by a civilian.

wandrur
11th December 2007, 20:31
The one recent church shooting was ended by a civilian.

If you're referring to the two church shootings in Colorado, the woman who allegedly shot the gunman at the New Life Church as a volunteer security guard. Not necessarily a "civilian" in my book, as her volunteer position was that of a security guard. And I say allegedly because the police are still determining whether the guard shot the gunman or if he died as a result of self-inflicted wounds.

wandrur
11th December 2007, 21:06
Update here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings)

Matthew Murray, 24, was struck multiple times by a security officer at New Life Church Sunday but died after firing a single shot at himself, the El Paso County Coroner's Office concluded after an autopsy.

So, yes, I think we can place partial credit upon the security guard's actions, but, again, she was functioning in the capacity of a security guard rather than a civilian, and there's no knowing whether or not the gunman had planned on ending his life at the point of completing the second shooting.

jaws
11th December 2007, 21:11
Update here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings)



So, yes, I think we can place partial credit upon the security guard's actions, but, again, she was functioning in the capacity of a security guard rather than a civilian, and there's no knowing whether or not the gunman had planned on ending his life at the point of completing the second shooting.

but used a personal weapon...

wandrur
11th December 2007, 21:38
One Story I remember happend in Texas. Around 1992 if I remember correct. Dallas area a man shot and killed his girlfriend at a mall. Another man saw it and retrieved his 44mag from his trunk and shot through the door of the man leaving the parking lot. The perp was DOA and two days later the man in the parking lot turned himself in. The grand jury no billed the case. Rumor had it the Grand Jury wanted to pay for the mans ammo. This I saw on the local news when I lived in Garland. It was shortly after that when the conceal carry law passed in Texas. Maby some of the texas folks will be able to find the news report and post it. I am sure there are many such reports out there but never make the national news.

I don't have all the details on this, but how the scenario broke down is essential to understanding the legality of the second shooting. I'm unfamiliar with Texas law, but I'm guessing the fellow was given a pass due to a rule commonly termed the "fleeing felon law" in which deadly force is authorized to bystanders, victims, or police in order to halt a suspected felon who is in clear flight. Tennessee V. Garner (1985) limited this to certain specific characteristics, however, though I'm guessing a good case was presented in the Grand Jury to justify the avenger's actions that were in accordance with this Supreme Court decision.

but used a personal weapon...

And was a former police officer, giving her training that most civilians would never have.

Make no mistake, I'm not advocating for citizens to be unable to carry concealed weapons. And to those who take action to halt further carnage caused by such shooters, I applaud them. However, I hesitate to encourage the masses to be packing. In fact, I'm not really sure if we're arguing points here or not, though I'm guessing my previous statement might start something. I'm glad the woman had the willpower to take action. I just think it's important to qualify that the individual in this example was 1) an on-duty (even if voluntary) security officer and 2) a former police officer. I would only hope that other instances of such action by civilians would echo the same behaviors guided by reason and (hopefully) some sort of training with handguns and high-stress situations.

Again, I am proud to possess a CCW. However, the only requirement to receiving a CCW in most states is the ability to handle the weapon; no attention need be paid to being able to handle oneself. I wonder if there are examples of civilians pulling their weapons only to further aggravate the situation or even make a move causing harm to innocent people. Many of us would act with little hesitation in such a situation, but that can be a double-edged sword. I just hope that consideration is made for both scenarios.

jaws
11th December 2007, 21:59
I don't have all the details on this, but how the scenario broke down is essential to understanding the legality of the second shooting. I'm unfamiliar with Texas law, but I'm guessing the fellow was given a pass due to a rule commonly termed the "fleeing felon law" in which deadly force is authorized to bystanders, victims, or police in order to halt a suspected felon who is in clear flight. Tennessee V. Garner (1985) limited this to certain specific characteristics, however, though I'm guessing a good case was presented in the Grand Jury to justify the avenger's actions that were in accordance with this Supreme Court decision.



And was a former police officer, giving her training that most civilians would never have.

Make no mistake, I'm not advocating for citizens to be unable to carry concealed weapons. And to those who take action to halt further carnage caused by such shooters, I applaud them. However, I hesitate to encourage the masses to be packing. In fact, I'm not really sure if we're arguing points here or not, though I'm guessing my previous statement might start something. I'm glad the woman had the willpower to take action. I just think it's important to qualify that the individual in this example was 1) an on-duty (even if voluntary) security officer and 2) a former police officer. I would only hope that other instances of such action by civilians would echo the same behaviors guided by reason and (hopefully) some sort of training with handguns and high-stress situations.

Again, I am proud to possess a CCW. However, the only requirement to receiving a CCW in most states is the ability to handle the weapon; no attention need be paid to being able to handle oneself. I wonder if there are examples of civilians pulling their weapons only to further aggravate the situation or even make a move causing harm to innocent people. Many of us would act with little hesitation in such a situation, but that can be a double-edged sword. I just hope that consideration is made for both scenarios.

Training aside, she is still a private citizen who is in possesion of a CCW. She contributed to the ending of something that could have been a lot worse. I do not understand what her past has to do with that fact.

If private citizens were not allowed to carry odds are she wouldn't have, and the guy might have continued his rampage.

Donz5oh
12th December 2007, 08:08
To clear up one thing.

Even a "security guard" is a civilian. Regardless of the fact that she was a former police officer, she is now a civilian. All of the security at that church were legal CCW holders.

Also, the last report I saw says that she did not in fact kill him, he killed himself but only after being shot by her and probably realizing that the killing spree was over. It has also been reported that he had blogged that he was going to die doing this so I'm sure that once he realized that someone else had a gun and had in fact already shot him at least once maybe more times that the gig was up. I believe that every, and I mean EVERY, citizens who is legally entitled to possess or carry a firearm should.

For those wondering about what that person will do when the time comes to actually use a weapon I have a little story for you.

While I was stationed overseas in the Marine Corps I was with Marine Security Forces. Now, these Marines typically recieve much more training than your average Marine(which IMHO are still better than 99% of the worlds "elite" forces) in combat awareness and situations and are constantly training with live ammo to keep proficient and comfortable around all of the big booms. I have personally seen a few, more than I care to admit but really not alot in the grand scheme of things, after all of that training completely flip out and panic the first time they actually participate in a real firefight. I have seen many hard corps Marines completely breakdown at the site of thier first kill, I threw up for several minutes myself, but they eventually regained composure and carried on with the mission.

Being that there is a police training academy at the college I work at I have also had plenty of opportunities to yap with seasoned training officers who, if not prior military, went through the same experience the first time they had to use deadly force.

Now all of that being said, If all of that training and experience cannot prepare these fine professionals for this, exactely how much training do you think civilians without the benefits of these experiences should have to go through to be "qualified" to carry a firearm.

I say not a damn bit. They pass the background check, then they are qualified. Any other conditions about "training" are just milder forms of gun control and are worthless. I do believe however that it is the responsiblility of each individual firearms owner to become as proficient with a firearm as possible. They should do this of their own accord, not a the demand of the government. We already see just how screwed every gov program is already, do you really want them trying to teach you how to handle a gun?

Teach yourself, shoot as often as you can, and don't be brazen about carrying a piece, thats why its called concealed carry. Be responsible without having to be told to be. If you aren't, you could get someone killed. Probably yourself.

Remember, the only gun control we need is proper site alignment, breathing technique, and a slow steady pull of the trigger.

wandrur
12th December 2007, 17:08
Even a "security guard" is a civilian. Regardless of the fact that she was a former police officer, she is now a civilian. All of the security at that church were legal CCW holders.

Again, to my point, I didn't claim she was not a civilian because she had previously been a police officer. My point was that she was not acting in the capacity of a 'civilian' as defined as a person-on-the-street (or in the congregation, in this instance); rather, she was acting in the capacity of a security guard, who has the express responsibility to do exactly what she did (volunteer or not). This was my omission on clarifying my use of the term civilian.

Here's the interesting thing, and I think you'll agree with me on it--where's the mention of her holding a CCW in the mainstream press? The only mention I've seen in those outlets has been that the guards were licensed and trained. You don't necessarily need a CCW when employed as a security guard in Colorado. There's a lot of mention of Assam possessing a CCW in various blogs, but I haven't seen it in the mainstream. Any thoughts why? Colorado is a fairly gun-friendly state, so I would think that at least the Denver Post or the Rocky Mountain News would qualify that she was a CCW holder. Was she really a CCW holder, or is the pro-right-to-carry crowd arguing that she is in order to move forward their agenda? On Larry King, the pastor mentioned that the guards "are licensed to carry weapons" but it is unclear exactly what this means.

I do believe however that it is the responsiblility of each individual firearms owner to become as proficient with a firearm as possible. They should do this of their own accord, not a the demand of the government. We already see just how screwed every gov program is already, do you really want them trying to teach you how to handle a gun?

I never disagreed that it should be the responsibility of the individual. I completely agree; however, individuals don't always take that step to be adequately trained and tested for competency, which is why we have driver licenses that are state-mandated. And I never claimed the training should be government-provided. Because, yes, all those screwed up government programs like national defense, and military spending, and health care for the elderly, and elections, and all those things. Oh, and the Constitution and the legal system (that admittedly is not without flaws), but it is the code by which many of us live our lives as Americans, is it not? And that's a government mandate, is it not?

I'm not trying to be combative, and I hope it's not coming off as such. I hope we can have our differing opinions while still being open to learning from each other. Perhaps I'm arguing a distinction that you don't agree with, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Again, I'm just trying to get to a deeper understanding about what's going on.

Be responsible without having to be told to be. If you aren't, you could get someone killed. Probably yourself.

I almost wish this were true, but the opposite seems to be all too common--those who are irresponsible often harm others while they survive, which gets back to the earlier point of requiring training for those who otherwise might not take the opportunity. I'm all for equal rights, but people must pull their weight.

Donz5oh
12th December 2007, 17:56
The constitution is not there to tell the average citizen what they can or can't do. It is there to tell the government what it can or can't do. The Constitution is a very limiting document, not to the average citizen, but to the government. Its a mandate on the government, not the people.

The argument about licensing drivers isn't comparable, the constitution doesn't gaurentee you the right to drive, thus the government can license you in this activity.

Oh, and here are few other government programs running like a well oiled train wreck : social security, medicare, medicaid, wellfare, the IRS, public education. Not to mention out of control pork spending, ever intrusive legislation into our personal rights. My point is the government cant even balance its own check book but punishes us when we can't. And when I say government, I mean all of these knucklehead politicians getting power hungry on the American taxpayers back. I know that the gov is supposed to be the people, but that seems less and less the case.

To answer the question about why the papers didn't mention about whether or not she was a CCW holder while Colorado is a gun friendly state ;

The papers you listed all have a very liberal leaning and seem to have no problem pushing that.

I can tell you here in Arizona, an extremely gun friendly state, all of our major papers are unrepentantly liberal and anti-gun. Also, we are an open carry state, which means that we don't need a licence to carry an unconcealed weapon. We do need a license to carry concealed, though.

Don't worry about being combative, you can't disaree with someone without sounding a little combative, and I don't take it personally anyway. Well, at least not until you bad mouth the Corps, and I haven't heard any of that so were good.

DudleyDoRight
16th December 2007, 04:59
I think it was Colonel Cooper who said that a handgun is only good for fighting your way back to your rifle. Keep an AR-15 and a couple or three 30 round mags in the truck and fear no evil.;)

Donz5oh
16th December 2007, 05:49
I think it was Colonel Cooper who said that a handgun is only good for fighting your way back to your rifle. Keep an AR-15 and a couple or three 30 round mags in the truck and fear no evil.;)

Heh, I like that, but I wonder if the Colonel ever had to crawl do a hole. A pistol comes in handy about that time. Of course, so would a willie pete.

mid30
16th December 2007, 06:05
I carry a 9 mil but my cary license let me cary up to a 44 mag.

Donz5oh
16th December 2007, 07:35
The nice thing about Arizona is that is just a license for a concealed handgun, it doesn't restrict you from calibre size or capacity. It can be as big as your comfortable with. I would love to see the look on a bad guys face when some old redneck around here whips out a .50 revolver and points it at him. Thats assuming of course the guy has plenty of time to draw it from the holster. Heh.

wandrur
18th December 2007, 02:45
The constitution is not there to tell the average citizen what they can or can't do. It is there to tell the government what it can or can't do. The Constitution is a very limiting document, not to the average citizen, but to the government. Its a mandate on the government, not the people.

I would disagree on the grounds that the anything that functions to limit the actions of the government implicitly describes the reverse--the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights explicitly states the rights of the people that cannot be infringed upon by the government; so, while it is accurate that the Constitutions places limitations upon the government, it also explains the rights of the people in direct relationship to the limitations of the government.

The argument about licensing drivers isn't comparable, the constitution doesn't gaurentee you the right to drive, thus the government can license you in this activity.

It's also arguable that the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as individuals, as the wording is vague as to whether or not it specifically refers to the ability of states to provide and arm militias comprised of non-military citizens. Many militia groups have taken this to mean that they now must arm themselves against the government from infringing upon their individual rights. The majority of the 2nd Amendment debate is the difference between the 'strict constructionist' view (the common conservative take) and the idea of the Constitution as a 'living document' (the common liberal take) that requires interpretation. It's a fascinating debate in criminology, law, and philosophy, not to mention those of us on the ground of the everyday world who try to figure out what it means to live in this version of a democracy.

My point with the driver license comparison was in the interest of protecting citizens, which is what the government is tasked to do in the first place. I stated that few people would take the necessary moves to adequately train themselves to safely operate something like an automobile, so the government put in place requirements for basic skills training in order to protect its citizens.

My point is the government cant even balance its own check book but punishes us when we can't. And when I say government, I mean all of these knucklehead politicians getting power hungry on the American taxpayers back. I know that the gov is supposed to be the people, but that seems less and less the case.

I'm with you here.

To answer the question about why the papers didn't mention about whether or not she was a CCW holder while Colorado is a gun friendly state ;

The papers you listed all have a very liberal leaning and seem to have no problem pushing that.

I can tell you here in Arizona, an extremely gun friendly state, all of our major papers are unrepentantly liberal and anti-gun. Also, we are an open carry state, which means that we don't need a licence to carry an unconcealed weapon. We do need a license to carry concealed, though.

Same story with Colorado regarding open carry and concealed permits. I would argue, however, that given the recent (~2-3 years) high-profile political debates in Colorado, the tone of the mainstream press in Colorado has been decidedly conservative-leaning. That of course ebbs and flows, depending on the topic, but the high-profile, politically-charged stories in recent history have noticeably changed the tone of the mainstream press here. You could be very right with this case. I still haven't seen confirmation that she possesses a CCW permit, though. The Denver press has said such things as "she is licensed to carry a weapon" but that could still refer to her possession of a CCW permit OR it could refer to her function as a security guard. If I wasn't in the middle of other things in my life right now, I'd write a quick letter to the editor asking a clarification of this and an explanation as to why it hasn't been explicitly stated that she was a CCW carrier. I think it's unfair to the pro-concealed weapon population to not clearly state this in the press.

Don't worry about being combative, you can't disaree with someone without sounding a little combative, and I don't take it personally anyway. Well, at least not until you bad mouth the Corps, and I haven't heard any of that so were good.

Very good point. I would never disrespect the Corps. I have a number of family members as well as good friends who either have served in or are currently serving in the Corps. Now, I have no problem disrespecting individuals who disrespect me, Marines or not. But that obviously hasn't happened, but I did want to make that distinction. I greatly appreciate having an intelligent person to argue with, as I've often not had that opportunity. Even if I am stubborn as a mule. Or maybe I'm just a plain jackass. :shhhh

Donz5oh
18th December 2007, 08:35
First of wandrur you sound like a dang lawyer. That being said, I think I may still like you.:D

As far as the constitution goes, I believe the founding fathers specifically left it vague so that the government couldn't say, well if this is what it says then we'll limit everything else. I disagree with your logic on the constraints of the constitution, I believe that it only states what the government can't do, not what individual citizens can. Otherwise, I don't believe our founders would have put "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence. They specifically state that God gives us these rights, not man, or government.

As far as the second ammendment goes, the Bill of Rights is a document outlining INDIVIDUAL rights. At least the first 10 are. You can't say that they are all individual rights except one. That isn't how they intended it to be. I'm not sure, but for better clarification read the federalist papers. They are very insightful as to thier intentions.

There are alot of things we do that are inherently dangerous, those that the government can control, they will. Do you really want Uncle Sam deciding every aspect of your safety? This goes back to many other threads on this forum about helmet laws.

The government isn't here to protect me from myself, its here to protect me from foriegn invaders, domestic tyranny, and invasions from Klendathu.:shhhh

Concerning Colorado, I have seen accounts that she is a concealed permit holder. Whether these assertions are accurate or not needs to be investigated.

The whole thing about the Corps was a joke, sorry, I should have put some cutsie little emote :wonderlan just to verify that I wasn't serious.;)

You can make fun of the Corps if you want, thats why I invaded to foreign lands and killed babies, so that anyone could do just that. :p

Ya know? I just re-read my post and now ya got me sounding like a friggin' lawyer.:doh

DudleyDoRight
19th December 2007, 08:40
One point that is missed big time nowadays is the usurpation of power by the Federal government that has occurred since the War Between the States. The Declaration of Independence refers to us as "Free and Independant States." The constitution simply spells out the powers granted to the Federal Government by the States. All powers not given to the Federal Government were reserved by the individual States, and the people. The Bill of Rights is a list of Amendments added to protect the people from the Federal, state and local governments. The States are free to pass any laws that do not violate the constitution or the Admendments. The people are free to vote their governments out of office when they are not happy with the laws being made. They seem to focus on the President and their respective state governers or local mayors, but don't do much to change the legislatures, which is where the laws are made. The drivers licence thing is a non-issue as far as constitutional rights go. I believe the constitution leaves the states free to "regulate" guns, but not ban them. They are constitutionaly free to do whatever they want with regulating motor vehicles, even banning them if it were politically popular. We are all free to move to a state with a government that is more in line with our political beliefs.

raysheen
21st December 2007, 21:16
to speak to the original question, it will depend on what state you are in.
For example, in my home state of ME they issue a "concealed firearms permit" - you can conceal any firearm that you can hide.
In NY it's a "Pistol permit" and only allows handguns.
In FL it's a "concealed weapons permit" and adds such things as auto knives etc.

milmat1
21st December 2007, 21:21
Psssttt....
You can not use deadly force on behalf of a third party. Unless at that very second that Third person has the legal right to Deadly force. Because you are acting as there agent....You'll End up in trouble. Thats Why People "Don't get involved" Because they know how Screwed up this system is !!!
Protect yourself and get the hell out of there !!

mid30
19th January 2008, 03:03
a couple of years ago there was a guy at a walmart that went after his gf with a knife, she worked at the deli. A guy saw him go after her and shot him dead. No charges were ever brought up against him.

JayFL459
19th January 2008, 03:44
to speak to the original question, it will depend on what state you are in.
For example, in my home state of ME they issue a "concealed firearms permit" - you can conceal any firearm that you can hide.
In NY it's a "Pistol permit" and only allows handguns.
In FL it's a "concealed weapons permit" and adds such things as auto knives etc.


Thanks for bringing that up almost forgot what the original topic was after reading all the way through .. Being a Florida Resident have the option of "weapon" but my choice is the 9MM Browning Hi Power as the best overall concealment and stopping power for it's size, my S&W .357 works too but a little big to carry all the time...

Donz5oh
19th January 2008, 05:00
Psssttt....
You can not use deadly force on behalf of a third party. Unless at that very second that Third person has the legal right to Deadly force. Because you are acting as there agent....You'll End up in trouble. Thats Why People "Don't get involved" Because they know how Screwed up this system is !!!
Protect yourself and get the hell out of there !!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by using deadly force on behalf of a third party. Or maybe your not understanding it. Under every deadly force law I have ever seen, you have the right to use it to protect yourself OR someone else who is in immenant danger. That means you can use deadly force to stop someone from killing someone else, as long as it is apparent that lethal harm is immenant. Shooting someone going after someone else with a knife is a perfect example. I feel shame and derision towards anyone who would stand by and watch someone get assaulted or killed simply because you didn't want to get involved. Lets hope that the next time one of your children, siblings, parents or spouse is getting attacked that a witness doesnt feel the same way you do.

wabiker
20th January 2008, 20:00
to speak to the original question, it will depend on what state you are in.
For example, in my home state of ME they issue a "concealed firearms permit" - you can conceal any firearm that you can hide.
In NY it's a "Pistol permit" and only allows handguns.
In FL it's a "concealed weapons permit" and adds such things as auto knives etc.
.... Ya beat me to it Raysheen ;)

Ive seen:
CCW= Conceal Carry Weapons permit- That DIDNT allow for knives over 3 inches long or Rifles.
Obviously its up to the individual to do their research regarding their own States interpretation. Ive havent stayed current, but there was/is a push for a National Concealed Carry Permit, which if memory serves was only for Pistol Caliber Handguns (whatever THAT means).

Bottom line every state varies and uses it own terminology, definitions and qualification requirements. The Current trend seems to be Reciprocity Laws and Standardized Training Qualifications. My first CCW permit application was EASIER than filling out a McDonalds Application:
Drivers License, SSN Card, Address and Phone number....Done Deal.
Hell back in the 80's Arizona Law only required that it be in a Holster.
....times have are a changing

Nomad502
27th June 2008, 05:16
Remember this one?

On October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms(*). According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person.) One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.

Consequences

Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

* - If I remember correctly, the law prevented even CCW holders to carry anywhere that alcohol was served. I believe that has now been changed by a 51% law.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp is a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, who represented traditionally Democratic District 54 (Bell, Burnet, and Lampasas counties) for ten years from 1997-2007. Hupp is recognized as a leading advocate for the Second Amendment and an individual's right to carry a concealed weapon.

wabiker
27th June 2008, 05:21
Yea I remember her... Hupp ROCKED...one of the few voices of Reason that came out of the Terrible Tragedy.