It’s back to the books for three professors at the University of Texas in Austin after a federal judge tossed out their lawsuit seeking to overturn campus carry. District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that Mia Carter, Lynn Glass and Lisa Moore presented “no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” and dismissed the case.
The ruling was handed down last week, one year after the lawsuit was initially filed. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was pleased with the verdict. "The court’s ruling today is the correct outcome," Paxton was quoted as saying by The Texas Tribune. "The fact that a small group of professors dislike a law and speculate about a ‘chilling effect’ is hardly a valid basis to set the law aside."
Campus carry has been in effect for nearly a year in Texas—it allows for permitted concealed-carry holders aged 21 and older to bring handguns into classrooms and other university facilities. Yet despite the professors’ fears of rampant violence and around-the-clock shootings, there haven’t been any major incidents.
Despite what the movies and liberal Left would have you believe, silencers—or more accurately, suppressors—do not fully silence the sound of a gunshot. Suppressors are to guns what mufflers are to cars. On average, suppressors lessen a 165 dB sound into a 135 dB sound—the equivalent of going from a jet engine to a jackhammer.
That information is readily available, of course, but anti-gun groups would prefer to have you believe the movie scene where the bad guy fires off a round in a crowded room and not a single person hears the gunshot. One recent example is an editorial posted in The Salt Lake Tribune by Linda K. Newell, board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center.
Newell rails against the Hearing Protection Act—calling suppressors nothing more than a “profit area” for the gun industry—and claims that their deregulation would “make killing easier.” She also wonders how many more deaths will occur when “silencers are on the streets and in the hands of youth gangs and other criminals.” Acknowledging the fact that suppressors are rarely used in criminal shootings, Newell absurdly argues that the reason is that most criminals are prevented by law from purchasing them. In other words, criminals with illegal guns who use them to commit illegal, violent acts are deterred by the fact that obtaining a suppressor would be illegal.
If only there was a suppressor for uninformed, misguided gun control rhetoric.
Politicians Pile On UK Police Commissioner Over Public Carry Statement
We told you recently how one U.K. police commissioner had taken some verbal lumps for an open-minded view on the possibility of citizens carrying firearms to protect against terrorism. When asked on a radio program what the repercussions would be if law-abiding gun owners used firearms to defend against terrorism, Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez of Devon and Cornwall counties answered: “That’s a good question! This might be some of our solution,” she continued, adding she wanted to “officially have a look at that and see what would be the implications of it.
That answer didn’t make some police officials happy, and now politicians are getting in on the bashing. “This Council believes that a proposal to utilize domestically owned firearms is a crass and inadequate response to mounting concerns about police cuts,” Labour Party Caucus members of the Plymouth City council wrote in a motion for a vote of no confidence in Hernandez. The motion even called Hernandez’s comments “stupid and dangerous.”
For her part, Hernandez is sticking to her guns. “It will not detract me from representing the views of the public which is central to my role,” she said in a statement following the vote. “As previously stated, I don’t want to see armed vigilantes roaming the streets, but a discussion about how the public responds to any immediate terror threat is completely valid.”
Pro-Gun Bill Passes Ohio House
State law in Ohio currently stipulates that a person found carrying a firearm in a designated “gun-free” zone can be charged with a felony. On July 6, the House of Representatives approved HB 233, a bill aiming to “de-criminalize” such zones for law-abiding gun owners, by a vote of 65-31.
NRA-ILA reports that HB 233 provides for holders of concealed-carry licenses and qualified members of the military to be removed from the property if found to be in violation of a “gun-free” zone, but not to be charged with a criminal offense. If they refuse to leave or are found carrying a concealed firearm in a prohibited area again within 30 days, they can be charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor offense.
The bill will now move to the Ohio Senate for further consideration.
Man Drives Away Violent Home Invader With Single Shot
A homeowner in Licking, Mo., gave an aggressive intruder the licking of his life late Wednesday evening.
Texas County, Mo., Sheriff James Sigman told local media that the 34-year-old owner of the residence heard someone attempting to break into the house. After being discovered, the suspect began cursing and trying to challenge the homeowner as he forced his way inside. That’s when the homeowner fired one well-placed shot from his pistol, driving off the invader.
Shortly after the encounter, Licking Police responded to a nearby ambulance base, where a man suffering from a gunshot wound to the abdomen had checked in. Investigators determined it was the home invader, and he was transported to Texas County Memorial Hospital. Sigman concluded, “After investigating the scene and questioning witnesses, it was determined that this shooting was an act of self-defense.”