Early Wednesday morning, KSU basketball player Patrick Dawson was shot while inside an apartment on Landings Drive, not far from campus. The bullet came through the back door, ricocheted off the wall, and hit Dawson, who was in the living room.

Frankfort’s “State Journal” newspaper reports that at last night’s game, everyone in the crowd had to go through a metal detector. Students we spoke with on campus said the added security was a good idea.

“I think the metal detectors are a good idea. Students pay to go to school and get an education. That’s something we do need and we need to be safe. We need to know that,” said Josh Graves

“I think it’s a good thing. It’s for our safety; protecting the students,” said Taneisha Hampton.

Read the rest of the story here.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, also commonly referred to as ATF) is reviewing legislation passed this last session to determine if Nevada again qualifies for an exemption from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check. If the legislation meets BATFE requirements, the federal agency will issue an open letter to Nevada federal firearms licensees, or dealers, informing them a CCW permit will now suffice for firearm purchases.

For Nevada gun owners, that means they will forego additional background checks and the associated $25 fee charged by the state, as long as they can produce a valid CCW permit when purchasing a firearm.

A BATFE spokeswoman confirmed that the agency is reviewing the Nevada law, but could not say if or when the exemption would be granted.

“All we’re trying to do is talk to the ATF and make sure they have everything they need,” said Frank Adams, executive director of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA) in Mesquite. “We’re expecting an answer shortly. I don’t have a crystal ball.”

The NSCA initially said it would contact BATFE via a formal letter, but at its July meeting the group opted to delay action until its September meeting at the request of the sheriffs of Clark and Washoe counties, said Adams.

“They wanted to study the impact because they anticipate a huge influx of new applications,” he said.

Adams said both counties have suffered tremendous budget cuts.
“We may have to go back to the counties and ask for more money,” he said, to cover the costs of new permit applications. “The fees we collect don’t cover the whole cost. They have to be fiscally concerned. It’s a privileged license being supplemented by taxpayer dollars.”
In the meantime, a private citizen associated with the Stillwater Firearms Association, a Fallon-based advocacy group, sent a letter to the ATF, which contacted him to say it was reviewing the new law passed by the state, according to J.L. Rhodes, legislative action committee chairman for the association.

“They called to say thank you,” said Rhodes.

Rhodes said he called the Nevada Department of Public Safety to see what the holdup was on contacting the ATF to trigger a review and was told that the ATF was already taking action based on the private citizen’s letter.

“It was left up to an individual to send the letter,” said Carrie Herbertson, state liaison for the National Rifle Association, who said the NSCA dragged its feet on the matter. “That’s one powerful letter.”

Nevada lost its exemption from the NICS checks in 2008 when it failed to pass legislation that would have brought the state into compliance. An earlier audit by the BATFE showed that not all of the state’s sheriff offices were conducting proper background checks and that state law did not require the checks on permit renewals.

In 2005, the state’s 17 sheriffs’ offices signed a Memorandum of Understanding saying they would comply with BATFE requirements until legislation could be enacted in the 2007 legislative session, allowing the state to hang onto its exemption until then.

The Nevada legislature, though, failed to pass the needed legislation in 2007 so, in 2008, the BATFE said the state no longer qualified for the exemption.

Since then, CCW permit holders have had to go through a background check for each firearm purchase and, because Nevada acted as a point of contact (POC) and used the state’s criminal records database, had to pay a $25 fee. Background checks conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for states that opt not to be POCs are free.

Read the rest of the story here.

But even if that’s the cause, they’re doing it in service to a worthwhile legislative end.

The bill, which got its first reading in the Georgia House of Representatives on Friday, and has been assigned to the House Judiciary (Non-Civil) Committee, would require applicants for a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to obtain some limited training in the use of that firearm.

Specifically, House Bill 735 would require applicants to complete a four-hour firearms safety training course from either a certified peace officer or a state-licensed weapons training instructor.

The legislation would require that the course “include instruction on the features of a firearm and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and unloading the firearm.”

The legislation, which would go into effect on July 1, if passed in its current form, includes a number of exemptions, and wouldn’t apply to peace officers, nor to active-duty, reserve or National Guard personnel, nor to state-licensed weapons instructors.

It will be interesting to see how the bill fares in a Republican-dominated statehouse, given the general conservative reluctance to infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. It is, however, difficult to argue that House Bill 735 represents anything but the most limited attempt to ensure that people who want to exercise the right to carry a pistol or revolver are competent to do so. A four-hour course, which under terms of the bill must cover only the most rudimentary aspects of owning and using a firearm, can hardly be seen as an onerous or overbroad attempt to curtail the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment.

Read the rest of the story here.

The law applies, with certain re­­strictions, to employers that provide an employee parking area.

Employers subject to the law may not prohibit employees from storing a firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned vehicle in a parking area designated for use by employees. Most provisions of the law apply not just to holders of a Concealed Hand­­gun License (CHL), but to any em­­ployee who “lawfully possesses a firearm.”

The law, which took effect in Sep­tem­­ber, does provide limited immunity for employers, except in cases of gross negligence.

Read the rest of the story here.

The Long Beach Press-Telegram ( http://bit.ly/wUghjq) says 49-year-old Darius Bossinas was sentenced on Thursday to 40 hours of community service and he was ordered to register his firearm.

Read the rest of the story here.

“The question on the permit is pretty common sense. It has to do with whether the applicant is using stimulants, depressants, or any illegal narcotic, drug or marijuana that’s illegal essentially,” says Heather Benjamin, spokesperson for the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office.

However, medical marijuana is legal in Colorado. Medical marijuana patient Mike Marshall says he uses marijuana to help relieve pain from a stroke before he goes to sleep. Mike has experience with guns, but wasn’t aware of the conceal carry laws. He paid for a four hour safety class to get his permit. “I used to be an avid hunter and shooter. I enjoy firearms. It’s part of what i do as a hobby,” says Marshall.

However, he was denied, and now questions why some are allowed to carry and still drink under the limit or use prescription drugs. “There is no distinction between marijuana and alcohol. Why is one different than the other?” says Marshall.

Some medical marijuana patients argue they should be able to carry if they’re not under the effects of marijuana. However, the federal law is clearly laid out. “Just because a state law says something is legal, if a federal law says it’s illegal, the federal law supersedes state law in every situation,” says Benjamin.

Read the rest of the story here.

Word around the campfire is that the campus carry bill may get legs in the special session – we’ll see. It would be fantastic if that would be the case. I didn’t find anything in those news stories (I just scanned them quickly) about reviving campus carry, but the internet is abuzz.

For all intents and purposes, the Texas gun laws book is finished – it was finished a few months ago – but I’ve put off printing it so I can include all the changes made during 2011. I’ve already added the changes made regarding foster carry and parking lots on employer property. Once the campus issue is addressed, we’re off to the printers.

H.B. No. 2560

AN ACT
relating to transporting a foster child in a vehicle where a handgun
is in the possession of a foster parent licensed to carry a
concealed handgun.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 42.042, Human Resources Code, is amended
by adding Subsection (e-2) to read as follows:
(e-2) The department may not prohibit the foster parent of a
child who resides in the foster family’s home from transporting the
child in a vehicle where a handgun is present if the handgun is in
the possession and control of the foster parent and the foster
parent is licensed to carry the handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

Here is a link to the bill: Texas Gun Laws – HB 2560

S.B. No. 321:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to an employee’s transportation and storage of certain firearms or ammunition while on certain property owned or controlled by the employee’s employer. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Chapter 52, Labor Code, is amended by adding Subchapter G to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER G.RESTRICTIONS ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION Sec.52.061.RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees. Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not: (1)authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or (2) apply to: (A)a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee’s employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee’s duties; (B) a school district; (C)an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code; (D)a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code; (E)property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease executed before September 1, 2011, that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or (F)property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores the handgun in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area: (i) that contains the physical plant; (ii) that is not open to the public; and (iii)the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel. (b)Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer’s business. In this subsection, “premises” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. Sec.52.063.IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY. Except in cases of gross negligence, a public or private employer or the employer’s agent is not liable in a civil action for personal injury, death, property damage, or any other damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored in accordance with Section 52.061, including an action for damages arising from the theft of the firearm or ammunition or the use of the firearm or ammunition by a person other than the employee authorized by Section 52.061 to transport or store the firearm or ammunition. The presence of a firearm or ammunition transported or stored in the manner and in a location described by Section 52.061 does not by itself constitute a failure by the employer to provide a safe workplace. SECTION 2. Section 411.203, Government Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS. This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the premises of the business. In this section, “premises” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code. SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. A cause of action that accrues before that date is governed by the law as it existed immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose. SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.