Captain Cranky wakes up and checks the newspaper.

On Friday, the Statesman was pushing a Sunday profile of Maurice Pierce.

“Who is Maurice Pierce?” you ask. You may remember him from this blog entry back in December, but if you don’t: Pierce was one of four men charged in the “yogurt shop” murders, had the charges against him dropped, and resurfaced back in December when he cut a cop’s throat and was shot dead.

Oddly enough, the promised profile never showed up either online or in the print editions of Sunday’s paper. I shall be keeping my eyes open; perhaps they decided to push it out a week for some reason.

In the meantime, our local paper brings us the happy news that SB905 passed the Texas Senate by a vote of 25-6. What would SB905 do?

…would allow legislators, statewide elected officials, some former legislators and some state employees to carry their concealed weapons in bars, churches and hospitals and at sporting events and other places they are currently prohibited — including businesses that post signs outside saying concealed handguns are prohibited.

As Lawrence said when I sent him this link, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

(I’m a wee bit skeptical about relying on the Speciman for coverage of this bill, but I can’t find anything on the TSRA web site.)

This entry was posted on Monday, May 9th, 2011 at 2:44 pm and is filed under Clippings, Guns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Captain Cranky wakes up and checks the newspaper.”

  1. Bob S. says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:19 am

    I think that SB905 is a good bill and will help out in our fight to expand the 2nd Amendment Rights.

    Let the legislation vote themselves exemptions.
    In a couple of months when NOTHING has happened, we take it to court and show that if our representatives can do it without problems so should we.

  2. stainles says:
    May 10, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Bob:

    You and the other folks who have made this argument have a good point.

    I’m still skeptical of any bill that gives government employees and elected officials special privileges that aren’t available to the general public, but that doesn’t keep me from seeing some wisdom in what you’re saying.