Concealed Carry on Campus?
On Monday, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the Second Amendment was binding on every state in the Union. The Court made the same determination about the freedom of speech guarantee in the First Amendment in Gitlow v. New York in 1925. But when you try exercising your First Amendment right to discuss the Second Amendment on some college campuses, it looks like 85 years of precedent supporting the right to free speech simply hasn’t been long enough for administrators to get the message.
In the wake of the Virgina Tech massacre, a movement has arisen among some college students to promote the licensed concealed carry of weapons on campus in hopes of deterring or stopping another violent attack. As you can imagine, this proposition is highly controversial. And, as is usual with controversial topics on campus these days, some colleges have tried very hard to quash debate on this important topic. In a newly released film by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (where I am Vice President), these students speak out about the problems they faced when they tried to use the First Amendment to discuss the Second.
I’m glad you mentioned Colorado because if you didn’t I would have.
My old College Colorado State University in Fort Collins recently had the Campus Carry revoked. Not because of any incident or anything, but because the board of Trustees (I believe that’s what they) decided to. This, after the student government voted in something like 53-2 AGAINST revoking it.
It is nothing but a political move when you remove a rule like this when there had been NO harm done in the six years it had been in place. NONE! Not a single bloody incident yet they claim it is for “Student Safety” to prevent guns on campus. I’m sorry people but putting “rules” in place to “prevent” gun violence really doesn’t do a damn thing. All it does is allow for more victims.
I hope they can get this reversed because I hate seeing my old school look like such a political tool.
One of the core tenets of liberalism, is that people who do not work for the govt cannot be trusted.
They can’t be trusted to pick their own doctor.
They can’t be trusted to decide what they are going to eat.
And they most surely can’t be trusted with anything dangerous.
Of course being hired by a govt agency instantly installs all the world’s wisdom into a person. Which is why people who work for govt are allowed to:
pick the doctors for everyone else, and decide which treatments are appropriate.
decide what other people will and will not be allowed to eat.
carry and use deadly force
Gozer, a state court ruled that Colorado’s Concealed Carry law applies to universities even if they don’t like it; as things stand now, CCW is legal on state collect campuses. CU is pursuing an appeal to the State Supreme Court, however.
Why is it that the so called “students” who are concerned about this issue, will be the very same students that couldnt care less about anything else on campus?
You will hear them rant passionately about guns but never, ever, ever rant
passionately about Shakespeare, or Aristotle. They will be devastated by
the football teams big loss on Saturday..but stare out the window in Philosophy
class unable to fathom what the big deal is about. The moron that shot up
Virginia Tech was a glaring psychopath completely locked in his own world.
The moron who is obsessed with concealed carry, magazine capacity, and trigger control is exactly the same type. Mute, dull, emotionally vacant.. Get them both off of campus and out on the streets
where their obsessions can be unimpeded and hopefully then can kill each other
off and leave the rest of us alone.
Poor, poor ehunter, so worreid about what goes on in the minds of others. So worried about those “completely locked in his own world.” I am so sure he has talked to the students concered about campus carry. I am sure he has spend time with them learning about their motives and concerns. I bet he has debated them on the subject and become an expert on their inner thoughts. Or maybe he justed pulled his post out of his ass, smelled and said, “Yes I like this, and if I like this then anyone who does not is closed mined and stupid.” I leave it up to the reader to decided which scenero is most likely.
Based on this reply, which appeals to the purient, I would say that euhunter has more credibility.
Or perhaps ehunter simply wasn’t worth a serious reply?
Patrick
Don,
Technically speaking, this is not an appeal to the prurient. His metaphor is quite disgusting and repellent, the opposite of the sexual titillation and glandular attractiveness of the prurient.
but the larger point is that it’s a metaphor. He is saying that the guy MADE IT ALL UP, that it’s all his own opinion but presented as if it’s something like fact. That’s what “pulling something out of your ass” means. Making it up.
If that’s prurient to YOU, then you and I have markedly different rules for what is titillating and attractive. (nttawwt)
I’d say ehunter is a bigot who does not know any student gun owners and is only regurgitating what he’s told by the gun control nuts.
I’d say you are absolutely on to something here…
Scatological vulgarity expressing an
important psychological observation true of all,
but absolute in some: Anything I produce has the
sweet smell of truth.
Gahunter, you point out the main difference between freedom lovers and people with a compulsion to control everyone else. Our Rule of Law established by our US Constitution is based on individual rights and the freedom & responsibility that are God given rights. Not granted by them or government.
People that may have fear of you or me having a weapon because they may project “what if’s” into it have a personality disorder manifested & called “C0-Dependence.” Frankly, & truthfully, if weapons give them a problem, they are free to not own one! However, they have no right to tell me or you about owning a weapon, or for that matter, not eating fat or salt, or what kind of car to drive.
Here in is the rub; they want freedom to control everyone else’s life… One has to ask why they are so narrow and small minded. Probably perfectionists’ that can only look good if in control of other people. In their mind, as well as in their fear of life, doing anything may mean becoming a failure. So doing nothing is safe and means they will not fail. I have these people in my family that said they could do great things, and always told me I should or should not do stuff… Guess what, they are still there doing nothing, and I left and am very successful because I practice my freedom with my fearless respect and my own power.
I’ve never met anyone who was obsessed with concealed carry.
I’ve met many people who believed that being denied it endangers their life and they are right.
Boy, talk about a perfect example of Ad Hominem attacks.
Ehunter,
the student government voted against this 53-2, according to the post. Are you saying that, out of 55 students who ran for and won election to governing positions in the student body, that 53 of them are mute, unable to fathom philosophy, care only about magazine capacity and trigger control, and football? Morons locked in their own world?
Those, of course, are just examples of engaged, active minds who are willing to spend extra time and effort applying themselves to make life better on campus for all students. It’s only 53 kids. Surely the rest of the thousands of kids on campus who are against gun bans are exactly as you describe, and these are the exceptions.
Surely.
Guess what, ehunter? Hard as in may be for your bigoted little mind to fathom, my University rifle club included several Dean’s List students who would go on to graduate with honors, including myself. In philosophy, to boot. We also had a nuclear engineer and an astrophysicist.
“completely locked in his own world”
LOL! Who’s completely locked in their own world again? I guess there really is “an ivory tower”.
If I were isolated from the rest of the world with no facts on which to form my opinions, I might come to conclusions similar to those of eHunter and the gun controllers, namely that those who carry concealed are a danger to those around them and that they must obsess about power, violence, and perhaps compensating for their own deficiencies. It’s easy to imagine that a world where anyone can carry a gun is a world where shootings are common for even minor disputes.
As informed, open-minded individuals, we must be willing to look past our own projections of what might happen and accept new conclusions if supported by the facts. In this case, significant research has shown that holders of concealed carry licenses are many times LESS likely to commit a crime than the average person. CCW holders have been shown to be more mature than the average person and more competent with a firearm than the average police officer.
Even more research has shown that crime (especially violent crime) goes down as gun ownership goes up. This may sound counterintuitive to many, but as mature adults, we must accept that our preconceived notions don’t always fit the facts.
Buy a gun, put it where you can get it if you need it, don’t tell anyone about it.
If you want to live that is.
This is the only reasonable response, while we fight in the courts to uphold our God-given right to protect ourselves.
When it comes to self-protection, you’d better do what you have to do.
This is exactly what I do and I go to the firing range or other places where I can practice gun control, which is of course hitting the target! Good post!
A university is a special place, where students are taught Marxist subversion, where upper-middle class students binge on alcohol like longshoremen who’ve just been paid, and where fraternity boys compete to get girls drunk so they can commit statutory rape on them. In short, because a university is a place where young people are encouraged to engage in bad behavior, for the purposes of concealed carry perhaps the law is justified in making the same sort of exceptions there as it makes for rough roadhouses and other dive joints.
Disagree, though it may seem reasonable. What we must do is change the culture so that these children are encouraged to become adults. No sense in forbidding the adults among them from carrying firearms.
IMHO.
Such behavior typically leaves a legal record before a person is legally able to obtain a CCW permit, and such legal record disqualifies people from getting a CCW permit.
Unfortunately, a legal record of such behavior does not preclude anyone getting a driver’s license or an on-campus parking permit. Do I need to remind anyone of how many people die in car wrecks every year? Half the car wrecks each year involve alcohol consumption, too.
I think that 95% of college students couldn’t be trusted with a wet dream, myself included and I’m 49. But for those other 5%, if they want to take the responsibility of concealed carry, then I’m for it.
I don’t like wolves and I’m grateful for sheep dogs.
I’m pretty sick and tired of college students getting bashed. Any criticism leveled at them can be legitimately made of many other citizens in our country, and for the same purposes – disarmament. What I hear from at least one poster this sounds like sour grapes. As in very.
The UCSB gun club, which I started, regularly sees 40-50 college students to train and shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns. We, at Winchester Canyon Gun Club find that the students are neither Marxist nor drunks. Certainly not the ones coming out to our range. We have faculty support at the events, and have had financial support (>$20,000 over the last 4 years) from the NRA Foundation. We also work with the ROTC to provide firearms familiarization to Military Science students. Bottom line – CCW permitted students are not a problem. Nor can we legitimately ignore the 2nd Amendment rights of members of the federal militia (per 10 USC 311, all able-bodied males ages 17-45 are members) – that’d be saying we can draft you into the army to use full auto, while you can’t be trusted to carry a pistol. Crazy.
/begin commercial See Collegiate Shooters link at http://www.wcgc.org/ for photos, etc. If you want the 2nd Amendment to prosper, then we need to make it easier for Americans to learn how to shoot. Such efforts will give college students the ammunition that puts the lie to the communist indoctrination they’re getting at school. I’ve certainly seen some “liberals” wake once they get some trigger time. It takes Facilities, Firearms, Financing, Friends and Facebook to make it happen. I hope you’ll consider sponsoring or supporting youth marksmanship education. /end commercial
Beyond the merits of the topic being addressed, I have to say that this video is quite boring and very hard to follow. There is no impact, nothing to grab attention and it takes a long time to even know what the point is.
All this has stirred up some great constitutional debate. But within that debate everyone seems to have missed the pragmatic aspect of Campus Carry; legal liability. If a University allows students to carry and then a student goes postal, can that University be held liable. That is likely the primary driver for banning guns on campus.
The same can be true of a student who goes postal but isn’t carrying a gun.
On the other hand, all you need is one student who can claim that he could have prevented the killings had the campus not prevented him from carrying his gun to create a counter suit in campuses that don’t permit guns.
the solution is simple.. build a university that allows you guys carry concealed weapons…this way everyone know the other is packing and no one is surprised or upset and everyone’s rights are protected. then on the week end have a beer party. and someone will get drunk and starts shooting. then the other person is complled to return fire and then everone gets involved. finish killing a few people and then on Friday resume the classes and start all over again the next week end
Ahhh Miriam Miriam,
Liberal, thy name is stupid. Liberals love to talk about the wild west gunbattles which will ensue (parenthetically, that means ‘in parentheses’ Miriam, about the only time that actually happened was the OK Coral) if everyone starts carrying firearms (parenthetically again a gun is an artillery piece or a naval cannon, a firearm is a small arm which can be carried). Of course, these sorts of things have not happened in the, what is it now, 40 states which have liberalized concealed carry laws? And won’t, once again fear of an inanimate object over powers logic. No one has anything to fear from a law abiding citizen with a firearm — except of course a criminal. Should that citizen use his weapon to commit a crime he is no longer law abiding, and should, in the terms of ancient Greece, be cast out from all protection of law, to be dealt with as wolves are.
Patrick
There is no legally acceptable condition to deny someone their constitutional rights. If this opens up the school to legal liability, pay for more lawyers.
If someone shoots another person, be it on or off campus, that person should be held responsible, not the university. If I run over someone on a college campus, is the university held responsible or am I?
I believe that the university SHOULD be held liable if a CCW permit holder is injured on a campus where he was prevented from carrying his weapon. In this case, the permit holder could have fought back, but was prevented by the university, which is thus an accessory to the crime.
Apparently your right to life is less important on a college campus than it is in the real world. After all, you are not allowed to protect it.
@ehunter
> Why is it that the so called “students” who are concerned about this issue, will be the very same students that couldnt care less about anything else on campus?
Your strawman argument is typical of those who hate human rights and and are desparately trying to extinguish them.
Ok, compromise: no guns on campus during midterms, finals, and first week of classes when moving up the waiting list and into class offers way the hell too much temptation. Rest of the time, pack ‘em.
No compromise. Never compromise our freedoms… Would anyone say during these times we will not say some words or give up free speech? However, one can not yell Fire in a crowd if not true. Freedom and responsibility are synonymous! One can not exist without the other.
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=10614
Your Barry Soetoro is trying to be the second coming of Pierre Trudeau. 30 years on from Trudeau’s disastrous reign, we are still outing Liberal Party Fascists. Our University of Toronto is the originator of the hate fest ‘Israeli apartheid week’. Our Public Sector Union CUPE aids and abets open Communism and Islamism under the narrative of ‘Social Justice’. Our Human Rights Commissions are openly anti-Christian and anti-free-speech for non-victim groups. Section 13.1 of our Human Rights Act prohibits the likely hurting of feelings based on which victim group is making a complaint.
Nip that crap in the bud. Once it’s made official ‘hopey changy’ policy, the enemies of freedom will do anything to perpetuate the public violation.
Your tax dollars are used in classrooms to teach children how to have safe sex, but not how to safely handle a firearm
How can anyone read the founding documents of this country without realizing that the default is set to freedom and the right of the people to govern themselves? The fact that we have to argue against such abuses just demonstrates how passive and complacent we’ve become in the face of aggressive “progressives.”
Carrying guns on campus in order to protect oneself from a crazed campus mass shooter is like the guy who puts pepper on his front lawn to keep elephants away.
I mean, really, what are the odds of needing a gun on campus to defend yourself? I got my MS at Wayne State University – located in Detroit’s inner city – a pretty rough neighborhood to say the least. I attended classes, mostly at night, for two years without feeling the need to carry a gun to class.
I suppose an elephant might escape from the Detroit Zoo and trample my flowers but I’ll save the pepper for other uses.
One never needs a pistol, until one needs one badly.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I have never been in an auto accident, but I buckle up every time I drive. When I go hiking, I carry matches, even if I am only going for an hour or two.
Hope that string on nothing unpleasant happening to you keeps going.
A pistol is like a condom. It is better to have one and not need it then to need one and not have it.
Mike009
Now that was a silly post. It has no merit whatsoever. Most if not all the mass shootings in the US and Canda have occurred in “Gun Free Zones”….such as Fort Hood, Virginia Tech and Columbine Highschool.
Here in the great white north….I reside in an old rural farm house….”safe as houses”…..I have no need for a firearm….I haven’t had an armed home invasion….for let’s see……about 5 years.
Moron!
I have no issue with law abiding citizens having guns for protection, gun collecting, target shooting or hunting. I just think students carrying guns on campus is a dumb idea.
Thank you for exposing your belief that students are not law-abiding citizens. We’ll know better than to accord your ramblings any weight in the future.
First you attribute to me a statement I did not make, then you attack me for making it. Think next time before you post a gratuitous insult when people are simply expressing their opinion.
Thank you for all you do. Mr. Shibley.
CHICAGO –In a tiff over losing in the Supreme Court, Mayor Richard Daley introduced the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States in response to the Second Amendment being “incorporated.” As with the Feds, the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments, and the people. Mayor Daley’s ordinance is modeled on pre-incorporated ordinances from around the country. To get a flavor of the mayor’s idiocy, consider his new proposed ordinance but instead directed at books, radios and TVs, and the ubiquitous Internet—in short, communication devices prone to “causing gun violence” in the opinion of many mayors and talking heads.
The mayor’s new ordinance would ban expensive public and private libraries and retail brick and mortar purveyors of communication devices in Chicago, and it further prohibits lap top computer owners from stepping outside their homes with their Internet devices, TVS, or radios, even onto their porches or garages, with Kindle or I-pad in hand.
Mayor Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city’s South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a communication device anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.
“As long as I’m mayor, we will never give up or give in to {media caused} gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago,” said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus.
The ordinance also requires:
• Limits on the number of communication devices residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one communication device in operating order at any given time.
• Requires residents in homes with children to keep all communication devices in lock boxes or disabled when adult supervision is not available.
• Requires prospective communication device owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour of physical training at a private or public library or training facility. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits public libraries and retail stores and limits the use of existing training facilities to government officials and police officers. Those restrictions are similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban on communication devices two years ago.
• The mayor’s ordinance prohibits people from owning a radio or TV or computer if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence, or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of violating local, state, and federal communication laws and assorted hate crimes would have to register with the police department before purchasing a communication device or if currently owning a device.
• The ordinance calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every book owner and the book’s titles in the city, with the names and addresses of the owners to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.
Those who already have communications devices would have 90 days to register their books and I-pads, according to the proposed ordinance.
Residents convicted of violating the city’s Safe And Sane Communication Ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.
“We’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has,” said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges proudly.
Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he’d hoped to include, including requiring book and lap top owners to insure their pornographic content, and restricting each resident to one Playboy or talking vibrator each month.
Georges said it would be expensive for homeowners to include books on their homeowners’ and renters’ insurance policies, so such a requirement could be seen as being discriminatory to the city’s poorer residents, especially the homeless. Prone to media inspired violence, the homeless don’t have a home to safely keep their communication devices locked up in, so being homeless and a lap top owner is illegal. Limiting the number of books one can own could be seen as discriminatory to people who owned books before the city’s ordinance went into effect too.
“We can limit the place in which those communication devices can be located,” she said, before adding a not-so-veiled swipe at the Supreme Court: “For instance, the Supreme Court does not want them (communication devices) coming into the courthouse.” And now the impartial nanny state looks like it’s going to have another Jewish mommy on the Supreme Court too. How nice and balanced, although Rev. Wright, President Obama’s former minister, begs to differ. As recently reported by the New York Post, Wright taught a seminar at the University of Chicago claiming that Jews control the flow of worldwide information and oppresses blacks in Israel and in the United States. Apparently the mayor needs more people control laws in Chicago.
Two of fifty five objected, close to the same percentage who feel they have the right to tell the majority of the nation how they should live, act, eat, think, what to drive. Hey “minority” we the people have had it up to our collective eyeballs with your antics, we are the adults in the room and come November we are going to get back to the basics.
I agree with campus carry 100 percent. I am a university student though not college age (mid thirties) and school is the only place I dont carry. I suppose I suddenly become more volatile and unbalanced once I’m on school property. For those who think legally carrying concealed is dangerous, consider yourselves lucky. It was me who was standing behind you at the supermarket. It was me sitting in the row behind you at the theatre. Thank goodness you didnt get hurt. Did you even know? Of course you didnt because it was concealed. You werent in danger because I am a law-abiding citizen who loves life. I love it so much I’m willing to defend it with force if necessary. I may even defend yours if I witness you being robbed and beaten, unless of course you’re afraid of me because I carry a weapon. Then I’ll step back while the thugs continue thier assault on you.