CCW - Higher Education

Status
Not open for further replies.
Our state organization for CC, is starting a petition for the next years legislation, to allow for CC in colleges (for those who are qualified). Also to allow carry in other k-12 schools, when attending functions, or putting your kids in school, or doing conferences with teachers.

Where now, you must leave your gun in the car, if entering the school. You are not allowed to carry at all currently on college campuses.
 
http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16524

Gun-totting students balk at campus firearms ban

First-ever national conference of students for firearms takes place in Washington

By Freddie Mooche

(AXcess News) Washington - Ever since the tragedy that took place on the campus of Virginia Tech, colleges and universities nationwide are trying to create 'gun free' zones on campus. But some gun-toting students say if they're disarmed, only the shooters will be.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), which has grown to a 30,000-strong group of members made up largely of students and some faculty members, recently met in Washington for the non-partisan group's first-ever national Conference, though attendance was limited. But then, what college student ever had enough coin in their jeans to travel cross-country and attend a conference - especially on a topic as sensitive as 'gun control'.

The group over time has been gaining the endorsement of state-level 'right to bare arms' groups, having gained the support of the Kansas State Rifle Association in June.

The SCCC, which met here at the National Press Club, says it has two main objectives. The first objective is to educate the public about the facts of concealed carry and dispel the many myths about concealed carry. The second objective is to persuade state legislatures and school administrations to grant concealed handgun license holders the same right-the right to carry concealed handguns-on college campuses that these license holders currently enjoy at most other places.

The group says they're taking their fight not to Capitol Hill but on the state level, where the SCCC hopes to see "colleges" removed from the lists of places listed as "off limits" by the concealed carry laws in many states.

Holding the Convention in Washington seemed appropriate, considering the wave of anti-gun sentiment sweeping through the greater DC area. Where else could a group of gun rights advocates find a better place to meet. It was sort of a two-punch benefit, explained one student from Philadelphia, who preferred to remain anonymous.

"If I can't defend myself, especially on campus, what am I supposed to do?", the student proclaimed. She felt that though she had a legal permit to carry a concealed firearm the schools shouldn't say it doesn't apply on campus. Opening her purse, she revealed a small 25 caliber handgun, which while slight in firepower is good enough to stop some attacker, she proclaimed before tucking it neatly away behind her cosmetics.

Her father bought the handgun for her to take to school after the shootings at Virginia Tech, but now she has to leave it in her off campus apartment when attending class, a move both her and her father are uncomfortable about.

Americans have always had the right to bare arms; its written into the Constitution. That argument is the only thing that's kept owning firearms legal. The police would prefer that no one had guns, but pro-gun supporters say only criminals would have them while everyone else sat defenseless.

The United States is one of the few Countries in the world were its citizens have the right to own firearms. Many foreigners see America as a gun-totting populous, which was fed by Hollywood's throng of westerns and bygone days of 40s era gangster flicks.

Still, anti-gun groups say there's room for compromise by removing not so much the personal defense weapons, like small caliber handguns or those shotguns and rifles hunting enthusiasts prescribe to, but larger miltary-like semi-automatic rifles, such as the famed AK-47s used several years ago during the shootout with police between two professional bank robbers and LA cops, who were literally out-gunned by the bandits.

Just days before the SCCC Conference in Washington, lawmakers introduced a bill aimed at overturning an emergency law in DC that prevented citizens from possessing firearms, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act (H.R. 6691), which is backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), would repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns as well as the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home.

On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The NRA, which supports legal battles nationwide in defense of the 2nd amendment, has been a strong advocate in the DC court battle as well as becoming are a more outspoken group on the political scene. The NRA believes the SCCC should continue to promote the 2nd amendment but stopped short on commenting over campus issues.
fairfax1 is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message
 
FIRST -- Let us all realize that lawful CCW on campus doesn't provide a "defense strategy" for the campus so much as it provides a DETERRENT. When the nut jobs realize that campuses are not "gun free zones" then maybe they'll stop being targeted for campus shootings.

Nope does not work that way...Thats an emotional argument against gun free zones.
 
TAB: "Nope does not work that way...Thats an emotional argument against gun free zones."

Allowing CCW on campus sure as hell does make one heck of a deterrence. No emotion involved because it is factual. This, I think, should be obvious due to the criminal's lack of interest in being the subject of return fire.

Check Sheriff's department statistics in any state that allows CCW and then match them up against Sheriff's department statistics in places like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc.

Deterrence is the only thing that will keep students safe in the classrooms. Case in point, since the V.Tech shootings, my school's "task force" for safety has plans to put up more cameras, send everyone "real time" text alerts, install automatically locking doors (which is really great if the shooter's in your classroom), and other such nonsense as this. None of these grandiose ideas qualify as a deterrence.
 
Actually every study that has ever been done on gun free zones, have shown that they have no effect on crime. Infact even people that the NRA has hired as experts on this subject say that.

Mass shootings happen in places people spend lots of time, home, work, and school.
 
Sorry, that's not what my county's Sheriff's department statistics show. That's not what we learn in our CCW classes, also taught by off duty police officers. Since they are more in the direct line of fire, so to speak, I would assume that they probably have a greater insight to how CCW affects crime in general.

Further, look at what you wrote. Most places of employment do not allow their employees to carry. This presents an easy target for mass murder. We've already seen what has been going on at schools around the country as they are gun free zones. The issue of "home" is irrelevant as far as CCW is concerned. There is no need for a CCW permit in the home.
 
Last edited:
Tab: Care to answer any of the questions I posed regarding your earlier post in this thread?

I don't want to throw out the T word, but it seems like you thrive on TRYING to play devil's advocate on most gun issues. Am I misreading this somehow?
 
here is what you need to know about my stance on gun control:

There is too much of it.

Most of it does not work.

People should have the right to restrict what comes onto thier property and People placed in charge of public property should be allowed that same choice. If the public does not like that choice, They have the right to remove them.

More generally, both sides of the gun control debate, use emotion as thier arguments, not facts. Case in point gun free zones cuase crime. It has been shown time and time again that guns and/or gun free crime play little to no role in crime.
 
1. I never said that a gun = self defense. But for most people with any form of common sense, they realize a gun is one of, if not the most, effective forms of self defense. There is a reason why it is called an equalizer. Is there some part of that which escapes your understanding? What would you like to have as a form of self defense if some nut came into your classroom with a gun? I'm all ears.

2. Do you have some sort of problem with people that have CCW permits? My point was there is little to fear from a group of people that subject themselves to expense of time, effort, and money. As well as submitting to an FBI background check and fingerprints. While there is no perfect group out there, on average, I would love to see a group more law abiding as a whole than CCW permit holders. Not really sure what your problem is though?

Actually I was more interested in where you were coming from regarding your comments about using a gun for self defense and why you jumped on CCW permit holders so quickly.

Any thoughts?
 
1 see my above post.


2 I don't have a prob with CCW, what I do have a prob with is people that lack respect for other people. ( concealed, means concealed. comes to mind) In some states (TX 30.06 law) its a crime if you go past a no weapons sign while carrying. I like that law. I personally don't see a diffrence between a sign telling you not to do something and some one telling you to do somethin.


now let me ask you 2 questions.

1 a no soliciting sign carrys a federal punishment if it is ignored... why should no firearms sign be any diffrent? ( I don't want the emotional answer, or the 2a blah, blah, blah. you know what I mean)

2 what is your stance on gun control.
 
Thank goodness for states where TAB's innane babblings are meaningless.

In enlightened states the strawman argument of anti-gun property-rights holds no bearing. Anti-gunners like TAB and their no-guns signs are worth about as much as used toilet paper. To top it off, the sky has not fallen inspite of not having stupidity like Texas's 30-06 signs.

Let me repeat one more time: carrying a concealed gun onto an open-to-the-public property (like a storefront) has no bearing on the property. No one knows it is there. It does not damage the property. It does not harm the value of the property. It does not cause bet wetters like TAB to piss and moan about it as it is concealed. No one knows it even exists. Their oh so precious property-rights are intact.

In answer to TAB's first question:

1. solicitation: this requires active interaction with some bone head trying to sell you something. You have to verbally tell them piss off
2. concealed handgun: NO interaction with the carrier regarding the gun. You dont even know it exists.

Your argument that concealed handgun is as bad as soliciation fails.


-T
 
1 a no soliciting sign carrys a federal punishment if it is ignored... why should no firearms sign be any diffrent? ( I don't want the emotional answer, or the 2a blah, blah, blah. you know what I mean)

In what context are you speaking of? Is it a business that puts up the sign, but the sign is in direct violation of state law? Is it at a person's home? Etc... Getting down to the technical side of it, to me, unless a business can virtually guarantee that there is no threat to you at any time in their business, they have no right or reason to take away a LEGALLY carried concealed weapon.

Home ownership is different, it is a private residence, not a business, so house rules apply. There is obviously more control over who comes in and why. As I mentioned earlier, just because you walk through a door, your right to self defense doesn't end. How you defend yourself is something I'm sure you and I could debate for hours, but at the end of the day, there really is no other instrument, when used properly, that affords the same defense as a gun. Period.

2 what is your stance on gun control.

Without writing a thesis paper on this, which I could, aside from attempting to keep guns out of hands of criminals and mentally sick individuals, let me see if this describes how I feel about gun control:

-Stupid.
-Useless.
-Only effects law abiding citizens.
-Increases crime.
-Is sponsored and supported by people that are either ignorant to the facts, blinded by emotion, or just plain morons.
-Has been tried and is a proven failure.
-Nothing more than an emotional response to what is really needed, which is crime control.

That being said, the common sense gun laws that are in place, I can live with, for example not being able to fire a weapon within city limits. But if all of us gun owners followed the 4 rules all the time, we probably wouldn't even need those. Just a thought.
 
You have to understand his motivation.

TAB is a control freak. Like most anti-gunners, guns are fine for HIM, but not OK on his property. The are NOT ok for anyone but him.

TAB does not trust YOU with a gun. It makes him nervous as it reduces his control over you. This is not acceptible when you're around him in his store. He must have control over you, the way he gets this is by putting up NO-GUNS signs.

Even if you disregard the sign, and he does not know, it still makes him feel better.
Somewhere in the back of his mind he understands that he cannot control criminals, and that they will laugh at his NO-GUNS signs, but he knows you will comply with it and he relishes the power over YOU.

He's a classic "guns for me, none for thee" type of ANTI.

-T
 
Kind of getting that drift. Although, I can't figure out for the life of me why anti's would bother even coming into a gun forum.

I'm all for a lively debate, but the only thing they EVER offer is the same, tired, re-hashed, illogical, emotional arguments that boil down to one of the following:

1. They don't like guns.
2. Guns are dangerous.
3. They don't want guns around them.
4. Guns kill people.
5. If you own a gun, you are stupid and need to refer to numbers 1-4.

I debate anti's online in a newspaper every week and unfortunately almost daily some weeks. They never answer any questions, they never have anything to back up their arguments, because as I said, it comes down to a raw emotion for them. Logic plays no part in anything.

Depending on who you are debating it can be fun, so we'll see where TAB takes us. :)
 
Tyris, your right about one thing,

I don't trust you with your gun, but I don't know your from adam.

Why is that, 3 years working for a very active FFL.


the no soliciting sign carrys the same weight if its on your residence or your place of biz. Is a simlar idea to the "do not call list". Only there is no list, its a sign rather then verbal, but you still can take them to court if they violate them.( its pretty much you file and they send you a check.)

You missed the point of my question. If a sign can be binding by law for one thing, why can't it be binding for another?
 
Tell me how giving some one a choice rather a weapon is brought into that place of biz is an emotional argument?

Like it or not that weapon is liabilty, to an employer or thier employees. Is it reasonable for an employer to reduce thier liabilty? Even if there are laws in place to prevent an empolyer from being sued, do to the use or miss use of a weapon, they are still out an employee if one is hurt. Trust me, losing a employee do to a injury( rather its on the job or not) is a very, very big deal. More so when they are skilled labor.
 
TAB: I can see we won't be getting anywhere tonight, but I will leave this thought with you.

Why do you care if there is sign up or not? Law abiding citizens and CCW permit holders are not the ones you need to worry about coming into a place of business and shooting the place up and having you lose an employee.

Criminals are the ones that usually commit crimes and they aren't going to care one lick about any sign you put up. That is unless you put up one of those stupid, "NO GUNS ALLOWED, NO WEAPONS ALLOWED OF ANY KIND" signs. Then they will probably take notice and say, "This idiot has decided to make my job easier, so I think I will go ahead and rob this place."

But at the end of the day, anybody, could be a threat at some time. So why keep others from the ability to defend themselves? The Boy Scouts had it right with, "Be Prepared".

I have debated this with enough anti's to know it won't make a difference what I say, because you probably just won't get it. Cest La Vie.
 
Why do you care if there is sign up or not? Law abiding citizens and CCW permit holders are not the ones you need to worry about coming into a place of business and shooting the place up and having you lose an employee.

I'm not worried about them, or crimals for that matter. What I am worried about is the rights of myself and other property/ biz owners being "thrown under the bus" in the name of anothers Privalges( yes CCW is a privlage, not a right). No one is forcing you to come into my shop. That is a choice you make. So is it so unreasonable that I ask you to respect the choice I make inreguard to what I let come into my shop?

Cambeul41, yes there is, If my workmens comp policy takes a hit, It will end up costing me more to have workmens comp. Which intrun will lead too 1 of 3 things. I raise prices, I cut wages, I go out of biz.

now I'm already at the upper end of the price scale, my employees are paid very well( infact 2 of them made more then I did last year) if I cut thier wages they might quit( good people are very hard to find) and if I go out of biz I lose my livlyhood.

So which 1 would you recomend I select?

What you guys have not asked is. what my policy about carrying while your on my dime is...

So let me tell you, If its legal for you to do so and you have the property owners and/ or tenants written permission, you can. if you skrew up, you will have a check with in a few mins. Now given my very strick dress code, it would be very hard to conceal a gun and if I see it, or you printing, your gone.( as that would be breaking the law) To date I've never had to fire anyone over a firearm, but I've only had a handful of clients give written permission to carry on thier propertys.
 
If a sign can be binding by law for one thing, why can't it be binding for another?

Why would any arbitary sign hold the force of law? You've swapped one strawman argument for another. Let me help you along and take it to its absurd exteme:
How about a sign saying all women must be topless? should that have force of law inside your shop? I mean, it is a sign. About as good as the solicitation sign right?


I don't trust you with your gun, but I don't know your from adam.

Proof from the horses mouth. An elitist anti.

Let me give you a hint about CCW and gun ownership that you apparently didnt learn in 3 years of selling guns. (Three years of selling "liabilities", haha).

Good people own them, and bad people own them. Good people use them for self-defense, bad use them for nefarious purposes. There is nothing you or your anti-gun signs can do to stop this. When you're out on the street - guess what, depending on where you live chances are there is someone with a concealed gun within shouting distance, perhaps close enough to slap you across the face. You dont know him, you certainly made it clear you dont trust him and there is not a damn thing you can do about except ducking into a corner and sucking your thumb while pretending he and tens (hundreds?) of thousands like him dont exist.

Putting up the anti-gun sign only prohibits the good people. The people intent to rob you will still walk into your place and rob you. Lots of good you've accomplished eh?

In your twisted world should gun dealers be required to be "liable" for the actions of the gun? Or should the CRIMINAL be liable?

BTW, you still have not demonstrated how a concealed weapon impacts your "property rights". No one knows its there, it has no bearing on anyone.

-T
 
How about a sign saying all women must be topless? should that have force of law inside your shop? I mean, it is a sign. About as good as the solicitation sign right?

Actually as long as its adults only, that would be prefectly legal... I may have to get one of those signs for the shop... Not that any one ever goes there... its pretty much just employees, and subs picking up checks.
 
You should put up a sign that says, "No men with penises allowed", . . . . you know, since they could be a rapist. :uhoh:
 
Actually as long as its adults only, that would be prefectly legal... I may have to get one of those signs for the shop... Not that any one ever goes there... its pretty much just employees, and subs picking up checks.

Worst dodge ever. You bring nothing of substance to the argument.

-T
 
I wonder how TAB would react to the situation where a couple of gang banger came in, illegally carrying, yet due to their sloppy clothing, he never notices them or their [again] illegally carried weapons? :scrutiny:

The people who would be law abiding would be disarmed, as they leave their weapon in their car trunk, yet the criminal would not follow the signs anyway. Who here is being infringed upon? If your countenance is damaged by law abiding citizens who went through training various government checks, then you need to undergo some sort of counseling. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top