Controversy in the Texas Senate with Student CHL

[wyocarp]

OC is a distraction, for most people in the US. Its not something you will see at a college anytime soon.

Only if you want it to be a distraction.

 

[gc70]

OC is a distraction, for most people in the US.

For the vast majority of people in the US, OC is the way they can legally carry a gun.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Something else I'd like to point out:

In Texas, police are not criminally charged if they miss the assailant and hit an innocent bystander. Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

That one has always been kind of fuzzy for sure. Texas law states:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

If you do NOT recklessly kill or injure an innocent you would not be charged with a crime.

Now, proving you were not reckless might take work, but in general private citizens are afforded some protections if an innocent is hit in a firefight.

 

[TAB]

Out side of your shot passing thru the BG, I would say it would be almost impossable to prove you were not wreckless.

 

[TRGRHPY]

Shooting back and missing an armed attacker who is trying to kill you is considered reckless? Perhaps you don't understand "reckless"

findlaw.com dictionary

reckless
: characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances

 

[JohnKSa]

...I don't, following the law, carry into a campus facility....It would be nice if everyone of us who had a CHL was rational, clear-thinking, and had it only in interests of self-protection. But we sure can't count on that.

People who don't respect the law are already carrying weapons on campus. It's only the people like you (and other CHL holders) who respect the law who don't.

What makes a person more afraid of people who follow the law than of people who don't?

For the vast majority of people in the US, OC is the way they can legally carry a gun.

Are you sure about that? I think that the majority of people (concerned with legality) in the U.S. have access to shall issue carry permits.

 

[Davek1977]

I just don't cotton to the idea of armed students in a confined classroom.

Why does one's right to self-defense end at the classroom door? Is the idea that you MIGHT be victimized by a student outweigh THEIR right to self-defense? That makes no sense to me. In a classroom or on the streets, arguments inevitably happen. I'd like to think the vast majority of concealed weapon permit holders would be wise enough not to let a simple argument escalate to the point of shots being fired. Furthermore, do you sincerely believe mere rules are going to keep firearms out of your classrooms? Did the shooter at Virgina Tech reconsider his plan after seeing a "gun free zone" sign? Law or no law, the possibility of weapons in the classroom is ALREADY THERE. Now, all thats left to decide is wheter we want ONLY the bad guuys who could give a rat's a$$ about the law to be armed, or do we want to level the playing filed and allow permit-carrying, armed civilians to protect themselves? Furthermore, I honeslty don't believe that most, if any, of the students you've had to have checked out because of their use of "exotic" chemicals fit the profile of the average ccw holder. By and large, its been proven that those with permits are actually m ore likely to follow the laws. Of course, that doesn't mean that such individuals are unarmed, but the odds of them being LEGALLY armed are pretty slim, I'd venture to guess. So, to sum things up, you want guns banne din classrooms because of the poetenial risk...to YOU. HOW IS THAT FAIR to the hundreds of students you teach? They should all remain at risk, because you have an irrational fear of your classroom becom,ing a shooting range if "kids" are allowed to carry concealed in the classroom, but you have no problems with them protecting themselves elsewhere? It seems to me that you are putting your own safety above that of tyhe safety of the masses, and thats something i don't understand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Out side of your shot passing thru the BG, I would say it would be almost impossable to prove you were not wreckless.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I believe the risk of someone being killed by an errant shot from a law abiding citizen is far outweighed by the reduction in risk afforded by the deterrent effect of having concealed carry legalized.

The legal gun will not even come out unless the threat of death or serious bodily harm is imminent--that is, unless there's someone with a gun in his hand bent on mayhem, in which case many others would otherwise be killed or seriously injured.

Who is more likely to engage in a firefight in a classroom where innocent bystanders could be killed by crossfire, a student, who could face the death-penalty when he/she is charged with murder, or campus security, who will not be charged with murder?

The student, who will be very unlikely to be charged with murder for a lawful act of self defense unless there is evidence that he or she acted recklessly. There are students in the classroom.

What is the chance that anyone from campus security would be in the classroom at the time? What is the chance that a criminal would start anything in the presence of campus security? Both very, very low, IMHO, or the issue would never have been raised.

However, the real question is whether the killer would attempt anything given the possibility of others being armed.

The arguments against concealed carry on campus are the same ones used by opponents of concealed carry everywhere else. They include speculation that more killings would occur, which has always been disproved in the event, and the incorrect argument that the duty to protect individual citizens is that of law enforcement personnel.

Question for a Texas attorney or LEO: is a peace officer in Texas indemnified against criminal or civil liability in the event of injury or death caused by his or her reckless conduct?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Question for a Texas attorney or LEO: is a peace officer in Texas indemnified against criminal or civil liability in the event of injury or death caused by his or her reckless conduct?

There doesn't appear to be, the coverage for LE is basically the same as far as I know (not a lawyer or LE but I can read)

Once you get reckless or negligent there is simply no coverage for anyone.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Folks, someone of you are commenting on my post like I'm against campus CCW. What I was saying is that a student is less likely to engage in indiscriminate cross-fire than a police officer, because the student, not wearing a badge, is more apt to be charged with murder than a police officer, if the student accidentally kills a bystander. The police officer would probably be reprimanded, where as the student would be charged with murder. Knowing that the police are rarely charged with murder when one of their bullets misses its intended target, I'd much prefer a room-full of students CCWing than a bunch of police intent on "hitting their target".

 

[Kleanbore]

if the student accidentally kills a bystander.... the student would be charged with murder.

Ya think so?

The law as I read it doesn't deny the self defense justification as a defense if the actor accidentally kills a bystander.

The gun is no different in that regard than a baseball bat, a blowtorch, or an automobile.

You won't be charged with murder if, while driving prudently and while not under the influence, you accidentally kill a person, but try reckless driving and see what it could net you if it results in the death of an innocent person.

And by the way, it the death penalty wouldn't even be on the table, as I read the code on capital crime in Texas.

 

[lightbulb0413]

I dont know if this was mentioned before or not but one thing to keep in mind is that even if a law passes that says you can carry on campus, doesn't necessarily mean you will be able to carry on campus with no repercussions.

Let me explain.

In the state of KY (where i live) i can technically carry in a college campus. However, the university i attend doesn't not allow deadly weapons in side their buildings, AKA they have small signs saying no weapons.

I believe in KY if i walked in the building anyway with a concealed weapon, all they could do is ask me to leave. However, they could also expel me from the University.

Im not saying that i wouldnt take that risk, but thats still something you should think about.

I believe Virgina is similarly set up.

 

[bdickens]

Chuck. I wonder if you've ever seen this:

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY.

(a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:

(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a license under Section 411.173(a);

(2) is at least 21 years of age;

(3) has not been convicted of a felony;

(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment;

(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor;

(6) is not a chemically dependent person;

(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;

(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code;

(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun;

(10) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment administered or collected by the attorney general;

(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;

(12) has not been finally determined to be in default on a loan made under Chapter 57, Education Code;

(13) is not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other than a restraining order solely affecting property interests;

(14) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and

(15) has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174 or in a request for application submitted pursuant to Section 411.175.

(b) For the purposes of this section, an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States is:

(1) a felony if the offense is so designated by law or if confinement for one year or more in a penitentiary is affixed to the offense as a possible punishment; and

(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is not a felony and confinement in a jail other than a state jail felony facility is affixed as a possible punishment.

(c) An individual who has been convicted two times within the10-year period preceding the date on which the person applies for a license of an offense of the grade of Class B misdemeanor or greater that involves the use of alcohol or a controlled substance as a statutory element of the offense is a chemically dependent person for purposes of this section and is not qualified to receive a license under this subchapter. This subsection does not preclude the disqualification of an individual for being a chemically dependent person if other evidence exists to show that the person is a chemically dependent person.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person:

(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;

(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that:

(A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or

(B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;

(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or

(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

(e) The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d)(1):

(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding five-year period;

(2) psychiatric hospitalization in the preceding two-year period;

(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;

(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or

(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:

(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;

(B) bipolar disorder;

(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;

(D) dissociative identity disorder;

(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or

(F) antisocial personality disorder.

(f) Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a person who has previously been diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subsection (d) or listed in Subsection (e) is not because of that disorder or condition incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun if the person provides the department with a certificate from a licensed physician whose primary practice is in the field of psychiatry stating that the psychiatric disorder or condition is in remission and is not reasonably likely to develop at a future time.

( http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/txchlaws.htm )

Your post sounds like it was cut-and-pasted from the BradyBunch's racist, sexist, homophobic and elitist propaganda.

The movement is afoot to allow adults who have met all of the above quoted requirements to legally carry their sidearms on campus just like they do in the mall, at the grocery store, in the park and at church. What in the world, are schools under some kind of Black Magick curse that makes people's brains vanish as soon as they step onto the property?

I suggest you should do some basic research and then apply some logic to what you learn. Surely you know how to do that, don't you Mr. college professor?

 

[daniel1113]

I believe in KY if i walked in the building anyway with a concealed weapon, all they could do is ask me to leave. However, they could also expel me from the University.

You must attend a private university, in which case the administration is free to make any rules that they please regarding firearms on campus. Any bill that is passed in Texas, or any other state, would only affect public universities.

I was in a similar situation while attending college in Pennsylvania. While the state has no rules regarding firearms on college campuses, my university had a standard anti-firearm policy... and I carried my pistol nearly every day. I also know for a fact that I wasn't the only one that did so.

 

[lightbulb0413]

Actually I do not attend a private university. In KY you can post a sign saying that no firearms are allowed in a certain building.

For instance a movie theater that i frequent has this sign. The most they could do is tell me to leave. But at the university they could expel you even if you were legally carrying.

My point was there are other things to take in to account, besides the legality of such a act.

Personally I think i would take the risk and conceal carry.

 

[daniel1113]

I find it hard to believe that your state allows concealed carry in universities, but then allows public universities to forbid students from doing so. Unless I am missing something...

A public university is much different than a private movie theater.

EDIT: Nevermind. I am guessing that in KY, the state allows representatives at each public university to set its policies regarding firearms, correct?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Actually I do not attend a private university. In KY you can post a sign saying that no firearms are allowed in a certain building.

That would not be the case with this proposed Texas law. Public schools couldn't post signs or do anything else to punish people that carried.

Private institutions may of course do whatever they want even if this law is passed. that isn't addressed by this.

 

[lightbulb0413]

527.070 Unlawful possession of a weapon on school property -- Posting of sign -- Exemptions.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon on school property when he knowingly deposits, possesses, or carries, whether openly or concealed, for purposes other than instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, or the purposes permitted in subsection (3) of this section, any firearm or other deadly weapon, destructive device, or booby trap device in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field, or any other property owned, used, or operated by any board of education, school, board of trustees, regents, or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. The provisions of this section shall not apply to institutions of postsecondary or higher education.

However, I believe it is an internal policy, probably buried within something you sign when you apply to the university.

I will take a picture of the sign. Not that I am trying to hijack this thread, but for my own personal interest.

I am pleased that this TX law will not allow for public institutions to skirt the issue. Even if the worst that could happen in KY is expulsion.

 

[BlayGlock]

Having just graduated form a Texas university (Sam Houston) I would say that I am all for it. Sam was a relatively peaceful univeristy in a quite town, and we still had our fair share of robbery. In my last semester there, there were a few armed robberies and a shootining on a campus of 18,000.

Ill just sum it up with the words of a former Texas state Rep who survived the Kileen, TX massacre: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's ...that's so important!" Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp

 

[boom boom]

A faculty member that supports CHL/CCW

Having been a professor at a large public university (ironically teaching constitutional law/criminal law) for 5 years, I can certainly understand that some students can make professors nervous. Just yesterday, I suspected that one of my students was high in class. Nevertheless, I support the right of students who have CHL/CCW etc. licenses being able to carry into the classroom. First, I have a substantial percentage of non-traditional students who are often older than I am. Many of these individuals have prior service with our military. Banning these individuals from carrying with a proper license does nothing whatsoever to increase my "danger" in the classroom. Second, those students who are twenty one and above and qualify for CHL/CCW represent an extremely law abiding group in general and thus not likely to propose much of a threat to me either. Instead, my worries are more directly at those like my student who is high in class that simply ignore those laws that they don't like. These sorts constitute the type that are most likely to pull their "illegal" guns and shoot others regardless of what any state or federal law dictates.

A better solution to violence on campus would be eliminating Student Judiciary systems from having any power to punish things other than academic crimes. Stalking, harassment, etc. are better dealt with by the traditional justice system with police and prosecutors. Current law and policy on campuses let many that have substantial mental illnesses remain on campus as "disabled".
For example, one friend of mine dealt with a student who threatened a "Columbine" type massacre on a student evaluation form. It turns out after his handwriting betrayed him that the campus counselors and cops knew exactly who he was. A second example was another friend who was physically threatened in front of the class after he ignored her instructions about putting away his newspaper in class. He claimed that he had fetal alcohol syndrome and thus was "incapable" of restraining his outbursts. Confidentially my student was told by the counseling dept. that their staff refused to meet with this student alone. Furthermore, he had already thrown an object at another teacher in another class etc. etc. Needless to say, this student also had a history (ignored by the administration) of this type behavior. Last, but not least, I had contact by a newly admitted student who threatened me over the phone, came to my office while I was at lunch, and then proceeded to force her way into my department chair's office past a secretary. She then proceeded to the dean's office and we had to bring in campus security. Needless to say, she lasted another year before she threatened another instructor with violence in class before finally being expelled. These are the people that instructors fear and that should be expelled but yet manage to stick around for a while until they go too far.


For these reasons, those such as the VaTech or Northern Illinois mass murderers are better dealt by a swift and immediate expulsion rather than coddling. In my experience and those of other professors, these violent and behaviorally disordered individuals with delusions of mass media martyrdom are the real threat to safety on campus as well as your traditional rapists, robbers, etc. that campuses attract from the outside. Responsible gun owners such as those obtaining carry permits don't bother me at all. In fact, I would feel safer in such a context given that schools don't seem to be changing their policies with keeping violent behaviorally disordered individuals in check.

 

[jester_s1]

I suspect this will be my last post in this thread, but if there's a compelling response I may join back in. I gotta say I'm really disappointed in the general tone this thread has taken. In four pages of posts, I can't find 1/2 a dozen that portray gun owners in a positive and respectable light. Between the quick and vicious personal attacks against those with dissenting opinions, the emotional bs (major hypocrisy there), and the lack of serious dialogue with the issues raised by the OP, this thread is a quote mine for the anti gun movement to portray us as the knuckle dragging shaved apes they think us to be.

We can do better, because we have solid logic, history, and classic ethics to back up our positions. The founding fathers didn't use these teenage girl arguments so prevalent in this thread to establish the second ammendment. They used solid thinking and the best ethicists of their day to arrive not at what suited their needs and wishes, but at what would be best for the nation.

So, in that spirit, I'd like to offer a different way to look at the issue than what I've seen so far. All sensationalism aside, will or will not allowing concealed carry in colleges be good for the nation? There are several facets to the question worth considering- human rights, economics, public opinion/image, crime potential, and safety come to my mind. Others may think of something else. A few have addressed some of these, but it would be alot easier to follow them if the "blood in the streets" crowd would give it a rest. Ditto for their brethren, the "you're working for their side" crowd.

It's pretty safe to assume that we are all on the same side seeing as how we've all taken the time to find this forum and have taken the time to make posts here. Perhaps we would do better to have intelligent conversations about these sometimes complicated matters so as to have sharp wits and solid arguements when the real enemy shows up?

 

[Sage Thrasher]

Wolfebyte is right, it's the "kids" without a permit you need to worry about. Any place where guns are banned becomes a magnet for criminals, and a free-fire zone for murderous losers looking for their Sam Peckinpah moment. In Oregon we have a spate of local "policies" or bureaucratic rules/mushrooms that pop up in opposition to the actual laws all the time, law which are supposed to allow CHL holders to carry just about anywhere. Recently at Western Oregon University a student with a CHL was arrested by campus police for carrying on campus. Last I heard, he is suspended awaiting both legal and administrative appeals. This is a good law proposed in TX.

 

[4Freedom]

It would be nice if everyone of us who had a CHL was rational, clear-thinking, and had it only in interests of self-protection. But we sure can't count on that. And the fact that faculty would be allowed the same privilege--that doesn't make me feel any better. A room full of people is not a good place to start a gunfight. and think about this: if such an altercation started, would you want 20+ innocent bystanders in between you and your adversary?

Just my 2 cents, but you are advocating the same type of deal that all gun control supporters have been stating for years. Just remember bad guys don't give a rats arsh about whether they can carry a gun onto campus. If they are doing illegal drugs, they are already breaking the laws of the country and laws banning guns won't deter them one bit. Did Cho at Virginina State care that he wasn't allowed to conceal carry, did it stop him? Who did the CHL ban on campus apply to? Guess who, all of Cho's victims. Yes, they were the only one to follow the stupid law, which helps empower cimrinals and make law abiding citizens victims.

However, I will state this, I think all college age people who will CHL on campus should first undergo some type of official training and also be disciplined in the dangers of firearms. If they are forced to save someone or their own's life, it would be good they don't take potshots into a crowd of students. However, in majority of cases, if they have to use the gun, it will be because there isn't much to lose.

 

[daniel1113]

However, I will state this, I think all college age people who will CHL on campus should first undergo some type of official training and also be disciplined in the dangers of firearms.

Let me get this straight. You first call out the OP for wanting to treat colleges different than any other place with regards to concealed carry, and then you proceed to single out college-aged students for forced training? This whole idea that college students are somehow different class of people when it comes to concealed carry is ridiculous. Considering you must be 21 in pretty much every state to carry a concealed handgun, it should would be nice if people would treat us like the adults we are.