Texas On Brink Of Legalizing Concealed Carry At All Colleges

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't disagree that they might get this slippery slope passed, and once the state can force a private business to allow concealed carry, where does the state set its limits on what it tells businesses to do next?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with you. When I was a grad student, I thought we could go even further, and allow TAs if they wanted to take some sort of auxiliary police training during the summer - purely in the event of some kind of active shooting, they could voluntarily be first responders (i.e. after taking a significant amount of defensive firearms training geared towards a collegiate environment).

In my personal experience, most people in my circle of friends that take the time to get CHLs and carry actively take a significant amount of defensive pistol training and participate in things like IDPA leagues, etc. Maybe that is just my circle of friends, or a Texas thing but I think a lot of folks would be surprised at how well trained many private citizens are.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with you. When I was a grad student, I thought we could go even further, and allow TAs if they wanted to take some sort of auxiliary police training during the summer - purely in the event of some kind of active shooting, they could voluntarily be first responders (i.e. after taking a significant amount of defensive firearms training geared towards a collegiate environment).

In my personal experience, most people in my circle of friends that take the time to get CHLs and carry actively take a significant amount of defensive pistol training and participate in things like IDPA leagues, etc. Maybe that is just my circle of friends, or a Texas thing but I think a lot of folks would be surprised at how well trained many private citizens are.

Similar situation in my circle. A few in competitions, but mostly go to the range together with an instructor every now and then, as well as range time by ourselves.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I somehow think I would be able to control myself if I was carrying concealed and debating the finer points of Plato or Socrates...

To be serious, some of my best friends and my wife were at VA Tech when the shooting happened. Imagine if Liviu Librescu who survived the holocaust and blocked the door to the classroom for a while to let his students escape had a concealed handgun and could have returned fire? Imagine if anyone in those classrooms had had a concealed license? I don't think we would have lost 32 souls that day.

All logic goes back to the basic premise that criminals will not obey the laws, period. I mean, VA Tech didn't allow guns on campus but somehow the law didn't stop tragedy.

I think you're missing my entire point of this thread--I'm all for, 100%, concealed carry on campuses. I just can't get behind the government forcing private campuses to adopt that position just because I like it.

I fully agree that forced "no-weapon zones" are a terrible idea, as they do not work. But I'm also a fan of allowing the school to choose what's best for them, especially in secondary education, where people have a choice as to where they go.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's a good question. A rider designed and implemented with the sole purpose of getting a bill voted down, backfires and ends up doing nothing against the bill and maybe even supporting it, so does the government then accept it and use it to its full potential? Of course it does. It's the government we are talking about. If a law or policy exists, the government will use it regardless of how nonsensical it may be.

This is why I said it was a bad idea. The Democrats are playing into the Republicans' hands and the Republicans are (probably) going to disregard their "small government" creed to keep it on the books and support it. Again, glad I don't live in Texas.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well, if there are laws forcing private companies to do business with certain people, then how is this anything but the same?

If a baker can be forced to provide a cake to a gay wedding, then they, since they are open to the public and have opted into this (moronic) agreement to not discriminate, then they can't discriminate.


Now, I am not for forcing private business to do such crap.

But, if a private college/school receives money from daddy Govt....then they open themselves up for things like this law.

Texas should push through as normal and be done with it.

originally posted by: SonOfThor...but I think a lot of folks would be surprised at how well trained many private citizens are.

Or disappointed, if you're the government.

But as Vasa Croe says, my circle of CCDW permit holders do very similar things, and most of which are firearm or self-defense instructors themselves.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well, if there are laws forcing private companies to do business with certain people, then how is this anything but the same?

If a baker can be forced to provide a cake to a gay wedding, then they, since they are open to the public and have opted into this (moronic) agreement to not discriminate, then they can't discriminate.


Now, I am not for forcing private business to do such crap.

Neither am I, and I'm also not an advocate of the but-they're-doing-it,-so-I-should-too argument--it fails on every level, because the government forcing a private business to do anything is, IMHO, anti-liberty.

But, if a private college/school receives money from daddy Govt....then they open themselves up for things like this law.

I don't disagree with this sentiment at all, and I think I mentioned that in my OP--you get fed by the devil, prepare to have to do things you may not like.

Solution? Quite taking government funds

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yep, Yep annnnnnnnd yep.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I got you now - apologies for me not being totally clear in my interpretation. Let me add that I agree with you 100% that the Government should not be able to force a business to do anything.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I somehow think I would be able to control myself if I was carrying concealed and debating the finer points of Plato or Socrates...

To be serious, some of my best friends and my wife were at VA Tech when the shooting happened. Imagine if Liviu Librescu who survived the holocaust and blocked the door to the classroom for a while to let his students escape had a concealed handgun and could have returned fire? Imagine if anyone in those classrooms had had a concealed license? I don't think we would have lost 32 souls that day.

All logic goes back to the basic premise that criminals will not obey the laws, period. I mean, VA Tech didn't allow guns on campus but somehow the law didn't stop tragedy.

I think you're missing my entire point of this thread--I'm all for, 100%, concealed carry on campuses. I just can't get behind the government forcing private campuses to adopt that position just because I like it.

I fully agree that forced "no-weapon zones" are a terrible idea, as they do not work. But I'm also a fan of allowing the school to choose what's best for them, especially in secondary education, where people have a choice as to where they go.

I think that each case needs to be individually litigated.

If a private institution says that you cannot speak freely, there is a legal case against that abridgment of that right.

The second amendment should be no different.

I have had a CCP since the 80's. I can understand a business making the decision to not allow me to carry on their property. Nine times out of ten, it is their insurance company making the call. I have no problem with public and state colleges and universities being made to allow concealed carry by law.

I can respect a private college, university, business or employer not wanting to allow guns on their premises, but at least allow me to secure my weapon in my car in the parking lot.

I don't care if you are a college, university, a business or my employer, if you decide to not allow me to protect myself on your property, that means that you are ACCEPTING responsibility for my safety while I am on YOUR property. If something happens to me while on your property that I could have prevented, I will hold you responsible. I can accept this. Now with that being said, I am responsible for my safety when I am off of your property, but if I cannot keep the means of protecting myself in my vehicle, doesn't that make you responsible for my safety when I am coming to or leaving your property?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I have had a CCP since the 80's. I can understand a business making the decision to not allow me to carry on their property. Nine times out of ten, it is their insurance company making the call. I have no problem with public and state colleges and universities being made to allow concealed carry by law.

I can respect a private college, university, business or employer not wanting to allow guns on their premises, but at least allow me to secure my weapon in my car in the parking lot.

I don't care if you are a college, university, a business or my employer, if you decide to not allow me to protect myself on your property, that means that you are ACCEPTING responsibility for my safety while I am on YOUR property. If something happens to me while on your property that I could have prevented, I will hold you responsible. I can accept this. Now with that being said, I am responsible for my safety when I am off of your property, but if I cannot keep the means of protecting myself in my vehicle, doesn't that make you responsible for my safety when I am coming to or leaving your property?

Very well said.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I got you now - apologies for me not being totally clear in my interpretation. Let me add that I agree with you 100% that the Government should not be able to force a business to do anything.

The government can and should force businesses to remain in compliance with law.

Currently, the law of the land says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty darned simple. People just want to make it complicated.

Don't think it will pass. Even the conservatives are not really thrilled about the idea. I am in Texas and have friends and family who work at Universities here.

I support the 2nd and own guns and have firearm safety instruction and a ccl. But this is just a bad idea. Its why people can make such fun of gun nuts they are blind to reality sometimes.

A school full of teen hormones with impulse control issues that go with adolescence and the collective hive mind syndrome bestowed apon adolescence by nature makes me vote hell no.

There should be a separate stringent and strict ccl for any carry on school grounds with exceptional penalties for any misuse and extra marksmanship periodic tests. Its a different situation modern psychology has proven why teens act the way they do that should be considered. So should the environment and population density (like 6 ccl overzealous kids shooting at a bad guy hitting innocent people).

It should be up to the university and they should be responsible if anything goes wrong.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I got you now - apologies for me not being totally clear in my interpretation. Let me add that I agree with you 100% that the Government should not be able to force a business to do anything.

The government can and should force businesses to remain in compliance with law.

Currently, the law of the land says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty darned simple. People just want to make it complicated.

That's ridiculous and the supreme court has plenty to say over the years about that interpretation. You must also forget about private property rights? They trump the second.

Its ludicrous to assume having guns everywhere is the answer. How's that working out for the poor? They have guns everywhere in the inner city.

Its about time for people to have common sense. I have a ccl but I don't carry a .45 everywhere I go or any gun at all. I use it when necessary and don't live in constant fear of bad guys. It takes considerable training to stay focused and be an accurate shot both the police and civilians carrying should have to take marksmanship benchmarks to keep a ccl. I enjoy shooting so I don't care.

The 2nd is great but lets not be ridiculous I can argue you are infringing on my personal liberty by not being a good marksman and varying a gun in public. I have to learn at school with my personal liberty being assaulted by questionable marksman weapons at my school.

The ccl test is a joke and there is no follow up.

a reply to: luthier

Do you have a CHL, or a license from one of the states with reciprocity? Semantics, I know, but I'm trying to understand your position as "someone in Texas", since you base a lot of your argument on personal connections to the University culture here.

Guess what? Your "teenager" argument doesn't apply here, because you have to be 21 years old in order to purchase or possess a handgun on your person or in your vehicle in Texas (unless you are active military). Hell, you have to be 21 to purchase handgun ammo in Texas. Guess how old you have to be to have a CHL (that would still be required to carry concealed on campus)? 21.

There goes your whole "teenager hormones and the natural hive mind" argument.

Let me add that it irks me when people try to quantify there argument with extra credibility by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment and I'm a gun owner, but..." The whole point of the 2nd Amendment (and our natural rights) is that there are no buts.

Also, with the generalities - what, to you, constitutes a "gun nut"?

If you have a CHL I would recommend re-taking your class, because your statement shows a significant lack of knowledge regarding Texas firearms law.

a reply to: luthier

Most of those guns you refer to in the inner cities are illegally owned, and used in relation to drug / gang violence. As far as infringing on your liberties by being a bad marksman? Guess what - if someone discharges a firearm in self defense, they are responsible / liable for every round that leaves the pipe. I carry all the time, and have yet to infringe on anyone's liberty.

Some of my best buddies lost friends in VA Tech because their liberty and lives were infringed upon by someone with a gun, because as law-abiding people they were denied their rights to self defense. Your argument is invalid due to flawed logic.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: luthier

Do you have a CHL, or a license from one of the states with reciprocity? Semantics, I know, but I'm trying to understand your position as "someone in Texas", since you base a lot of your argument on personal connections to the University culture here.

Guess what? Your "teenager" argument doesn't apply here, because you have to be 21 years old in order to purchase or possess a handgun on your person or in your vehicle in Texas (unless you are active military). Hell, you have to be 21 to purchase handgun ammo in Texas. Guess how old you have to be to have a CHL (that would still be required to carry concealed on campus)? 21.

There goes your whole "teenager hormones and the natural hive mind" argument.

Let me add that it irks me when people try to quantify there argument with extra credibility by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment and I'm a gun owner, but..." The whole point of the 2nd Amendment (and our natural rights) is that there are no buts.

Also, with the generalities - what, to you, constitutes a "gun nut"?

If you have a CHL I would recommend re-taking your class, because your statement shows a significant lack of knowledge regarding Texas firearms law.

No I am well aware of the 21 threshold. So you are saying they don't make decisions with their amygdala? When you put that many kids together in the same place their is a special thing that happens with the brain. Hopefully by 21 they are through it but its hardly science to say that it stops at 21. It doesn't.

Second a gun nut can't use reason but like a religious pundent cherry picks the interpretation of the excerpt in question.

What about private property rights? And personal liberty?

How do you renew your ccl in Texas? How many marksmanship tests do you take a year? Knowing the laws is great but being a good marksman is just as if not more important. For police as well. You want a gun in a densely populated area of kids going to school then do them a favor prove you are a good shot and aren't going to do more harm then good.

I think it should be up to the University.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: luthier

Most of those guns you refer to in the inner cities are illegally owned, and used in relation to drug / gang violence. As far as infringing on your liberties by being a bad marksman? Guess what - if someone discharges a firearm in self defense, they are responsible / liable for every round that leaves the pipe. I carry all the time, and have yet to infringe on anyone's liberty.

Some of my best buddies lost friends in VA Tech because their liberty and lives were infringed upon by someone with a gun, because as law-abiding people they were denied their rights to self defense. Your argument is invalid due to flawed logic.

Uh no. First off if the second was a blanket statement then all guns are legal. All of them.

Second there is no way of knowing if your friends would be alive or not with or without guns. Its also possible that out of fear and a small nose concealed gun (mine is a bersa) the ccl kids miss and hit the wrong person.

I think someone on campus and relatively population wise should have the ability to carry, what I am saying is more dedication and marksmanship should be in order to handle a very dense population area lime a school (with kids just learning to be adults).