Texas On Brink Of Legalizing Concealed Carry At All Colleges

Like I said Im all for concealed permits, and have one myself. But I know in the state I live in you have to be 21 years of age to even buy a handgun. So kids coming straight out of high school wouldn't be able to get a permit anyways, so that helps a little bit. I'm just stating that if someone would like to carry a gun on campus, In Texas. Then there should be some sort of extra training. What if God forbid a crazed gunman walks on campus and starts to shoot, then 50 people draw there weapons, You cant tell me that some innocent person isn't going to get hit by a stray bullet, coming from the gun of a concealed carrier. It just really needs to be looked at, more in depth, about laws for carrying a concealed handgun. And yes it is way different from shooting back on campus vs say Billy Bob's honkey tonk in Fort Worth. A lot more people, and most have just graduated high school. Ever heard of being trigger happy, that could and would happen if something went down on a campus, with say a dozen people shooting back, bullets flying everywhere, some up to a half mile with handguns. I'm totally for concealed handguns, I just believe there should be an alternate permit for carrying on campus.

originally posted by: Glassbender777
Like I said Im all for concealed permits, and have one myself. But I know in the state I live in you have to be 21 years of age to even buy a handgun. So kids coming straight out of high school wouldn't be able to get a permit anyways, so that helps a little bit. I'm just stating that if someone would like to carry a gun on campus, In Texas. Then there should be some sort of extra training. What if God forbid a crazed gunman walks on campus and starts to shoot, then 50 people draw there weapons, You cant tell me that some innocent person isn't going to get hit by a stray bullet, coming from the gun of a concealed carrier. It just really needs to be looked at, more in depth, about laws for carrying a concealed handgun. And yes it is way different from shooting back on campus vs say Billy Bob's honkey tonk in Fort Worth. A lot more people, and most have just graduated high school. Ever heard of being trigger happy, that could and would happen if something went down on a campus, with say a dozen people shooting back, bullets flying everywhere, some up to a half mile with handguns. I'm totally for concealed handguns, I just believe there should be an alternate permit for carrying on campus.

I just said the same thing. I think that is sensible. Its a realistic compromise.

a reply to: luthier

I get it. So you're saying all guns are legal, BUT, first you must pass a certain test, or maybe different types of test to determine where you are allowed to exercise your natural right to self defense and life?

You keep saying ccl kids - do you mean a 21 year old CHL holder that is a college student?

Who will decide what kind of "dedication and marksmanship" is in order? Even police, who go through quarterly qualifications, miss and hit bystanders. Your stance is that you want to force people to do x,y,z, in order to exercise their right to self defense. Period.

Also, what do you mean by a small nose Bersa? I was unaware that Bersa made snub nose revolvers, I'm assuming you mean the subcompact .380. I'm a Sig guy myself, but I digress...

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: luthier

I get it. So you're saying all guns are legal, BUT, first you must pass a certain test, or maybe different types of test to determine where you are allowed to exercise your natural right to self defense and life?

You keep saying ccl kids - do you mean a 21 year old CHL holder that is a college student?



Who will decide what kind of "dedication and marksmanship" is in order? Even police, who go through quarterly qualifications, miss and hit bystanders. Your stance is that you want to force people to do x,y,z, in order to exercise their right to self defense. Period.

Also, what do you mean by a small nose Bersa? I was unaware that Bersa made snub nose revolvers, I'm assuming you mean the subcompact .380. I'm a Sig guy myself, but I digress...

Yes a 21 year old college student.

I was playing the devils advocate with YOUR definition of the second which is all guns are legal. What would an illegal gun be under your definition of the 2nd?

Yeah my .380 is a subcompact. I think you know what I mean.

The test should be made up with law enforcement standards at the least. I think it should be 6 times a year.

I don't support the second being a free for all. Look at what went down in Waco. A lot of those guys had ccls and they were not all illegal guns.

The 2nd is mostly to protect our liberty from the government taking over with force. You should be able to have what ever you want at home. If I want to live in a place with people carrying ak's to the coffee shop I will go to the middle east.

I think it is a fair public safety concern and should be discussed that way. You don't want to have your 2nd taken away go live in Vermont they have almost no gun laws and you can cary without a permit. Why? Because they have a low density population and not much law enforcement. But to say carrying semi auto rifles around Manhattan isn't a problem is just naive (which it seems under your definition of the 2nd is your right).

a reply to: luthier

First, let me say that I appreciate both of your positions, I just have a different opinion. We can come up with hypotheticals all day, but I don't think we will agree on everything. I think the furthest compromise I would go is once you have a CHL, you can carry anywhere. If you want to make the test more stringent, with qualifications, that is one thing - but, the cost of the State running that kind of program would be astronomical, especially if you had differing licenses. (I have friends who are firearms enthusiasts in Canada, and their licensing system is absurdly expensive because of all the administration / paperwork the Government has to do).

By illegal guns, I meant that the criminals don't care about gun laws. Maybe I wasn't clear in why I brought that and VA Tech up, but basically even if they don't pass campus carry, any criminal could still go on a shooting rampage on campus here in Texas (God forbid). Yes, hypothetically, people may get hit by someone returning fire if campus carry passed, but someone could also save a lot of people from getting killed.

Maybe our opinions differ because we have different trust in others. I tend to believe that most citizens who carry legally, take the time to get a CHL, are responsible and do extra training and know the laws. Hell, the guys I know train waaay more than 6 times a year (especially with IDPA competitions). I just would prefer for the law to allow for more good guys to have guns.

Law abiding citizens won't carry on campus if this isn't passed. Criminals still will.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I appreciate what you are saying and this is what a civil discussion should be like. So thank you. I know its an area of beliefs and that entails passion.

The permit would not have to be expensive it just needs to be well thought out and its impossible to do that I guess in today's political environment.

One of the biggest gun fatalities is accidental. Bringing more guns on campus does also increase that possibility.

You can be a criminal and have a ccl. You just can't be a convicted felon. You can be an undiagnosed psychopath as well.

It is very hard to hit anything with a sub compact which is a very common carry weapon. Most have low profile sites and that kind of shooting requires actual skill and time. I have done some 3 gun races which are as close to I have been to an intense situation. Lets just say I am really glad I wasn't using my bersa.

Just because you are responsible doesn't mean everyone is. You need to shoot every month to be good with a sub compact for instinctual adrenaline pumped situations. Its fair in my opinion to make sure people on a high population campus have that ability. The test doesn't have to be expensive and would save a lot of money in the long run teaching people how to handle firearms. We still have people even with chl's shooting themselves or others cleaning their guns. Which I guess you can't really stop absent mindedness.

I think your right people should be able to carry but they should have some extra marksmanship and high intensity training, lime lowering your heart rate to shoot accurately under pressure. Give ranges tax breaks for hosting the tests in off hours time. Same with law enforcement marksman teachers. Give them a big rebate for volunteering. I am all about incentives rather than taxes.

LINK: Realistic-Gun-Control at High Schools

The Texas Law on Handguns Makes Sense ...

as does requiring a driver's license

to drive a (potentially lethal-n-deadly) car.

The Texas Law on Handguns Makes Sense
.
-
OPINION: Enough is ... Enough.
.

originally posted by: Vasa CroeWell....that is where you get into the sticky situation of if you do business with the public. If patrons that do carry want to come to your business and buy your goods/services/etc, then as a business serving the public you are infringing on their rights as a citizen with the right to carry.

Yeah, I just don't buy into that, philosophically speaking--a private business should not be governed by the government based on whether or not they necessitate a private membership in order to shop there. Serving the public or not, it's still a private business. With the logic you're pointing out, what stops the government from telling businesses what to sell if they can tell them to whom they have to sell things?

So it seems this fight is being done in order for the dems to raise the same issues as are being raised with gay/religious rights at restaurants and whatnot.....I would bet you a dollar that is why they are going this route. I will bet you another dollar we will start seeing lawsuits and allegations popping up the same as gay/religious ones have been lately.

Sadly, you're probably correct...and I'll consider them just as frivolous. But, I guess it's not my opinion that matters, so I'll just continue to complain about it with nothing happening

originally posted by: greencmpI 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.

So, you should be able to go into a Taco Bell and start screaming obscenities at the top of your lungs? Or stand there all day telling everyone who comes in how bad their ingredients are? Or go into a gun store and start speaking about how terrible guns are and how much death and destruction they cause and how people should be ashamed for owning them (not my sentiment, btw)?

I mean, I could go on and on, but what stops these three things from being unabridged freedoms? It's the right for the business owner to throw you out for doing things that they deem inappropriate inside of their private business. You can't go into an abortion clinic and protest abortions...you must be outside on public land, and even then, sometimes a certain distance away from the entrance.

Your myth about unabridged freedoms, just because they're in the Constitution, is wrong. We all have freedoms, but the freedoms do have limitations, even in privately owned businesses. This goes for the 2nd Amendment, as well--as much as I wish I could carry everywhere.

Hell, I work and park for work on federal land, so I'm relegated to only being able to have that personal protection to evenings and weekends. I'm currently talking with my congressman's legislative director on trying to change that (at least allow federal employees to keep their legally owned and transported firearms in their vehicles), but so far Mr. Massie seems to have other things on him mind, like getting the Patriot Act to expire

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?

This is all a good point that I've also made (and agreed with...I didn't make it up) in the past: If you don't allow me my personal protection, you better be prepared to protect me instead, then. I believe I read about at least one lawsuit on that basis before, although I don't recall the outcome (or if it even made it to court).

Like I said in another reply, I work on federal property, so I can't even keep my firearm in my vehicle while at work, relegating my ability to legally carry to evenings and weekends. I'm not a fan of that, and if it is public property and a public (read: tax-payer funded) workplace, the second amendment should be embraced, not ran away from and discarded just because someone might 'go postal.'

a reply to: luthier

Your understanding of the 2nd is lacking.

It does not provide anywhere in its text the right to the Govt to restrict firearms/arms ownership or carrying.
Nor does it provide any legal groundwork to remove rights from people that have been released from prison.

a reply to: Snarl

I think that it's not about "want[ing] to make it complicated," it's about not wanting the government to force private entities to do things that they don't want to do.

Does a private business have to allow a church to come in and hold a small church service there, just because the first amendment says that laws can't prohibit the free exercise of their religion (or that they have free speech)?

I fully understand that, of all the amendments in the Constitution, the second is the only one that mentions "shall not be infringed," and I've used that phrase many times in support of the second amendment, but I disagree that it trumps my right to hypothetically create a business and run in the way that I deem appropriate for my beliefs and desires. This is where, I feel, the free market should be allowed to work its magic--if businesses do things repugnant enough, society will drive that business into the ground.

I feel that the laws that allow private businesses to choose, yet have to post a sign declaring that firearms are not allowed, is perfectly acceptable, especially when it seems that most of these laws provide the ability to still carry in building until verbally told to either put the firearm in your vehicle or leave the premises (otherwise you're trespassing)--only if you do not comply at that point does it become a legal infraction.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: greencmpI 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.

So, you should be able to go into a Taco Bell and start screaming obscenities at the top of your lungs? Or stand there all day telling everyone who comes in how bad their ingredients are? Or go into a gun store and start speaking about how terrible guns are and how much death and destruction they cause and how people should be ashamed for owning them (not my sentiment, btw)?

I mean, I could go on and on, but what stops these three things from being unabridged freedoms? It's the right for the business owner to throw you out for doing things that they deem inappropriate inside of their private business. You can't go into an abortion clinic and protest abortions...you must be outside on public land, and even then, sometimes a certain distance away from the entrance.

Your myth about unabridged freedoms, just because they're in the Constitution, is wrong. We all have freedoms, but the freedoms do have limitations, even in privately owned businesses. This goes for the 2nd Amendment, as well--as much as I wish I could carry everywhere.

Hell, I work and park for work on federal land, so I'm relegated to only being able to have that personal protection to evenings and weekends. I'm currently talking with my congressman's legislative director on trying to change that (at least allow federal employees to keep their legally owned and transported firearms in their vehicles), but so far Mr. Massie seems to have other things on him mind, like getting the Patriot Act to expire

Yes, you can scream and yell and you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

If people look at you like you have two heads and resume watching the movie, has a crime been committed?

It is only the consequences of actions (if people jump up and trample each other) that the instigation can be considered actionable and even in such a case, the tramplers would also be accountable for their part in the violence.

Of course, there is no requirement to tolerate such behavior whatever the outcome. Movie theater owners should probably kick such a disruptive theatre-goer out regardless.

But no, no crime committed in simple speech. Even the call to riot can't be considered felonious if ineffective.

The first amendment protects speech, even (and especially) bad speech but, it does not protect bad behavior.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think you are missing the point. The Democrats are doing this on purpose. They WANT you to object to the rider for whatever reasons so that the entire bill gets voted down. You are getting offended at the very point of the rider.

I, personally, think that enacting a slippery slope on purpose (instead of just whining about it as political rhetoric) is a bad idea, because you might just get what you are asking for. But hey, I don't live in Texas for a reason.

This. The rider is known as a "poison pill" and is designed to get the bill voted down. They don't really want it.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But for the Democrats to tack on this amendment to force private colleges and universities to allow concealed carry on campus takes things too far.

Why is it a bad idea? Are the people going to private colleges and universities not citizens and so they do not have the right to carry? If people have the right to carry at one college or university then they have the right to carry at any college or university public or private.

Please look up "private property" vs "public property."

Public institutions are supported by the state and the state can't restrict civil liberties.

Private institutions are privately owned and the property is private so "their house, their rules" applies.

originally posted by: greencmpYes, you can scream and yell and you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

If people look at you like you have two heads and resume watching the movie, has a crime been committed?

It is only the consequences of actions (if people jump up and trample each other) that the instigation can be considered actionable and even in such a case, the tramplers would also be accountable for their part in the violence.

Of course, there is no requirement to tolerate such behavior whatever the outcome. Movie theater owners should probably kick such a disruptive theatre-goer out regardless.

Maybe in the civilian world, or state by state, it differs from the military, but when I used to write up DA458s (Charge Sheet for a Court Martial) with the prosecutors--or even just Article 15s--there was always Article 80--Attempts, which made even attempting to break a law an offense punishable by judicial and non-judicial punishment.

While this is just from Wiki, it does imply that something similar exists in the civilian world, therefore making it a crime.

Attempt in criminal law is an offense that occurs when a person comes dangerously close to carrying out a criminal act, and intends to commit the act, but does not in fact commit it. The person may have carried out all the necessary steps (or thought they had) but still failed, or the attempt may have been abandoned or prevented at a late stage...

So, yes, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a crime, and no, the crime is not dictated by the responses of the people around the hypothetical screamer in the theater.

But no, no crime committed in simple speech. Even the call to riot can't be considered felonious if ineffective.

The first amendment protects speech, even (and especially) bad speech but, it does not protect bad behavior.

I think you need to brush up on your legal research a bit more, as it doesn't align with reality.

ETA: Sure, I guess you CAN do anything that you want to do--to include yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place, but that doesn't mean that there aren't negative legal ramifications that come with it.

Our rights are not absolute when they start negating other people's rights at the same time. That philosophy is the basis of my objection to forced compliance with allowing firearms in privately owned establishments, to include college/university campuses.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Tell that to the federal government who restricts my right to bring a firearm to my federal job, even though I have a CCDW permit AND it's legal to keep a loaded firearm in a stock vehicle compartment, even without a CCDW permit, here in KY.

Or, and I'll never understand this one, to military personnel who can't carry their firearm on post/base and, instead, have to keep it locked up in the armory.

Private institutions are privately owned and the property is private so "their house, their rules" applies.

Fully agree, here, hence this thread.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So what is the crime in yelling "fire"?

In civil society, not in the military.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So what is the crime in yelling "fire"?

In civil society, not in the military.

I assume that you did not look at the wiki link and read a bit more into it, or do research, like I suggested?

It could easily be argued that any reasonable person knows that, if you yell "Fire!," or "Bomb!," or anything similar to denote possible immediate harm to other people, it could incite panic in a crowded room--otherwise known as an attempt to incite panic. Since it is a crime to incite mass panic (I assume in all states, if not most), the it is also a crime to attempt to do so, even if said panic does not occur.

Here, I'll have another go at this:

Even if a defendant fails to fully complete a crime, he or she can be charged with attempt, i.e. in the case of an uncompleted or inchoate offense. While the requirements for proving attempt vary by jurisdiction, generally specific intent must be shown (even if the underlying crime was a general intent or strict liability offense) as well as a substantial step towards actually committing the crime itself.

Cornell University Law School

To directly answer your question, the crime in yelling "Fire!" in this scenario--if a panic is not incited--would be "attempt to incite mass panic" or something similar, obviously depending on terminology of local laws.

Only a matter of time before they're carrying in kindergarten.