Jump to content

Lift Ban On Concealed Handguns On Campus?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I voted yes, but only because there wasnt a third option. I would think it should be up to each campus. I wouldnt have a problem if the ban was lifted. If Im not mistaken, the ban on concealed firearms at church has been lifted. The reason, you never know if and when you may have the necessity to protect yourself or others. People must go through a class, qualify on the range, and then pass the background checksbefore they are allowed to posess a CHL. Its not just a "Hey, I wanna carry a gun." Not to mention that you must be 21 before you can purchase a handgun to begin with. Its not like you are going to see a huge number of drunken frat freshman and sophmores walking around like John Wayne, going into frat houses like they are going to Miss Kitty's.

Personally, I think the only place they should be banned are government buildings, sporting events, and places that make a majority of their business on alcohol sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the only place they should be banned are government buildings, sporting events, and places that make a majority of their business on alcohol sales.

I would like to respectfully add financial institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must the handgun be concealed?

Believe it or not, Texas is one of only six states to ban open carrying of hand guns. The others are New York, Florida, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. But they were supposed to draft a bill to allow open carry. Illinois and Wisconsin also ban carrying handguns completely.

Edited by UNTflyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, Texas is one of only six states to ban open carrying of hand guns. The others are New York, Florida, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. But they were supposed to draft a bill to allow open carry. Illinois and Wisconsin also ban carrying handguns completely.

I'm somewhat familiar with all of that. My question is if there is reasoning behind the way it is in Texas. I'm trying to logic it out in my head, but I can't come up with anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat familiar with all of that. My question is if there is reasoning behind the way it is in Texas. I'm trying to logic it out in my head, but I can't come up with anything.

Oh, that's easy. It's a political hot potato and no one in the legislature wants to introduce or support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yes.

The original reason why open carry was not allowed was because CHL proponents stated forcing a CHL would provide a blanket of security for everyone. Criminals wouldn't know who did or did not have a handgun.

I think its bad reasoning.

There is also a bill that will make it illegal for employers to ban CHL holders from keeping a handgun in their vehicles, if it is on an employers parking lot.

Currently, its completely illegal to do so, but an employer can still fire you for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, understand that this is to allow *CHL* holders to carry concealed on campus.

CHL holders have to pass a background check, take a course and a marksmanship test.

DPS stats prove that not only do CHL holders have MUCH lower rates of assault, murder and other crimes, their rate is lower than that of Texas peace officers, who can carry on university campuses in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to respectfully add financial institutions.

Under the current economy, I cant disagree.

There is also a bill that will make it illegal for employers to ban CHL holders from keeping a handgun in their vehicles, if it is on an employers parking lot.

Currently, its completely illegal to do so, but an employer can still fire you for it.

A person's vehicle now being considered an extension of their home, people are allowed to carry a firearm in their vehicle, out of sight. Yes, an employer can fire you for carrying a concealed firearm in your vehicle on their parking lot, however, since the weapon is concealed, it would be difficult to find out who had one. You can argue a violation of your 4th Amendment right (Right to privacy from unreasonable search or seizure) thus you could have a complaint to get your job back or a civil issue for court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's vehicle now being considered an extension of their home, people are allowed to carry a firearm in their vehicle, out of sight. Yes, an employer can fire you for carrying a concealed firearm in your vehicle on their parking lot, however, since the weapon is concealed, it would be difficult to find out who had one. You can argue a violation of your 4th Amendment right (Right to privacy from unreasonable search or seizure) thus you could have a complaint to get your job back or a civil issue for court.

Or you could just have the piece of mind that if you had to defend yourself, or if your car was stolen, or anything else happened that informed your employer of the firearm, you could not be fired for practicing you legal right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DPS stats prove that not only do CHL holders have MUCH lower rates of assault, murder and other crimes, their rate is lower than that of Texas peace officers, who can carry on university campuses in Texas.

Got a source on this? I would like to cite it in the Senate tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The King of England has been making his presence felt more on campus recently. Plus I'm really tired of over-crowded History classrooms b/c of all the Red Coats being quatered in Wooten Hall. So I guess I'm for lifting the ban.

/sigh.

Is there an arguement in there somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a source on this? I would like to cite it in the Senate tomorrow.

The lower than LEO was in a SA Express News article I am having trouble finding, but I know I had bookmarked at one point.

http://www.concealedcampus.orgis a good source of info, especially http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

Check out:

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got you on this one.

Probably because it lets those with a CHL give themselves an opportunity to defend themselves if they can't get away from an armed attacker. Mind you, CHL classes right now don't teach a great deal, and even trained shooters will miss when they're under duress, but it's better a pistol than nothing if someone is trapped. A knife isn't all that useful unless you actually know what you're doing with one.

That said, I'm worried about this becoming an issue where someone reaches for their pistol like that whackjob did at a kid's baseball game. But more strict laws on guns (background checks, background check requirements for sales at gun shows, etc.) can solve that.

Edited by meangreendork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there is not.

Well...there kinda was...and I think you knew that, but thanks for the flippancy...it's been lacking on this board for a while...

My belief is that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated...that it's intent, while at the time justified, has been purposely mis-interpretted by gun advocates as an arguement for why they should be able to own enough fire-power to make a Sandinista blush.

The idea that putting more guns, in more people's hands and in as many more situations as possible somehow makes society safer seems inane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like this:

If I'm a whackjob criminal, I'll get a gun. I may not get it from a store. If there's a ban on guns, and I want one enough, I'll get my hands on an unregistered, unlicensed gun and still go about my business of killing people. If I'm aiming to kill and get away, I really don't want a gun that can be traced, either. What I don't want to do is stroll into a shopping mall where people have CHLs, and get shot up because I'm outnumbered. Who knows if those with a CHL are just everyday store clerks or a pistol marksmanship instructor, and I don't wanna find out the hard way.

Part of this is the deterrent effect. Part of this is also giving people a fighting chance if they're in a situation where they can't simply escape (and that is always, ALWAYS, the best option). If something happens in a public space and I can't get away, I'd rather face someone using a pistol as opposed to just my everyday knife. Even if I've barely fired a few thousand rounds at the range in my life, my odds are still better.

Really, I'm not worried about the dude who goes out of his way to buy the proper permits (and spend a ton of money on it, too) for class 3 weapons. I'm not worried about that guy at all. I'm worried about the guy who bought his weapon out of the back of a truck behind a decrepit stop-n-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...there kinda was...and I think you knew that, but thanks for the flippancy...it's been lacking on this board for a while...

My belief is that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated...that it's intent, while at the time justified, has been purposely mis-interpretted by gun advocates as an arguement for why they should be able to own enough fire-power to make a Sandinista blush.

The idea that putting more guns, in more people's hands and in as many more situations as possible somehow makes society safer seems inane.

You do understand that the 2nd admendment was to allow Americans to bear arms to protect themselves from thier own government, right?

So explain how this is antiquated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that the 2nd admendment was to allow Americans to bear arms to protect themselves from thier own government, right?

So explain how this is antiquated.

For the reason you have stated, I would not call the 2nd amendment antiquated. I would call it unecessary.

If I'm in fear of the government enough to feel that I need a gun to protect myself from them, then I'm going to bear arms whether the government gives me that right or not.

That being said...I'm kinda in the same boat as MGDork, although I lean ever-so-slightly to the side of wanting the campus ban to stay in place. I do, however, support CHL's and their use in many public places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.