PDA

View Full Version : Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts


lwestatbus
January 2, 2009, 11:25 PM
I am a college professor in Florida where they lock you up for a long time for carrying a weapon on any campus. Even our recent bill allowing permit holders to keep their weapons in cars does not apply to campuses--carrying/storing there is verboten.

I've read the other thread on carrying on campus and our campus also had an event where for a couple of days (maybe a week?) students with permits wore empty holsters visibly to show their numbers.

Even though I'm a licensed permit holder and would carry a weapon to work if I could I have to confess to some concerns about generally opening up campus carry rights but I also have an idea I'd like to float.

My concern is essentially that while campuses are target rich environments for wackos with a death wish they are also innocent backstop rich environments for untrained good guys in a high pressure situation. Florida has two paths to CC permits--military service or attending a REALLY limited class. The classes are about 4 hours, and I think that most people attend them at gun shows. I don't think that either path effectively prepares permit holders for gunfights in a crowd.

As a former Airborne and Ranger qualified Infantry officer and combat veteran I think that I had a higher level of small arms experience than most military members but pistol training is an afterthought and strictly limited to static target engagement. (I know, others may have had different experiences.) I have also observed gun show classes (which do not require any shooting or gun handling in Florida!!) and some of them are a joke. Last weekend the guy was haranguing a large group in a noisy auditorium and I would be willing to bet that those in the back couldn't even hear. I was standing closer to the speaker than those in the back row and I couldn't.

So what to do? I'd like to see a program similar to that adopted for airline pilots. Allow individuals to carry after being trained, really trained. Armed competent civilians are the most cost effective source of security in environments with lots of people (targets), low densities of attack, and difficult policing challenges. I'd take the course. I'd even pay to take it. Edit: I meant to imply here that the training would be for the right to carry on campus. I do not advocate in any way restricting existing rights to carry elsewhere.

I know that some will disagree violently with my thoughts on the preparation of the average permit holder to open fire in a crowded environment. The potential arguments are numerous and it is an emotional issue. But you must admit that the paths to carry permits (at least here in Florida) just don't address the training needed to be effective in a campus shooting. Concealed Carry in Florida is geared toward self defense and defense of home and auto.

scorpion_tyr
January 2, 2009, 11:37 PM
I agree. I haven't seen a case where it happened yet, but eventually one of these idiots is going to whip out the "evil black assault rifle" in the cafeteria and a student or faculty member who is illegally carrying will end his reign of terror. I hope it never happens, but I would love to see how the anti-gun movement twists that one around. All the numbers I have seen show that guns save more lives than they end.

HiBC
January 3, 2009, 12:22 AM
Currently at Colorado State University CCW holders may carry on campus.It has been in the newspaper the last few days meetings are being held to address changing this policy.
Since 9-11 a CCW permit has been reasonable to obtain here and despite the concern of those opposed to folks carrying,there have been no incidents at CSU.
As a matter of fact,nation wide the dire bloodbath predictions about people and CCW's has not occured.Crime rates have dropped.
I'm glad Ms Assam was armed in the church in Colorado Springs.
It is safer to have dangerous people around.
In case people think college students are not old enough to responsibly carry,most of our troops are the same age.(I'm 56)

Don H
January 3, 2009, 01:53 AM
So what to do? I'd like to see a program similar to that adopted for airline pilots. Allow individuals to carry after being trained, really trained. Armed competent civilians are the most cost effective source of security in environments with lots of people (targets), low densities of attack, and difficult policing challenges. I'd take the course. I'd even pay to take it.
It sounds an awful lot like you're saying that people who can't afford the comprehensive mandated training shouldn't be allowed to carry. Right?

So, if the state mandated a program that cost, say, $10,000, (120 hours should be adequate for classroom and hands-on training, don't you think?) that would be fine? And don't forget the annual refresher and qualification at only $2,500/yr.

'Course, I guesss it all depends on who's defining exactly what "competent" and "really trained" means.

blume357
January 3, 2009, 07:06 AM
being a gun rights advocate I think carry should be allowed on campus....
with that said I know from personal experience and 6+ years of 'higher' education (and I was pretty high through most of it) I don't think there is another place in our country with a greater concentration of idiots... (well maybe congress) I say this because I was young and stupid once and I really don't think most college students could be trained or qualified enough to safely carry.

divemedic
January 3, 2009, 09:12 AM
in Florida where they lock you up for a long time for carrying a weapon on any campus.

With a CCW, it is a second degree misdemeanor. Up to $500 and up to 60 days. Doubt you would see jail time for a first offense.

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying that people who can't afford the comprehensive mandated training shouldn't be allowed to carry. Right?

I agree. It sounds as if the poster wants us to move from shall issue, to may issue (and then only if you have met certain criteria)

I say this because I was young and stupid once and I really don't think most college students could be trained or qualified enough to safely carry.

I am a college student. So is my wife. Not only that, but a college student can carry off campus. Why not on? Your statement smacks of elitism.

ZeSpectre
January 3, 2009, 09:27 AM
My concern is essentially that while campuses are target rich environments for wackos with a death wish they are also innocent backstop rich environments for untrained good guys in a high pressure situation.

That is voiced as a common concern and it -sounds- reasonable doesn't it.
However the "innocent backstop" scenario is yet another in a long line of "but this might possibly, maybe, has a chance, of happening" or "but what if" scenarios.

There are several, well publicized times a citizen has stopped a wacko without all of the collateral damage some folks seem so concerned about. (and just FYI, there are even more times when this has happened and been ignored by the media because it wasn't "jucy" enough).

Along the same lines, right after Va Tech a girl was interviewed and asked if concealed carry should have been allowed on campus. She said "No way, more guns wouldn't have helped, it would have just made matters worse". Personally, when a loony is lining folks up and executing them I don't see how someone else, able to oppose him, could have possibly made things worse.

I'll take my chances with the "cross-fire" any day over the scenario of one crazy murderer running around able to casually select his targets at will.

I say this because I was young and stupid once and I really don't think most college students could be trained or qualified enough to safely carry.
I know at least 25 returning vets enrolled, the oldest one being 27. I DARE you to stand in front of them and make that statement.

Additionally, I am neither young nor stupid (former LE, have been licensed for CC for a LONG time) and yet the blanket rule also places me in the "young/stupid/can't be trusted" category the instant I set foot on the campus where I now work.

Eccentric
January 3, 2009, 09:52 AM
It should be national: shall issue, training that includes range time and legal implications (inexpensive, can be one or two partial days), no registration and no more gun-free zones.

lwestatbus
January 3, 2009, 09:57 AM
Some interesting ideas developing here. I thought I'd post a few responses.

Scopri: I have no doubt that some choose to carry despite the laws and this person would truly find themselves in a difficult position. I kind of hope that reason would prevail.

Don H & DiveMedic: Your responses caused me to reread my post and add an edit to the original. I do not advocate in any way restricting whatever general rights to carry may exist. I am advocating an incremental permit level for campus carry. By the way, my personal reservation price (an economics term) for what I would be willing to pay for such training would probably be in the $500 range. I'd be willing to pay more if I were younger but at 54 the annualized cost of the benefit would be higher than if I were in my 30s.

blume357: "I don't think there is another place in our country with a greater concentration of idiots... " I couldn't agree more. And the faculty are right up in there. There is zero correlation between temperment and common sense and the ability to earn a Ph.D.

divemedic: To me 60 days is a long time. And I will not put my trust in what a court might decide to do. On a personal level, this would also result in the loss of my job, one of the best jobs in the world.

This thread has sparked some discussion (good) and seems to have touched a couple of nerves. I'd like to restate my position with a couple of points:


A gunfight on a campus is likely to be a completely different animal than an armed citizen self defense scenario.
The qualification for concealed carry (in Florida at least) does not address this situation well (frankly, I don't think it addresses any situation well)
A number of competent and self-equipped firearms owners is probably the most cost effective way to elevate the level of security on campus.
I think that these issues would be addressed by the program I am advocating.


A Scenario: You are in a classroom where the only door leads to a hallway that has a number of other classrooms in it. You hear the unmistakable sound of gunshots and you know they are in your building. You draw your pistol and go to the door where you see a half dozen shocked people and someone steps out of another classroom holding a pistol. There are people between you and this person and one behind them. Now what do you do, Ranger? (This is what the instructors would ask us at uncomfortable moments in Ranger school.) Are you trained to deal with this situation? If the other person is a good guy is he/she trained to deal with it?

rampage841512
January 3, 2009, 10:02 AM
As a student here in Alabama the university I attend/attended (I'm debating on transfering) does not have a restriction on firearms in vehicles, but does have an anti-carry policy. No training is required for a CCW in Alabama.

I would like people who carry firearms to have some training, and I would like to have more formal training myself, but I don't think it should be a requirement for a CCW.

I wouldn't mind seeing a law here in Alabama that would allow one to carry a firearm concealed and openly anywhere, anytime (excluding private property...my definition being property that doesn't benefit from tax revenues) provided they successfully completed the firearms training required by, say, the Alabama Department o Public Safety (State Troopers) along with passing rigorous backround checks and successfully completeing a course on the legal use of force in the state.

Edited to say: I wouldn't even mind throwing in a fingerprint card if such a law were passed.

divemedic
January 3, 2009, 10:14 AM
Be careful about saying that Florida's training is inadequate. Next thing you know, you have those $4,000 classes on the horizon.

The point is, the classes are not intended to train you for the worst case scenario. It is easy to "what if" scenario things into requiring SEAL training for all CCW.

Even LEOs do not get the level of training that you are advocating, and they have nationwide carry.

wayneinFL
January 3, 2009, 01:38 PM
I see a possibility of stepping onto a slippery slope by requiring extra classes for carrying on a college campus.

I carry in wal-mart. It's crowded, right? How about a movie theater? A grocery store? A restaurant? A bus?

Today I have options. I can get more training if I feel I would intervene in a very unlikely mass shooting. If not, I choose to stand by. Or I can shoot and risk injuring or killing a bystander, but stop a massacre like in Luby's, McDonald's, or VT.

As it is if I feel I don't have the training required I can still carry into Wal-mart and defend myself at the ATM on the way there or in the parking lot- these scenarios are much more likely, anyway.

Same thing with a college campus. Why require $1000+ training for a college girl to carry a pistol in her purse to defend herself against a rape or robbery in the parking lot at night? And if she does get into a situation in which she needs to shoot a nutcase in the classroom, let her shoot me by accident- at least the guy doesn't get to kill thirty people hiding under their desks.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 3, 2009, 02:16 PM
To me the issue boils down to one that is often debated on TFL.

That is; does having a CCW equate to acting like a LEO? I and many others (most I think) say NO! Having a CCW is NOT the same as being a LEO. Therefore the dynamics of just about any gunfight would be different between a LEO and CCW.

lwestatbus, this is where the scenarios and such get fuzzy. I have a CCW to protect MY life and perhaps my family if they are with me. PERIOD.

The issue that antis and others raise about innocent bystanders arise from a perception that if students or faculty are armed and they hear gunshots on campus they will race pell mell to the sound of the guns with their own CCWs blazing away, shooting innocents and then getting shot by each other or LEOs who are responding like a bunch of Keystone Cops.

Frankly, I think that fear is overblown and most all CCW holders would just hunker down and fire only if the threat approaches them directly and they could not retreat. Even the most rudimentary CCW classes teach that I believe (hope!). Now, if you are talking about tactically engaging a shooter not directly threatening you then the training stuff comes into play I think.

So, I think the idea of innocents being harmed by CCW folks in a gunfight with an active shooter may not be as big as some think. I do think that a CCW might stop an active shooter from killing more students and teachers and that would be a good thing.

Good enough of a social benefit to allow CCW on campus IMO.

Tucker 1371
January 3, 2009, 03:29 PM
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has a problem with the no guns on campus issue. I'm a freshman at Georgia Southern University and I must say that the school policy toward gun owning students isnt too kind. If you live in an on-campus dorm you cant own any type of firearm. Period.

I live in an apartment complex just off campus and it's the same story there.
Next year I will be finding new housing due largely in part to my current community's firearm regs.

Isn't there something unconstitutional about this? I don't even technically live on campus and my right to own a gun is (I feel) being violated.

Hunter Rose
January 3, 2009, 03:56 PM
I'd say TG has nailed it.

a CCW permit isn't a license to be a superhero. Yes, I'm sure there ARE CCW holders that dream of being in the gunfight, saving the Girl, and riding off into the sunset. Hell, I'm sure all of us have had that fantasy at some point.

Trick is, that's all it is: a fantasy (at least, I HOPE that's all it is for most). The reality is, most that carry do so simply to protect themselves and theirs. Not to go running off towards the sound of the guns...

Webleymkv
January 3, 2009, 05:30 PM
1. A gunfight on a campus is likely to be a completely different animal than an armed citizen self defense scenario.
2. The qualification for concealed carry (in Florida at least) does not address this situation well (frankly, I don't think it addresses any situation well)
3. A number of competent and self-equipped firearms owners is probably the most cost effective way to elevate the level of security on campus.
4. I think that these issues would be addressed by the program I am advocating.


You're going on a lot of assumptions here. I think Tennessee Gentleman has a good point in that you're assuming that a Campus CCW holder is going to actively engage an opponent. I agree with TG that he/she is far more likely to try and get away from the attacker rather than go looking for him. Also, you're assuming that a "Whacko with a gun" is the most likely scenario. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of violent crimes that occur on campuses are the same types that occur elsewhere. While horrific and highly publicized, the "Whacko with a gun mass murder" situation is in fact quite rare. That being the case, I really don't see how CCW on campus is all that different from CCW in any other crowded place. Florida's current CCW programs seems to work pretty well in other crowded places so I don't see why the same wouldn't be true on a college campus. Heck, here in Indiana, there is no class or training requirement at all, just pass the background check and pay the fee. Guess what, we don't seem to have too many problems either. I think something that is often overlooked is that by and large people who would do irresponsible things with a firearm either can't get a permit to begin with or are too irresponsible/lazy to bother with getting it. That being the case, the majority of irresponsible gun carriers are doing so illegally in the first place.

wayneinFL
January 3, 2009, 05:44 PM
lwestatbus, this is where the scenarios and such get fuzzy. I have a CCW to protect MY life and perhaps my family if they are with me. PERIOD.

A CCW permit isn't a license to be a superhero. Yes, I'm sure there ARE CCW holders that dream of being in the gunfight, saving the Girl, and riding off into the sunset. Hell, I'm sure all of us have had that fantasy at some point.

Why can't someone do both? Carry a gun to protect yourself. But when you're classmates are being killed in your building, why wouldn't you do whatever you could to save them? The law allows it and I can't imagine any jurist in his right mind convicting you of a crime or awarding a judgment against you for stopping a potential mass murderer.

Hunter Rose
January 3, 2009, 06:25 PM
You misunderstand me, Wayne...

IF I were in a classroom, armed, and heard gunshots, I would do my level best for those around me (barricade the door, keep everyone as out of the line of fire as possible, etc). However, going and looking for the shooter, to me, would mean a high likelyhood of my wife becoming a widow. Since, presumably, everyone else there has the same availability of CCW, it was their choice to be unarmed: hence, I have no obligation to them. Those in the room with me just get lucky...

divemedic
January 3, 2009, 07:07 PM
I agree. Bar the door, put everyone in the room behind you, and barricade yourself behind a stout desk. Anyone who comes in is challenged. Why go looking for trouble?

azredhawk44
January 3, 2009, 07:09 PM
A Scenario: You are in a classroom where the only door leads to a hallway that has a number of other classrooms in it. You hear the unmistakable sound of gunshots and you know they are in your building. You draw your pistol and go to the door where you see a half dozen shocked people and someone steps out of another classroom holding a pistol. There are people between you and this person and one behind them. Now what do you do, Ranger? (This is what the instructors would ask us at uncomfortable moments in Ranger school.) Are you trained to deal with this situation? If the other person is a good guy is he/she trained to deal with it?

Very simple: You hold your room and hope that guy is holding his room. When you hear more gunshots and they don't come from either of your rooms, you now know you potentially have an ally.

Re: The "target-rich backstop" theory:

How is a university any different than a mall, movie theater or farmer's market... when analyzed in context of an active shooter and a responding armed population?

Aside from the raw elitism that oozes from the ivory towers?

The whole flaw in your logic, lwestatbus, is the idea of running towards gunfire. Let me spell it out for you: Don't.

Those that choose to be gun-less can either run for their lives or get slaughtered. Those that choose to be armed can defend themselves and those in immediate proximity, or choose to run for their lives or get slaughtered.

Your premise adds a degree of complexity to an audience with very little opportunity to become CCW certified in time to graduate anyways. The vast bulk of a theoretical armed student body would be Seniors and grad students. They only have 1-2 years to accomplish such a task in addition to their educational goals.

Why introduce ADDITIONAL certification? Other than to simulate protection for those ivory towers in a cloak of befuddled self deceit?

alloy
January 3, 2009, 07:26 PM
Very simple: You hold your room and hope that guy is holding his room.

makes perfect sense, and hopefully you(lwestatbus) have a student or two to help.

44 AMP
January 3, 2009, 08:40 PM
Beyond competent operation of the firearm is a through grounding in your legal rights and responsibilities. Period. NO training in tactics is required, nor should it be. As previously stated, the armed citizen is not a replacement LEO, nor are they intended to be.

All the citizen should be required to know is their legal role, their responsibility, should they need to fire in defense of self or others. ALL else is a personal decision of the individual, and should not be mandated by the state, or a university, in order to exercise the basic human right of self defense.

I can see no difference in a university, shool, mall, or any other location. Law abiding armed citizens are not a problem. If a ccw holder acts as a LEO, or some wanna be Rambo, and violates the law, come down on him like the hammer of the gods. Otherwise, ignore them.

Also as previously stated, the idea that one cannot have a gun on campus, while being legally able to do so other places is nothing more than pure bald faced elitism. College kids and professors are special and need to be more protected than the public at large? I, for one, heartily disagree.

BillCA
January 3, 2009, 09:47 PM
I think I see where lwestatbus was headed. From the OP, I could see a state issuing a standard CCW permit and some kind of endorsement for campus carry - much like some states do for adding a motorcycle endorsement to a driver's license. It says you've had the extra training/experience to be able to safely operate in a different environment.

Not that I necessarily agree, but I don't see this as a big deal. An adjunct course for an extra $50-$120 that covers specific differences for campus situations (or crowds perhaps). But the problem here is that in the aftermath, a it could give a prosecutor extra leverage to criticize anything you did.

In any target-rich situation - a campus, the mall's food court, a concert, inside a busy McDonalds, etc. - if the shooter is not stopped, anyone remaining in the area is a likely fatality.

I've mentioned this in other threads, using the San Ysidro, CA., McDonalds and Luby's cafeteria as examples. When a madman enters and begins firing indicsriminately, few people will immediately vacate the area. Most will sit in denial for several seconds before trying to leave or get their family to safety. Their movement may get them killed. Hiding under the table might get them killed too. If no one takes defensive action, scratch off anyone remaining inside after the first 15-30 seconds.

If a CCW holder engages and neutralizes the subject, but one of the his/her rounds injures another person, it is still a net gain if people walk out of there alive. Resultant injuries and deaths should be litigated against the estate of the crazy shooter for initiating the situation.[1]

As far as college shootings go, the same thing applies. VTech showed us that doing nothing results in mass casualties. A psychotic with a plan can delay arrival of LEOs with a simple chain and padlock. All those "potential backstops" become, instead, "potential fatalities".

To lwestatbus' scenario posted above:
Lacking any indications of violence from the gun toter in the hallway, it's a no-shoot. Since classroom doors usually open outward I'll be in a kneeling barricade position with the door open a minimum. If I have to look around the door, I'll be ready to reverse inside and defend the door from intrusion - IF it turns out he is the shooter. If he begins gunning down people in the hallway, I'll have to decide if I have a clear enough shot at any given moment or not. If not, other tactics may be employed, up to and including closing the door and defending my "local space" [classroom].

CCW holders don't have to engage directly either. They can be the "rear guard" on the door as other student exit from windows or other egress points.

I'm neither a SF operator nor a highly skilled SWAT member. My goal will be to minimize contact and help others escape and/or remain secure. If opportunity permits engagement to end the conflict, I may take it to end the threat.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 3, 2009, 10:01 PM
Why can't someone do both?

1. More than likely you are not trained to engage an active shooter in a gunfight (I don't think it is easy).

2. You have no duty to do so

3. You are not a LEO

4. You might get shot by some LEOs responding to the shooting

5. See number one above.

I can't imagine any jurist in his right mind convicting you of a crime or awarding a judgment against you for stopping a potential mass murderer.

I can definitely see it happening and it does all the time (mostly civil) to police who are sworn to protect us. Don't think for a minute some civilian wouldn't sue you for mental distress or damages if someone shot them by mistake trying to take out a BG.

Socrates
January 3, 2009, 11:55 PM
I'm kind of old, and, knowing I would go to jail if I pull a firearm, I'm STILL not going to sit there and let someone kill people. Well, maybe if I was in Congress...;)The sad part is I might have to wait until the guy actually shoots someone prior to engaging him, so that when the Monday Morning quarterbacking in the legal system see my actions, I have a solid basis for self-defense, or defense of others, that is not arguable.

I'd even pay to take it. Edit: I meant to imply here that the training would be for the right to carry on campus. I do not advocate in any way restricting existing rights to carry elsewhere.


We are already way down this slippery slope, and the deaths at campus', due to mad man shootings are already a matter of record. All these laws do is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Adding another layer of training, and or expense, is against the concept of Equal Protection.
It is NOT a perfect world, but, there is NOTHING reasonable about a ban on carrying firearms on campus, and the morons we elect to congress may get the warm and fuzzies when they pen such idiotic legislation, but, all it does is make schools a free fire zone. In this not so perfect world, we will not have perfectly trained citizens, unless we adapt the Swiss mode of training, and citizenship.

What really needs to be done is the knee jerk, stupid laws against carry on campus need to be revoked, and, we make up for in quanity what we lack in quality.

I can't help but think of the Airplane scene where the bad guy pulls a gun, and EVERYONE in the airplane draws on him. THAT would be a very sobbering, or short lived experience.

El Paso Joe
January 4, 2009, 01:29 PM
First, let me say that I agree with Iwestabus' position. I do not think that it is elitist. I do believe that some of it has to do with his training and experience (Welcome home. Thank you for your service.). In my 9+ years of college (and I was not stoned during any of it), I was the vet who sat in the corner of the room where I could see the door and was close to the exit (most rooms had two doors). No scenario in mind - just where I felt comfortable.

Even years ago when I do not think the laws were on the books, I did not CCW at school. These days students are told under no uncertain terms that if they carry, they will be expelled and reported to the police.

In a classroom, the person at the front of the class has a measure of responsibility and power. If gunshots are heard, the students will (somewhat naturally) look to them for direction - in many ways like the flight crew of an airplane. But here's the rub - on the airplane, the pilots may be trained to carry and there are (often) Air Marshals who will be carrying. Not so in the classroom.

There are some changes to the "hard wiring" that happens when one is exposed to hostile fire. The military will train their people to take the fight fork of the fight or flight reaction. Most students will not have the training or experience and will need to be led or they will freeze. This is the context of the OP as I understand it. If I were at the head of the class, I would want to be able to get them to safety and address the threat if need be. It would be a bonus if some students had been trained and were CCW. And if they were also vets, that would be even better.

Don H
January 4, 2009, 01:55 PM
The military will train their people to take the fight fork of the fight or flight reaction.
That's a pretty broad statement that is, in my military experience, not necessarily true.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 4, 2009, 02:16 PM
First, let me say that I agree with Iwestabus' position. I do not think that it is elitist. I do believe that some of it has to do with his training and experience

I guess I take a different tack. I do not view CCW holders as auxillary LEOs. If that is what you want then call it that and train them appropriately and pay them.

I view CCW as limited to protecting myself and my immediate family. Even though I have trained a bit with my firearm because I like to shoot, I have neither the training nor the duty nor the inclination to consider myself a volunteer LEO. I will report crime if I see it and render aid to injured folks if I can but I will use my CCW for my own self-defense only, and not to enforce the law.

I'm kind of old, and, knowing I would go to jail if I pull a firearm, I'm STILL not going to sit there and let someone kill people.

I am old too but I will stop somebody from killing me and mine and probably let the police do the other saving. That is a personal decision and for those that subscribe to the sheep dog model, have at it but realize you might suffer a lot for trying to be the hero.

What really needs to be done is the knee jerk, stupid laws against carry on campus need to be revoked, and, we make up for in quantity what we lack in quality.

Socrates, that stuff kind of scares me. Kind of like some of these militia debates I have had on here before.

Lots of people with guns I think serve more as a deterrent to crime individually rather than collectively. What I mean is that I believe that in an armed society (and I agree with you fully on the stupidity of gun free zones!)BGs fear the person they choose to attack might have a gun more than they believe that the whole community is armed and will rally and come to the aid of the victim. That is just my opinon, maybe you have evidence to the contrary.

However, as per the OP, untrained people with guns trying to function as LEOs is not something I would support, but then I don't think that is the purpose of CCW.

My bottomline is that there should be no gun free zones unless the zone itself has armed security and physical barriers (e.g. metal detectors) to keep all others from bringing in weapons, but the reason for CCW is not to protect either the airplane or the classroom but rather the individual who CCWs. If at the moment the CCW's self defense fortuitously helps others as well then great but acting as a LEO is where I get off that train.

divemedic
January 4, 2009, 03:16 PM
I'm STILL not going to sit there and let someone kill people.

Running deliberately to the sound of the guns without help can get you dead as well as the people that you attempted to help. You can save more people by creating and holding a defensible retreat than you can by stepping into a gunfight and getting yourself shot.

My first duty is to myself, then to my family, then to others. Getting home to my family is higher on my list than trying to be a hero.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 4, 2009, 03:28 PM
I've thought about this a long time and I come down on the side of not making faculty/staff on campuses empowered as agents of the state or school to act as pseudo-LEOs.

Being a teacher does not necessarily empower you to be captain of the ship or guardian of the class.

If one can obtain a permit/license to carry - it should be good on campuses.

Then you act accordingly to your values and the laws of self-defense - you have no added responsibility in a mandated fashion. If you want teachers to become LEOs - then they go to the academy and have the protections that officers have in post shooting incidents. They qualify every 4 months. They take intensive FOF training. They get liability protection and insurance coverage for their actions. That's if you want them to act pro-actively.

However, I do think it is morally mandated that if you talk the campus carry talk and get hissy about not having the priviledge you should train beyond the permit course (which is no tactical training). I've managed to get a fair amount of relevant training for a FOG - I'm no cop. But I have colleagues who rant about not being able to carry. So I say to them, if we went to the president and asked for permission to carry and he asked - well, what have you done to demonstrate competence? Many would have to say - Well, I shot a rock in the country and passed the trivial CHL test. And yes, I read Guns and Ammo. On the other hand, quite a few have significant training. Should the school have to parse this?

One hitch in a great deal of current debate is that the laws will only cover state schools and private schools will still be allowed to ban carry under the general provisions of the private property exemptions. That makes the latter schools more target attractive.

When I suggest this should not be the case, the private property zealots go nuts. They accept state mandates that they must have working toilets in their businesses or can't discriminate on race, etc. but then go crazy when one suggests they can't ban the right of self-defense. It's my castle, wah, wah!! So, don't have a business that invites folks in.

As far as the probability of you shooting an innocent: Schools are no different than other target rich, crowded places like malls or churches. You should be capable of knowing if you could take the shot.

Another psychological factor is that folks seem to have a principle that you don't take the life of an innocent even if it furthers the greater good. Meaning that for some reason it is better for more to die than kill an innocent to stop those deaths. Thus, the risk of a bystander taking a round, drives the argument for some.

I do appreciate the OP's analysis and don't think a reasoned approach is necessarily elitist. Unless the pros and cons are discussed without reflexive RKBAish rants - we get nowhere.

Note, I discussed faculty/staff carry - I am still mixed about student carry for several issues regarding the unusual nature of dorm life and the youngest possible carriers (21 years olds) that live on campus. They are in a different social circumstance than the returning mature adult student.

The current CCW/CHL folks tend to have a low trouble rate as they are older and seasoned by life. Students in dorms are a touch different and this issue takes more thought.

Last - most schools only care about liability issues and PR. Their programs are designed to be after the fact defenses against lawsuits and to maintain their images. They are focused on the best outcome for the corporate entity of the school and the outcome for the individuals (while sad and let's have a memorial service) is secondary.

johnwilliamson062
January 4, 2009, 03:41 PM
I have recently become really concerned about highway drivers. My sister has for years refused to drive on highways because she feels herself incapable of handling the higher speeds and merging. Recently she needed to drive on the highway for about a mile to get from one road to another and got in an accident(no injuries). I think that people who want to drive on the highway should take some sort of special "highway test." At higher speeds, with merging in to a lane filled with caravanning trucks that are tailgating each other to stay in the slipstream. If a person can not handle this they should have a lower level drivers license.
Amazing how "reasonable" these regulations on guns are when very similar regulations on automobiles are just crazy. Which claims more lives due to negligence again?
Don't forget your 0th amendment, your right to drive a car.

Webleymkv
January 4, 2009, 03:46 PM
The more I think about this, the more I realize that we may be mixing up two separate issues. I am adamantly opposed to government mandated "gun free zones" on college campuses. I am, however, equally opposed to the government telling colleges that they must allow their students and faculty to carry on campus. If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere. However, sweeping legal reprecussions for carrying on campus I do not support. Basically, I don't think that it's any of the government's business and that it should be left up to the individual institutions with penalties similar to those for violating other school policy (suspension, expulsion, etc.).

Note, I discussed faculty/staff carry - I am still mixed about student carry for several issues regarding the unusual nature of dorm life and the youngest possible carriers (21 years olds) that live on campus. They are in a different social circumstance than the returning mature adult student.

I see this argument quite a bit but I rarely hear of young CCW holders causing any more trouble than older ones. Here in Indiana, a CCW permit is available at age 18 with no class or training requirement and we still don't have any undue problems (I obtained my CCW at this age under these circumstances and never got into trouble more severe than a traffic ticket). I keep coming back to the notion that most people irresponsible enough to be reckless with a firearm are also too irresponsible to bother going through the process to obtain a CCL to begin with. I think you're also buying into a false assumption that older people are inherently more responsible than younger ones. I assure you that I've met several people well into their fifth and sixth decades of life who still did not have a responsible bone in their bodies as well as teenagers who were far more responsible than the majority of the adults I've met.

divemedic
January 4, 2009, 04:07 PM
If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere.

I will bet that the same college that says this has absolutely no problem accepting federal funding, federal grants, following federal education mandates, or any other government intrusion, but when it comes to concealed carry it all of a sudden becomes a property issue.

Webleymkv
January 4, 2009, 04:31 PM
I will bet that the same college that says this has absolutely no problem accepting federal funding, federal grants, following federal education mandates, or any other government intrusion, but when it comes to concealed carry it all of a sudden becomes a property issue.


And likewise, a person may choose not to attend or be employed by an institution that accepts such "government intrusions". All I'm saying is that it's a two way street. As a side note, I have my own opinions on on allotment of government money to such institutions, but that's really a separate issue that isn't within the realm of this particular discussion nor is it firearms related.

divemedic
January 4, 2009, 05:44 PM
Think about what you are saying:

I think that a college, being a private property owner, has exclusive right to control its property, and the government has no place intruding on this property, that is until it comes time for the government to pay.

My teenage daughter felt the same way. She told me over and over how it was her life, and how she was all grown up and responsible for herself. Then she asked for money.

Kind of hard to claim control over something that you have no responsibility for.

Bruxley
January 4, 2009, 07:53 PM
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.

Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.

The students, staff, faculty, vendors, contractors, and so on that go onto and off of campuses are no different after arrival then before. Further, the principle of the knowledge that law abiding citizens in a crowd are probably armed in an unknown number will influence someone tempted to act a fool with gun just as well on campus as off when it is common knowledge that those citizens are not restricted to do so as the risk is perceived to be high. The same is true that the knowledge that law abiding citizens are restricted, the risk is far less, events and where they occure pan this out the be true.

A couple more points, first, as campuses are not different then the other public places described above (malls, amusement parks, etc.) there need not be any specialized training required as would be needed in an aircraft.

Second, let us not forget that we carry for DEFENSE of self and others, NOT to clear rooms or secure perimeters. Too often carry gives some a FALSE sense that they are supplemental law enforcement or worse, para military operatives in waiting.

Lastly, in reading I have seen that some feel that the requisite class for concealed carry is supposed to be handgun training. While it would give me a bit of comfort to think that folks were ALL familiar with, and proficient in the use of their firearms it is not the premise of the classes. They are to assure that those people are familiar with the LAWFUL use of their firearms and the CONSEQUENCES of irresponsible use. Namely that they are not supplemental law enforcement nor should they ever take on para military adventures regardless of circumstance.

possum
January 4, 2009, 07:54 PM
I am a college faculty member and a concealed carry instructor.

I think every single CCW permit holder should be able to carry on every single inch of a public college or university.

I do not buy the idea of college being any more dangerous to carry in than a crowded McDonald's, or a crowded Wal-Mart, or a public park, or a hardware store, or any other place in public where it is legal to carry, and there are large numbers of people.

As for the scenario of hearing gun shots, pulling your gun, and heading out into the hallway, only to get popped by another over-zealous "do-gooder," I think that's misguided what-iffing.

As a CCW instructor who is also a college faculty member, if I hear shots in my building, and I'm in my classroom, and I have a pistol (not currently legal to have a pistol in my state) I don't go looking for the sound of the shots.

I barricade in my classroom, have students lay on the floor out of the line of the door as much as possible and designate somebody specific to call 9-11 and tell the operator my name, that I'm armed, what building, floor, and room we're in, and what we can hear going on in the building.

I also try to find out how many, if any, of my students have CCW permits and are also packing, and position them around the room strategically.

As far as colleges being "private property owners" that's all well and good until you start talking about colleges paid for, brick by brick, with public tax dollars.

If you're a private institution, well that's one thing.

But a heck of a lot of colleges are funded with public tax dollars.

I am certified by my state to teach the CCW course for my state.

But my state also says that I have to be unarmed at work.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

possum

possum
January 4, 2009, 08:12 PM
One more thing, that's bound to ruffle some feathers on this thread.

Here's my response to the posts on this thread arguing that there need to be special restrictions on which CCW holders can or cannot carry on a college campus because of the "special circumstances" allegedly found on a college campus.


I defer to a higher authority here, specifically David Codrea's statement on his War On Guns blog about the "only ones."

http://www.waronguns.blogspot.com/


"About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents. "

gretske
January 4, 2009, 08:50 PM
The point is not whether CCW permit holders run to the defense of others in a situation, the point is that they be able to protect themselves in such a circumstance. If there are enough CCW holders around, then the potential for mass murder, ala Virginia Tech, is greatly reduced.

Further, any CCW holder who has as their objective, any goal other than to protect themselves or their immediate family, is sadly mistaken. There is no obligation to act in defense of others. In fact, in most states, a CCW holder is prohibited from acting in defense of others. The fact that there are legal defenses if a CCW holder does act in defense of others, does not change the law.

Again, if there are enough CCW holders, able and ready to defend themselves carrying in enough places, the opportunity for mass murder is greatly reduced.

Finally, a CCW that does not require at least a minimal performance standard with a live weapon may put the holder at risk if they do act. If your state does not require weapons proficiency as part of the licensing, you would be well advised to attend a recognized self-defense class. This will give you at least a very basic understanding, and provide an affirmative defense in the event of an incident.

If you genuinely want to protect others, become a LEO; otherwise, learn to protect you and yours only.

Webleymkv
January 4, 2009, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by divemedic
I think that a college, being a private property owner, has exclusive right to control its property, and the government has no place intruding on this property, that is until it comes time for the government to pay.


As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue. Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding. Under your guidelines, I'd sure hate to be a company that gets a government grant or contract. Remember, government micromanagement can work both ways. The federal government, under your ideals, could just as easily force private compaines (General Motors and Chrysler come to mind) that accept government money to enact draconian firearms policies.

Originally posted by Bruxley
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.

Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.


And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property. Please don't misunderstand me, I think such policies are pointless and misguided and I think that having legal reprecussions to violating such policies is stupid as well. However, I think that the situation on college campuses should be similar to that of a business that prohibits firearms on it's premises: someone who violates such policy may be asked to leave and an employee who violates the policy may be dismissed. The other side of the coin is that as a student or educator, I now have the choice to seek out another institution without such inane policy. Unfortunately, under the current circumstances, I don't have that choice as firearms are banned on all campuses by law rather than by individual policy.

divemedic
January 4, 2009, 09:42 PM
Apparently, you favor government micromanagement of anything and everything that gets any government funding.

Actually, I don't. I just feel that it is hypocritical to complain when the government interferes in your business when you just got done taking the government's money.

You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.

Webleymkv
January 4, 2009, 09:56 PM
You see, in order to accept government money, you have to support the government taking that money from someone else. This tells me that you are only opposed to the government interfering in YOUR affairs, while having no objection to the government interfering in MY affairs.


In post #34, I said the following

As a side note, I have my own opinions on on allotment of government money to such institutions, but that's really a separate issue that isn't within the realm of this particular discussion nor is it firearms related.


In post #40, I said this

As I said, I have my own opinions about allotment of government funds to colleges but that's another issue.

Apparently, you didn't quite understand my meaning in those two statements so I'll be blunt about it (Mods, I apologize for the possible thread veer).

I don't like nor do I support the allotment of tax money to supposedly private colleges as their private status is what allows them to charge correspondingly high tuition. I also oppose government bailouts of private companies like Chrysler and GM. So no, I don't feel as though I'm being hypocritical. As far as state colleges go, the way I see it the campus is the government's property and if they don't want guns on it then that is part of their property rights. The nice thing about government colleges is that unlike most other government institutions, if I don't like their policies I have the option to go somewhere else. I do not, however, view violation of the government's property rights as being any more serious than violation of anyone elses. I cannot have someone arrested for bringing something I object to onto my property, all I can do is tell them to take their objectionable object and leave. If they refuse to do so, then I may have them arrested for trespassing but that's another circumstance.

Bruxley
January 4, 2009, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Bruxley
Quote:
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.

Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.


And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property.

Point of clarification, I was addressing the assertion that 'above and beyond' training be required to carry on campus, not wether or not campuses do or don't have the right to restrict firearms.

For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.

State laws must be challenged and I believe that if challenge in the SCOTUS in it's current incarnation that the challenge would succeed. Scalia's own words in the Opinion of the Court in Heller v. DC could show a right to bear such arms in a public setting for self defense as he has expressed in that decision that 'bearing' arms in the event of confrontation is in fact a right. Walking onto a university or college campus as a public place is not a contractual agreement to waive that right.

It could be argued that since it has been established by Heller v. DC as a right, just as freedom of speach and of the press are rights, the the right to bear arms can no more be waived by de facto of entering a campus then the right to protest, pass out flyers expressing unpopular ideas, or distribution of newspapers can. Can a College or University use the fact that it is private property to seach your Dorm room and seize your property restricting your 4th Amendment right against such action? Can they tell you you can't say certain things or read certain publications? Clearly not. Then why accept that the defense of your own life be second to the predilictions of a board or faculty to gun bans?

(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf))

Quote:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

emphasis mine


I see the decision specifically stating that the second amendment, just like the 1st and 4th are CODIFIED rights. It would be a strain to try and say a College or University campus is not a public setting.

Webleymkv
January 5, 2009, 12:33 AM
For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.


While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit. The proprieter of most businesses is well within his rights to expel you from his business if you exercise your 1st Amendment rights in a vulgar or offensive fashion that he takes issue with. I see no reason why the same would not apply to the 2nd amendment. Like I said, I am totally against a college having you arrested for carrying a gun on campus, but I think that it is within their rights, whether we agree with it or not, to expel you from their campus if you choose to violate their no-firearms policy.

Bruxley
January 5, 2009, 01:12 AM
While the owner of a private property cannot take legal action against you for violating policies that are in conflict with COTUS, he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

I realize we agree fundamentally and hope you don't find me as challenging you as if we do not. But asking someone to leave is a far stretch from making law against such a right. I would have issue with someone bearing their firearm in a threatening fashion such as pointing it at people or simply waiving it around wildly. But to have it concealed.....with a permit to do so elsewhere.....no, not a constitutional law. And a general policy against it is no different then policies against distribution of pro-choice literature or against a specific newspaper being on campus. How about a no praying on campus policy or a policy that your on-campus housing be subject to search for any reason that campus security or faculty finds fit.

Don't like it, well don't come on campus, or to the bus stops or depots or supermarkets or Parks or......etc., etc.

Tolerating a LAW against a RIGHT out of coercion due to loss of employment or housing would have people up in...well...arms if it were the right to free speech, press, religion, against unreasonable search or seizure or warrentless wiretapping or mail being opened and read before delivery to on-campus housing.

The point is that a premise has been made that College or Universities are somehow different them other public places. They are not just a group of schoolhouse buildings that are left empty when school is out. They are always open, public spaces, with shops and public streets, and public events, shows, theaters, museums, libraries, etc. They are as public as any place.

What place is more public then a College or University campus after all.

Easier question, if a law directly conflicts with a civil right, is it valid? If a public policy does is it valid.

A bit of quick research without an in-depth digging reveals that the wide majority of Universities are in fact public. Further I found no law against carrying on private University campus . Virginia Tech is a State, not private, University.

State property open to the general public would find it very hard to assert private property rights to infringe upon Constitutional rights if that right were anything other then the right to bear arms.

divemedic
January 5, 2009, 06:03 AM
he or she may expel you from that property for any reason that he or she sees fit.

Really? And here I thought that the "no coloreds" signs were illegal.

Property rights are mostly codified rights, and they can easily be legislatively modified (with a few minor exceptions) Just like the Civil rights act bans discrimination against race, religion, etc., a law can be passed allowing concealed carry, and prohibiting a business that is open to the public from barring people on that basis. There is nothing in the COTUS preventing such a law.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 5, 2009, 12:07 PM
Private colleges stagger under all kinds of regulation. I was on the Animal Research committee - you should see what kinds of approvals are need and legally mandated for a chicken or a rat to keep them safe and happy.

We are mandated to provide certain facilities for you to take a dump in or else the state comes a calling.

The way sports teams are funded and opportunities for gender equality are controlled.

How crime is reported is mandated by the government.

So when the private property folks say - It's private - they basically have blinders on.

Only when it comes to denying the right of self-defense do these folks have a hissy. How many of you didn't send your kid to college because there were state laws about the crapper or the rat cage? Did you stand on principle then?

Al Norris
January 5, 2009, 12:17 PM
After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

rsgraebert
January 5, 2009, 02:44 PM
I read through the responses and I didn't see any (sorry if I missed) addressing the REAL reason I think everyone should be able to carry on campus. I don't fear much for the lone shooters who take out places like Virginia Tech. They're few and far apart. While an armed student could possibly stop a thing like that, it's a spaghetti plate of hypothetical guesses. While those incidents are tragic, they are thankfully too rare to be statistically significant in terms of personal protection and your actual chances of being involved.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings (or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex) other than sprinting to a blue-lit phone and hoping the police get there before it's over. The commonplace muggings, assaults, and rapes on campuses need to be addressed. Think like a criminal: Where do you seek a victim, at the shopping mall parking lot or the campus parking lot? Lots of classes run until 8-9 PM, and predictably unarmed students disperse into the dark every night of the week. If I were looking for $5 for my next crack rock, I'd be sitting in one of those school parking lots with a baseball bat and a plan.

These every day crimes don't involve people being used as backstops the way the OP described the situation. It's you and bubba, all alone - may the best armed win.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 5, 2009, 04:59 PM
What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

Well, I was asleep at the wheel again Al;) Anyway, you know how I am about the militia anyway so I won't rehash that.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

You are completely correct! Any rule or law that forces you to choose between safety and being legal or employed is immoral. I agrued this in the T&T forum and one guy there said I was dishonest!:mad: He said I waived my right to self defense in order to enjoy the benefit of employment or whatever. Sounded like the Brady's. Nobody "waives" their right to SD and if they are forced to it is wrong!

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact.

And may not after the fact! Many companies might be protected by legal precedent from lawsuit which does you no good if you are dead. Ultimately as we all know self-defense is OUR responsibility.

No sir, what I worry about is walking down a half-lit campus street with no recourse to muggings

In my county the NRA and some of us stopped an initiative that would have banned the carrying of legal firearms in county buildings. One of the commissioners I called to complain about this proposed ordinance asked why I needed a gun in the library (one of the places they wanted to prohibit CCW) I told him I needed a gun there for the same reason I needed it in a dark alley or a rest stop on the Interstate at 2:00AM. To protect myself from harm.

JuanCarlos
January 5, 2009, 05:11 PM
Isn't there something unconstitutional about this? I don't even technically live on campus and my right to own a gun is (I feel) being violated.

Last I read up on the issue, it's legal. They simply have to have some reason for doing it, they can't do it explicitly because they just don't like guns...but "safety of other residents" counts. At least in my state, this could very well vary elsewhere. I wish I could cite this at the moment, but it was quite some time ago that I read it...so weight it appropriately.

In general property owners' rights will trump second amendment rights, and in most cases I'd even argue that this is appropriate.

(or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex)

Members of the not-so-fair sex have been raped on my campus. Forcibly. In nice, safe, gun-free dorms.



Up here even older, nontraditional students living in graduate/family housing, which are functionally no different than apartments, simply owned by the "school," are forbidden from keeping handguns or any loaded long guns in their units. There's also a fun "hunting" clause regarding long guns, so while vague I'm pretty sure a whole plethora of weapons that are otherwise legal off-campus are illegal for them.

I say owned by the "school" because of course this is a public university, so these are theoretically state buildings (this is what they invoke for banning firearms and carry indoors elsewhere).

The question I have is whether this even is legal. I seem to remember coming across a ruling (Tinker, perhaps? been a while, and I don't have time to look now) regarding situations in which an employer also acts as an agent of the state (in this case, a public school district). Thus they must have Constitutionally valid reasons for infringing rights that private employers would otherwise be free to, because they act as the state as well. I wonder if such a standard could ever be applied to situations in which the state acts as landlord (since it's essentially the state renting these housing units to families).

At that point I see no way the ban in place at my university would pass Constitutional muster. It already failed in D.C., right?

Of course, it would probably be a long legal battle to assert this, and with the average resident spending at most 4-6 years in such a situation the school will always have the upper hand...apathy is on their side.

Or it's possible that this is simply Constitutional to begin with.

Bruxley
January 6, 2009, 12:12 AM
This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.

Let's take away the private verses State ownership issue for a moment and just assume that they are all private as that is where the ownership rights causes the snag.

Even if the streets and businesses areas and infrastructure and grounds are privately owned they operate open wide to the public. Not just open to the public as a mall or amusement park or grocery store are, but wide open in that the streets are always accessible, shops used by the residences of the city as well as those on campus, and are as public as any other place can be.

MARSH v. STATE OF ALA., 326 U.S. 501 (1946) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=326&invol=501)

In this case we are asked to decide whether a State, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management. The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama, known as Chickasaw, is owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Except for that it has all the characteristics of any other American town. The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a 'business block' on which business places are situated. A deputy of the Mobile County Sheriff, paid by the company, serves as the town's policeman. Merchants and service establishments have rented the stores and business places on the business block and [326 U.S. 501, 503] the United States uses one of the places as a post office from which six carriers deliver mail to the people of Chickasaw and the adjacent area. The town and the surrounding neighborhood, which can not be distinguished from the Gulf property by anyone not familiar with the property lines, are thickly settled, and according to all indications the residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block and upon arrival a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.

A campus has the same charachteristics. If fact, a company town and a campus are very much the same kind of establishment.

We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question. 2 The State urges in effect that [326 U.S. 501, 506] the corporation's right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We can not accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. As we [326 U.S. 501, 508] have heretofore stated, the town of Chickasaw does not function differently from any other town. The 'business block' serves as the community shopping center and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through. The managers appointed by the corporation cannot curtail the liberty of press and religion of these people consistently with the purposes of the Constitutional guarantees, and a state statute, as the one here involved, which enforces such action by criminally punishing those who attempt to distribute religious literature clearly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

As it has been established that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments are pre-existing rights [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876)]they hold equal standing in indeliblity. In the case above it was the 1st and 14th Amendments and the distribution of religious materials being restricted, on todays campuses it is the 2nd Amendment and the right of law abiding, even permit holding, citizens to BEAR arms in case of confrontation that is being overtly infringed and States have, and enforce, laws that are unconstitutional to enable this.

Regardless of ownership, campuses are so wide open to the public they cannot constitutionally restrict law abiding citizens to responsibly carry while on campus. Surly the status of adult student doesn't make forfeit that students civil rights.

Webleymkv
January 6, 2009, 01:02 PM
This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.


Here is where I think we're misunderstanding each other. I do not support government enforced laws banning carry on campus. What I'm saying is that the individual campuses may institute their own individual policies with consequences that don't have legal ramifications. I view it no differently than many companies' no-weapons policies for their employees. With the exception of a few very sensitive jobs, you cannot be arrested for carrying at work, but you can be fired if your employer takes issue with it. If you refuse to leave company premises after you've been fired, then your employer may have you arrested, but for trespassing rather than for carrying. I do indeed feel that laws against carrying on campus are unconstitutional but I don't feel that school policy against it can be unconstitutional because school policy is not law and violation of such policy doesn't necessarily carry legal ramifications.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 6, 2009, 02:49 PM
My philosophical view is that companies have no right to control behavior that is not directly related to the job. Whether there are legal precedents for this or that - I'm not a lawyer. I speak from my viewpoint. You cannot be fired for behavioral actions not relevant to the job.

A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.

For example - it is quite reasonable to say you can't carry a gun around the MRI. That's dangerous. I might even go so far as to say that open carry might be forbidden as it might detract from dealing with some customers. But concealed carry wouldn't.

Thus, if you wore a large Christian or Jewish or Islamic symbol around your chest outside your clothes - then that might be problematic - I saw an argument about this on the tube. But the company could not ban you from wearing a discrete cross, etc. under your shirt.

If a guy wanted to wear ladies underwear - not the companies' business or if a woman was wearing boxers (seen it done - :eek: - but that's for my memoirs), not the company's business.

There would have to be an evidential case made based on empirical data that licensed concealed carry is dangerous for the company to ban it under penalty of job loss. If not, then it is not their business and I am quite OK with legislation that prevents companies from engaging in control of the right for self-defense.

The property right is a specious argument in this instance. I would remind you again, that property rights types on the Internet do not have the same motivation as companies. The latter ONLY carries about the bucks. You are not defending champions of liberty, here.

Bruxley
January 6, 2009, 04:06 PM
The more I think about this, the more I realize that we may be mixing up two separate issues. I am adamantly opposed to government mandated "gun free zones" on college campuses. I am, however, equally opposed to the government telling colleges that they must allow their students and faculty to carry on campus. If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere. However, sweeping legal reprecussions for carrying on campus I do not support. Basically, I don't think that it's any of the government's business and that it should be left up to the individual institutions with penalties similar to those for violating other school policy (suspension, expulsion, etc.).


I was addressing this kind of point of view. As stated above, campus are too public to assume dominion of all that enter. The faculty may decide that it is or isn't acceptable terms of the job offer but employer prerogative extends no further then the employees in such a public setting. The administration of the school has not legitimate authority to assert a policy the subdues civil rights to all who enter the campus as it is too public.

As an employer myself I have not made known a gun policy as asserting an 'allowed' or 'disallowed' position. Obvious reasons to not proclaim a 'guns allowed' need not be stated. When asked about the policy I have responded that if it is legal and unseen how could I have a problem with it. That has always been enough said about the matter.

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 6, 2009, 04:20 PM
Just as an aside - years ago, my father's employer told him that he had to register in a specific political party to keep his job during the Depression.

Is that legit? What aspects of behavior not relevant to the job, can an employer control?

Webleymkv
January 6, 2009, 05:37 PM
Bruxley, it is generally legally accepted that a business may post a "no firearms" sign in their window (as an example, the closest Jared jewelery store has one). Ignoring such a sign even carries legal reprecussions in certain states (though I do disagree with it here, it's not the government's responsibility to enforce inane company policies). Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.


You're correct, a campus has no special standing that a Wal-Mart or McDonalds (both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish) does not. They are also incapable of usurping my civil rights as I have to allow them to do so by stepping onto their campus.

rampage841512
January 6, 2009, 07:04 PM
After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

*Standing ovation*

divemedic
January 6, 2009, 07:52 PM
both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish

Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.

A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.

Bruxley
January 6, 2009, 08:33 PM
Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?


Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.

Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.

Here is the analogy that the SCOTUS used in the Marsh case cited above:
Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 , 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. 3 And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the on before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce. Port Richmond & Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, supra, 234 U.S. at page 326, 34 S.Ct. at page 823, and cases cited, 234 U.S. at pages 328, 329, 34 S. Ct. at pages 824, 825; cf. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, 303 U.S. 177, 625 , 58 S.Ct. 510. Had the corporation here owned the segment of the four-lane highway which runs parallel to the 'business block' and operated the same under a State franchise, doubtless no one would have seriously contended that the corporation's property interest in the highway gave it power to obstruct through traffic or to discriminate against interstate commerce. See [326 U.S. 501, 507] County Commissioners v. Chandler, 96 U.S. 205 , 208; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., supra, 199 U.S. at page 294, 26 S.Ct. at page 94; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112, 125. And even had there been no express franchise but mere acquiescence by the State in the corporation's use of its property as a segment of the four-lane highway, operation of all the highway, including the segment owned by the corporation, would still have been performance of a public function and discrimination would certainly have been illegal. 4


We do not think it makes any significant constitutional difference as to the relationship between the rights of the owner and those of the public that here the State, instead of permitting the corporation to operate a highway, permitted it to use its property as a town, operate a 'business block' in the town and a street and sidewalk on that business block.


In short, when they became open for general public use they distinguished themselves from a private home owner or place of business.

Cawnc4
January 6, 2009, 09:32 PM
The thread above this one kindof hurt my head to read it (im tired) so I am just going to ask a simple question. Supposing I owned a college, And I am able to kick people off my campus for having weapons, Why couldnt I kick out black people?

Hunter Rose
January 6, 2009, 09:41 PM
Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination. And it's considered unlawful to discriminate based on race...

Cawnc4
January 6, 2009, 09:46 PM
So then kicking people with weapons of the campus isnt discrimination against people with weapons?

Bruxley
January 6, 2009, 09:54 PM
The key phrase in the Marsh opinion, and what may help clarify the distinguishment is "Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.

That goes for a privately owned stretch of highway, but not a privately owned farm. It goes for a privately owned 'company town' but not a grocery store. It goes for a campus, but not a Wal-Mart. Farms, grocery stores, and Wal-marts are not for general public use, they are specific uses. They are not operated to benefit the public, they are operated to sell wares or services. Highways, 'company towns', and Universities are built and operated to benefit the public and their operation is primarily a public function therefore property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

maestro pistolero
January 6, 2009, 11:09 PM
The "target-rich backstop" theory:

If someone is intentionally slaughtering people, then the chance of a stray bullet hitting a bystander that was intended for the perpetrator is one worth taking. The perpetrator's next unchecked shot will likely take take down an innocent life anyway.

Training issue:
If the CCW training is insufficient for campus carry, then it's insufficient, period, and ought to be improved. Contrary to what scholastics like to imply about campuses, they are not holier ground than a movie theatre, grocery store, or bank property. Innocent life is present everywhere.

Webleymkv
January 6, 2009, 11:24 PM
Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.

A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.


Depends, in some states, carrying a firearm into a business with a "no firearms" sign posted is a crime. Texas is one example

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm

Now, that being said, I do not agree with such a law. I believe that it's withing the business owner's rights to ask you to leave but I'm against their inane policy being enforced by the law.

Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.

Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.


Does a college not provide a service by providing you with an education in exchange for tuition and technology fees? I think a better example of what you're describing would be a city or county hospital. While such a place is privately owned, it has entered into an agreement not to turn people away or refuse service. Thusly, many people who are seeking the services of such a hospital have no other option. A college on the other hand can and will refuse to render their service if you do not pay their fees and a person does have the option to seek that service elsewhere should you disagree with their policies. Your quote states

Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function

All these businesses are ones that are otherwise operated by the government and are deemed essential to the day to day operation of society. Higher education simply does not fit this criteria.

Supposing I owned a college, And I am able to kick people off my campus for having weapons, Why couldnt I kick out black people?

Because kicking someone out for carrying a weapon is kicking them out for their behavior. Kicking them out for being black is kicking them out for their race which they have no control over.

Hunter Rose
January 6, 2009, 11:32 PM
Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...

Webleymkv
January 6, 2009, 11:40 PM
Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...

I couldn't agree more.

Al Norris
January 7, 2009, 12:09 AM
Race, gender, etc. are "protected classes," according to case law. Gun owners (people with weapons) are not a protected class. Hence, no possible discrimination.

Bruxley
January 7, 2009, 12:29 AM
Webleymkv,
As a campus, I am referring to a wide area consisting of residential housing, shops, professional offices, theaters, museums, and a wide variety of actives available to the general public and open grounds available for general use by the general public, even University hospitals to serve the general public. ALL on campus. Not to mention public paved roads, water, sewer, and some provide their own electricity, phone, and INTERNET services which are accessible at any time while either on, or traveling through campus-even when no classes are being held.

These are much more then the big classroom building with a parking lot you may be envisioning. University and college campuses are much more like a town within a city then they are a typical business setting. They are public places generally used by the surrounding general public for a great number things.

Without being familiar with the area you could have gone to the bank, driven to a restraint and picked up lunch for you are a friend to meet and play football in one of the open areas, picked up a paper and met your date for a show and afterwords took a walk in the night and never known you had come onto campus. You could even get a place for the night so you can be close by for the parade and street fair the next day.

Your hospital example causes me to think your not getting the concept of general public use. Try reading the Marsh opinion if you haven't already and put in 'campus' where they talk about Chickasaw. You'll see that it fits like a glove on a hand how campuses, especially the larger ones, are run, built and arranged and what the justice state about the conpany toen in the case. Maybe the opinion itself will do a better job of illustrating the distinguishment between privately owned businesses that are open to the public and privately owned facility built and operated to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it's owner's property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

If a University campus were just a big building and a parking lot that's singular activity were holding class rather then of a small community within a larger municipality then the rebuttals you present might make comparing them with retail stores or a hospital might be more compelling.

Webleymkv
January 7, 2009, 10:03 AM
Bruxley, I think I understand your point about large university campuses and agree that such an institution has no right to ban guns in the private businesses and roadways that happen to fall within the campus area. I do, however, maintain that it is within their rights to ban guns, with properly posted signs, within buildings that belong to the college.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 7, 2009, 11:14 AM
So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).

Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.

Or are 'property rights' so important? Recall, I see no business types going to war over having to have toilets or no cooties in your pizza.

About training - there is a subtle issue here:

1. If the state allows carry - then the training should whatever is mandate by that state's carry law. What that should be is a separate issue.

2. If you ask the college administration to grant you carry permission, separate from state laws (they can do that) - if I were a president, I would ask a potential carrier if they have trained for a high intensity gun fight.

3. If you do see yourself as a protector of the young and proactive (another debate about what you want for a role) and make that argument, you are not as defensible if you have taken the time to train.

4. As I mentioned before about the backstop problem, it's well know that a death of an innocent caused by taking some action is emotionally unacceptable to many even if a cost benefit analysis suggests it is sensible.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 7, 2009, 11:41 AM
A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.

Glenn, this may be your opinion but in many states employers may fire you for no cause. They might just not like you and they can fire you if they choose. The law only says they can't fire you for specific things like your race, religion and so forth. They have a lot of leeway there.

However, if the choice is safety or employment then the employer has offered you an immoral (but maybe legal) choice that you might disobey in good conscience.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 7, 2009, 12:32 PM
TG - that's why I stated my opinion. Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.

I would extend similar analyses to the RKBA. It would not be allowed to fire those who carry for that stated reason. If we saw a discernible pattern of CCW/CHL employees being fired, then as with any other protected class discrimination pattern, the employer then gets their butt kicked.

About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.

Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.

So, for a quite silly example - Rosa Parks disobeyed and made a moral stand. If she had tried through a disguise to pass as white to sit in the front of the bus, just to have a good seat - then that might not be seen, by some, as a greater moral action.

Whether there is moral decision making without some ultimate self-interest is one debated by folks for a zillion years.

To return to the point. I regard carry as a basic right and support legislation to remove the ability to modify employment based on carry (except for techy stuff). Current laws need to be changed on this regard.

Webleymkv
January 7, 2009, 09:19 PM
So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).

Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.


What you're missing is that there is a fundamental difference between carrying a firearm and one's race or religion. Carrying a firearm is a behavior while race and religion are not. I have no control over my race and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior. Saying that an institution must allow someone to carry a firearm onto their premises would be analagous to saying that that same institution must also allow someone to perform a religious ceremony on their premises. I don't think that many would disagree that banning certain religious ceremonies such as animal sacrifice on an institutions premises is unreasonable. While that is an extreme example, the principle is the same. You may hold whatever belief you wish, but you may not necessarily perform ceremonies of that belief anywhere you like.

To use your Rosa Parks example, had Rosa Parks been refused a seat on the bus because she was wearing a tee-shirt with derogatory phrases about whites on it, I'd say that the bus company's action is completely justified. However, her race was something that she had no control over as she did not choose to be born black, white, asian, latino or any other race. As such, the bus company's actions were unjust as she was punished for something over which she had no control and did not harm or otherwise infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

You have to look at this from another perspective. Some people may not feel safe or comfortable working, doing business, or otherwise having activity in a place where people may be carrying firearms. Is that belief rational? I don't think so but that's their belief and I have no right to impose my belief on them just as they have no right to impose theirs on me. If the decision of whether or not to allow firearms was left up to the individual institution, then both that person and myself have the freedom to work, do business, or pursue an education in an institution that is in line with our beliefs. A law saying that an entire group of institutions must allow carry is just as oppressive as one banning carry in an entire group of institutions. Obviously there are exceptions as Bruxley has pointed out, but college owned facilites such as classroms, offices, stadiums or gymnasiums do not fall within such exceptions.

divemedic
January 7, 2009, 09:29 PM
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.

Not in this country. Note:

Muslim woman can sue to wear veil in license photo
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/06/28/veil-suit.htm)

Muslim women sue and win case against UPS over dress code dispute (http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/muslim-women-sue-and-win-case-against.html)

Imams removed from plane sue US Airways (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601729/)

AirTran Airways apologized Friday to nine Muslims kicked off a New Year's Day flight to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/02/nine-muslim-passengers-ki_n_154750.html)

pax
January 7, 2009, 09:35 PM
Show me the numbers.

Concealed carry is legal on campus in several states.

Show me how college students, faculty, and members of the public on campus in these states have been endangered or harmed by lawfully carried concealed weapons.

Show me the blood running in the streets and the lives destroyed by lawfully carried weapons in these states.

Show me how deadly the lack of restrictive laws has been for the folks who live in states where concealed carry on campus is legal.

I want facts, not emotions. Show me the numbers.

It is right that the burden of proof be placed upon those who would limit or outlaw a certain behavior, not upon those who would maintain the natural state of freedom.

pax

Webleymkv
January 7, 2009, 10:11 PM
Quote:
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.

Not in this country. Note:


A graphic example of the same principle being taken to the extreme. I view such cases as just as bad.

lwestatbus
January 7, 2009, 10:15 PM
I've been away from the post for a few days. It sure sparked some interest.

Here are a couple of addenda to my original thoughts:


My ideas were based on the premise that the government would control the ability to carry. I'm not saying I agree with that but that is the way it is. Florida also prohibits carry into certain large venues such as sporting events. It also prohibits carry in bars (you can take it into the Red Lobster but stay out of the bar area) as well as "notorious establishments." Many of the responses here were actually addressing that issue more than the OP thoughts.
There were some very insightful posts about the difference between self defense (hold the fort until the cavalry arrives) and active engagement (you ARE the cavalry). I had not considered this issue when I made the OP. I would head for the gunfire. They are my kids. Think whatever you might. That's the way it is for me.

Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination.LOL, we kick people off campus all the time. We discriminate against them because they are stupid or lazy (and sometimes because of some just plain unfortunate circumstances).

Finally, a nod to the young vets who contributed to the thread. I returned back to campus after one year in Kuwait and Iraq in the first rotation and the invasion. I am now seeing a large number of combat vets in my classes. I would LOVE to have them around if someone starts trouble. We'd fire and maneuver his butt into oblivion.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 8, 2009, 11:12 AM
I would like to return to my example of a male wearing ladies' underwear.

It is concealed.

Some folks might think wearing ladies' underwear is predictive of a risk to society.

It is a behavior.

Does the boss have a right to ban a male from wearing ladies' underwear and demand the right to inspect you to see if you do such (as they might to detect a concealed weapon)?

As Pax says, the risk of concealed carriers going berserk is very low. It is probably as low as the risk of males wearing ladies' underwear going nuts and nailing you with the stapler.

So by suggesting that concealed carry per se is a significant risk, we negate the argument for allowing it anywhere.

As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.

Don H
January 8, 2009, 11:58 AM
Fortunately, in my state the Legislature has not granted state-owned and funded colleges and universities the authority to make such policies regarding CCW.

Webleymkv
January 8, 2009, 05:49 PM
As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.


But therin lies the rub. Who gets to determine what behavior disrupts the job? If an employee who is carrying prints or otherwise accidentally exposes his firearm and frightens a customer or co-worker, does that not disrupt the business? While I agree that the chances of an employee legally carring a gun causing trouble are quite low, who are you or I to tell an institution what does and does not disrupt their business or operation?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 8, 2009, 05:58 PM
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.

I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).

The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.

Webleymkv
January 8, 2009, 06:23 PM
The legislative process can inform the business as to this.

Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions. You have to look at this outside the realm of just RKBA, what other behavior might the gov't tell institution they must allow? Romantic relationships between employees aren't necessarily disruptive, but I don't hear anyone saying that we need legeslative action to protect them as they have the potential to be very disruptive. Many people view company dress codes as overly restrictive, should the government mandate abolition of those as well?

I am old enough to recall an argument where I used to work that we should have to hire women as their presence among men would disrupt the work process (as we guys would go mad with lust, I suppose).

Once again, a person doesn't have control over their gender (without elective surgery anyway) and thus refusing to hire one sex or the other is discrimination. They're two separate issues.

The small risk of an accidental exposure by an employee would have to been seen as a differential risk as compared to the accidental exposure of a CCW by a mall shopper.


I agree the accidental exposure of an employees firearm is no less disruptive than the accidental exposure of a customer's. That's why a mall should have the right to prohibit customers from having firearms on their premises if they wish.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 8, 2009, 07:00 PM
Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.

Agreed, but religion is a protected class. Carrying firearms is not.

About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.
Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.

Glenn, to me, denying a person the right to defend themselves (a God given right that cannot be "waived") and then offering no reasonable protection as a result IS a moral question as is this thread I think. Any rule that forces you to choose between feeding your family, going to school and staying alive is immoral and IMO you have no moral requirement to follow it. Openly or otherwise. You may be punished if you are caught but that is true with any immoral law or rule.

The Rosa Parks example doesn't fit since she was publicly trying to show the evils of racial discrimination. If disguising herself to save her own life was needed, she would not be dishonest for doing so.

Some people will say: "Get another job!" "Go to another school!" "Move!"
but in my CCW class I had 12 out of 15 in class who happened to be female. They were getting their permits (all of them) because at some point they had been threatened by ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands. As long as those guys were after them they weren't safe ANYWHERE. So, if a school says no carry and the ex comes in and kills the women on campus who cannot carry because she "follows the rules" , how does that seem?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 9, 2009, 10:53 AM
Sorry, I've seen too many bad results from government interference in private institutions to completely trust trust them with such decisions.

I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.

One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.

I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.

So I equate self-defense as a right equal with religious beliefs and ethnic/racial identifiers for being protected from the vagaries of employers who only care about their bottom line.

If you disagree with that view, then that's it.

The equating is crucial to me. Being a FOG, I do recall my mother telling me of having to lie about her religion to get a job in the Depression. I supposed if we had the Internet. then, the businesses would have some philosophical blather about why private property rights gave them the right to only have White Christian males at work (not bashing that group - but that's the truth of that time).

Tennessee Gentleman
January 9, 2009, 12:17 PM
I opine that the basic right of self-defense should be protected and not alterable by an employee except for technical reasons. The rights of the property owner (who opened for business) do not trump this as the risk argument is not empirically supported.

Glenn, you and I have a serious case of agreement here. Which BTW IS a moral issue:D

Glenn E. Meyer
January 9, 2009, 12:40 PM
TG - pardon me for being a professor. For a project, I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives (blah, blah)!

One dividing point is whether:

1. Following the tenets of one's own conscience is the highest level of morality

0r

2. Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle, despite your own belief, is most moral.

Then, if you choose to disobey the principle in #2 - and there is a touch of self-interest, is your action moral or purely venial?

Blah, blah!

So the heck with the property owner who opens for business! They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.

Or go live on an Island with the Professor, Skipper, Ginger ,etc. :D

raimius
January 9, 2009, 05:40 PM
The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense. You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so (although they can be very useful for that).

For lawsuits about those harmed while their ability to carry was denied, I can see that. I would hold the party who disarms a victim partially responsible for injury sustained within their jurisdiction and if the victim was disarmed due to their law/policy. I can also see how property rights would allow privately owned locations to ban certain items.

Public universities should be subject to state pre-emption laws on firearms. They receive taxpayer money and operate as a governmental/public organization. They should fall under the same rules. (i.e. I agree with the basis of the Utah ruling.) I don't think the government should necessarily regulate privately run schools the same way, due to property rights issues.

From a logical standpoint, if a person can carry at other public, unsecured locations, a college campus should be no different. The state "trusts" them to safely carry at the supermarket, why not on campus?

Tennessee Gentleman
January 10, 2009, 12:30 AM
I have read tons of stuff on what defines moral and pro-social behavior from various philosophical and social-cultural perspectives

You poor devil! Ting Tang Walla Walla Bing Bang!

Following the rules of democratically instantiated principle

Making a work rule or law that disarms someone and then failing to provide protection for said person is not "democratically ins..." whatever. It is immoral and we have no duty to obey immoral laws.

They gave up the right to control the basic rights of folks who come to their business.

No one has the right to take away a God-given right of self defense, business or otherwise.

BTW Glenn, I always preferred Maryanne.

You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so

raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.

209
January 10, 2009, 02:38 AM
raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.


But a bad guy would be able to feel Chuck Norris' mere presence in the building and would be too afraid to even enter. :D

I keep researching the number of permit (CCW or whatever else they are called around the country) holders who are arrested for shooting up a building or going on a shooting spree. The stats I can find appear to be so rare, I don't even count them and rarely find one I could count to begin with...

Where's the blood bath? Where are all of the permitees playing Superman and rushing to the defense of others? It doesn't happen. Those are bogus counter-arguments to the carrying of firearms. IMO, 99.9999% of the folks who carry guns in accordance with the established laws in their location are indeed law-abiding citizens. They are mature people who behave maturely.

44 AMP
January 10, 2009, 03:53 AM
the general consensus is

while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

that if property owners prohibit firearms, you can be sked to leave, but there should be no legal action taken against you if you comply.

that universities who accept public money should not enact policies more restricive than general law.

that the public access nature of colleges does not make them any kind of special case, and so no law or policy more restictive than general law is acceptable.

that there is a great deal of confusion over the legal roles and responsibilities of CCW holders, particularly among those who do not CCW.

and for Glenn, I do agree that employers should not be allowed to fire, or otherwise discipline employees for anything other than actual job performance issues.

However, Glenn, the employer's looplhole is in the employment contract, and we all have one somewhere. There is almost always somthing in the contract that covers something like "actions of the employee that are detrimental to the public image of the company". Ususally listed somewhere in the employee handbook, or company policy rules. Govt laws only prevent firing for certain specific reasons, age, sex, religion, race, etc. Anything else is up to the company. So, if the company thought that you were presenting them in a bad light by wearing women's underwear, they are within the law (if not within good sense) to fire you for that, because you signed a contract with them, allowing them that authority over you. These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.


They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.

divemedic
January 10, 2009, 07:25 AM
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

If a customer or invitee, I have a moral responsibility to respect his wishes, but no legal responsibility to do so. As long as he uses legal loopholes to allow criminals free reign, I use legal loopholes to defend myself.

And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs.

Which is why I am in favor of laws like the one in Florida which prohibits an employer from disciplining employees with CCW who keep guns in their car. In fact, I have no problem with them adding the workplace to that.

Webleymkv
January 10, 2009, 08:03 AM
I'm sorry - I don't buy the good faith of private institutions on such decisions. Private institutions have a long history of treating labor unfairly and being discriminatory. Governmental and court action were necessary to stop these.

So how far should we let the government intervene? I agree that private institutions have a long history of bad decisions, but so does the government. If the private institutions are making the bad decisions, at least I still have the choice to go elsewhere, if the government does it I'm stuck unless I leave the country. So, I view leaving it up to the institutions as the lesser of two evils.

One core issue against my view seems to be that preventing discrimination is acceptable as color is unchangeable. But that doesn't hold for religion - one can change one's religious behavior quite easily. Go to a different place or no place. However, we decide that for some behaviors (religion) they should be protected as a class.

The problem with your logic is that a religeon is not necessarily a behavior, it's a belief. Being Catholic is a belief while fasting on Good Friday is a behavior, being Muslim is a belief while praying five times a day is a behavior, being Jewish is a belief while celebrating Passover is a behavior get the idea? Private institutions can and do prohibit certain religious behaviors such as wearing certain types of clothing and jewelery or performing religious ceremonies on company premises.

Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.

divemedic
January 10, 2009, 10:02 AM
Now, as far as a company's actions being immoral if they deprive you of a means to protect yourself, I would not have a problem with making compaines that choose to pursue no-weapons policies civilly liable for damages that occur as a result of depriving their employees a means of self-defense. If they want to pursue such inane policies, fine, but they should recieve no legal protection should they get sued because of them. Basically, I think the best approach for abolishing such policy is not to attack them through the legislature, but rather through their wallets.

I totally agree. The problem here is that the company invariably claims third party interference: that is, they claim that they have no control over whether or not a goblin chooses to rob their store and shoot half a dozen customers, therefore claiming that they shouldn't be held liable for that act, yet choosing to ignore the fact that their very act of ensuring a risk free environment for the bad guy to rob the store was a factor in the robbery, as well as ignoring the fact that the bad guy would not have been able to shoot those 6 customers had one of them been armed.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 10, 2009, 01:52 PM
while private property owners may prohibit firearms on their property, legally, they have a moral responsibility to assume protection of those who the do not allow to carry firearms. Unfortunately, they have no legal responsibility to do so.

And if they do not assume that protection you are morally justified in ignoring the prohibition but may face sanctions if caught.

These rules are intended to protect the company from harm, and they have broad latitude. And everyone of us voluntarily entered into such an agreement (of some kind) as a condition of working for them. It ain't right, it don't feel right, but thats the way it is done, and we all agree to it, to keep our jobs. They got us by the short ones there buddy, and unless you work for yourself, you have no choice but to accept it.

While I agree that an employer may fire you if he catches you CCWing on the job, no one can ask you to "waive" your right to self defense. I have the moral right to ignore those work rules if they save my life. I will not give my life for the employers right to control his private property (but really his bottomline)

There is a legal term for this waiver stuff that relates to contracts but I can't remember what they call it. When I was in insurance lots of people I insured thought that if they got signed waivers from people who used their facilities or rode their rides were protected by that waiver. They weren't and got sued if somebody got hurt and their insurance almost always paid. One lawyer told me, you can't waive your own responsibility.

Socrates
January 12, 2009, 12:31 AM
CCW the new gay. Keep it in the closet, and all's fine. :barf:

raimius
January 12, 2009, 01:02 AM
You can legally defend yourself against any illegal attack, but you don't necessarily need a firearm to do so

raimius, It might be difficult to do so if your attacker IS armed with a firearm. Of course if you are Chuck Norris, but wait! I saw a NRA commercial he did and he said he would rather use a gun than a spinning round house kick.
I'm not advocating hand-to-hand over firearms, that's for sure! The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.
Perhaps we should say something like "effective defense," since not many people can easily win over an armed attacker without some sort of weapon.

I'm an advocate of carry rights. (Currently, I limit my advocacy to "unsecured" locations.)

Tennessee Gentleman
January 12, 2009, 01:24 AM
The problem is basing arguments on premises which have holes is a good way to get beaten by those who can spot the hole.

I guess I thought we were talking about firearms and therefore the threat of them being used against us. At least that is what I thought the thread was about.

The problem is the right to carry firearms is not the same as the right to self-defense.

I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 08:16 AM
I disagree, they are inextricably linked. I carry a firearm for self defense, no other reason.

Exactly. Sure you can TRY to defend yourself without a firearm, but only in Hollywood can a 100 pound woman beat up a 200 pound man, or a 200 pound man defeat 3 attackers, unless they oblige you by attacking you one at a time.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 12, 2009, 10:35 AM
Of course there is Chuck Norris ;)

raimius
January 12, 2009, 11:31 AM
Firearms and self-defense
Linked? YES!
Same? No.

People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular. Of course nowadays, a firearm is the most effective defense tool available to the public.

I'm saying we need to be careful about how we approach things, in order to defend our ideological flanks. When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis. I'd rather we didn't leave them that chance.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 12, 2009, 11:50 AM
When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis.

I am not sure I see what you mean. Could you give me an example?

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 12:28 PM
People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular.

True, but in those days self defense was rarely successful. See: The crusades, the inquisition. (BTW- I assume you are talking about pre-1750 Europe, since firearms ownership is at a lower level now than it was in 1800's America.)

Glenn E. Meyer
January 12, 2009, 12:49 PM
I also don't see a problem with linking firearms to self-defense. To my mind, that vein of thought leads to the suggestions of the charge of the 8 year olds, laptop-fu and the pencil of death as viable alternatives to firearms when someone like Cho arrives in your classroom.

Al Norris
January 12, 2009, 02:07 PM
I should add, that the Heller decision had no problem with inextricably linking self-defense with guns.

Granted, Heller only dealt with guns within the home, yet the logic will prevail, I'm sure, to self-defense outside the home.

What seems to be at the core here, is that some seem to think that property rights (in general) trump self preservation rights. Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 12, 2009, 03:27 PM
Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.

Perfectly put! Maslow (one of those academic types) says that survival is our primary need.

Al Norris
January 12, 2009, 06:43 PM
While the Declaration is not organic law, within it are the declaration of natural rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

When you learn where and how Jefferson penned them in this manner, you will also learn why Life is the first right of natural persons.

So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?

Tennessee Gentleman
January 12, 2009, 07:55 PM
By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?

The government does by due process of law if I commit a crime. IMO the property owner has no such authority.

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 09:22 PM
You two are right on target. I ask this:

Upon which section or clause of the COTUS are the property rights that are often espoused on here found?

Chui
January 12, 2009, 09:48 PM
"I am a college professor in Florida where they lock you up for a long time for carrying a weapon on any campus. Even our recent bill allowing permit holders to keep their weapons in cars does not apply to campuses--carrying/storing there is verboten".

It's the same in Louisiana. I hate it. I was working at a local highschool in BTR, LA when they alerted everyone that a student's mom called stating that he was heading back to school with a gun. I was angrier than a Beelzebub as I could not legally be armed while on campus (it's also posted) and i *think* one cannot be within 1,000 feet of a "campus", either.

I have mixed feelings. A lot of college students are horribly emotionally immature; not sure I'd feel comfortable with the partying with alcohol and firearms (despite what the laws may explicitly state). I also know that only the committed will choose to carry and only the trained, committed would actually use the thing - just like with the bulk of the public.

There would be some problems; suredly. But I think those issues can be avoided, albeit with WHOLESALE CULTURAL CHANGES WITHIN THIS NATION.

divemedic
January 12, 2009, 11:01 PM
A lot of college students are horribly emotionally immature; not sure I'd feel comfortable with the partying with alcohol and firearms

but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is responsible.

JuanCarlos
January 12, 2009, 11:21 PM
but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is responsible.

I think this is a huge stumbling block in ever changing this policy, because everybody thinks "college student" and immediately sees the average 19-year-old hitting a beer bong at a frat party, or whatever.

Nevermind that there are 30-year-old veterans in college (some living on campus, particularly when you get to family housing), or former LEOs, or even perfectly responsible 21-year-olds (and, as you mentioned, drunken idiots who aren't in college but can carry).

Especially if we're talking about CCWs on campus, in which case you're generally talking 21+ (which weeds out most of the idiots...hell, most of the students).

Then you get back to the whole "north side/south side" argument, where for whatever reason I can be legally permitted to carry concealed on the north side of College Avenue, but for whatever reason the south side is off-limits...which makes sense, right?

And of course not all of that was aimed at you, Chui...you qualified your statement pretty thoroughly.

The government does by due process of law if I commit a crime. IMO the property owner has no such authority.

This is why I don't think any law should ever recognize this "right" of propertyowners. It should never be illegal to carry on private property...the fundamental right a propertyowner has is to restrict who enters their property, and if somebody carries a firearm on their property against their wishes they're well within their rights to ask them to leave (and not return, and press charges if they do). Beyond that I see any terms a propertyowner sets on my entering their property as requests, and I don't see any reason they need to have the force of law behind them.

Socrates
January 12, 2009, 11:40 PM
Beauty of the Constitution and law is that idiots are allowed the same rights. My objection is when I am deprived of my rights, because some stupid idiot does something absurd with his.

Chui
January 13, 2009, 10:54 AM
DIVEMEDIC: "but non-college students are OK? Or is this another case of "no one but me is professional enough..."

I think we are all guilty of this from time to time. We assume that anyone who isn't like us is (ir)responsible."

No, divemedic. That's not what I meant. We all know that there is a lot of stupidity walking around college campuses. Some of it is 17 years old and some of it is over 21 years old. The bulk is probably under 20. BUT... we have a nation of immature f-ups from 10 to 80 years old. CHANGE THIS HORRID FACET OF "THE NEW AMERICAN" CULTURE AND THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY DOESN'T IT? We KNOW that the vast majority are capable of being mature yet we've slipped to "the lowest common denominator" with respect to Character and Morals. Without Moral Self-Restraint one will be ruled by Rulers. I think I can govern myself. And so can you. All of you reading this.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 13, 2009, 11:08 AM
To me, a college prof, the student carry issue is a complex and a special case. The core of the problem revolves not around the actual carry in my mind in the classroom but the peculiar situation of campus dorm life.

I've argued for carry, of course - but not by the MRI - that's a special case.

In the dorms, we have an exaggeration of behavior and risky decision making. Young students are led into stupid behaviors by irrational group activities that push risk taking and substance abuse. Security for property is very lax. In fact, in my other role - prof. supreme! :D ), I'm reviewing a set of articles on teenage risk taking and their diminished capacity in some arenas for common sense.

One might comment that we allow 18 years to carry guns in the service but that situation is fairly tightly monitored by more mature adults that acculturate the young ones. It's argued that the dorm situation is more risk inducing that situations in the past where young folks were apprenticed out to older folks in the work force. Now, they are relatively unsupervised and left on their own, group pressures lead to stupidity.

Now most of the carrier group would be over 21 and probably want to get off campus. No problem for me - my specific problem is that I'm not comfortable with carry guns in the stew of the dorms as currently controlled.

We get such stupid behavior every weekend.

So, I'm torn between the conflicting forces on student carry - perhaps a special look at students beyond the simple license might work but that is another can of worms. Sigh.

rsgraebert
January 13, 2009, 11:18 AM
You can always compromise. A dormitory is no place for firearms - that's something I can state with all the experience of having lived in one. That said, most dorm denizens are under 21 and would not have a license in the first place. As a compromise, the college could still exercise private property rights and ban firearms in dormitories if they felt the need.

My issue is with my STATE removing the decision from the hands of the colleges. It's illegal in Ohio to carry on a campus and there's nothing a campus could do about it if they wanted to. Dorms, streets, buildings, classrooms - it's all de facto off limits. As stated above, there are plenty of us attending and teaching at universities who don't fit the beer bonging profile.

JuanCarlos
January 13, 2009, 08:55 PM
I'll also point out that all dorms are not created equal. During the week I stay in a dorm that is entirely 21 and up, and all single rooms (with sturdy exterior-grade doors for each room). Caters largely to international students, and non-traditional students (including many veterans). Ages range from 21 to some guys I've seen than must be upwards of 40+. Yes, sometimes I wonder why somebody who's 40 would be staying in a dorm...just as some might wonder why I'm here (at nearly 30). I'm guessing that, as in my case, there's a good reason.

Security of property is no more an issue really than it would be in an apartment. The level of stupid behavior is nothing compared to what I've seen in the "general pop" dorms. There's really no reason whatsoever that somebody couldn't keep a firearm in their room here, particularly if they agreed to secure it in some form of safe (at their own expense).

Even better, we're actually allowed to check in firearms down at the front desk. But not handguns. So you can bring in and store any rifle you want (including an AR-15, FAL, whatever...and people do), but heaven forbid you have a CCW and want to store a handgun there when you aren't carrying. Then again, you'd have no way to get from your car to the front desk anyway without breaking school policy and possibly the law as well anyway.

This is why blanket bans of any kind always seem somewhat ludicrous to me.

And that's before you get into the family housing issue, which is a whole 'nother level of absurd (as those are duplexes and even freestanding single-family houses no different than the ones across the street).

Chui
January 13, 2009, 09:11 PM
In Michigan one can walk on Univ of Michigan or MI State's campus carrying concealed but you cannot enter the buildings with it. I like that. It's nice to walk thru the Quad or wherever to get to bookstores, restaurants, etc with "your best friend" in tow. Louisiana does not allow one to carry on campus or be within 1,000 feet of a campus. How they'd enforce the "within 1,000 feet" I don't know. There are a lot of restaurants within the 1,000 feet of LSU's campus on Highland Road. Crazy but true...

BillCA
January 14, 2009, 01:52 AM
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?

Every person has a right to self-defense, to prevent injury or death to themselves, with the exception of the legally condemned man facing his execution.

Government can prohibit or curtail your self-defense rights when you are in custody (i.e. resisting, assault, no fighting rules or statutes for jails, etc).

There can be exceptions written in law that equate some forms of self-defense to a crime. Defending yourself against "attack" by a police officer may be called resisting arrest or battery on an officer. That doesn't make these statutes correct policy, however.

When it comes to private property, a property owner cannot suspend or deny your right to self-defense. The property owner may order you off his property for any reason[1] and/or enforce that order as provided by law.

However, that does not mean a property owner can't display a "no weapons allowed" sign or simply "No firearms" sign. Doing so does not remove your right to self-defense, but it does limit your choice of tools and equipment.

Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property. Arguing such is akin to claiming restraint of trade because you can't drive 100mph to work every day. You still have a right to self-defense and may defend yourself, even though it may be more difficult.[2]

When it comes to employers who prohibit guns in their businesses, they may do so as they see fit. Their authority does not include the interior of an employee's vehicle, however. If we extend their argument, then a company that bans tobacco products for a "smoke free environment" may fire an employee who's spouse keeps spare cigarettes in the car or the employee who smokes in his car when off the property. Such invasions of privacy and one's "pursuit of happiness" overstep the property or business owner's jurisdiction.

[1] - Property owners can order anyone off their property, though property open to the public (businesses) may not discriminate soley on certain characteristics like race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
[2] - While a business or property owner can prohibit legally carried firearms, they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.

divemedic
January 14, 2009, 06:02 AM
they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.

Except they do not, claiming "third party intervention."

then a company that bans tobacco products for a "smoke free environment" may fire an employee who's spouse keeps spare cigarettes in the car or the employee who smokes in his car when off the property.

It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/14537611/detail.html) All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 14, 2009, 10:43 AM
Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property.

I think it is if I can't carry. If you are saying I can still defend myself with my bare hands against a BG with a firearm and thus my right to self defense is not negated I say that is non sequitur. The exception of course is Chuck Norris.:rolleyes:

While a business or property owner can prohibit legally carried firearms, they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.

The problem is that the law does not recognize that principle. IIRC, unless the company has prior knowledge of a known threat (meaning a specific person) then they will withstand a lawsuit and still prohibit you from carry. That is immoral. They have the authority to disarm you but are not responsible for your safety and claim that you "waive" the right to SD by enjoying entry on their property. Again, IMO immoral.

JuanCarlos
January 14, 2009, 11:17 AM
It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.

Well the last has been made explicitly illegal, no? As for firing gun owners, that's an enumerated Constitutional right, so I'd like to think that they'd have to show some way in which it affects their company to get away with that...well, that or act like they're firing for no reason at all, right-to-work and all.

The reason they can get away with firing smokers is because it has an actual monetary impact on their business, though their health insurance costs. I don't agree with the policy, but at the same time I can see how a reasonable person might. Well, a mostly reasonable person.

raimius
January 14, 2009, 11:33 AM
Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property. Arguing such is akin to claiming restraint of trade because you can't drive 100mph to work every day. You still have a right to self-defense and may defend yourself, even though it may be more difficult.

That's the type of argument I was referencing earlier. If you wound up in a legal/political argument, and this came up, you'd probably be sunk. In arguing for our rights, and RKBA is one, we should use the most airtight arguments we can muster.
Now, as a secondary argument, the suitability of firearms for SD is a quite compelling reason for RKBA, in my opinion.

BillCA
January 14, 2009, 11:58 PM
Before some of you guys start thinking of me in conjuction with rope + tree :eek: let me remind you I was replying to Antipitas who asked:
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?

Your preeminent right is self-defense. Except within some very narrow circumstances, you always have that right.

Your right to self-defense is preeminent.
Not self-defense with a firearm.
Not self-defense with an edged weapon.
Not self-defense with chemical agents.

This distinction is important. While you retain the right to self-defense, it does not automatically equate to the right to always carry weapons. If you must defend yourself against a potentially lethal attack then the use of any tool(s) you can obtain is generally permissible. Historically, weapons are barred in courtrooms, voting places, jails & prisons, military reservations and secure government facilities. You still have your right to self-defense, simply with limited means.

It gets worse. There is a company in my area that fires people for smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else, for that matter. All of you private property advocates can explain to me how that can not be extended to a policy of firing gun owners, or even by requiring your employees to bring in an absentee ballot with a vote for a certain political candidate in order to keep your job.
It is amazing some of the things some businesses required of their employees in the past and even today. Henry Ford once required his workers to live in his company Fordtown. Facial hair was prohibited, families were required to attend church weekly, no alcohol was allowed and certainly no firearms.

Today the 'evil sin' is smoking tobacco. Tomorrow it will be people who are not height/weight proprotionate (it's already started). After that, it will be people with a history of any recurring illness. However, forcing employees to vote for specific candidates has already been quashed. The right to possess firearms as a civil right should prevent employers from requiring people not own firearms.

The problem is that the law does not recognize that principle [a higher burden where arms are forbidden]. IIRC, unless the company has prior knowledge of a known threat (meaning a specific person) then they will withstand a lawsuit and still prohibit you from carry. That is immoral. They have the authority to disarm you but are not responsible for your safety and claim that you "waive" the right to SD by enjoying entry on their property. Again, IMO immoral.

I don't believe that is true. It certainly isn't true for businesses that do not have a "walk-in trade" - such as corporate offices. After several incidents of workplace violence, legal arguments brought up the prohibition of "weapons" in the workplace, including even small jack-knives in some cases and the subsequent lack of security in the offices, regardless of known threats.

The result was that businesses not "open to the public" can be held liable for workplace injuries if unauthorized persons can easily gain access to the buildings. This forced many businesses to spend thousands of dollars on access control. To wit:
- Installing card-key locks on all exterior doors
- Fencing and/or gating outdoor break/lunch areas and adding card-key access
- Issuing cards with photographs and/or colored badges.
- Requiring constant display of access card/badges
- Securing elevator and stairwell access on every floor.
- Prohibiting employees from "piggybacking" inside on another employee's card.
- Maintaining security in shipping/receiving dock areas.
- Prohibiting of propping doors open in non-secured areas, such as trash disposal.

I once had an employer who's employee handbook was written from some kind of lawyer-ese boilerplate and then modified for the company. One of the more poorly written rules was about weapons. It read "Employees are forbidden to possess drugs, firearms and other weapons in any facility during working hours." I asked specifically how that would work in a tele-commuting situation or if it applied to an employee staying in a hotel during a business trip. That started some fun discussions with the V.P. of HR claiming it applied regardless of location and several of us telling her to pound sand.

Certain businesses are "high risk". Liquor stores, check-cashing, 7-11 or convenience stores, certain restaurants, etc. Yet these businesses will prohibit cashier employees from being armed on the basis of corporate liability, danger to coworkers and the public for accidents and other claims. Yet, those same companies are NOT required to disclose to potential employees the number of violent crimes that have occurred nor how many times they've been robbed. That, to me, is patently wrong.

This is verbose, I'll get back on topic with campus firearms in the next post.

BillCA
January 15, 2009, 01:03 AM
One comment I have not seen WRT guns on campus pertains partially to dorm life and the attitudes of some college-age students.

Presuming a college student who can legally possess a handgun and who has his CCW, I think most would understand that it would be all too easy to have their CCW revoked for being drunk or engaging in stupid horseplay.

But not so those "other" students, especially many of those who enjoy attempting to belittle others or perhaps have little respect for others.

An example was a classmate in college. Dan was about 24 y/o, only about 5'7" and walked with a limp. During a dorm party that spilled into his room, some jock dork pawed through Dan's desk and found a box. When Dan arrived this 6'2" donkey had pinned Dan's medals to his crotch and was shouting "Whooee! I'm a war heeero! Kiss my medals girls!" The medals were a purple heart and a silver star. Dan demanded them back and was asked how many babies he killed to get the medals.[1] ... one can imagine a similar scene where a handgun is found instead of service medals. :eek:

I know most campuses prohibit alcohol in dorms and frat houses, yet it seems the policing of these rules is very lax. Somehow the presence of an empty shell casing can trigger a warrantless search of several dorm rooms, yet the presence of multiple Jose Cuervo shot glasses or t-shirts does not. I guess this is because administrators consider getting sloppy drunk part of the "college experience".

[1]Dan did get his medals back. He was challeged to take them, so he broke both the jock's collarbones. On his way out he stepped on the jerk's crotch for good measure. Dan's silver star came from being a Vietnam POW for two years as part of the USMC's Force Recon.

divemedic
January 15, 2009, 01:03 PM
Actually, employees are fired for legal activities, political beliefs, and for how they vote all the time. Here are a few examples:

http://www.workrights.org/issue_lifestyle/ldlegaltimes.pdf

We are far past any notion that only the wealthy can vote, and political candidates of all parties agree that Americans should be able to participate in politics without regard to their economic status.
Employer coercion through politically based terminations threatens this civic ideal. Individuals may have the First Amendment right to express political support or opposition, but if such activities cost them their jobs, then employers will have undermined these political rights and hampered the workings of democracy.

A Buzzards Bay man has sued The Scotts Co. , the lawn care giant, for firing him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, indicating that he had violated a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job. (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/30/off_the_job_smoker_sues_over_firing/)

As it happens I have fired workers for smoking cigarettes and I certainly will not hire anyone who smokes, not just on the job but at all. In the same manner I certainly will not hire anyone who voted for Obama. (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/11/firing_employees_who_voted_for_obama.html)

I worked for a Mormon-owned CPA firm... I was fired from my job after admitting that I had voted NO on prop 102...The former employee has contacted several attorneys, but no one will take the case because Arizona is a right-to-work and hire-at-will state. (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8233)