Lift Ban On Concealed Handguns On Campus?

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

What do you think?

Edited March 31, 2009 by UNTflyer

Rudy · March 31, 2009

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

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

UNTFan23 · March 31, 2009

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

I would like to respectfully add financial institutions.

oldguystudent · March 31, 2009

Why must the handgun be concealed?

Edited March 31, 2009 by oldguystudent

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

Why must the handgun be concealed?

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

Edited March 31, 2009 by UNTflyer

oldguystudent · March 31, 2009

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

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

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

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

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

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

Voted yes.

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

I think its bad reasoning.

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

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

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

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

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

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

Rudy · March 31, 2009

I would like to respectfully add financial institutions.

Under the current economy, I cant disagree.

There is also a bill that will make it illegal for employers to ban CHL holders from keeping a handgun in their vehicles, if it is on an employers parking lot.
Currently, its completely illegal to do so, but an employer can still fire you for it.

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

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

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

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

Rudy · March 31, 2009

True

UNTflyer · March 31, 2009

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

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

Censored by Laurie · March 31, 2009

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

/sigh.

UNT90 · March 31, 2009

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

Is there an arguement in there somewhere?

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

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

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

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

Check out:

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

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

Cerebus · March 31, 2009

Is there an arguement in there somewhere?

No, there is not.

Mean Green 93-98 · March 31, 2009

This is strange--the poll is overwhelmingly against lifting the ban, but no one has posted a reason why. Why?

meangreendork · March 31, 2009

I got you on this one.

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

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

Edited March 31, 2009 by meangreendork

Censored by Laurie · March 31, 2009

No, there is not.

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

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

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

meangreendork · March 31, 2009

It's like this:

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

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

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

UNT90 · March 31, 2009

Well...there kinda was...and I think you knew that, but thanks for the flippancy...it's been lacking on this board for a while...
My belief is that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated...that it's intent, while at the time justified, has been purposely mis-interpretted by gun advocates as an arguement for why they should be able to own enough fire-power to make a Sandinista blush.
The idea that putting more guns, in more people's hands and in as many more situations as possible somehow makes society safer seems inane.

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

So explain how this is antiquated.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · March 31, 2009

You do understand that the 2nd admendment was to allow Americans to bear arms to protect themselves from thier own government, right?
So explain how this is antiquated.

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

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

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