Do you support CC on College Campus?

[dcbark01]

I commute to the University of Louisville, and usually 2-3 times a month I get an alert in my email from campus police about a robbery, or other sort of crime. I know of at least 3 that have been at either knife or gun point. Most of the campus isn't located in a particularly great part of town, and these situations seem to be occurring more and more frequently. I know I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing I was prepared for a confrontation. I guess the only issue I could see with it is students that live in dorms having handguns stored in there. At least around here, I know they're broken into fairly frequently, and with so many people coming and going out of a dorm, I probably wouldn't be comfortable keeping it in there unless in a safe bolted to the floor. That's about the only conceivable problem I could see, and even that is poor argument for anyone against carrying on campus, as guns can be stolen from anywhere.

 

[NateIU10]

I find it interesting the number of people who want to treat a campus different than any other place we can carry. Kind of reminds me of the "I'm just a hunter, you can take them assault weapons" kind of things.

 

[Six Forty-Two]

Maybe a college campus is different than other places. Would you agree that a courthouse or the Statehouse is different? They obviously aren't the same as the local convenience store or hardware store. Different settings may require different rules.

Just food for thought...

 

[dburkhead]

Maybe a college campus is different than other places. Would you agree that a courthouse or the Statehouse is different? They obviously aren't the same as the local convenience store or hardware store. Different settings may require different rules.

Just food for thought...

And your assumption that it hasn't been thought out is because...?

Quite frankly the only thing that begins to justify forbidding carry in Courthouses and the Statehouse is that the very nature of the activity in those buildings makes "armed security" downright ubiquitous. Combined with entry security (although that, as recent events have shown, is not entirely effective) and you have a situation where you at least have some justification that an alternative to being able to defend yourself is provided.

And even there, well, for most of our nation's history we were fine without any such restriction on public buildings including courthouses and government buildings.

There is no such justification for colleges. If someone has a LTCH (or CCW or whatever it's called in the local jurisdiction) they don't suddenly become a deranged killer simply because they step across an imaginary line onto a college campus. There's nothing happening on the campus (that is not and cannot happen elsewhere) that makes them a greater "threat" then they would be elsewhere.

There simply is no reason why people who are considered perfectly capable of carrying by the State in which they reside should not be able to carry on campus. And, quite frankly, lacking even a token alternative to capability of self defense it's downright inexcuseable.

 

[NateIU10]

Maybe a college campus is different than other places. Would you agree that a courthouse or the Statehouse is different? They obviously aren't the same as the local convenience store or hardware store. Different settings may require different rules.

Just food for thought...

But a campus isn't different from anywhere else, physically. One side of the street, fine, other side of the same street, not fine. Your comparison isn't at all accurate IMO. Secured entry with armed police/guards at your examples, non-existent on a campus. Not really sure what your "food for thought" was

And no, I don't think a courthouse should be different in the eyes of the law

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe a college campus is different than other places. Would you agree that a courthouse or the Statehouse is different? They obviously aren't the same as the local convenience store or hardware store. Different settings may require different rules.

Just food for thought...

Are a courthouse or the Statehouse different from a convenience store or a hardware store? Yes. No one is selling overpriced ephedra and Ho Hos at the Statehouse, and no one is getting paid to lie to you while claiming to represent you at the hardware store. Outside of that, no, I don't see a difference. The "armed security" (mentioned in the next post) in either of those locations still has no duty to the individual citizen, and let's face it: They're going to concentrate on getting the judges/legislators/etc. (you know, the "important people", as opposed to the "unimportant people") to safety.
Last legislative session, there was a bill that proposed making penal facilities the only places regulated by state law. This (including hospitals for the criminally insane) I can support, but in both locations, I'd still want gun lockers for which the owner of the gun keeps the key. I cannot see any justification for arbitrarily disarming those who are acting peaceably.
I also think that there should be no reason why anyone, LEO, judge, legislator, etc. should be viewed any differently by the law in any given location.

And your assumption that it hasn't been thought out is because...?

Quite frankly the only thing that begins to justify forbidding carry in Courthouses and the Statehouse is that the very nature of the activity in those buildings makes "armed security" downright ubiquitous. Combined with entry security (although that, as recent events have shown, is not entirely effective) and you have a situation where you at least have some justification that an alternative to being able to defend yourself is provided.

And even there, well, for most of our nation's history we were fine without any such restriction on public buildings including courthouses and government buildings.

There is no such justification for colleges. If someone has a LTCH (or CCW or whatever it's called in the local jurisdiction) they don't suddenly become a deranged killer simply because they step across an imaginary line onto a college campus. There's nothing happening on the campus (that is not and cannot happen elsewhere) that makes them a greater "threat" then they would be elsewhere.

There simply is no reason why people who are considered perfectly capable of carrying by the State in which they reside should not be able to carry on campus. And, quite frankly, lacking even a token alternative to capability of self defense it's downright inexcuseable.

Conversely, those who would do ill do not suddenly become law-abiding altar boys simply because they step across that same imaginary line where guns are forbidden. There is nothing happening on the campus that makes them a lesser threat in that location; in fact, quite the contrary.

But a campus isn't different from anywhere else, physically. One side of the street, fine, other side of the same street, not fine. Your comparison isn't at all accurate IMO. Secured entry with armed police/guards at your examples, non-existent on a campus. Not really sure what your "food for thought" was

And no, I don't think a courthouse should be different in the eyes of the law

Blessings,
B

 

[Six Forty-Two]

Can someone clarify the rationale for restricting handguns in high schools? I am wondering why, historically, schools have been gun-free. I haven't been actively involved in handgun issues very long and want to make sure i am following the logic.

 

[Coach]

And no, I don't think a courthouse should be different in the eyes of the law

So if I am a judge and jury in a case involving a gangbanger for the murder of a police officer. All of his firends and fellow gang members with a license to carry should be able to crowd into the courtroom and carry their legally owned firearms?

No difference at all?

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Gangbangers with LTCH?

 

[Bill of Rights]

So if I am a judge and jury in a case involving a gangbanger for the murder of a police officer. All of his firends and fellow gang members with a license to carry should be able to crowd into the courtroom and carry their legally owned firearms?

No difference at all?

Be serious. Gang members with a LTCH? That would involve, you know, obeying the law, submitting to background checks, getting fingerprinted... And the chance of any of them involved in a gang even submitting to that, let alone passing it, is perhaps microscopically above zero. Additionally, knowing that others there will be armed and ready to shoot back serves as a deterrent since gangbangers just want to kill, not be killed. Of course, if the judge is that worried, seal the courtroom such that no one is present who is not part of the case: Judge, jury, court staff, attorneys, witnesses, and defendant. Maybe make exception for the defendant's immediate family.

The point is that you do not make anyone safer by restricting those who live their lives peaceably, in accordance with the law. You make people safer by stopping violent criminals.

So yes: No difference at all.

Blessings,
B

 

[Coach]

Ok. How about this. I have a permit for life. My family is killed while I am out of town. Can I sit in court with my gun on my hip? What if the killer is let go say because the glove does not fit.

How about Mob guys whose records are clear but only because they have never been caught. Gangbangers is not as far fetched at you think. They show up on their birthday and get the permit, and then start a life of crime.

How about very emotional divorce court proceeding? Everyone should be allowed to carry in court? seriously ?

 

[waloidian]

Brand has done many stupid things at IU, and continues that trend at the NCAA. Good ridance.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok. How about this. I have a permit for life. My family is killed while I am out of town. Can I sit in court with my gun on my hip? What if the killer is let go say because the glove does not fit.

How about Mob guys whose records are clear but only because they have never been caught. Gangbangers is not as far fetched at you think. They show up on their birthday and get the permit, and then start a life of crime.

How about very emotional divorce court proceeding? Everyone should be allowed to carry in court? seriously ?

Do I really need to make the "slippery slope" argument, Coach? You don't hear me make that one very often, primarily because there is enough evidence to prove it unnecessary, but the bottom line is that to restrict those who obey the law protects only those who do not. Certainly there are cases where a specific example can point out an apparent fallacy in any given viewpoint-yours, mine, anyone's- but as this is a nation of laws, not of men, we write laws for all, not to cover specific instances. To do otherwise is to write for the lowest common denominator-in effect, treating everyone like little children who cannot be trusted to make good decisions, solely because some either have not the capacity or actively refuse to do so.

I'll side with liberty, thanks.

Blessings,
B

 

[Coach]

Do I really need to make the "slippery slope" argument, Coach? You don't hear me make that one very often, primarily because there is enough evidence to prove it unnecessary, but the bottom line is that to restrict those who obey the law protects only those who do not. Certainly there are cases where a specific example can point out an apparent fallacy in any given viewpoint-yours, mine, anyone's- but as this is a nation of laws, not of men, we write laws for all, not to cover specific instances. To do otherwise is to write for the lowest common denominator-in effect, treating everyone like little children who cannot be trusted to make good decisions, solely because some either have not the capacity or actively refuse to do so.

I'll side with liberty, thanks.

Blessings,
B

I am for Liberty. I support it always. But there are limitations to each and every liberty we have. There are times and places when limiting them is necessary. I have pointed out some and could do others as well.

How about the first amendment? Do you support limitations there? Fire in the crowd public meeting? Slander, Defamation of character? Is it ok for a first grade teacher to tell the class sit down and STFU?

Freedom and Liberty are not unlimited are they? You liberty stops where mine begins does it not?

I support carry on the college campus, but I also understand and acknowledge the difficulties of implementing it. I would just like to hear some folks here acknowledge this is at least a complex issue and involves more than someone's unrestricted second amendment rights.

 

[Soundslikejosh]

I support carry on the college campus, but I also understand and acknowledge the difficulties of implementing it. I would just like to hear some folks here acknowledge this is at least a complex issue and involves more than someone's unrestricted second amendment rights.

I haven't agreed with everything in this thread, but I will be the one who acknowledges that carry rights are not as simple as the completely unrestricted 2A right. The "all or nothing" line of reasoning generally doesn't bear fruit.

 

[Coach]

I haven't agreed with everything in this thread, but I will be the one who acknowledges that carry rights are not as simple as the completely unrestricted 2A right. The "all or nothing" line of reasoning generally doesn't bear fruit.

Thanks.

May gun rights survive the next administration.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am for Liberty. I support it always. But there are limitations to each and every liberty we have. There are times and places when limiting them is necessary. I have pointed out some and could do others as well.

How about the first amendment? Do you support limitations there? Fire in the crowd public meeting? Slander, Defamation of character? Is it ok for a first grade teacher to tell the class sit down and STFU?

Freedom and Liberty are not unlimited are they? You liberty stops where mine begins does it not?

I support carry on the college campus, but I also understand and acknowledge the difficulties of implementing it. I would just like to hear some folks here acknowledge this is at least a complex issue and involves more than someone's unrestricted second amendment rights.

I think Nate was the one who posted about the "fire in a theater" thing; When someone enters a theater, they are not gagged such that they cannot yell "Fire", but if they do happen to take that action, they are punished within the confines of the law. "Prior restraint", if I recall the term correctly, is unConstitutional.

Ditto the first grade teacher: How would we know s/he had told the class to STFU? We would punish his/her indiscretion when one of the little darlings got home and said, "Mommy? What does STFU mean?" (after Mommy came to, that is. ) In fact, in every case you posted in the above-quoted reply, the issue of prior restraint is central. Only when it comes to guns does anyone decide (fallaciously) that this would be a "reasonable restriction" or "common sense gun law", when in fact, all it does is disarm the good people, leaving the violent criminals free to carry out whatever ill they wish. IMHO, the complexities of which you speak exist solely in people's minds, not in reality.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

Can someone clarify the rationale for restricting handguns in high schools? I am wondering why, historically, schools have been gun-free. I haven't been actively involved in handgun issues very long and want to make sure i am following the logic.

"Historically" schools (in the US anyway) have not been "gun free." The whole move to restrict firearms from schools stems from the common battle cry of the far left "It's for the children!"

Want to put more restrictions on what we can read/watch/look at/listen to? "It's for the children!"

Want to undermine parent's authority over and responsibility for their children? "It's for the children!"

Want to limit people's right to keep and bear arms? "It's for the children!"

And if anyone objects to any of the actions? Simply shout "you don't care about the children!"

Unfortunately, while about as dishonest a tactic as can be, it's also a highly effective one.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I haven't agreed with everything in this thread, but I will be the one who acknowledges that carry rights are not as simple as the completely unrestricted 2A right. The "all or nothing" line of reasoning generally doesn't bear fruit.

In and of itself, no, you're correct, it doesn't, but that's only because people who would remove our ability to exercise our rights (any of them) except in accordance with their dictates, have so far been permitted to take so much from us that to take it all back at once is akin to the "frog in boiling water" argument.

Our ability to exercise our rights was not taken from us in one fell swoop, neither will we regain those abilities overnight, but the uninfringed 2A should always, always be the eventual goal, IMHO. If we have to take back a nibble at a time, do so, but eventually, we should have the entire feast, not the crumbs others permit us to scavange.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

How about the first amendment? Do you support limitations there? Fire in the crowd public meeting? Slander, Defamation of character? Is it ok for a first grade teacher to tell the class sit down and STFU?

The key concept is "prior restraint."

Fire in a crowded theater? The equivalent to disarming people would be to gag folk in the theater so that they can't shout "fire." (Prior restraitn"

Slander? Defamation of Character? Same thing.

Minors are generally not considered competent to arrange their own affairs (why minors generally cannot sign contracts, cannot marry without parental consent, cannot do a whole raft of things). The teacher is, by agreement with the parents/guardians of those children, standing in a limited "in loco parentis" to the children (limited in that the authority usually only covers those things required to the teaching of the class--when I was a child other things, like corporal punishment, required specific parental consent) and so this, too, does not make the comparison you are trying to make.