Opinions about concealed carry on campus?

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I believe that each and every person should be able to exercise all of their rights in the following places:

#1) Public property - owned by the govt;
#2) Their own private property - Duh!;
#3) Private property owned by a corporation that is open to the public during normal hours of operation that is not theirs;
#4) Private / Public mix.

A person should not have their rights oppressed save in extremis. This means on another persons property. Then, the right still exists in an oppressed state.

My argument against a corporation is that it is not a sentient person, ergo a corporation should have NO righits! It has no soul, no conscience, no moral compass. It does have a self serving agenda to make a profit. (I know I am swimming against both statutes and case law, but it is what I believe.)

If a corporation can deny the right to carry by someone in Indiana who has their LTCH, what is to prevent them from not allowing someone with an Indiana Drivers License to drive on their property? Could a college not issue their own DL and thus order all people to get their own or not drive on their streets or parking lots?

Whether we agree or disagree on an issue I hope most folks agree the highest law of Indiana is the US Federal Constitution FIRST and the Indiana Constitution SECOND. Each should apply to every square inch of the particular States territory!

Corporations will complain that we are trampling on their rights. Number one, corporations should not have rights and in my mind have no rights. Even if they do, they, and all businesses, agree to follow the law of the land. The Federal Law says you cannot refuse to serve someone due to them being white or black or Hispanic or Lutheran or Catholic or male or female. That is NOT legally acceptable differentiation! A business agrees by default to acknowledge these differences as a non reason for refusal to serve. What is the problem with saying a business cannot refuse service to someone who is, without causing an overt distraction, exercising their right to carry a tool (ie. a firearm) that they may use to defend themselves?

As a college is a corporation they should have zero authority to limit the carrying of a tool that may, if necessary, save dozens of lives.

Regards,

Doug

 

[CTS]

Earlier this year Rep. Jim Lucas was pushing a bill that would allow the right to carry on state property including colleges. It was H.B. 1018.

Actually you're off a bit. We already *can* carry on state property. I can and have carried on campus several times and violated absolutely no laws. As a non-student at the time the worst they could have done is asked me to leave. Campus carry is 100% legal (assuming no other factors are involved like campus daycares), but the colleges are threatening extreme academic sanctions for those who are caught doing it. His bill didn't "allow" campus carry, it simply stopped schools from persecuting students for it. A somewhat subtle difference, but it's important that we're clear to avoid spreading misinformation.

 

[The Drifter]

Baaaaaaaaaaa, bunch of sheep.

 

[Redhorse]

Actually you're off a bit. We already *can* carry on state property. I can and have carried on campus several times and violated absolutely no laws. As a non-student at the time the worst they could have done is asked me to leave. Campus carry is 100% legal (assuming no other factors are involved like campus daycares), but the colleges are threatening extreme academic sanctions for those who are caught doing it. His bill didn't "allow" campus carry, it simply stopped schools from persecuting students for it. A somewhat subtle difference, but it's important that we're clear to avoid spreading misinformation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is what I'm referring to in this entire thread. I know it is 100% legal, however, the threat of expulsion is a strong enough deterrence to keep college students from carrying. I know there are those who would disagree and say go ahead and carry since it's not against the law, however, being expelled is an enormous financial loss for the student and this must be understood. We as students cannot afford to be expelled when our entire future is on the line. Also, we are not a bunch of sheep, that is an incredibly onerous response. Sheep take no political action, this very thread discussing personal opinions is enough to set all of us apart from the sheep. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Degtyaryov]

I'm all for it. No reason why I should be disarmed at the location I spend much of my time at.

 

[Archer]

Here's a speech I wrote on this very subject back in college in 2009...

Introduction​

The carrying of a handgun by a private citizen is an issue that is hotly contested throughout the United States. Advocates on both sides constantly lobby for the laws governing the issue to be changed in their favor. Some opponents to concealed carry, such as John Shanks of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, argue that “immediate access and availability enhances chances for firearms violence…a situation that would not normally result in deadly violence can be tragic.” However, statistics prove conclusively that the reported murder rate is significantly lower in states which allow carrying than those which do not, even taking into account population differences. While some form of handgun carry is legal in most states, public perception of those who choose to do so remains deplorably warped. The licensed carrying of a handgun by law-abiding citizens in beneficial to the overall safety of both the individual and the public, and should be permitted in all places, including schools, banks, government buildings, and post offices. Colleges and universities in particular should allow legal handgun carry.

Background Information​

First, some background information. Currently, 48 states offer some form of concealed carry license. 39 states offer a “shall-issue” permit, which means that officials must not deny the applicant a permit, unless they find reason to do so. Such reasons typically include having been convicted of a felony, such as domestic battery, or having a history of mental illness. The remaining nine states offer what is called “may-issue” permits. The laws of these states require that the applicant show a specific need. Some of these nine states are “shall-issue” in practice, such as Alabama and Connecticut, while others are “almost non-issue”. This means that in states such as New York and New Jersey, although the state law allows the issuance of permits, they are rarely handed out. The last two states, Vermont and Alaska, allow concealed carry without a license as a constitutional right. The only provisions are that the carrier is a non-felon at least of at least 16 or 21 years of age respectively.

Murder by Numbers​

Looking at the figures gathered by the FBI’s Crime in the United States Report, we see that 14,180 people were slain in 2008. 924 homicides were committed during robbery and 87 during burglary. This includes store clerks, bank tellers, and home invasions. 19 murders resulted from car-jackings and 23 rape victims were killed by their attackers.
This next set of data shows justifiable homicide figures for the past four years. I call your attention to the fine print at the bottom. “The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felon, by a private citizen.” That means that in 2008, 161 people were thrust into life threatening situations and had made the choice not to be a victim. Most importantly, they had the ability to protect themselves from an otherwise deadly fate.

Defensive Handgun Use​

According to a study conducted by Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologists at Florida State University, there are approximately two million defensive gun uses in the US per year by law abiding citizens. This includes scaring off wrongdoers with the presence of a gun, as well as situations where the gun is actually used. These instances occur every day by people of all walks of life. The New York Times reported on August 13th of this year that a 72 year old Harlem store owner shot and killed two would-be robbers and wounded another two. He gave the crooks the money, and only drew his shotgun when they began pistol whipping one of his employees. In May 2004, Indianapolis pizza delivery man Ronald B. Honeycutt was beset by an armed (and unlicensed) who intended to rob him at gunpoint. He drew his own pistol and dispatched the threat. Two months before in Northern Indiana, Daniel L. Floyd shot his neighbor after the neighbor approached him swinging an ax handle, despite repeated requests by Floyd to stop. Both Honeycutt and Floyd were law abiding holders of handgun carry licenses, and protected themselves within the limits of the law. No charges were filed against either man.

Compare and Contrast​

Let’s compare the statistics of New Jersey and South Dakota, two states with vastly different views on gun control.New Jersey is a state which has restrictive, suffocating legislature, tedious and exhaustive purchasing procedures which deter most law abiding citizens from purchasing a handgun. According to a study by CQ Press in 2008, New Jersey ranked 20th in the country as safest state based on murder rates. New Jersey is a “may-issue state”, however, their prohibitive views on concealed carry prevents most citizens from obtaining a permit. In 2008, despite their tough gun laws, there were 376 murders. Of those 376 murders, 236 were perpetrated using firearms. Of the 236 firearm-related murders, 202 of them were with handguns, according to the FBI CIUS. Obviously, keeping handguns out of the hands of citizens hasn’t slowed their use in crimes. New Jersey has not published their statewide percentage of CC permit holders.
Now we’ll take a look at South Dakota. South Dakota is ranked 5th safest state in terms of murder rates, and is a “shall-issue” state. They also boast the highest percentage of permit holders, with 7.45% of the population being armed. Predictably, their murder rates were far lower, at 22 in 2008. Of the 22 homicides, 13 used firearms. And of those 13 firearm-related murders, only 4 involved the use of a handgun.
Let’s not forget Vermont. One of only two states in which no carry license is required, Vermont is even safer than South Dakota ranking in at 4th safest state. Their murder rate is 17 total. 8 of their 17 murders were with firearms, and only 4 were with handguns. It would seem that not requiring a license for Vermonters works fairly well for them.
Of course, any opponent of concealed carry would waste no time in pointing out that the 2008 populations of New Jersey (8,682,661) and South Dakota (804,194) are vastly different, thus rendering these facts unusable. However, if South Dakota had the population of New Jersey, they would have had 238 murders total (rounded up) in 2008. That is 138 less murders than New Jersey’s 376 total, whose gun laws are significantly more stringent than South Dakota. If we did the math just using the handgun numbers, South Dakota would have only 44 murders caused by handguns, 158 less than New Jersey’s 202. 138 or 158 less lives lost is a very important number, and that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in a state like New Jersey certainly can’t hurt their dismal violent crime rate.

Police Response Times​

Police officers make every effort to respond to calls as quickly as possible. However, they must first be called, then get in their cars, and then drive to the scene. This all takes precious time. A woman being accosted by a potential rapist in an alley doesn’t have time to take out her cell phone, call police, giver her location and wait patiently for police to find her. Let’s take a look at a report from the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here we can see that for violent crimes including robbery, aggravated assault and simple assault, police response time, on average, was 27.5 percent within the first 5 minutes, 34 percent 6-11 minutes, and 25.5 percent 11 minutes-an hour.
These chilling numbers raise the question, “what can happen in the first 5 minutes?” Very likely, the victim would have already been beaten or robbed, perhaps killed, by the time police are able to arrive. I ask you to examine this next set of data, conducted by the FBI Crime in the US report. This shows the number of homicides deemed justifiable by the law. However, I ask that you look again at the text at the bottom of the table. It reads, “The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” These numbers represent real, law-abiding citizens who only used their firearms to stop someone bent on taking their life. As citizens of the United States, we have the right to protect our lives and property. Not everyone chooses be armed, but proponents of concealed carry advocate the choice to do so if one wishes, as well as to not be judged for their decision to defend themselves.

Gun Free Zones​

Although most states do allow some form of carry, places called “gun-free zones” were established with the Crime Control Act of 1990. In such zones, the law requires citizens to disarm before entering the premises. Some examples of gun-free zones are; government buildings such as post offices and capitol buildings; public events like state fairs and sports events, elementary and secondary schools, preventing teachers from carrying licensed firearms in case of an emergency. The phrase “going postal” has been popularized in American slang, but has a deadly origin. The phrase is derived from at least 20 workplace rage incidents at post offices from 1983 onward. These are all cases in which postal workers have shot and killed their managers, fellow workers, and members of the police or general public. Most university and college regulations also prohibit carrying concealed weapons on campus.
The problem with areas such as this is that only those who obey the law will disarm. An individual seeking to do harm will enter such an area with the comforting knowledge that encountering armed opposition will be unlikely. The lack of rationality by lawmakers in this department has had fatal consequences over the years.

Columbine and Virginia Tech​

Two schools in particular suffered from the flawed logic of gun-free zones. The Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University Massacres are the two worst school shootings in US history. The 1999 Columbine Massacre, lasting less than an hour, resulted in thirteen people killed and 24 wounded at the hands of Harris and Klebold. Since high schools are gun free zones, there were no armed teachers or administrators who may have been able to stop the duo’s terrible actions. Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre, killed 33 people singlehandedly, injuring an additional 23. His rampage lasted from 7:15am to 5:30pm. The reason he was able to roam the campus indiscriminately murdering innocent people for over 10 hours is that all of his victims were defenseless. Ken Stanton, a columnist for Virginia Tech’s Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech student, and administrator of the Students for Conceal Carry on Campus organization, told me that he estimates there are between 300-400 concealed carry permit holders who attend Virginia Tech. All it would have taken was one armed citizen and Cho’s wanton disregard for human life would have ended much sooner than ten hours, with a significantly lower death toll. Teachers at Columbine and students at Virginia Tech should not have been denied the ability to shoot these murderers to prevent them from spilling more blood. Instead, they had to wait until the violent murderers shot themselves for the carnage to end.
Universities continue to be one of the gravest areas of concern, since unlike workplaces and government buildings; they are independently operated and highly public places. As opposed to high schools, college students over 21 are of age to carry, and many already hold permits to do so. However, due to senseless regulations enacted by universities, they are prohibited from having the means to defend themselves at any given time.

Guns on Campuses​

The opponents to campus carry have an endless array of arguments against students carrying their legally licensed weapons at school. Let’s take a look at some of their favorite contentions:​

Guns on campus would lead to an escalation of crime:​

Carrying concealed weapons on campus has been permitted since fall 2006 at 20 campuses of nine public colleges in Utah, Colorado State University since 2003, and at the Blue Ridge Community College since 1996. With concealed carry allowed on these campuses for a combined total of 100 semesters, none of these schools has experienced a single incident of gun violence or accidents. Similarly, none of the state which permit carrying has seen an increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, even though carriers wear their guns in places such as food stores, movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, churches, restaurants and banks. Furthermore, studies done at by University of Maryland professor John Lott and University of Georgia professor David Mustard, as well as those done by various state agencies, show that concealed license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

A student with a gun could “snap” and go on a killing spree:​

According to a report by the Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center on the prevention of targeted violence in schools, the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person “snapping” into a violent frenzy is not supported by case evidence. The study concluded that a person’s descent towards violent acts is typically accompanied with numerous warning signs.

Conclusion​

Most citizens who choose to carry a handgun are the opposite of wild, dangerous people. They are shown statistically to be more level headed than non-carrying people, and have proven this is practical terms by keeping their handguns on them every day, not using them unless they feel their lives are in immediate jeopardy. People who carry have a positive impact on their communities, not because they go looking for criminals trying to be police, but because they go about their day prepared to respond to those who intend to do them harm. They do this despite the fact that the population at large views them as crazy or paranoid. It would have been a blessing to have had an armed civilian at Virginia Tech or Fort Hood, or in any of the thousands of store robberies where clerks are killed each year. The presence of a private citizen with a handgun may not help stop violence 100% of the time, but there has never been a case where it hurt. Those of you who do not carry a gun should be thankful that there are people willing to shoulder that responsibility. If there is ever a day where you find yourself face to face with a criminal, sever seconds away from death, a good guy with a gun nearby can’t help but increase your chance to survive.

 

[John Galt]

Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

 

[Archer]

Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

Has this been passed? And do you know if it includes IUPUI, IU, Purdue, etc?

 

[Redhorse]

Has this been passed? And do you know if it includes IUPUI, IU, Purdue, etc?

It didn't make it out of committee unfortunately.