Opinions about concealed carry on campus?

[Redhorse]

What's everyone's views on concealed carry on college campuses? Do you feel these schools should be able to ban the right to carry? What right trumps the other; the individual's right to self defense via the use of a firearm, or the school's right to prohibit firearms on their property? I'm sure some of you have heard of Students for Concealed Carry, which I'm apart of so I'm curious to hear your opinions about whether or not college campuses should be special exceptions regarding the students right to carry (or if such a right exists for them since they attend that campus).

 

[CTS]

My opinion is pretty straight forward, for institutions who are entirely privately funded, they're more than welcome to do as they please. I may not agree with them if they choose to ban, but they're well within their right to do so. However for the vast majority of schools who receive significant public funds I think their bans are entirely in defiance of the constitution. They receive federal and state funds and shouldn't be allowed to penalize students for otherwise lawful carry any more than any other state institution. Every single one of their arguments in support of the bans are entirely without merit as extremely well illustrated by the number of other colleges and universities where it is allowed and goes on largely without incident. None of them I'm aware of do anything to actually ensure firearms aren't carried onto campus outside of some large sporting events, so they're only disarming those who fear the academic repercussions if they're discovered...certainly not at the forefront of the mind of someone looking to do harm to others. Their argument that an otherwise rational student might "fly off the handle" and start shooting people because they're in a heated debate is just silly, and the same goes for the "drunken frat boy" argument.

 

[ModernGunner]

Personally, I don't care if someone chooses to carry a handgun, or not. On campus, during classes, in the dining room, in the parking lot. I don't care if they choose to CC or OC. I don't care if they're a petite little lady, a big brawny-looking guy, nor of their age (to legally carry). I don't care if they practice daily, monthly, annually, shoot in 27 competition matches a week, or were trained at age 6 by 'Dad'. I don't care if they prefer a wheelgun or a semi-auto. I don't care about their preference of calibers. ALL those things, a personal choice and I make no judgment. I have my own preferences.

I do care if they're trained with their choice of handgun and the holster it rests in. I do care if they're proficient and can consistently hit what they shoot at under the stress of a shooting scenario, if they're going to carry that handgun in areas of public access.

MOST of all, I care what they DO with that handgun. That, and ONLY that, determines whether they are 'friend' or 'foe'.

 

[BuckCreek]

My opinion is pretty straight forward, for institutions who are entirely privately funded, they're more than welcome to do as they please. I may not agree with them if they choose to ban, but they're well within their right to do so. However for the vast majority of schools who receive significant public funds I think their bans are entirely in defiance of the constitution. They receive federal and state funds and shouldn't be allowed to penalize students for otherwise lawful carry any more than any other state institution. Every single one of their arguments in support of the bans are entirely without merit as extremely well illustrated by the number of other colleges and universities where it is allowed and goes on largely without incident. None of them I'm aware of do anything to actually ensure firearms aren't carried onto campus outside of some large sporting events, so they're only disarming those who fear the academic repercussions if they're discovered...certainly not at the forefront of the mind of someone looking to do harm to others. Their argument that an otherwise rational student might "fly off the handle" and start shooting people because they're in a heated debate is just silly, and the same goes for the "drunken frat boy" argument.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have the same opinion on this CTS. I work for a state funded university, and want legislation passed in this state to prevent the state funded institutions from having policies that ban right to carry. They are state funded and should have to abide by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and Article 1, Section 32 of our State constitution "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

 

[The Drifter]

How many times do we have to answer crap like this. The right to protect yourself is a God given , or if you don,t believe in God ,a law of nature . You HAVE the right to protect yourself with a rubber band , stick , bat ,tire iron ,or gun , anywhere, anytime , you are in danger. Yes it comes with responsibility , and if you screw it up YOU will take the responsibility! Any kind of a gun free zone , anywhere is a infringement on my God / nature right to protect my self. In reality ,how much clearer could it be? Stop being pussies about this ,fight back. You would not ask a tiger to take out his teeth if he comes in to your space , no animal would listen to you,he would just tear you apart. We must be able to defend are self's from animals [bad guys ] any where , any time. WAKE UP ,or become sheep.

 

[yote hunter]

As far as I see it you should be able to carry in the state you are legal to carry... ANYWHERE !!!!!!!! You are legal and approved by the state and that is that, I don't care where it is... BAR, CHURCH, SCHOOL, COURT HOUSE, COLLAGE, McDOLALDS & so on, I mean really you are legal so why ban you from carrying ANYWHERE your not carrying to commit a crime, your carrying to protect yourself and your family !!!!!!

 

[Redhorse]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have the same opinion on this CTS. I work for a state funded university, and want legislation passed in this state to prevent the state funded institutions from having policies that ban right to carry. They are state funded and should have to abide by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and Article 1, Section 32 of our State constitution "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

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.

 

[heavyhitter1k]

As far as I see it you should be able to carry in the state you are legal to carry... ANYWHERE !!!!!!!! You are legal and approved by the state and that is that, I don't care where it is... BAR, CHURCH, SCHOOL, COURT HOUSE, COLLAGE, McDOLALDS & so on, I mean really you are legal so why ban you from carrying ANYWHERE your not carrying to commit a crime, your carrying to protect yourself and your family !!!!!!

Amen to that! Why, if you are granted a license to carry, should their be any restrictions placed on that. "Well, you are ok to carry "here", but not "here" seems silly. What makes the place off-limits? DO they feel like you will suddenly become unable to be a responsible gun owner / carry individual in those areas they have defined as restricted?

 

[brotherbill3]

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.

This.^^^^ ... yes; I support (and have / would have 20+ yrs ago) the SCC. IMAGC has supported this cause as well.
I have a very STRONG belief that HB 1018 will be reintroduced in January in some form.
Several memebers, such as the "new" (last session) chair of the HPP committee, have learned a great deal (pro carry) on this issue last session. - we need to be ready to support this when it comes around again.

 

[SteveM4A1]

This.^^^^ ... yes; I support (and have / would have 20+ yrs ago) the SCC. IMAGC has supported this cause as well.
I have a very STRONG belief that HB 1018 will be reintroduced in January in some form.
Several memebers, such as the "new" (last session) chair of the HPP committee, have learned a great deal (pro carry) on this issue last session. - we need to be ready to support this when it comes around again.

That is good news! I will be spreading the word when the time comes.

I do care if they're trained with their choice of handgun and the holster it rests in. I do care if they're proficient and can consistently hit what they shoot at under the stress of a shooting scenario, if they're going to carry that handgun in areas of public access.

You just have to throw that in there every time don't you? I think you need more training to exercise your First Amendment right.

 

[KLB]

Amen to that! Why, if you are granted a license to carry, should their be any restrictions placed on that. "Well, you are ok to carry "here", but not "here" seems silly. What makes the place off-limits? DO they feel like you will suddenly become unable to be a responsible gun owner / carry individual in those areas they have defined as restricted?

A person's right to do what they want with their private property gives them the right to deny you ability to carry a gun on their property. You then have the right to not go there. You do not have a right to do what you want on their property.

The .gov on the other hand should not be able to set limits on where guns can be carried.

 

[heavyhitter1k]

A person's right to do what they want with their private property gives them the right to deny you ability to carry a gun on their property. You then have the right to not go there. You do not have a right to do what you want on their property.

The .gov on the other hand should not be able to set limits on where guns can be carried.

That is more what I was talking about....

 

[Redhorse]

This.^^^^ ... yes; I support (and have / would have 20+ yrs ago) the SCC. IMAGC has supported this cause as well.
I have a very STRONG belief that HB 1018 will be reintroduced in January in some form.
Several memebers, such as the "new" (last session) chair of the HPP committee, have learned a great deal (pro carry) on this issue last session. - we need to be ready to support this when it comes around again.

Yes, we all need to be ready for when this comes around again. Just in a side note, what is IMAGC?

 

[BuckCreek]

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.

Thank you. I was trying to remember which bill that was. I would like to see a bill with that language in the next session, and this time I want it to pass and be signed into law. Personally I would like all infringements removed from our RTKBA, but realistically I know that wont happen over night.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

What CTS said.

According to the opinion in the Heller case states have the right to regulate in the interest of public safety, but not ban. To that end I would argue for the state to produce data for scrutiny by both sides if it wishes to regulate their college campuses in this regard. We are already seeing court cases where outright bans in public places are unconstitutional (McDonald Case for instance). College Campus on state campuses is an excellent test for that i.m.h.o.

 

[ModernGunner]

A person's right to do what they want with their private property gives them the right to deny you ability to carry a gun on their property. You then have the right to not go there. You do not have a right to do what you want on their property.

I agree that's the way it is NOW, KLB.

However, I'm still pushing that we (Indiana) need to re-define that concept, as they have in some other States.

There is, undoubtedly, a difference between one's personal residence and the doughnut shop or whatever they have on 'Main St., Indiana".

When one opens their business doors and invites in 'everyone' to that business, that place is then a 'place of public access', and the same rules for carrying should apply as when that visitor / patron / customer is in a park or a zoo or walking in front of that store on 'Main St., Indiana'.

This would prevent these businesses from playing both sides of the fence on many issues. A business should be NO more able to refuse service to a patron because that patron is legally carrying a firearm than they can refuse a patron for being a certain ethnicity or religion. Or more currently, sexual persuasion.

This would take away the 'political rant' and tactics of low-lifes like Shannon Watts and her ilk.

Obviously, a business owner would still retain the right to bar people carrying when entering their personal residence, if the owner so chooses. But NOT at their place(s) of business. It's easy to define and differentiate between truly 'private property' and 'a place of public access', as well.

Obviously, I can't push for this alone, but I have been pushing for it for years in Indiana. As noted, this is not a 'new' or 'radical' concept.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I agree that's the way it is NOW, KLB.

However, I'm still pushing that we (Indiana) need to re-define that concept, as they have in some other States.

There is, undoubtedly, a difference between one's personal residence and the doughnut shop or whatever they have on 'Main St., Indiana".

When one opens their business doors and invites in 'everyone' to that business, that place is then a 'place of public access', and the same rules for carrying should apply as when that visitor / patron / customer is in a park or a zoo or walking in front of that store on 'Main St., Indiana'.

This would prevent these businesses from playing both sides of the fence on many issues. A business should be NO more able to refuse service to a patron because that patron is legally carrying a firearm than they can refuse a patron for being a certain ethnicity or religion. Or more currently, sexual persuasion.

This would take away the 'political rant' and tactics of low-lifes like Shannon Watts and her ilk.

Obviously, a business owner would still retain the right to bar people carrying when entering their personal residence, if the owner so chooses. But NOT at their place(s) of business. It's easy to define and differentiate between truly 'private property' and 'a place of public access', as well.

Obviously, I can't push for this alone, but I have been pushing for it for years in Indiana. As noted, this is not a 'new' or 'radical' concept.

Once again, you want to limit my rights as a business owner to your opinion. I say no thank you. I should be able to tell whoever I want to get out, at any given time. I OWN the business, you don't, and the government sure as hell doesn't.

 

[KLB]

I agree that's the way it is NOW, KLB.

However, I'm still pushing that we (Indiana) need to re-define that concept, as they have in some other States.

There is, undoubtedly, a difference between one's personal residence and the doughnut shop or whatever they have on 'Main St., Indiana".

When one opens their business doors and invites in 'everyone' to that business, that place is then a 'place of public access', and the same rules for carrying should apply as when that visitor / patron / customer is in a park or a zoo or walking in front of that store on 'Main St., Indiana'.

This would prevent these businesses from playing both sides of the fence on many issues. A business should be NO more able to refuse service to a patron because that patron is legally carrying a firearm than they can refuse a patron for being a certain ethnicity or religion. Or more currently, sexual persuasion.

This would take away the 'political rant' and tactics of low-lifes like Shannon Watts and her ilk.

Obviously, a business owner would still retain the right to bar people carrying when entering their personal residence, if the owner so chooses. But NOT at their place(s) of business. It's easy to define and differentiate between truly 'private property' and 'a place of public access', as well.

Obviously, I can't push for this alone, but I have been pushing for it for years in Indiana. As noted, this is not a 'new' or 'radical' concept.

You have it backwards. A private business should be able to serve or not serve whomever they want for any reason they want. It is not the government's place to tell someone how to run their business.

 

[Redhorse]

Given the amount of shootings and other violent crimes that occur in "places with public access," it seems a strong argument could be built for the individuals right to carry. One can now carry a firearm in Chicago but every single shoot and building prohibits carrying into their establishment, so unless you're just driving through Chicago, wouldn't that be an effective ban? However let us not drift too far off the topic of he right to carry on a college campus. It seems we all have come to some sort of agreement with oh locally funded colleges. With that in mind, is there any conclusions to be made about private colleges with "public access" in mind?

 

[brotherbill3]

Yes, we all need to be ready for when this comes around again. Just in a side note, what is IMAGC?

IMAGC: Indiana Moms Against Gun Control
(see my signature line) or https://www.facebook.com/IndianaMomsAgainstGunControl/

Check it out if you 'do' Facebook.
We're also trying to get to other social media to get the message out. ... and drat I just realized I left a link out of another post. ...