Re: College Campus Carry
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Re: College Campus Carry

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Posts
    7

    Re: College Campus Carry

    I was asked, as a retired Professor, a question by a Purdue student about my thoughts on the Indiana firearms restriction on college campuses. After the exchange I asked Luke (and the student) if he would like me to open the issue for broader USA Carry discussion. Follow the question and the comments below.


    [QUOTE=ack8910] I'm currently studying at Purdue. As a former professor, what are your thoughts on students, faculty, and staff carrying on a college campus?


    ack8910:

    Your question is not simple to distill into a two sentence reply.

    1st - As you are most likely aware, college campuses tend to be populated by risk adverse employs. Purdue, with its strong Ag, Engineering and Science background, is better than most about anti-firearms attitudes. But I can tell you - as both an NRA and 4H shooting Instructor and back then a faculty sponsor of the Purdue Trap Team - I was hugely outnumbered even at PU.

    2nd - I was a big supporter, early this year, of legislation to make firearms restrictions at the state level be "the law" everywhere in Indiana. IT PASSED and became law on July 1, 2011! That means that if you know the Indiana law about where you cannot carry a firearm - it will be the same wherever you travel within the State. To me that is a really big deal as I don't want to break some "local" law that I had no way of knowing. Illinois is a good example of different fractured firearms laws and in some places you can even have different laws on each of the four corners of an intersection!

    3rd - To get the law mentioned above you have to give a little to get a lot. So, putting PU aside for the moment, remember that "state" means every technical college, college and university in Indiana (IU, Notre Dame, Ball State, IVY-Tech, nursing schools, etc, etc, etc) and their collective voices made opponents of the law use restriction on campuses a key to moving the bill forward. But remember, the opponents are also the ones who believe that law enforcement can respond quickly enough to stop an attack on your person!

    All that being said - I believe a few people who were armed would have made the number of murdered and wounded at Virginia Tech fewer. Unlike law enforcement, those who were trapped in offices and classrooms knew exactly where the shooter was at any given moment. Phone alerts and campus cameras can help, but they won't neutralize a person intent on killing.

    BUT - and itís a big "but" - I was perfectly willing to make campuses off limits - to guarantee my right to a CCW - by not having that right removed because of some local law which is used against me. Remember being convicted of even a Class D felony will forever remove your right to own and/or carry a firearm.

    BTW - just so you know - I'm also in favor of requiring training and proof of ability to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. Lacking that and a picture on your permit is why 13 states who honor Kentucky's CC Permits - do not honor ones from Indiana. Look carefully at the map Luke has provided on USA Carry!

    My preference would be to have my CC Permit be honored nationwide. And, my hope is that you will have that right for the rest of your life - even if that means not having a weapon on campus.


    [QUOTE=ack8910] Thanks for your input. I was just wondering what someone who's been in the same situation feels. I've noticed that trend with our permits. I, too, would rather have a little bit more obligation before receiving a permit if it meant more rights.

    Thanks again.


    Do you care if Luke posts this (campus carry) for the larger group to consider?

    [QUOTE=ack8910] No problem.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I'm torn about giving up rights to get a little less restriction. The fact is there is no evidence that I've ever seen that shows that an infringement on the peoples right t keep and bear arms, increases anyone's safety. That includes requiring licenses or requiring training to get a license to engage in a Constitutional Right. It sounds good but like most unconstitutional restrictions it just doesn't have a record of doing good.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  4. #3
    Well, the rights were taken away one piece at a time. We are getting them back one piece at a time! As an IU alumni, I congratulate you on a question well answered!

    I still can't stand PU though! LOL

    Psalm 82:3-5

  5. #4
    I agree totally with your answer and am glad you pointed out that the Ag, Eng., Sci. colleges are usually more conservative politically (more in favor of gun rights) than the liberal arts oriented ones but still usually outnumbered. I am not disagreeing with your point below but have a question about it.


    BTW - just so you know - I'm also in favor of requiring training and proof of ability to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. Lacking that and a picture on your permit is why 13 states who honor Kentucky's CC Permits - do not honor ones from Indiana. Look carefully at the map Luke has provided on USA Carry!
    How do you feel about required training and proof of ability for OC rather than just to obtain a CCW? For me anyone, other than the convicted criminals and mentally unstable, should be able to arm themselves in their own home or property with little restriction (nukes etc.). Jeffferson said it best, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". However when someone walks out in public my thought get confused as when do your rights infringe upon the rights of others.

    Many people protest over such things as CCW permits and proclaim that they are for no restrictions and chide anyone who is wiling to compromise, yet those same people are content to compromise as long as it meets their idea of no restriction. For instance the age restriction and restriction on felons or mentally ill. Since your thoughts seem to fall so close to mine I was just intested in your opinion on this.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    I am for allowing carry weapons in college campus...provided they have the proper training to be able to do so. Look at Israel's campuses -- most of them carry. If you just restricting it to professors and the like, not include students who qualifies, what were the chance of Virginia Tech shooting happening? Perhaps not...
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  7. #6
    I'm not "torn up" about it at all.

    "He who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little safety deserves neither and will lose both."

    The 2A guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore it is your CCW. Period. The only acceptable caveat to that is a 5-minute background check to make sure you're not a felon, have no violent felony warrants or restraining orders, and haven't been deemed mentally unstable.

    All the rest of this talk about permitting and balancing of restrictions is just pseudo-academic horse-****.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I agree totally with your answer and am glad you pointed out that the Ag, Eng., Sci. colleges are usually more conservative politically (more in favor of gun rights) than the liberal arts oriented ones but still usually outnumbered. I am not disagreeing with your point below but have a question about it.




    How do you feel about required training and proof of ability for OC rather than just to obtain a CCW? For me anyone, other than the convicted criminals and mentally unstable, should be able to arm themselves in their own home or property with little restriction (nukes etc.). Jeffferson said it best, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". However when someone walks out in public my thought get confused as when do your rights infringe upon the rights of others.

    Many people protest over such things as CCW permits and proclaim that they are for no restrictions and chide anyone who is wiling to compromise, yet those same people are content to compromise as long as it meets their idea of no restriction. For instance the age restriction and restriction on felons or mentally ill. Since your thoughts seem to fall so close to mine I was just intested in your opinion on this.
    @FN1910:

    If we could live in a "black and white" world I would prefer that - with the exception of some obvious places like Mental Hospitals, prisons/jails, etc. - we would be able to have and carry with us our firearm(s) - nationally. And, that no local unit of government would be able to pass additional restrictions for the purpose of gun control.

    But, putting my preferences asides for the moment, I believe we live in a world full of grays and very little that is truly "black and white". So, for that reason and the fact that much has changed in the 235 years our country has existed, I believe the reality lies at neither side of the gun control issue polar extremes. Let me give you a couple of examples!

    First, related to open carry! I lived in two states that had total open carry rights (at least when I lived there) Texas and Wyoming. The mentality of those states, then, was such that you didn't receive so much as a second glance if you had a gun on your hip. Yes, you might have gotten some disapproving looks if you wore your guns into a church or the Opera, but on the street no. Then, I moved East to cities that poo-pooed wearing a gun on your hip, interestingly enough because it was considered "unsophisticated". Somewhere in the 1960's the excuse for the disdain shown shifted from the "unsophisticated" characterization - to fear of the object formed through ignorance and a "we are all victims" mentality. Is that right? NO!! But, "right" does not change the reality of its existence as a common reaction today.

    So, what to do? Condemn those that feel that way. That is a thought, but it is a lot like stabbing yourself in the nuts because you can't get 100% agreement with an opinion. Remember the anti-gun attitude is for the most part formed out of ignorance and false perceptions. So, my tack is a bit different. My goal is to attack the perceptions and the lack of knowledge my teaching both at the adult - NRA level and perhaps more importantly at the youth - 4H and youth groups level. You might think that doing this is a bit like pushing a bolder up a hill, but failing the national presence to gender a mass re-form of public perception it is a task I'm willing to take on. And, I also support wide ranging efforts like Luke's here with the USA Carry site.

    A few years ago I was doing a video about 4H Shooting Sports in our county and one of the other instructors summed it up pretty well when I asked why he teaches 4H shooting - "When you and I were kids, either your father or grandfather (in my case it was my mother, but that is a different story) taught you to shoot in the back 40. Today, there is no back 40 and Grandfather is in Florida or Colorado far from the kids. And, father ............. well ........... who knows!" So, every January when the scouts from the Chicago area come to our county for their "winter camp" - I take the 4H rifles out in the sub-zero weather and let each of them achieve their shooting qualification. Think about it - that may be the only time these Chicago kids will ever learn to shoot - without becoming a criminal gang member.

    So back to the open carry! I know that in most places today if I carry on my hip - the police will be called and I will spend hour upon hour - wasting my time because of other peoples ignorance and false perceptions. I would rather use my time changing both in hopes of a better tomorrow.

    As for qualifying, I have had two people take my classes over the years whom I was unwilling to pass forward through NRA - Basic Pistol. Both were neither criminals nor judged mentally incompetent by a court of law. But, both were such a potential threat to the rest of the class that I had to ask them to leave. They both have firearms, and in our state CCW permits. However, I fear that one day I will read in the paper that one or the other has had an accident with a firearm and that they will just add to the - "SEE!!! Its the guns!" perception.

    Van Phillips

  9. #8
    A few years ago I was doing a video about 4H Shooting Sports in our county and one of the other instructors summed it up pretty well when I asked why he teaches 4H shooting - "When you and I were kids, either your father or grandfather (in my case it was my mother, but that is a different story) taught you to shoot in the back 40. Today, there is no back 40 and Grandfather is in Florida or Colorado far from the kids. And, father ............. well ........... who knows!"
    I think that sums up my feelings on the subject quite well. I wish there were some way be have everyone trained on the safety rules and proper handling of guns but even that gets no agreements. The fact that there are so many people running around with a gun that don't even know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of scares me. As you say we want things to be black and white but most of it is some shade of gray.

  10. #9
    [QUOTE=vanphillips;225997]

    All that being said - I believe a few people who were armed would have made the number of murdered and wounded at Virginia Tech fewer. Unlike law enforcement, those who were trapped in offices and classrooms knew exactly where the shooter was at any given moment. Phone alerts and campus cameras can help, but they won't neutralize a person intent on killing.

    BTW - just so you know - I'm also in favor of requiring training and proof of ability to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.

    Are there other parts of our constitutional rights that you think should be conditional on training and proof of ability as well? I don't. I served in the military to not have to compromise on rights and freedom. The call to be reasonable is always the cry of people who try to make restrictions on our freedom tighter and tighter. And with each "reasonable" increment, our freedom is lost, until it is gone altogether.
    War to the Knife, Knife to the hilt.
    If we don't want to live in a trashy area, we all have to be willing to help pick up the trash.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I think that sums up my feelings on the subject quite well. I wish there were some way be have everyone trained on the safety rules and proper handling of guns but even that gets no agreements. The fact that there are so many people running around with a gun that don't even know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of scares me. As you say we want things to be black and white but most of it is some shade of gray.
    I've always said it should be taught in our schools, with age appropriate classes starting in Kindergarten and again every couple of years ending up in High School including shooting instruction.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast