Concealed Carry on Campus

[MajorTom]

Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The group is promoting change in legislation and school policies that would allow students at public universities enjoy their second amendment right, by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon on school (public) property.

Here at Virginia Tech, the idea is even more thought provoking just over two years after the April 16 massacre. What if just one person West Ambler Johnston or Norris Hall had something to fight back with? Isn't that one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment?

From a legal standpoint, the idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land!

I would be very interested to hear some other thoughts, as well.

Concealed Campus URL: http://concealedcampus.org/

[themadkat]

Here at Texas A&M University, we just had a vote on allowing this recently. I voted to allow people to have licensed, concealed-carry weapons on campus even though I myself do not and have never owned a gun, nor ever fired one. If someone is going to come shoot up my campus I somehow doubt it's going to be one of the duly licensed and registered folks, and I don't think a prohibition is going to stop them.

Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The group is promoting change in legislation and school policies that would allow students at public universities enjoy their second amendment right, by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon on school (public) property.

Here at Virginia Tech, the idea is even more thought provoking just over two years after the April 16 massacre. What if just one person West Ambler Johnston or Norris Hall had something to fight back with? Isn't that one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment?

From a legal standpoint, the idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land!

I would be very interested to hear some other thoughts, as well.

Concealed Campus URL: http://concealedcampus.org/

[Jake_Ellison]

At a private univ. it would be a good idea to allow the staff to carry, not sure about the students though. I like guns, and still, I don't think I would be comfortable hanging out with kids who have guns strapped to them, on a daily basis.

As for the public universities, I don't see why it would be different. Their existence is a violation of individual rights, by itself. But I don't think you can interpret "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean that you can carry a gun into the White House or a Court of Law (legitimate public establishments), and the staff can't stop you. So why would it apply to illegitimate public establishments, like a univ.?

[DavidOdden]

Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land!

Whenever you start talking about "public" property, you're asking for a world of confusion. The main problem is that in order for a university to actually function, certain otherwise unconstitutional restrictions on freedoms are necessary. For example, under the First Amendment, you ought to be entitled to entirely plaster the walls, windows and blackboards with your favorite piece of propaganda, and so should everybody else. You should have the right to get up in the middle of class and deliver speeches denouncing Obama or Bush, and so should everybody else. If 99 people in your chemistry class want to shout socialist propaganda slogans during the lecture, then you just need to learn to suck it up, because on public property, nobody has any right to control what goes on. So it would follow that you have the same "right" to concealed carry, or open carry, or to set up a firing range wherever you wanted.

Of course, I personally would not tolerate that kind of crap in my class, and if anybody came to my class packing, I would throw them out of my class. Because even though you may have the abstract right to bear arms in public, you do not have the concrete right to threaten the peace in my class with any weaponry (or uncivilized behavior, which includes friggin' cell phones). Of course I realize that if I actually enforced those rules in my classes, the administration would probably get after me and eventually after a lawsuit or two they would threaten to or actually would fire me. But it wouldn't make any difference, because once it becomes the law that nobody can control what happens on "public" property, the absurdity of the concept would become apparent and "public" schools, hospitals, utilities, parks, libraries and roads would collapse.

So it would be an interesting way to get people to face reality. A simple solution, in the case of universities, would be to simply make them private. It would only involve a small amount of change to legally detach a university from the state.

[FreeTraveler]

At a private univ. it would be a good idea to allow the staff to carry, not sure about the students though. I like guns, and still, I don't think I would be comfortable hanging out with kids who have guns strapped to them, on a daily basis.

As for the public universities, I don't see why it would be different. Their existence is a violation of individual rights, by itself. But I don't think you can interpret "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" to mean that you can carry a gun into the White House or a Court of Law (legitimate public establishments), and the staff can't stop you. So why would it apply to illegitimate public establishments, like a univ.?

It seems unreasonable to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "shall not be infringed?" Which part of "shall not be infringed" is interpreted as "except as prohibited by law?" I don't see those five words tacked onto that Amendment. Does anybody else? Anybody? Bueller?

[DavidOdden]

It seems unreasonable to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "shall not be infringed?" Which part of "shall not be infringed" is interpreted as "except as prohibited by law?" I don't see those five words tacked onto that Amendment.

Take a look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This means, therefore, that there shall be no abridgment of the right of free speech in the form of laws against fraudulent representation, and no laws prohibiting trespassing on private property if the purpose is to "assemble peaceably"; and the practice of involuntary human sacrifice cannot be prohibited by law, if it is done in the exercise of religion.

And speaking of really strict look-for-the-words interpretations of the Constitution, check out the Takings Clause:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So it turns out that nowhere does it say that there are any restrictions on taking property for private use, and there isn't even any requirement to compensate.

[LandonWalsh]

Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The group is promoting change in legislation and school policies that would allow students at public universities enjoy their second amendment right, by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon on school (public) property.

Here at Virginia Tech, the idea is even more thought provoking just over two years after the April 16 massacre. What if just one person West Ambler Johnston or Norris Hall had something to fight back with? Isn't that one of the reasons we have the Second Amendment?

From a legal standpoint, the idea makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, private schools can have any sort of regulations they want concerning guns, but on "public" property like a state university, the constitution is the supreme law of the land!

I would be very interested to hear some other thoughts, as well.

Concealed Campus URL: http://concealedcampus.org/

Tom! I've been to one of your protests. Know a Kassie dill? Ive got friends that way.

[skap35]

Yesterday, while attending a campus festival exhibiting student organizations, I saw a booth that instantly caught my attention: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

If those students had a booth at my university, the campus police would certainly make their lives difficult. My school has a history of hysterical reactions to anything that is in the general realm of firearms. Whenever there is a scheduled "empty holster" day on campus, we always get a very paranoid and frightening e-mail from campus police. The language of their warning letters makes it sound like anyone who carries an empty holster on campus is a dangerous psycho and thanks to evil Republicans, campus police have no power to stop these evil students. It really makes me angry when I see those warning letters go out. To be fair, they're probably trying to cover any liability on their end, but still...it just makes them sound ignorant.

A couple weeks ago the cops sunk to a new level of stupidity. A student was filming a sci-fi zombie movie on campus and there was a scene involving a plastic laser gun, or something to that effect. They actually sent out a warning letter telling students not to worry about the obviously fake "gun" and that campus police would be escorting the actor with the gun the entire time. The only thing I can say about that is:

[Jake_Ellison]

It seems unreasonable to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "shall not be infringed?" Which part of "shall not be infringed" is interpreted as "except as prohibited by law?" I don't see those five words tacked onto that Amendment. Does anybody else? Anybody? Bueller?

Nice movie reference, but you have not addressed some very reasonable points there, such as my Court example, and David's first amendment examples. Or let's combine them, should I be allowed to speak over the judge, using a bullhorn, while I'm aiming my gun at his head, while he's deciding on the sentence for my bank robber friends? Is that what the first two amendments mean to allow me to do, when they place certain restrictions on the government?

[MajorTom]

Tom! I've been to one of your protests. Know a Kassie dill? Ive got friends that way.

Landon, I've only been at this school for three weeks, so I don't know many people on campus yet. In addition, I am not a part of this group, I simply visited their booth.

[SD26]

I like guns, and still, I don't think I would be comfortable hanging out with kids who have guns strapped to them, on a daily basis.

Well, do you know that all the kids aren't carrying anyway?

There aren't even small numbers of issues in military training programs with individuals of the same age group.

A gun is a gun. It doesn't have intent.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, do you know that all the kids aren't carrying anyway?

Yes.

(I wish there were other questions, I'm not sure what you mean by the military school analogy. I would be perfectly comfortable hanging out with kids carrying at a military school, but not a regular school, because Virginia Tech doesn't have drill sergeants teaching students how to safely handle guns.)

[SD26]

Yes.

(I wish there were other questions, I'm not sure what you mean by the military school analogy. I would be perfectly comfortable hanging out with kids carrying at a military school, but not a regular school, because Virginia Tech doesn't have drill sergeants teaching students how to safely handle guns.)

If one goes to basic training or another military school, you're always going to school in the military, invariably, there are times that you're armed. And the military doesn't always have the brightest bulbs in the box. Might even have some of the people that were carrying illegal weapons on city streets now in the military training right next to you with a loaded, fully automatic weapon capable of being used to accurately put a round in a shoulder width object from 0m to 600m.

Always requires intent and then action to use the items in that way.

All of these non carry places haven't changed anything in making anything more safe. Just made it illegal, statutorily, to bring certain equipment to protect oneself, one's property, and the same for others. Certainly never makes it impossible for someone to bring something in and do damage to those that follow the rules who are now not capable of having an equalizer.

Edited September 1, 2009 by SD26