Students file complaint against CU gun ban‏

[jimpeel]

It seems that students are tired of being placed in situations were they can get their asses shot off by some nut -- or is that get their nuts shot off by some ass?

Whatever. They have now filed suit against the Colorado Board of Regents for the policy disallowing concealed carry on campus.

From the complaint:

http://www.rmgo.org/images/SCCC Complaint_Final.pdf

1. This lawsuit seeks enforcement of the Colorado statute creating uniform statewide standards regarding the carrying of concealed handguns and enforcement of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Colorado Constitution. Adults trained and licensed to carry concealed handguns are authorized by Colorado law to carry in all areas of the State, except as specifically restricted by the statute, and the statute expressly prohibits local regulations to the contrary. It is the policy of the Regents of the University of Colorado to ignore the statutory prohibition on contrary local regulations. Instead, the Regents ban licensed concealed carry, and possession of all other weapons, on all University of Colorado campuses. This policy not only violates the Colorado statutes concerning concealed handgun licensing, but it also is an unreasonable regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Colorado Constitution.

[more]

The backgrounder may be read HERE.

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus may be accessed HERE.

 

[MrBishop]

So..they want to make it easier for some nut to shoot their cajones off...by allowing him into their school armed and unchecked. Lovely idea.

 

[paul_valaru]

here we go again.

 

[jimpeel]

So..they want to make it easier for some nut to shoot their cajones off...by allowing him into their school armed and unchecked. Lovely idea.

Armed and unchecked? You are just so ... Canadian.

If you read the backgrounder, you will find that CCW holders go through a rigorous process.

First, they must be certified that they are familiar with, and educated in, the proper use of a firearm. This means that they must take a class in actual firearm handling.

Second, they must pay a non-refundable fee and fill out forms giving their personal information and history.

Third, they must pay a non-refundable fee for fingerprinting.

Fourth, they must go through a rigorous background check with the FBI and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Then, after all of this, they must wait for all of the information to come back and the sheriff STILL can deny the permit based on any information he may have which leads him to believe that the applicant may be a danger to himself or others.

Armed and unchecked? The criminal who walks on campus with an illegal firearm with intent to commit mayhem is armed and unchecked. These universities do not have metal detectors at every door so ANYONE can walk through the doors armed and unchecked. I prefer that those who do walk through those doors armed GAVE been checked.

You should watch the DC debates on this subject HERE.

 

[MrBishop]

You're right...people never snap. Those with background checks are far more stable than those without.

If the universities have metal detectors, what's the point of conceal carry? Those who shouldn't have guns have had theirs removed...there's nobody for the law-abiding gun-carrying NRA folx to shoot at exceot for more law-abiding gun-carrying NRA folx who happen to slip through the cracks?

 

[Inkara1]

You know, I'm pretty sure Virginia Tech also had a gun ban, and that seemed to really be of help there.

Also, Bish, your last post seems to assume that NRA members carrying concealed weapons have itchy trigger fingers and simply must shoot at something. Surely a cunning linguist such as you wouldn't assume something like that.

 

[2minkey]

inky, if you've ever read any of the front matter of the NRA magazine "american rifleman" you'd notice that it's chock full of masturbatory and heroic-to-the-peabrain self defense scenarios. or, hey, go on over to any gun board like ar15.com and see how many threads you find with raging faps about fantasy shoot-em-ups.

those guys jiz themselves at the mere thought of hollowpoint ammunition.

it's also those same types of folks that will freak eight ways from sunday when you mention any notion of registration, mandatory training, et cetera as if it's some kind of wacky liberal attempt at systematic oppression of at least partially imaginary 2nd amendment rights. (sorry, but i find it hard to believe that the folks who wrote the constitution envisioned carrying a glock 19 outside of one's own property/home.)

where i live, any asshole without a felony on her or his record can get a carry permit. anyone. without even a basic safety class. and that's the way it should be, right?

"he seemed like a nice, quiet guy. mostly kept to himself."

how many times have we heard that before?

 

[catocom]

here we go again.

"Coming Soon" to a campus near you...

 

[spike]

Jim it seems like since a few students filed a lawsuit you're trying to generalize them as "the students" implying all or mostly all of the students feel the same way. Is hat what you meant to imply?

 

[randomJACKASS]

Jim is absolutely right, as always.....

You'd be a fool to question that! What we need is EVERYONE with either a concealed weapon or an old west style revolver on his/her hip at all times! Then those badguy types would watch it!

 

[Gonz]

where i live, any asshole without a felony on her or his record can get a carry permit. anyone. without even a basic safety class. and that's the way it should be, right?

Absolutely.

The 2nd does not state conditions for arming oneself.It doen't say "after getting a permit".

You may, as a private citizen forbid weapons on your property. The gov't does not have authority to limit possession. It only has the right to prosecute crimes. If you care to change that right, see if you can have your members of Congress pass an Amendment to change it.

As to this case....good. I love seeign signs that say guns aren't allowed on (school, public parks, private businesses, ice cream socials). It tells the criminal where it's safe to attack.

 

[H2O boy]

nra member for twenty some years. haven't jizzed myself or shot anyone else in all that time. amazing

had a concealed carry permit for over ten years. have yet to even draw the weapon.

should any of you fearful pantywaists ever find yourself in the unfortunate and tragic situation of being present when a crime is occurring, please do yourself proud and stay as far away from the responsible armed weapon owner as possible. because i can almost garantee that he/she will be the first one youll want to hide behind. then when its over, tell him/her all about what a terrible person they are


from a distance

 

[spike]

Often times it's the fearful pantywaists that are so scared of the world that they feel the need to carry a gun everywhere they go. Seems like there's a good chance that people that don't feel the need to carry a gun everywhere are most likely less fearful.

when a crime is occurring, please do yourself proud and stay as far away from the responsible armed weapon owner as possible. because i can almost garantee that he/she will be the first one youll want to hide behind.

Wait, stay away or hide behind them? I don't think you can do both at the same time.

tell him/her all about what a terrible person they are

from a distance

Why from a distance? Are you saying most gun owners are psychotic hotheads that will break the law and shoot at you just for insulting them?

As to this case....good. I love seeign signs that say guns aren't allowed on (school, public parks, private businesses, ice cream socials). It tells the criminal where it's safe to attack.

I don't suppose you have any evidence that these areas that don't allow guns have higher crime rates do you?

 

[2minkey]

The 2nd does not state conditions for arming oneself.It doen't say "after getting a permit".

the 2nd does not outlaw goat fucking either. what's your point?

"militia" has been interpreted as an individual right. that's fine. but it's stretching it to suggest that there's constitutional sanction for packing a 9mm trouser trout.

i'll be getting a carry permit shortly, because it's required for certain courses around here that i'd like to take. but i'm not going to carry. that just seems silly. perhaps i'm not enough of a hero.

it would be really nice to hear a few more balanced viewpoints on this issue, rather than the heroes of the apocalyse v the knee jerkers.

 

[jimpeel]

You're right...people never snap. Those with background checks are far more stable than those without.

We can surely agree on that.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

Because of its large geographic size and population and electoral importance, Texas' experience with concealed carry has come under sustained attack. Before passage, opponents predicted a decline in public safety, with minor incidents escalating into killings as the concealed carry law placed more guns in irresponsible hands. Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred by an increase in armed citizens. Both predictions were wrong.

In 1998 and again in 1999, the Violence Policy Center, a research organization opposed to concealed carry, released reports highlighting the numbers of Texas' concealed carry licensees who have been arrested since the law went into effect. Using Texas Department of Public Safety records, the center pointed out that Texas licensees had been arrested for nearly two crimes a day through 1998 - with more than one arrest each month for a violent crime.

In isolation these numbers paint a troubling picture. However, the reports are misleading for several reasons. First, they do not separate crimes that involve concealed weapons from those that don't. In addition, they ignore the fact that more than 55 percent of licensees arrested for violent crimes are cleared of the crimes for which they are arrested. Most tellingly, when the arrest rates of Texas' concealed carry holders are compared with those of the general population, licensees are found to be more law-abiding than the average person.

In an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:

Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.

Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.

Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [see Figure I], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.

If the universities have metal detectors, what's the point of conceal carry? Those who shouldn't have guns have had theirs removed...there's nobody for the law-abiding gun-carrying NRA folx to shoot at exceot for more law-abiding gun-carrying NRA folx who happen to slip through the cracks?

Metal detectors are sooo effective, unless the shooter takes out the operators first. After that, everyone else is just icing on the cake.

July 24, 1998 Russell Weston walks up to the gate of the nation's Capitol -- one of the most fortified buildings in the United States -- which has metal detectors and immediately opens fire on the Capitol guard Officer Jacob Chestnut, manning the machine. He then walks unopposed into Tom Delay's office where he was confronted by Detective John Gibson who exchanged gunfire with the suspect and was killed in that shootout.

The shooting

On the day of shooting, Officer Chestnut and another officer were assigned to operate the X-ray machine and magnetometer at the Document Door entrance located on the East Front of the Capitol, which was open only to Members of Congress and their staff. Detective Gibson was assigned to the dignitary protection detail of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and was in his suite of offices near this door. Weston, armed with a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun, entered the Document Door at 3:40 p.m. At the same time, Officer Chestnut was providing directions to a tourist and his son while his partner escorted another tourist towards the restroom. Weston reportedly walked around the metal detector just inside the entrance; Chestnut requested he go back through the detector. Weston suddenly produced the gun and without warning, shot Chestnut in the back of the head at point-blank range. According to witnesses, he turned down a short corridor and pushed through a door which leads to a group of offices used by senior Republican representatives including then Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Representative Dennis Hastert, future Speaker of the House and a close protégé of then Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Detective Gibson, who was in plainclothes, was shot after the suspect entered DeLay's office. Despite being mortally wounded, Detective Gibson was able to return fire and wound the suspect, who was apprehended in that office. A female tourist suffered minor injuries after bullets grazed her shoulder and face. She was treated for her injuries and released. Also injured was USCP Officer Douglas McMillian. Future Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a heart surgeon who had been presiding on the Senate floor just before the shooting, resuscitated the gunman and accompanied him to D.C. General Hospital.

 

[spike]

Metal detectors are sooo effective, unless the shooter takes out the operators first. After that, everyone else is just icing on the cake.

Yes, that happens constantly.

 

[jimpeel]

You know, I'm pretty sure Virginia Tech also had a gun ban, and that seemed to really be of help there.

Also, Bish, your last post seems to assume that NRA members carrying concealed weapons have itchy trigger fingers and simply must shoot at something. Surely a cunning linguist such as you wouldn't assume something like that.

VT not only had a firearms ban in place at the time of the shootings, they had actively lobbied to keep those policies in place.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-shooting.html

The State Government of Virginia had a bill before it which would have allowed college students to exercise their Second Amendment rights on campus earlier this year.

The bill didn't even make it out of committee.

When the bill died, the spokesman for Virginia Tech -- where some college kids really needed to be able to shoot back this morning -- Virginia Tech spokescritter Larry Hincker stated:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

He was happy to hear of the defeat of the bill which would have allowed college kids to carry weapons for self-defense on his college campus.

Just to show that the idiots in charge of schools have learned nothing from these incidents, I present this:

http://chronicle.com/news/article/2516/

June 18, 2007
Tough Bill on Campus Gun Control Likely to Become Law in Quebec

The Quebec government has introduced legislation designed to keep guns — even toy props for theatrical productions — out of schools and off university campuses. The bill, prompted in part by a shooting at Dawson College last September and by the Virginia Tech shootings in April, also would allow counselors, faculty members, and health professionals to break confidentiality laws if they suspect that a gun owner might go on a shooting spree.

The legislation, informally known as Anastasia’s Law — after Anastasia De Sousa, who was killed in the Dawson College tragedy — is expected to become law in September. Premier Jean Charest described the legislation at the Montreal college on Friday, with Ms. De Sousa’s parents in attendance, along with many students who had been at the college on the day of the rampage.

Despite widespread praise from gun-control organizations, student groups, and many others, Anastasia’s Law has some critics, who say it would do little to prevent such shootings. —Karen Birchard

 

[jimpeel]

Jim it seems like since a few students filed a lawsuit you're trying to generalize them as "the students" implying all or mostly all of the students feel the same way. Is hat what you meant to imply?

I never used the words "the students" in any post prior to yours. You better clean that little window in your bellybutton so you can read what I posted.

What I did post was "It seems that students are tired of being placed in situations were they can get their asses shot off ..." You want me to qualify that? Okay.

It seems that SOME students -- WHO HAVE FORMED A GROUP CALLED STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS (SCCC) -- are tired of being placed in situations were they can get their asses shot off. I guess that those who do not have any concern with getting their ass shot off are the ones willing to get their asses shot off? I think not.

Here in CO UNC does allow CCW on campus and have you heard anything about UNC in the news lately?

Utah allows CCW on all of their campuses and have you heard anything about any shootings on Utah campuses lately?

There was the Trolley Square shootings but the Trolley Square Mall was clearly posted that there are no firearms allowed in the mall. Hmmmm. I wonder why the shooter chose to go there instead of one of the local universities?

 

[jimpeel]

nra member for twenty some years. haven't jizzed myself or shot anyone else in all that time. amazing

had a concealed carry permit for over ten years. have yet to even draw the weapon.

should any of you fearful pantywaists ever find yourself in the unfortunate and tragic situation of being present when a crime is occurring, please do yourself proud and stay as far away from the responsible armed weapon owner as possible. because i can almost garantee that he/she will be the first one youll want to hide behind. then when its over, tell him/her all about what a terrible person they are


from a distance

Yeah, they tell us that we are paranoid about meeting up with an armed criminal intent on doing us harm.

What they always fail to explain is why they are paranoid of meeting up with an armed law abiding citizen who has no intention of doing them any harm.

Go figure.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

 

[jimpeel]

the 2nd does not outlaw goat fucking either. what's your point?

You have a permit for goat fucking?

"militia" has been interpreted as an individual right. that's fine. but it's stretching it to suggest that there's constitutional sanction for packing a 9mm trouser trout.

There is nothing opposing it either.

i'll be getting a carry permit shortly, because it's required for certain courses around here that i'd like to take. but i'm not going to carry. that just seems silly. perhaps i'm not enough of a hero.

Good on ya. The permit shows that you are willing to take on the scrutiny attendant with such. You will also be able to use that permit when you wish to purchase a firearm because most states allow the permit to be used in lieu of a NICS.

it would be really nice to hear a few more balanced viewpoints on this issue, rather than the heroes of the apocalyse v the knee jerkers.

Then go to HERE and watch what those in attendance have to say. David Mustard and John Lott were researchers who were pro gun control prior to doing some research. Lott actually sought to prove gun control was successful and, to his surprise, found the opposite to be true. David Mustard simply went out and gathered the facts and found that everything he had previously believed in were false.

What Mustard states in that video is that he thought that if he merely presented the same facts to other that he had gleaned that they would be able to see the error of their ways. He found that he was wrong. He found that these beliefs are ingrained and no presentation of any facts to the contrary can change the beliefs of those hardened against firearms.

I have been in the politics of gun control for over thirty years and I can say that in that time I have only had two people who I have interfaced with who have stated to me that what I presented to them had changed their thinking on firearms. There may have been others who have changed their views, partially or wholly, but if so I am unaware of that having happened.

So finding "balanced viewpoints on this issue" is nearly impossible because most people are either rabidly pro or anti firearm. Just a fact of life.