Texas State Senator Wants to Allow Handguns on College Campuses

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Imagine, a State thinking about giving people permission to exercise a right that is already theirs. Amazing.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
We are talking about people that would qualify for a Concealed Hand gun Permit (which is BS as Layout already posted) anywhere else in the state...but yet they can not be trusted to carry on a college campus....amazing...as soon as they walk on campus, they not only lose their rights, they just also lose their minds as they can no longer be trusted...until they leave the campus....:rolleyes:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not only is it the RIGHT of those people to carry, it could also be considered a responsibility to do so. MOST college students in the United States will fall in the age group between 17-45. All natural born, US citizens in that age group, who are NOT on active duty are considered to belong to the unorganized militia. SO, being member of the US militia they should be carrying at all times.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Oh boy .... this is one area of the "American way" that I find really hard to understand .....

Kids with guns at school - unbelievable

After all the shootings at schools around the Country ......

Sorry ..... :(
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Social Obligation to Carry a Gun

The Constitutional Right And Social Obligation To Carry A Gun

There’s an old wisecrack, true as witticisms, proverbs and aphorisms usually are. It goes like this - funny the things you see when you don’t have a gun.

Suzanna Gratia (now Gratia Hupp) was having a pleasant lunch with her parents in Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when she saw a pickup truck come crashing through the wall. A man armed with two guns and plenty of spare magazines emerged from the truck and started shooting everyone in sight, including Gratia’s mother and father. Al Gratia was shot fatally in the chest. Ursula Gratia was shot point-blank in the head. More than 20 other people in the cafeteria were murdered in cold blood before the killer turned one of his guns on himself and blew his own brains out.

Suzanna hid under a table, clutching her purse which normally contained a .38 revolver. In deference to Texas law at that time, which prohibited carrying concealed weapons on one’s person, she had left her gun in her car. Several more dead diners had guns legally and inaccessibly locked in their cars. Suzanna Gratia Hupp has vowed never to make that mistake again, though such pronouncements always come far too late.

“The decision to follow the law cost me the lives of my parents,” she says. “There is not a day that goes by when I do not think about that.”

Not long after the Killeen massacre, John Taylor and Craig Godineaux knocked on the locked front door of a Wendy’s restaurant in New York City. They called out to the manager, Jean Dumel Auguste, by name. Taylor was familiar with the operation and layout of the restaurant, having worked there for a short time before he was dismissed for theft. The manager opened the door for Taylor and Godineaux and led them to his basement office. Minutes later, he used the store’s intercom to summon his entire night crew of six employees down into the basement for a meeting. What followed was one of the worst massacres in New York history.

The two armed killers herded all seven Wendy’s employees into a walk-in refrigerator, bound their hands, gagged their mouths, covered their heads with plastic bags, ordered them to kneel on the floor, and methodically shot each person in the head with a small-caliber pistol at point-blank range. They then stole about $2,000 in cash and left. New York law and Wendy’s corporate policy had prohibited the victims from arming themselves.

All of the people involved in these incidents were, in a profound way, responsible for their own deaths or the deaths of loved ones. They were equally responsible for the deaths of innocents who dared associate with them and, by abstract extension, for the deaths of everyone ever killed in similar circumstances. Anti-gun laws and policies are always complicit in the execution of innocents. And it’s appropriate that survivors are always ashamed of their inadequacy.

In the final analysis, to face evil with impotence - whether out of cowardice or feeble-mindedness or submission to foolish laws - could well be responsible for the death of society.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp decided to fight back. She set out to change the foolish laws. She turned her anger on her legislators who had “legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family.” She joined the crusade for the right to carry concealed weapons in Texas and she ran for the state legislature. She was successful on both counts, though not in time to save the lives of her parents.

Today, Rep. Hupp has some harsh words for those gun-control fanatics who come out of the woodwork every time there’s a mass slaying like Columbine. “Why is it that mass shootings now seem to always take place in schools and post offices, places where guns are not allowed? They’re always in these so-called gun-free safety zones.” Like Luby’s cafeteria.
Five Wendy’s employees - Ramon Nazario, Anita C. Smith, Jeremy Mele, Ali Ibadat and Jean Dumel Auguste - took their shame to their graves. There was no good reason on earth why it had to end that way.

A scenario almost identical to that of Wendy’s in New York began to unfold at Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Alabama. Two armed robbers took over the restaurant, which was filled with two dozen customers and several employees, and started to herd everyone into the restaurant’s walk-in refrigerator. But this time a smart employee, Thomas Terry, drew his concealed .45 and shot both of the bad guys before this particular mass execution could take place. In a matter of seconds, one criminal lay dead, the other incapacitated, and more than two dozen innocent people had been handed back their lives thanks to a man who had a gun and was not afraid to use it. Thomas Terry, bleeding from a grazing wound to the hip, was happy to play the hero with so many lives at stake.

And still they ask, Why do you carry a gun? What are you afraid of? Do you think some nut is going to drive through the wall and start shooting everybody? Do you think a couple of hardened criminals are going to shove you in the refrigerator and execute you? To which you can only reply, Do you think when you walk out of here and cross the street you’re going to be hit by a truck?

Only when the custom of carrying a gun once again achieves its deserved high level of social legitimacy and political priority will this country get back on the track of respect for human freedom and dignity that has set it apart from the rest of the world for two centuries.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Oh boy .... this is one area of the "American way" that I find really hard to understand .....

Kids with guns at school - unbelievable

After all the shootings at schools around the Country ......

Sorry ..... :(

Those "kids" are, unless the US code has be changed, members of the militia.

School shootings have NOTHING to do with guns. They have EVERYTHING to do with a total lack of respect for everyone and every body. They are a VERY complicated problem.

When my dad was of school age kids used to hunt to school. They would put the game they shot in the spring house to keep it cool. They put their shotguns in their lockers in the school. There were guns everywhere, NO SHOOTINGS. They had fights, they used fists, not guns.

When I was a boy I would carry my uncased shotgun down my street to my buddies house, he would come out with his shotgun and we would walk across a major road to the woods to hunt. No problems.

College age people, for the most part, are NOT kids. Most are legal age adults. Many of them are combat vets.
 

blackpup

Veteran Expediter
I am waiting to see how this plays out in Texas, I am having trouble believing that this bill will become law. Though I hope it will.

The Arizona legislature passed a similar law earlier this year, but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill.

Most Brewer vetoes not about principle

From the Arizona Republic article

"But when vetoing bills to expand gun rights on university campuses and in most government buildings, it was harder to tell whether she was deferring to local objections or holding out for clearer wording that would stand up in court."

jimmy
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Also, as bad as gun violence seems, it is not even close to being a major cause of death in young people.

We, as a country, have NO problem ARMING KIDS, not adults, with missiles that weigh well over a ton, that are able to travel at speeds in excess of 100MPH and turning them loose with little training or education. Few people bat an eyelash about that and auto wrecks ARE the leading cause of death in young people.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
No need to be sorry Sue, you are on the "outside looking in"..and that is not meant as a put down...but we have more guns in the hands of the public then anywhere inthe world, yet we are not by no means the leader in gun deaths...

As I said, these are people that can and do legally carry off campus...but they can't be trusted to carry whule on campus...just makes no sense at all...what do they lose their minds when they enter the college campus and then regain it when they leave!?!?
 

golfournut

Veteran Expediter
Unless something happened since we left Texas in 06, a problem with the current and past law is you can't be armed where alcohol is sold. Considered a felony punishable by up to 10 years. So you walk into a 7-11 for a cup of coffee, walk out a felon! Samething at the grocery store.

I don't have a problem with the campus law. Hope it passes.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Michigan's law does not allow a person to carry in a bar where booze is sold. A restaurant that also serves booze is OK. The law itself is wrong. ANY infringement of a Constitutional right is a BAD thing.

There is no more dangerous thing than a government. The mail purpose of the Second Amendment is for the People to be able to have control OVER the government. When the government tries to control the People, we have a problem. Gun control, mandated health care etc, are control OVER the People. It has to stop.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Unless something happened since we left Texas in 06, a problem with the current and past law is you can't be armed where alcohol is sold. Considered a felony punishable by up to 10 years. So you walk into a 7-11 for a cup of coffee, walk out a felon! Samething at the grocery store.

That is incorrect and has never been the case, unless I was misinformed when trained as a CHL instructor. The law was and is that you may not be armed in an establishment that makes 50.1% or more of it's revenue from the sale of alcohol. You can't carry in a bar but you can in a restaurant that also has a bar area provided the majority of their revenue comes from food not alcohol and provided you do not go into the bar area, just the dining area. You can't carry in a liquor store but you can in your local stop and rob or grocer provided they aren't posted as no carry zones. Why anyone would shop at a place that voluntarily restricts carry is beyond me though.
 

Jack_Berry

Moderator Emeritus
thats nothing compared to the republican idiots in madison.


WTMJ-TV and JSOnline.com updated 5/9/2011 5:46:05 PM ET 2011-05-09T21:46:05

A newly floated bill that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons without getting permits, background checks or training would essentially let the state catch up with the latest thinking in gun law, according to backers who call the approach "constitutional carry."
MADISON - A newly floated bill that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons without getting permits, background checks or training would essentially let the state catch up with the latest thinking in gun law, according to backers who call the approach "constitutional carry."
Others, however, seem stunned at the idea that anyone who could lawfully own a gun could carry it just about anywhere, under a coat or in a purse, without any government oversight.
The Wisconsin Professional Police Association was neutral on past concealed-carry proposals, said Executive Director Jim Palmer, because of different views among rural and urban officers.
"Our group is likely to revisit our stance," he said. Since the no-permit proposal made the news, "We've been overwhelmed with members opposing that. It just seems absurd."
Related content: Click here to read more from the Journal Sentinel





why conceal the gun? why not just strap it to your hip?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
thats nothing compared to the republican idiots in madison.


WTMJ-TV and JSOnline.com updated 5/9/2011 5:46:05 PM ET 2011-05-09T21:46:05

A newly floated bill that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons without getting permits, background checks or training would essentially let the state catch up with the latest thinking in gun law, according to backers who call the approach "constitutional carry."
MADISON - A newly floated bill that would allow Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons without getting permits, background checks or training would essentially let the state catch up with the latest thinking in gun law, according to backers who call the approach "constitutional carry."
Others, however, seem stunned at the idea that anyone who could lawfully own a gun could carry it just about anywhere, under a coat or in a purse, without any government oversight.
The Wisconsin Professional Police Association was neutral on past concealed-carry proposals, said Executive Director Jim Palmer, because of different views among rural and urban officers.
"Our group is likely to revisit our stance," he said. Since the no-permit proposal made the news, "We've been overwhelmed with members opposing that. It just seems absurd."
Related content: Click here to read more from the Journal Sentinel





why conceal the gun? why not just strap it to your hip?


Many do. They are often bothered by police for no reason. In this country we are NO longer considered innocent until proven guilty. We are NO longer are allowed to exercise our Rights. All by a government that is corrupt and driven to do away with our Constitution.

People conceal because of laws that, for the most part, REQUIRE them to do so. Assume I am carrying. I cannot "show" that piece to back someone off. That is called "brandishing" and is illegal. IF I did carry open I will be stopped by the cops.

We have a Constitution. We should just stick to it. We don't need "new laws" to allow us to live free.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Many states have legal open carry..Ohio being one of them as is Michigan...Many people do exactly that and some groups hold weekly / monthly "open carry" gathering in high profile public area's not just to do it, but to educate the screaming memes that whine about and call the police each time they see anyone carrying a gun on their hip....

So yes being able to open carry is a option, as long as you know your rights and are ready to deal with LEO's that in most cases don't fully know or understand the law...even though they are suppose to..

With Wisc allowing CC without qualifications, they are simply doing as the Constitution set forth....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
In this country we are NO longer considered innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry but I wonder how many of you think that this means anything outside of a court of law - BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

In this country until you are CHARGED with a crime, it does not apply.

When an investigation takes place, there is no assumption of innocents but guilt and when you are formally accused and charged AND go before a judge, you then can consider innocent until proven guilty.

IT really has to do with rules of evidence, not civil rights under the constitution.

When you take a drug test (yes this again), it has nothing to do with your innocents but other things. Even if there is a positive test for Drugs, outside the parole requirements from a loss of rights through due process, there are things done to fix the problem, another test to prove it wasn't a false positive.

Your rights are intact in this country, your rights are not violated by some need to regulate, which by the way the second amendment says something about this -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a comma in between the two parts, so reasonable regulations - like checking to see if you are legally insane - is part of the regulation to maintain a Militia and not to infringe on the people's right. IF there was a PERIOD, then yes it could be separate issues.

Sue, just an FYI. Our culture is not what many in Europe and elgland make it out as. We have had control of things up as a society until the age of enlightenment in the '60s took place. As Layout mentioned, firearms were a way of life, a tool to be used and not abused but since the 60's, things have been twisted around and those who think life should be like say in France or Sweden or South Africa, haven't understood that the tool doesn't matter, the people when left to their own accord seem not to be able to control themselves. If I remember right London may still be the stabbing capital of the world while more racial based crime happens in SA and France has have a serious assault and robbery problem all more so than the United States.

In addition to that, I find the idea that college campi are the breeding ground for the nanny state. NOT because of a liberal mindset that is on most of them but rather because we treat adult students as if they were children. It is no wonder why we have such a ****d up mess in our society.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sorry but I wonder how many of you think that this means anything outside of a court of law - BECAUSE IT DOESN'T.

In this country until you are CHARGED with a crime, it does not apply.

When an investigation takes place, there is no assumption of innocents but guilt and when you are formally accused and charged AND go before a judge, you then can consider innocent until proven guilty.

IT really has to do with rules of evidence, not civil rights under the constitution.

When you take a drug test (yes this again), it has nothing to do with your innocents but other things. Even if there is a positive test for Drugs, outside the parole requirements from a loss of rights through due process, there are things done to fix the problem, another test to prove it wasn't a false positive.

Your rights are intact in this country, your rights are not violated by some need to regulate, which by the way the second amendment says something about this -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a comma in between the two parts, so reasonable regulations - like checking to see if you are legally insane - is part of the regulation to maintain a Militia and not to infringe on the people's right. IF there was a PERIOD, then yes it could be separate issues.

Sue, just an FYI. Our culture is not what many in Europe and elgland make it out as. We have had control of things up as a society until the age of enlightenment in the '60s took place. As Layout mentioned, firearms were a way of life, a tool to be used and not abused but since the 60's, things have been twisted around and those who think life should be like say in France or Sweden or South Africa, haven't understood that the tool doesn't matter, the people when left to their own accord seem not to be able to control themselves. If I remember right London may still be the stabbing capital of the world while more racial based crime happens in SA and France has have a serious assault and robbery problem all more so than the United States.

In addition to that, I find the idea that college campi are the breeding ground for the nanny state. NOT because of a liberal mindset that is on most of them but rather because we treat adult students as if they were children. It is no wonder why we have such a ****d up mess in our society.

"Shall not be infringed"

NOT allowing me to carry when ever, where ever and what ever I want IS infringement. So is doing a background check for purchase or keeping records of what I own. We are either free or not. There is NOTHING in between. I choose freedom. You can accept what ever you choose too, at least for now. The more we give up or give in to the more likely we will lose more.
 
Top