MSU, in East lansing Michigan, is the home of 35,000 students. Until this week, neither they or any other person couldn't drive or walk across campus with a concealed handgun and carry permit. That has changed. the Regents voted to allow driving and walking across campus while being legally armed. This change came at the request of campus police, who were previously forced to issue criminal citations to those travelling across campus with firearms that were otherwise legal.
Unfortunately, the fact is still that the only guns allowed in university dorms and buildings will be those carried illegally. They are still forbidden there.
This was a major change and a blow to the anti gun movement. Although not complete relief, it is a step in the right direction. Even the campus police have acknowledged that there is no harm in law abiding citizens being armed while traveling on campus, and is a major break in the anti gun dam on campus and it is progress.
Showing posts with label Guns on campus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns on campus. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Head of ND Univ. System Forbids Firearms On Campus- Gets Armed Bodyguard
A committee of the North Dakota House heard testimony on ending the ban on concealed firearms guns on North Dakota college campuses in late January.
The Chancellor of the North Dakota University System, Bill Goetz, was there to testify against the practice. He told the legislators that state college campuses ban concealed handguns for safety reasons.
He further testified that North Dakota college campuses, which don't allow guns, are safer from violent crime than any other place in the USA. He made a carrying exception for trained law enforcement.
But, when there are killings in gun free zones, like schools, college campuses, churches, and other gun free zones, they are spectacular in their scope and size.
Grouping the unarmed and those unable to defend themselves in close quarters, is an invitation to mass murder.
Just three days earlier, Goetz himself received a personal armed bodyguard at school events in the form of North Dakota State University Police Captain Scott Magnuson.
The Chancellor denied asking for a bodyguard, but said that there had been an incident where someone came uninvited into the school's President's home while his family was there.
He said there had been other events on campus that lead to concerns about security.
Chancellor Goetz believes the college community in North Dakota has the same level of protection that he has, namely, the campus police.
Of course, they can be there in minutes, when seconds count.
Immediately coming to mind is another "Chancellor" in Germany who denied guns to the public he controlled, yet had an army of armed bodyguards to protect himself. This is not to equate Goetz to the German Chancellor.
But, such examples of gun hypocracy aren't so extreme.
In places like New York City, and all over California, and other "may issue" areas, those who are politically connected are able to arm themselves legally, and with impunity.
Many Hollywood stars like Jennifer Aniston carry firearms themselves. She even used hers to hold a burglar in her bedroom at bay until police arrived. Others who disdain guns, have armed bodyguards.
If Chancellor Goetz doesn't believe he needs an armed bodyguard at school events, then he should get rid of him. If he doesn't believe that the same threat of potential deadly violence exists on college campuses in North Dakota as it does on other campuses like Virginia Tech, then he should go it alone and unarmed, like his students and faculty do.
Once he does that, then he can experience the same level of threat and concern about armed attacks that those he disarms experience on a daily basis.
The Chancellor of the North Dakota University System, Bill Goetz, was there to testify against the practice. He told the legislators that state college campuses ban concealed handguns for safety reasons.
He further testified that North Dakota college campuses, which don't allow guns, are safer from violent crime than any other place in the USA. He made a carrying exception for trained law enforcement.
But, when there are killings in gun free zones, like schools, college campuses, churches, and other gun free zones, they are spectacular in their scope and size.
Grouping the unarmed and those unable to defend themselves in close quarters, is an invitation to mass murder.
Just three days earlier, Goetz himself received a personal armed bodyguard at school events in the form of North Dakota State University Police Captain Scott Magnuson.
The Chancellor denied asking for a bodyguard, but said that there had been an incident where someone came uninvited into the school's President's home while his family was there.
He said there had been other events on campus that lead to concerns about security.
Chancellor Goetz believes the college community in North Dakota has the same level of protection that he has, namely, the campus police.
Of course, they can be there in minutes, when seconds count.
Immediately coming to mind is another "Chancellor" in Germany who denied guns to the public he controlled, yet had an army of armed bodyguards to protect himself. This is not to equate Goetz to the German Chancellor.
But, such examples of gun hypocracy aren't so extreme.
In places like New York City, and all over California, and other "may issue" areas, those who are politically connected are able to arm themselves legally, and with impunity.
Many Hollywood stars like Jennifer Aniston carry firearms themselves. She even used hers to hold a burglar in her bedroom at bay until police arrived. Others who disdain guns, have armed bodyguards.
If Chancellor Goetz doesn't believe he needs an armed bodyguard at school events, then he should get rid of him. If he doesn't believe that the same threat of potential deadly violence exists on college campuses in North Dakota as it does on other campuses like Virginia Tech, then he should go it alone and unarmed, like his students and faculty do.
Once he does that, then he can experience the same level of threat and concern about armed attacks that those he disarms experience on a daily basis.
Friday, February 13, 2009
College Student with gun permit suspended for bringing gun to campus- must write a term paper
And, I'm going to offer some help on writing that paper.
A student at Western Oregon University with a concealed handgun license was arrested and suspended after being found carrying a Derringer and seen with a knife sticking out of his pocket. The Marine Corps veteran was suspended until the end of the term.
A licensed mental health professional must determine that he is not a threat to himself or others and notify the University before he can return. The school must consider that carrying a concealed handgun permit is a sign of mental unbalance.
The Oregon Firearms Federation paid for his lawyer. He will not be prosecuted.
As part of his "rehabilitation" to reenter college, he must also write a 10 page paper that:
The paper as I suggest it be written would earn a "F" for its message. It wouldn't show appropriate political correctness that the university is looking for. But it would make an "A+" in the real world.
A student at Western Oregon University with a concealed handgun license was arrested and suspended after being found carrying a Derringer and seen with a knife sticking out of his pocket. The Marine Corps veteran was suspended until the end of the term.
A licensed mental health professional must determine that he is not a threat to himself or others and notify the University before he can return. The school must consider that carrying a concealed handgun permit is a sign of mental unbalance.
The Oregon Firearms Federation paid for his lawyer. He will not be prosecuted.
As part of his "rehabilitation" to reenter college, he must also write a 10 page paper that:
1. addresses the impact of possession of weapons on college campuses on others, and
2. the importance of following the law.
Here's some suggestions he could use when writing his 10 page paper.
Here's some suggestions he could use when writing his 10 page paper.
Regarding the impact on others of carrying a concealed handgun, he could do two things.
These won't win any points with college administrators, but they don't want to hear anything but liberal lip service to the public education ideals anyway.
First, on the impact on others of carrying weapons. Write of the importance of using a concealed handgun in protecting himself and those others from attacks on campus from a mass murderer such as seen at Virginia Tech and other gun free zones.
And, point out that in a state like Oregon, where concealed handguns are permitted, that in the course of everyday life, a person can be standing next to, or in a room with, or be in an elevator next to a person carrying a licensed handgun many times during the day, and not even know it.
Second,When he writes of the importance of obeying the law, he could write that it is absolutely important to obey the law, and that he was obeying the law by carrying a handgun with a lawful permit.
He did not break Oregon law. He is exempted from the prohibition by state law itself. “166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses: ... (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: ....(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.”
The above statute is why he was not criminally charged.
Furthermore, The University is in violation of the law here. Only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms.
“166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.”
In addition to his pointing out Oregon law in this matter, he could write that a person has a right to protect himself with a lawful concealed handgun from other violent people who do not believe that any laws should be obeyed, and think nothing of killing others who they know are unarmed in gun free zones like college campuses, some shopping malls, and high school campuses.
These won't win any points with college administrators, but they don't want to hear anything but liberal lip service to the public education ideals anyway.
First, on the impact on others of carrying weapons. Write of the importance of using a concealed handgun in protecting himself and those others from attacks on campus from a mass murderer such as seen at Virginia Tech and other gun free zones.
And, point out that in a state like Oregon, where concealed handguns are permitted, that in the course of everyday life, a person can be standing next to, or in a room with, or be in an elevator next to a person carrying a licensed handgun many times during the day, and not even know it.
Second,When he writes of the importance of obeying the law, he could write that it is absolutely important to obey the law, and that he was obeying the law by carrying a handgun with a lawful permit.
He did not break Oregon law. He is exempted from the prohibition by state law itself. “166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses: ... (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: ....(d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.”
The above statute is why he was not criminally charged.
Furthermore, The University is in violation of the law here. Only the legislature has the power to regulate firearms.
“166.170 State preemption. (1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.”
In addition to his pointing out Oregon law in this matter, he could write that a person has a right to protect himself with a lawful concealed handgun from other violent people who do not believe that any laws should be obeyed, and think nothing of killing others who they know are unarmed in gun free zones like college campuses, some shopping malls, and high school campuses.
The paper as I suggest it be written would earn a "F" for its message. It wouldn't show appropriate political correctness that the university is looking for. But it would make an "A+" in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)