TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:If campus carry did pass, could a university set some policy either restricting or forbidding students with CHLs from carrying?

Could the university set up safety standards for those students who live in on campus dorms for how the firearm would be stored? I.E. have some sort of safe or lockbox for the firearm.

I don't see university policy being able to trump state law legally but our campus is definitely not gun friendly.

IF it's a private university they can. It's PRIVATE property, and they can set whatever rules they want...just like any other private business. If they want to say students cannot have firearms in their dorm rooms or in apartments owned by the school that's within their rights. If a student doesn't want to abide by the rules they set, they are free to spend their tuition money elsewhere. Public universities would be a different situation.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I tell every client that when dealing with juries, perception controls over reality. I don't have to prove anything, I just have to make the jurors believe what I'm saying. A black-clad, combat boot wearing officer is intimidating to a large segment of society. The officer could be the nicest guy in the world, but that reality is overshadowed by the perception.

I am not the least bit anti-LEO or anti-military. However, I don't want COPs in Afghanistan or troops Texas; they need to be in their proper theater of operation. The mission, tactics, equipment and operational philosophy are miles apart.

Chas.

WELL STATED !! I'll take the perception comment a step further...perception not only controls reality...it IS REALITY to the person on the receiving end. However a particular set of circumstances and/or actions is perceived by someone, THAT IS the REALITY to them. The brain constantly processes the data and visual stimulation it receives and makes a judgment based on that individual's perception of that information. That judgment is almost immediate and generally lasting. That is why it's so important to be cognizant of what "image" an individual or organization is projecting...the old cliché about the importance of a "good first impression" has been proven in many scientific studies. Once the initial perception is made, it's much more difficult to change it.
That last paragraph is the best summation of my own feelings and opinions I've ever read...I wish I had said it so eloquently. Thank You!

nightmare69 wrote:

talltex wrote: The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

We have a junk police cruiser out at the range that would beg to differ, Ive seen it. If that 7.62 does not hit the engine block it will clear straight through the car bumper to bumper. The wolf ammo the russians sell by the ton with the steel core will penetrate.

Seriously?? If it doesn't hit the engine block? Well...yeah, it's possible , but that's a mighty big "IF". Takes a lucky shot to get through the engine compartment, that's why they teach you in training to use the engine block as cover, and I'll assume that all of your patrol vehicles do have engines in them...not stripped junkers. Ignoring all the "what ifs", the main point is: a bullet from a gangbanger's AK47 has no greater likelihood of "punching through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" than any other centerfire rifle. It's not a valid excuse to need more tactical equipment or weapons.

nightmare69 wrote:Cops used to roll with 38 revolvers and a shotgun if you were lucky back in the day. With the gangbangers packing AKs that will punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper you can see why we the police are matching force. I believe most would think different if they had to stand fast outside at the door knowing the bad guy is in the bedroom armed and waiting for you to cross the threshold. You wanna go in old school with just a wheel gun and a koga baton be my guest.

The AK47 has far less power than an old WWI Springfield '03 chambered in .30/06...the standard U.S. military rifle for years, or it's successor the M14 chambered in .308 caliber. The 7.62 x 39mm AK round has similar ballistics to a Winchester 30/30. The only way a gangbanger's AK47 will "punch through a patrol car from bumper to bumper" is if it goes thru the windshield and out the back glass. I think you're hearing alot of police "shoptalk" that simply isnt true, and accepting it as fact. That's just another example of trying to justify militarization by claiming to be "outgunned".

nightmare69 wrote:[Better safe then sorry IMO. There are only a few Cops that I would let run with me and put my life in their hands, most of these guys are Swat. During an active shooter situation you will have everyone with a badge and a gun within a 50 mile radius show up. DPS, Sheriff, City Police, TABC, Fire Marshal/Investigators, TDCJ, DEA/FBI, you name it they will be there. I want them to know for a fact Im police and not the shooter.

EXACTLY!! And the last thing I want to see, is everyone of them carrying an automatic weapon, adrenaline pumping and looking for an excuse to rock and roll.

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
You apparently make no distinction between civilian police forces addressing armed civilian criminals and a military unit engaging opposing military forces that have heavy weapons. Under your theory, then the Posse Comitatus Statute has no application in 21st Century America.

"Covering fire" in a university setting? Really? I have to ask; are you or were you a LEO? I was for 10 years and I cannot imagine any experience LEO making such a suggestion.

Chas.

Why would I distinguish between the two when I am clearly only talking about civilian police forces? Covering fire? You're right, right after I posted it I realized I should of use suppressing fire. I also couldn't care less if it is on a college campus. That comment of mine was directly related to the UT sniper and if the police had weapons that could reach and sustain fire on Whitman position it would have been a positive thing. But of course waiting and having cops raid gun stores is another way to go.

EEllis wrote:

talltex wrote: Just thinking about campus police being armed with full auto weapons makes me cringe ( I hope your Chief resists that possibility). I don't know what private school you are working at, but has there EVER been an incident on campus that would have justified the campus police being equipped with full auto assault rifles? Is there any existing example of the criminals dealt with on campus, having a shootout with officers, where the criminals had superior firepower? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it gets really old hearing that "we are being outgunned by the criminals" line used as justification for needing miltary grade weaponry. In my experience, that is an extremely rare occurence, and if there has been such a situation occur at your campus, I'd really like to read about it.

I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private. With the current thinking on spree shootings being that you want to confront them as soon as possible I would want school cops to have access to weapons that make such a response reasonable if there is a heavily armed shooter on campus. Baylor, a private university, has what 16,000+ students. They cover a big area with lots of people so if they end up being a first responder I want them able to do the job. Now of course unlike Nightmares situation every Baylor University cop is also a reserve county cop but they still cannot work off campus extra jobs.

I used the word "outgunned"...you responded with the Whitman and Virginia Tech as examples.

EEllis wrote:I don't know about his school but you only have to look at the UT sniper and the Va tech shooting to think that something besides sidearms might be a good idea for cops at a school public or private. With the current thinking on spree shootings being that you want to confront them as soon as possible I would want school cops to have access to weapons that make such a response reasonable if there is a heavily armed shooter on campus. Baylor, a private university, has what 16,000+ students. They cover a big area with lots of people so if they end up being a first responder I want them able to do the job. Now of course unlike Nightmares situation every Baylor University cop is also a reserve county cop but they still cannot work off campus extra jobs.

Neither of your examples shows an instance of the police being "outgunned". I didn't say they should be limited to sidearms only...regular patrol units usually have a rifle and shotgun available in the vehicle. I just think that full auto weapons on campus are totally uncalled for, and pose much more danger to the students and faculty from "friendly fire".

nightmare69 wrote:We are getting on the Department of Justice grants and looking into getting weapons. Since we are a police dept we can have full auto assault rifles, I do not see our Chief getting those though. We could get military vehicles also like any other PD. I know many people disagree with police getting military grade equipment but considering how well armed the criminals we deal with are, I want every advantage I can get.

Just thinking about campus police being armed with full auto weapons makes me cringe ( I hope your Chief resists that possibility). I don't know what private school you are working at, but has there EVER been an incident on campus that would have justified the campus police being equipped with full auto assault rifles? Is there any existing example of the criminals dealt with on campus, having a shootout with officers, where the criminals had superior firepower? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but it gets really old hearing that "we are being outgunned by the criminals" line used as justification for needing miltary grade weaponry. In my experience, that is an extremely rare occurence, and if there has been such a situation occur at your campus, I'd really like to read about it.