TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

Campus police officer Joe Ribar makes sure the classrooms are locked up. He says students having handguns would be a nightmare if they had to take down a mass shooter. Would-be heroes with their own guns could get in the way.
"When we go into a building we don't know who's a good guy or bad guy. I would not like to have a civilian who's trying to do good end up as a threat to us," Ribar says.

This, I believe, is a legitimate concern. I think it can be alleviated by two things: proper training of CHL holders (when you encounter the police and they don't know who you are, announce that you armed, expose your weapon and raise your hands so they know you are not a threat) and having those CHL holders who routinely carry on campus meet with campus police and inform them that you are usually armed and will be glad to help if asked.) Since I work at a university, this is something that I've given some thought to. From the perspective of a uniformed officer, they have no way of knowing, when they first arrive on scene, if I'm a BG or a GG. Getting to know them ahead of time would help alleviate that as well as being certain not to appear threatening when they first arrive on scene.

I wonder what any of the LEOs on the board think about this? I know it must be a nightmare, from an officer's point of view, to encounter an armed citizen and not know if they are a threat or not. They don't want to kill someone unless they really are a threat, yet they only have seconds to make a decision.

Dear Senator:

After helping Students for Concealed Carry on Campus take on the “campus carry” battle in a number of states, I am familiar not only with the slew of (misguided) arguments against allowing concealed carry on college campuses; I am also familiar with the various amendments that opponents propose to try to water down concealed carry on campus legislation.

One such amendment proposes allowing only current/former members of the armed forces and/or ROTC cadets to exercise concealed handgun licenses on college campuses. This proposal flies in the face of the intended purpose of concealed carry. Concealed handgun license holders carry concealed handguns for personal protection, not so that they can act as amateur police officers/volunteer security guards for the rest of society. Most soldiers receive only minimal training in the use of handguns, and most ROTC members have received little or no tactical training; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they are substantially more qualified than the average concealed handgun license holder to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This is a classic example of a feel-good amendment with little basis in fact, and it should be vehemently opposed by anyone who supports Texas gun rights.

Another proposed amendment would allow concealed carry by college faculty and staff only. Again, this proposal conflicts with the personal protection intent of concealed carry. Though it is reasonable to believe that the presence of armed concealed handgun license holders, through their ability to mitigate dangerous situations, could potentially benefit all students, faculty, and guests, it is unreasonable to expect faculty and staff to act as de facto security guards for an entire campus. More disturbingly, allowing concealed carry by only faculty and staff could endanger the lives of ALL professors and campus employees, regardless of whether or not they are armed, by giving active shooters reason to target them first. It doesn’t make sense to tell would-be shooters who poses the greatest threat to them and their nefarious plans.

A third, equally silly proposed amendment would require concealed handgun license holders to register with school officials or campus police before carrying concealed handguns on campus. This is bureaucratic red tape at its finest. At the heart of this proposal is the misguided belief that school officials and campus police would somehow be able to keep up with the whereabouts of every concealed handgun license holder on campus, at all times. This is utterly absurd. There is no way of knowing how many concealed handgun license holders are in the library or the student center or auditing classes in which they’re not enrolled or skipping class to attend a rally or doing any of the multitude of random things college students do on a daily basis. Such a proposal would also place an undue burden on visitors and guests. Should a man with no affiliation with the school be required to stop by the campus police headquarters and register his concealed handgun license before visiting his fiancée for lunch at the student center? Should a professor from another college be required to register her license at the campus she is visiting, before attending a speech by a renowned guest lecturer? It’s a logistical nightmare, and such an amendment serves no purpose but to discourage concealed carry on campus. Law enforcement officers are already able to determine whether or not a person possesses a concealed handgun license by running his or her driver’s license (this ability would be limited but not eliminated by the passage of House Bill 410). That measure of protection is sufficient in the rest of society, and it should be sufficient on college campuses.

Sincerely,

W. Scott Lewis
Former SCCC National Media Coordinator

srothstein wrote:As a recently retired LEO, I will tell you that I honestly think this argument is not valid. I have never yet had any problem telling the good guys from the bad guys on calls, even when I went to crime in progress calls where some citizens had responded to try to help. And given the time I would expect police to take to respond, this is even less of an argument.

Consider the times really involved. Someone busts in and starts shooting. One of the students will call 911. Campus police do not get 911 calls, but have their own emergency numbers (ask any student on here if they know the campus emergency number). This takes 1 minute to get the call in and answered. The police dispatcher takes the information and puts the calls out to officers to respond. This takes another minute (might be a little quicker, but say 2 minutes from the person dialing 911 to the call hitting the radio). The officers take a couple minutes to drive to the scene. Most agencies strive for a 3 minute response time for this type of high priority call, so it will average 5 minutes from the time someone starts to dial until the first officer arrives at the scene. Current LEO philosophy has the officers wait until a four man stick arrives (first four cops), but some will go in as a pair. This slows up the response further.

Now, look at what happens with the CHL's at the scene. Most do nothing since they are just trying to protect themselves. They will run away if the shooter is not in their room or hallway. They can be discounted. If there is one in the room where the shooter is, he will probably engage and take action immediately. Shoot-outs do not last long, in most cases. And even worse, most active school shooters suicide when they encounter resistance. So, by the time the cops get there, there will probably be a dead shooter on the ground and a CHL standing over him with a gun. The gun may have already been put away, but assume he is still holding it. The cops do not bust in shooting, but give commands to drop the gun and surrender. The CHL will almost always obey these commands. This makes it easy to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

There is a distinct possibility that the CHL may be in shock from the shooting and may not respond correctly to the officers. Hopefully some of the other people will be helping him, but this cannot be counted on either. This is the only point where the officer may have some trouble, but even then, the CHL will not be shooting at the cops and can usually be identified. They may need to take him down or something, but they still do not bust in shooting.

And that is always without counting the odds of a CHL even being there. Given that there are only about 3% of the population with CHL's, it means a class of 33 would be required before the odds would favor a CHL being there. With the number of under 21 mixed in, the class would need to be even larger. A community college that caters towards the non-traditional adult student might have a slightly higher chance of having a CHL. But, the class in Killeen would also have a much higher chance of having combat trained vets in it from Ft. Hood. Are the police really afraid of the military having CHL's? Somehow, that makes less sense than most schools' arguments.

Argument: How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed civilians and armed assailants?

Answer: This hasn't been an issue with concealed handgun license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It's not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys—from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians—in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the crowd, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the crowd.