The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Handbook

[Liberty]

I swear they have more groups than actual members.

I hope you don't mind if I borrow that line sometime.

Help yourself.

[Douva]

These are the legislators who have received handbooks so far:

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst

Senator Kevin Elfite - District 1
Senator Bob Deuell - District 2
Senator Robert Nichols - District 3
Senator Steve Ogden - District 5
Senator Florence Shaprio - District 8
Senator Chris Harris - District 9
Senator Mike Jackson - District 11
Senator Jane Nelson - District 12
Senator Rodney Ellis - District 13
Senator Kirk Watson - District 14
Senator John Carona - District 16
Senator Joan Huffman - District 17
Senator Judith Zaffirini - District 21
Senator Troy Fraser - District 24
Senator Jeff Wentworth - District 25
Senator Leticia Van de Putte - District 26
Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. - District 27
Senator Robert Duncan - District 28

Rep. Stephen Frost - District 1
Rep. Bryan Hughes - District 5
Rep. Tommy Merritt - District 7
Rep. Wayne Christian - District 9
Rep. Lois Kolkhorst - District 13
Rep. Fred Brown - District 14
Rep. Brandon Creighton - District 16
Rep. Craig Eiland - District 23
Rep. Geanie Morrison - District 30
Rep. Eddie Lucio III - District 38
Rep. Aaron Peña - District 40
Rep. Patrick Rose - District 45
Rep. Valinda Bolton - District 47
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez - District 51
Rep. Jim Dunnam - District 57
Rep. Jim Keffer - District 60
Rep. Phil King - District 61
Rep. Burt Solomons - District 65
Rep. Brian McCall - District 66
Rep. Pete Gallego - District 74
Rep. Norma Chavez - District 76
Rep. Tryon Lewis - District 81
Rep. Tom Craddick - District 82
Rep. Delwin Jones - District 83
Rep. Carl Isett - District 84
Rep. Joe Heflin - District 85
Rep. David Swinford - District 87
Rep. Lon Burnam - District 90
Rep. Vicki Truitt - District 98
Rep. Allen Vaught - District 107
Rep. Dan Branch - District 108
Rep. Barbara Caraway - District 110
Rep. Joe Driver - District 113
Rep. Joe Straus - District 121
Rep. Allen Fletcher - District 130
Rep. Beverly Woolley - District 136
Rep. Hubert Vo - District 149

If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($9.25 + $5.25 S&H). You can locate your State Representative and/or State Senator here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Handbooks can be purchased here: http://www.cafepress.com/lasttshirts.322143673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KD5NRH]

12-28-2008

If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

[KC5AV]

12-28-2008

If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

Save money. Buy her a copy now, while prices are low.

[Douva]

12-28-2008

If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

Save money. Buy her a copy now, while prices are low.

We added 10 pages to the handbook, at a cost of $0.03/page. But the new information is all important, Texas-specific information, so it's worth the additional $0.30.

[Samurai Blur]

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

[Douva]

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Douva]

12-28-2008

If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

Save money. Buy her a copy now, while prices are low.

We added 10 pages to the handbook, at a cost of $0.03/page. But the new information is all important, Texas-specific information, so it's worth the additional $0.30.

I've added another 4 pages to the handbook, so the cost is now $9.25 + $5.25 S&H, for a total of $14.50. The handbooks are sold at cost. The printer is the only person/company/organization making any money from them.

[Samurai Blur]

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

[Douva]

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

I never suggested we should "leave it up to the professionals" (I wouldn't have written the handbook if that was my attitude). I did, however, suggest that you were wrong in blaming the Littleton/Denver police officers for the way the Columbine shooting was handled. These were real police officers, not movie cops or cowboys. They did their jobs as they were trained. Lashing out against law enforcement is no way to reach our goals.

Also, you're wrong about the facts of the UT sniper attack. Some of the facts of the attack will never be entirely clear, since many of the participants have different recollections of the course of the events, but none of the eye witness accounts include two police officers and a civilian armed with a shotgun punching across the lawn while dodging bullets.

The police officers gained access to the tower via the underground tunnels that connect buildings on the UT campus. There they encountered civilian Allen Crum, who was carrying a borrowed .30 caliber lever-action rifle, not a shotgun. When they reached the observation deck, Officer Ramiro Martinez left Crum to guard the deck entrance, while he proceeded north along the deck. As Officer Martinez slowly worked his way north, officer Houston McCoy caught up to him. At about that same time, officer Jerry Day and Allen Crum began working their way south along the deck. As they neared the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged his rifle (by some accounts narrowly missing Day). This apparently distracted the shooter long enough for Martinez and McCoy to get the drop on him.

Your rebuttal to my response is a classic example of what happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable--they cite half-truths as facts and end up (if you'll excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot. If you were to cite your "It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets" argument while debating Paul Helmke on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, he might just turn around and (depending on how well versed he is in the facts of the UT sniper attack) respond that the civilian's only real contribution to the assault on the observation deck was an accidental discharge that almost killed a police officer. Suddenly, you're left looking very stupid, and the president of the Brady Campaign is left looking very bright.

As also demonstrated by your rebuttal, another thing that happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more dogmatic than informed is that they end up attributing anti-gun (i.e., "leave it to the professionals") attitudes to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% (even the guy who wrote the pro-gun handbook that sparked the discussion in the first place).

[Samurai Blur]

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

I never suggested we should "leave it up to the professionals" (I wouldn't have written the handbook if that was my attitude). I did, however, suggest that you were wrong in blaming the Littleton/Denver police officers for the way the Columbine shooting was handled. These were real police officers, not movie cops or cowboys. They did their jobs as they were trained. Lashing out against law enforcement is no way to reach our goals.

Also, you're wrong about the facts of the UT sniper attack. Some of the facts of the attack will never be entirely clear, since many of the participants have different recollections of the course of the events, but none of the eye witness accounts include two police officers and a civilian armed with a shotgun punching across the lawn while dodging bullets.

The police officers gained access to the tower via the underground tunnels that connect buildings on the UT campus. There they encountered civilian Allen Crum, who was carrying a borrowed .30 caliber lever-action rifle, not a shotgun. When they reached the observation deck, Officer Ramiro Martinez left Crum to guard the deck entrance, while he proceeded north along the deck. As Officer Martinez slowly worked his way north, officer Houston McCoy caught up to him. At about that same time, officer Jerry Day and Allen Crum began working their way south along the deck. As they neared the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged his rifle (by some accounts narrowly missing Day). This apparently distracted the shooter long enough for Martinez and McCoy to get the drop on him.

Your rebuttal to my response is a classic example of what happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable--they cite half-truths as facts and end up (if you'll excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot. If you were to cite your "It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets" argument while debating Paul Helmke on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, he might just turn around and (depending on how well versed he is in the facts of the UT sniper attack) respond that the civilian's only real contribution to the assault on the observation deck was an accidental discharge that almost killed a police officer. Suddenly, you're left looking very stupid, and the president of the Brady Campaign is left looking very bright.

As also demonstrated by your rebuttal, another thing that happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more dogmatic than informed is that they end up attributing anti-gun (i.e., "leave it to the professionals") attitudes to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% (even the guy who wrote the pro-gun handbook that sparked the discussion in the first place).

My dad lived in Austin and was a UT student at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_9AnmVoXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the URL for a documentary that shows 2 cops and a civilian running across the lawn to get to the tower. All accounts show that this is the most accurate story, according to the men who stopped him. I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of citing half truths when you don't know what you're talking about. Though you were right. The civilian wasn't armed with a shotgun, that was one of the police officers. The civilian had a rifle. My mistake.

Edit: Just to make sure we aren't misunderstanding each other, I wasn't arguing against the person who wrote the hand book. I was making an argument against the anti-gun mentality he was talking about which says "We should let the professionals handle it."

[Douva]

"Argument: 'The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals.'"
This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

I never suggested we should "leave it up to the professionals" (I wouldn't have written the handbook if that was my attitude). I did, however, suggest that you were wrong in blaming the Littleton/Denver police officers for the way the Columbine shooting was handled. These were real police officers, not movie cops or cowboys. They did their jobs as they were trained. Lashing out against law enforcement is no way to reach our goals.

Also, you're wrong about the facts of the UT sniper attack. Some of the facts of the attack will never be entirely clear, since many of the participants have different recollections of the course of the events, but none of the eye witness accounts include two police officers and a civilian armed with a shotgun punching across the lawn while dodging bullets.

The police officers gained access to the tower via the underground tunnels that connect buildings on the UT campus. There they encountered civilian Allen Crum, who was carrying a borrowed .30 caliber lever-action rifle, not a shotgun. When they reached the observation deck, Officer Ramiro Martinez left Crum to guard the deck entrance, while he proceeded north along the deck. As Officer Martinez slowly worked his way north, officer Houston McCoy caught up to him. At about that same time, officer Jerry Day and Allen Crum began working their way south along the deck. As they neared the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged his rifle (by some accounts narrowly missing Day). This apparently distracted the shooter long enough for Martinez and McCoy to get the drop on him.

Your rebuttal to my response is a classic example of what happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable--they cite half-truths as facts and end up (if you'll excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot. If you were to cite your "It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets" argument while debating Paul Helmke on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, he might just turn around and (depending on how well versed he is in the facts of the UT sniper attack) respond that the civilian's only real contribution to the assault on the observation deck was an accidental discharge that almost killed a police officer. Suddenly, you're left looking very stupid, and the president of the Brady Campaign is left looking very bright.

As also demonstrated by your rebuttal, another thing that happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more dogmatic than informed is that they end up attributing anti-gun (i.e., "leave it to the professionals") attitudes to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% (even the guy who wrote the pro-gun handbook that sparked the discussion in the first place).

My dad lived in Austin and was a UT student at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_9AnmVoXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the URL for a documentary that shows 2 cops and a civilian running across the lawn to get to the tower. All accounts show that this is the most accurate story, according to the men who stopped him. I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of citing half truths when you don't know what you're talking about. Though you were right. The civilian wasn't armed with a shotgun, that was one of the police officers. The civilian had a rifle. My mistake.

Edit: Just to make sure we aren't misunderstanding each other, I wasn't arguing against the person who wrote the hand book. I was making an argument against the anti-gun mentality he was talking about which says "We should let the professionals handle it."

The documentary you cite doesn't show two policemen and a civilian running toward the tower. The narrator says that the men separately "made a rush for the tower." Then, one of the interview subjects states, "they encountered gunfire and dead bodies." The documentary then cuts to a recreation of the three men on the tower. The documentary provides a simplified telling of the story, leaving out several incidents and characters (including officer Jerry Day) and leaning more toward the the legend than the facts of what happened that day ("When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." --The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance). Neither the fact that you got your information from an oversimplified documentary nor the fact that your dad lived in Austin forty-three years ago changes the fact that you were and are wrong about the facts of the UT sniper shooting.

And the fact that you continue to interpret my defense of the Littleton/Denver police officers as an anti-gun sentiment confirms my earlier suggestion that you're too blinded by pro-gun rage to be of any use to this or any other pro-gun movement.

EDITED TO CORRECT A TYPO.

[Samurai Blur]

I'm not mad, it's just my opinion? And when did we get 2 civilians and 1 cop? It may have left out details, and I'm not saying it didn't, but what I did say is that they had to run across the lawn while Whitman was shooting. I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to say that the three organized a plan together. I never said that. I admit that they each acted on their own, and that was the POINT I was trying to make. So you can stop twisting things up and trying to make it look like I don't know how it happened. Either way it goes, whether they went through a tunnel or ran across the lawn, they still went in, acting of their own, individual accord, and stopped the gunman, and the police that handled the columbine shooting attempted no such thing. So I don't see "trained tactics" as being a good excuse. And where the hell do you get that I was interpreting your thoughts about Columbine as an anti-gun sentiment?! I disagree with you, so suddenly I have to think your sentiments are anti-gun?! What the hell?

[KD5NRH]

We added 10 pages to the handbook, at a cost of $0.03/page. But the new information is all important, Texas-specific information, so it's worth the additional $0.30.

So, now you're saying that the longer I wait, the better it gets?

Can I just send an extra $5 for automatic updates?

[tarkus]

So, now you're saying that the longer I wait, the better it gets?

Can I just send an extra $5 for automatic updates?

I think you print your own updates from the PDF.