TexasCHLforum.com

jordanmills wrote:

PUCKER wrote: Gun free zones are a criminal's dream,

They're not gun free zones - today should have clearly proven that, if other incidents haven't. They are victim zones. Start calling them what they are.

OK. Then call them helpless victim zones.

In the mindless bliss of those who created them, they are "gun free zones" but as we know, they are what you both have said.

I've gotta tell ya, if we had a son/daughter in college (we just have a Great Dane currently, that's enough for now!) I'd highly advocate packing heat on campus (assuming that our offspring were highly proficient CHL'ers, which they would be, just like me...cough cough cough )...I'd rather that my offspring have a shot at living than being a victim. Sure, it's illegal, but like the saying goes, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. This is all just talk though...but think about it...those of you with kids in college, be honest, and I know that you may not want to publicly (on this forum) say it, but you'll probably agree that you'd rather have your firearms-proficient offspring armed than not. (flame suit on) *(mods - it won't bother me if you delete this post)*

baldeagle wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

PUCKER wrote: Gun free zones are a criminal's dream,

They're not gun free zones - today should have clearly proven that, if other incidents haven't. They are victim zones. Start calling them what they are.

OK. Then call them helpless victim zones.

If I was still in school at this point, I would have to at least seriously consider it.

How frustrating to have to consider breaking the law just to be safe.

I remember someone calling them "criminal empowerment zones". Always thought it fitting. I agree that students who qualify for a CHL should be allowed to carry on campus. But to play "devil's advocate" for just a moment: I feel the reason that guns on campus are a hard sell is because of the other things found on campus. Namely alcohol abuse and recreational drug use. Mix that in with immaturity and you have a recipe for disaster. This reason alone will give antigunners fuel for their fires for years to come. Again, I agree that qualified students should be allowed to carry, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I thought that the Virginia Tech tragedy would have opened some of these doors by now, but............................

SpringerFan wrote:. Namely alcohol abuse and recreational drug use. Mix that in with immaturity and you have a recipe for disaster.

Most of that doesn't happen ON campus...it happens in off campus apartments. Besides, very few people who have a CHL would be living on campus...campus carry would just allow them to carry to class. Thats my response to that thought, anyway.

74novaman wrote:

SpringerFan wrote:. Namely alcohol abuse and recreational drug use. Mix that in with immaturity and you have a recipe for disaster.

Most of that doesn't happen ON campus...it happens in off campus apartments. Besides, very few people who have a CHL would be living on campus...campus carry would just allow them to carry to class. Thats my response to that thought, anyway.

True, but at SHSU where I went, we partied a lot in the dorm rooms on campus too. Good point about many upperclassmen (or over 21) living off campus.

Let me see if I have this right-

If the He (OR She) CHLer Goes to: the Mall, the Movies, Govn. Offices, Public Parks, sporting events (non pro) ETC., ETC. They are perfectly OK.

------BUT a classroom !!!!! -----
Suddenly they transform into a monster? Dangerous to all.
YET if they walk OUT of that room, suddenly they are all OK again.

OBVIOUSLY, we should destroy all classrooms and buildings, immediately, since they are CERTIFIED to be so inherently dangerous by THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF ADMIN. of the schools themselves.


(Why are "schools" making LAW anyway? --Tail wags dog.)

(DPS ALL OF IT.)






(Utah and others are ok with campus carry.)






2011

jgedmond wrote:Campus carry would be great, but I bet that there a much large number of people, such as myself, employed by large corporations that cannot carry on any work day without risking our livelihood and that of our families. This is because we cannot store our legal firearms on company property while at work without risking dismissal. While my workplace is controlled and fairly safe, my routes to and from work and places that I may need to stop along the way may not be. To me, this is the most onerous restriction, I have a CHL that is essentially useless 5 days out of 7 - this must be corrected.

I'll go you one better - I work at a STATE AGENCY and this is the policy there also. I don't know how they get away with it, but this is a notoriously out of control agency that desperately needs a Legislative slap down. I hope something is done about it this session.

There should be no abridgement of Constitutional rights anywhere. No specific location is so sacrosanct that your right to life, liberty and happiness does not apply.

AMEN!!

Walking through a door does NOT change that. The person has EXACTLY the same rights.

-

baldeagle wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

PUCKER wrote: Gun free zones are a criminal's dream,

They're not gun free zones - today should have clearly proven that, if other incidents haven't. They are victim zones. Start calling them what they are.

OK. Then call them helpless victim zones.

Target rich areas
with virtually unlimited free range time
protected by police on the perimeters of the area.
(Just like Luby's was)

Purplehood wrote:There should be no abridgement of Constitutional rights anywhere. No specific location is so sacrosanct that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not apply.

Fixed that for you.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Purplehood wrote:There should be no abridgement of Constitutional rights anywhere. No specific location is so sacrosanct that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not apply.

Fixed that for you.

My pornographic memory failed me, again.

While pursuit of campus carry is indeed something that's worth pursuing, I'm waiting for the day that the state legislature no longer publicly declares our school-aged children as ready and willing to be victimized (aka "Gun-Free Zones"). It frustrates me that law-abiding educators with CHLs are forced by the state to disarm in order to practice their profession. And to declare that our children are simply not worthy of the same protection the adults of this state seem to be worthy of is a travesty.

So to all the campus carry supporters out there: Hurry up and meet your objectives so we can figure out next how to protect our K-12 children!

kahrfreak wrote:While pursuit of campus carry is indeed something that's worth pursuing, I'm waiting for the day that the state legislature no longer publicly declares our school-aged children as ready and willing to be victimized (aka "Gun-Free Zones"). It frustrates me that law-abiding educators with CHLs are forced by the state to disarm in order to practice their profession. And to declare that our children are simply not worthy of the same protection the adults of this state seem to be worthy of is a travesty.

So to all the campus carry supporters out there: Hurry up and meet your objectives so we can figure out next how to protect our K-12 children!

I'm thinking of running for my local school board and introducing similar rules allowing chls to carry, like Harrold Independent School District did, however, I doubt I'd get elected.