TexasCHLforum.com

Big_Hitter wrote:since when do we vote on individual rights or personal freedoms?

some things transcend majority rule

this shouldn't be the subject of a poll

I agree. But it's a fact (you or I may not like it, but that doesn't change it) that no freedom or civil right can endure over the long term if there is little or no political support. Eventually, the law or the constitution will be changed.

So it is good to know that a large segment of the population seem to be with us.

Big_Hitter wrote:since when do we vote on individual rights or personal freedoms?

some things transcend majority rule

this shouldn't be the subject of a poll

A poll is simply a measure of public opinion.

The better question to ask is this:

Why do we legislate away our individual rights or personal freedoms?

The only way to change that atrocity is through public opinion and action. A poll is a first step in that direction, and can show public opinion to the legislators who take away those freedoms. Although I don't think the results are a measure of true public opinion but rather internet interest groups (such as ours), I wouldn't say a poll is out of reason. It allows us as citizens to express our interest in exercising our rights and affirm our freedoms.

My concern with have carry on campus is that it would provide a better place for the criminal minded to gain access to guns. Right now the only SURE place is a gun store.
I think we have to open our minds to life on campus in 2007. Not all universities are fenced in compounds in the boonies. Some campuses are smack in the middle of a hustling, bustling, metropolitan city where all kinds pass though some way or the other.
1. Imagine parking lots with a sea of cars where you can just smash and grab a gun. Just go down the line, you are bound to find someone leaving theres in the vehicle, since they don't want to carry it. So odds are good.
2. Imagine a dorm where anyone can just walk in a dorm and break-in a room and search for a gun. One of those rooms have to have one. Did they carry it or did they leave it? Odds are good.
3. Is everyone going to carrying all the time? Really? What about practice? football, track, basketball, etc, etc,etc. I think tuition just went up because you need some armories around campus. Teams leave campuses for days, so will they be carrying across state lines? (CALIFORNIA) So we need burglar-proof dorms now. Odds are good.


So it not that easy to say allow carry on campus. Concealed carry is one thing, but the average joe having theirs lying around campus will be like using honey to attract bees.

Just food for thought.
By the way, I have no problem with CHL on campus. For painted ones circling the wagon.

I don't know about you, but my guns don't just sit around willy-nilly. They're locked and secured in immovable lockboxes. In the car, that's a safe bolted in a secure spot without the possibility of removal unless power tools are involved.

As far as the notion that someone that young with a CHL is inherently irresponsible... Every 21 year old CHL holder/applicant I've ever met has been steeped in conscious gun safety and security from a very young age, and I would say are far more responsible with their guns than many "adult" CHL holders. I think you make some very brash assumptions when it comes to college-age CCWers.

Lucky45 wrote:My concern with have carry on campus is that it would provide a better place for the criminal minded to gain access to guns. Right now the only SURE place is a gun store.
I think we have to open our minds to life on campus in 2007. Not all universities are fenced in compounds in the boonies. Some campuses are smack in the middle of a hustling, bustling, metropolitan city where all kinds pass though some way or the other.
1. Imagine parking lots with a sea of cars where you can just smash and grab a gun. Just go down the line, you are bound to find someone leaving theres in the vehicle, since they don't want to carry it. So odds are good.
2. Imagine a dorm where anyone can just walk in a dorm and break-in a room and search for a gun. One of those rooms have to have one. Did they carry it or did they leave it? Odds are good.
3. Is everyone going to carrying all the time? Really? What about practice? football, track, basketball, etc, etc,etc. I think tuition just went up because you need some armories around campus. Teams leave campuses for days, so will they be carrying across state lines? (CALIFORNIA) So we need burglar-proof dorms now. Odds are good.


So it not that easy to say allow carry on campus. Concealed carry is one thing, but the average joe having theirs lying around campus will be like using honey to attract bees.

Just food for thought.
By the way, I have no problem with CHL on campus. For painted ones circling the wagon.

Concealed means just that, and this arguement that concealed carry provides a ready supply of guns to criminals is the one trotted out by the anti-CHL crownd over and over, and it's wrong. Closer to the truth is that a criminal would not know, by simple observation, who was or was not armed, just as it is in Texas today.

Now arguements could be made that someone could get access to the school's database of CHLs, but that just means that the school shouldn't have one, or that they will steal them from the locker room, but that just means that the CHLer will have to be more diligent about storing the gun than the average jock, same goes for them storing the gun in the car or the room, and then there's the possibility that the felon trying to steal the gun would run into someone with their gun on them.

jimlongley wrote: Concealed means just that, and this arguement that concealed carry provides a ready supply of guns to criminals is the one trotted out by the anti-CHL crownd over and over, and it's wrong. Closer to the truth is that a criminal would not know, by simple observation, who was or was not armed, just as it is in Texas today.

Hey Jim, I think I could have been a little more clearer, but when I was referring to carry on campus, I meant it in the plain english sense of it. Meaning students will then be allowed to have firearms in their main residence on campus if the law is changed to allow firearms in buildings. Right now, no one can.

Lucky45 wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Concealed means just that, and this arguement that concealed carry provides a ready supply of guns to criminals is the one trotted out by the anti-CHL crownd over and over, and it's wrong. Closer to the truth is that a criminal would not know, by simple observation, who was or was not armed, just as it is in Texas today.

Hey Jim, I think I could have been a little more clearer, but when I was referring to carry on campus, I meant it in the plain english sense of it. Meaning students will then be allowed to have firearms in their main residence on campus if the law is changed to allow firearms in buildings. Right now, no one can.

It's still the same specious arguement that the antis use, if guns on campus are properly stored then the more likely scenario is that thieves will get the bullets first, if they are not properly stored, it will surely be a criminal offense. Either way the ready supply scenario is unlikely.

I support licensed carry on campus. The key word is Licensed. Like boating, certain younger age group must take and pass a more rigorous training/testing and possibly be required to get sponsorship from a few of their professors and approval by their schools' mental healthy department. This tragedy once again proves complete banning of weapons on campus is a bad bad idea.

My 2 cents,

Greg

76% - 24% in our favor

NcongruNt wrote:What I don't get, is that according to the MSNBC story Cho seemed to have been involuntarily admitted for psychiatric treatment by the county magistrate, and this was in 2005. This should have absolutely shown up on a background check with the FBI and he should never have been sold a firearm..... I'd put the fault with the FBI for failing to deny his purchase of a firearm during the background check.

In my 32 years LE experience, I am not aware of any database that captures information on mental health issues. The FBI maintains Criminal History Files, fingerprint files, etc. but not mental health. Mental health issues are caught by old fashioned methods such as phone calls or personal vistis to friends. family, neighbors, employers, etc. during a background check. However, this type of background check is not done on gun purchasers.

I may stand corrected on this, but filling out the required form to purchase a gun relies on the honesty of the individual filling the form out to answer it correctly. Its easy to lie about mental issues and not ever get caught.

In my 32 years LE experience, I am not aware of any database that captures information on mental health issues.

I was just thinking the same thing today. I cannot tell you how many people I have Apowd over the years and I bet none of them are in any type of database that the FBI would have access to.

I hate government regulation as much as the next person but there probably ought to be some type of database that provides this information for background checks. Just relying on these people to tell the truth is not sufficient in my opinion.

CHL/LEO wrote:

In my 32 years LE experience, I am not aware of any database that captures information on mental health issues.

I was just thinking the same thing today. I cannot tell you how many people I have Apowd over the years and I bet none of them are in any type of database that the FBI would have access to.

I hate government regulation as much as the next person but there probably ought to be some type of database that provides this information for background checks. Just relying on these people to tell the truth is not sufficient in my opinion.

At least in Teas, Mental Health commitments are civil, and not maintained in ANY Criminal Justice Database. HIPAA seems to eliminate any database storage across the country.

lrb111 wrote:73 > 27 will never hear a word about it.

Currently 77% for / 23% against.

Pretty much a "run away", but as you say....we will never hear the first word about it.

77% - 23% in favor

S&W6946 wrote: . . . In my 32 years LE experience, I am not aware of any database that captures information on mental health issues . . . filling out the required form to purchase a gun relies on the honesty of the individual filling the form out to answer it correctly. Its easy to lie about mental issues and not ever get caught.

And if someone HAS been "adjudicated as mentally defective" and lies . . . can they be held legally accountable? I mean, they've already been judged to be mental cases, so can you hold a mental case responsible for being untruthful?

This isn't the first time a certified mental case purchased a gun & did evil . . . think back to the Stockton school shootings by Patrick Purdy . . . he was getting around $700 a month in Social Security payments on the grounds of mental disability, and yet police (IIRC, LAPD) repeatedly gave him permission to buy a gun in seeming violation of the Federal law which prohibits sales to mental defectives . . . so the locals let him violate the law - you could persuasively argue they enabled him to violate the law - and the Feds gave him the money to do so . . . and we got the AWB as a result of his actions.