A Letter to UT Dallas President in support of Campus Carry

[warhorse10_9]

Hi everyone, I am planning on sending this letter to the president of UTD in response to his call for a campus carry forum this thursday that I unfortunately cannot attend I just wanted to get some of yall's opinion before I send it. Thanks

Dr. Daniel,

I am writing you to express my support for the currently proposed legislation HB 750, HB 86, and SB 354. These bills would allow individuals with concealed handgun licenses carry there concealed handguns into campus buildings. There has been a lot of discussion about this bill at multiple universities throughout the state, and many of the reactions by students and faculty have been in opposition of the bill. A fair amount of responses are supportive though. I have been reading through many responses online in forums, as well as the responses to TAMU Dean of Faculties. I feel that many of these responses are out of fear as well as a misunderstanding of what exactly CHLs are and what this proposed legislation is doing.

I would first like to address just who would be able to carry a gun under this newly proposed law by discussing the standards and requirements that go into attaining a concealed handgun licenses, as many people seem to be confused that these bills would allow just anyone to carry a gun onto campus. First of all to get a CHL an applicant must be 21 years of age or older. Next applicants must pass an extensive background check at the federal, state, and local level. You must fill out residence and employment history for the last five years to ensure an accurate background check is reviewed. If an applicant has been convicted of a crime (class B misdemeanor or greater) or received deferred adjudication for such a crime in the last 10 years they are not eligible to receive a CHL. Any arrests are looked into and proof of final disposition is required. Additionally applicants cannot have a history of mental illness. Applicants must also take a 10-hour class that discusses acceptable reasons for the use of deadly force among other topics. They are also specifically taught to try to de-escalate situations and always stay in an adult state of mind which encourages sound judgment (This fact should alleviate faculty fears of retaliation for a poor grade). Finally they are required to pass a firearms proficiency exam therein demonstrating the safe use of a firearm. For the university this means that only senior level undergrads, grad-students, and faculty who meet these stringent requirements and receive a CHL would be able to carry concealed handguns. As you can see not just anyone can get a CHL. No unstable, fresh out of high school and into a new environment 18-year-old undergrad will be wielding guns under this law.

Another concern that has been raised in response to these proposed laws is the increased access to guns around campus. I strongly believe the passage of these laws would rather, serve only to decrease access to guns on campus today. Currently, a CHL holder (who is allowed to carry his or her concealed firearm any where on campus, outside of buildings and provided no sporting event is taking place) must leave their firearm in their automobile in order to enter a campus building. This only increases criminal access to firearms as cars are often broken into and guns can be stolen. At that point you have a criminal on campus with a loaded gun. The passage of this currently proposed legislation would help ensure access to these firearms is restricted to people who are authorized to have them. As even when a CHL holder has his/her firearm no one knows they have it as it must be properly concealed, and even the verbal communication of possession is a violation of the law. Another area of “increased access” that has been discussed is in dorms. This concern though is quickly resolved as dorms on campus are mainly to my knowledge entirely occupied by people under 18 years of age. Additionally, the proposed legislation allows universities to regulate storage in on-campus housing. With this reasoning, it is easy to see that any concern of firearms falling into the wrong hands as a result of the proposed legislation is for the most part baseless.

Additionally, I feel an opinion on this topic would not be complete if I did not discuss some of the popular campus safety issues that have been raised in reaction to the proposed legislation, and I would like to address some these points now. As I briefly discussed above, one of the issues raised by many faculty members across the state has been one of fear of retaliation for low grades. It is my firm belief has no rational foundation. I detailed above the qualifications a CHL holder must have before they are issued their CHL, including detailed background checks and de-escalation training. These requirements virtually eliminate the possibility the possibility of a CHL holder retaliating against a professor for a low grade. To further reassure you of the low incidence of crime or violence by CHL holders I am attaching a spreadsheet of crime statistics detailing CHL vs the over-21 non-CHL population compiled from DPS public records for the year 2003-2009. As you can see the incidence of crime by CHL holders is much lower than that of non-CHL holders. Furthermore, I believe that if someone wants to retaliate with a firearm against a professor for a low grade, they will do it regardless of whether it is legal or illegal for them to have one in the building (again only CHL holders could carry within a building under this law and the chance of a CHL holder retaliating is much lower). Additionally, if a student did decide to retaliate against a professor in such a way and the current legislation was passed, a CHL holder might be there to stop the incident, or the faculty member themselves could be a CHL holder and therefore able to defend themselves. Next, a concern that has been raised often is proper threat identification in the unlikely, but possible, event that an active shooter is on campus and is confronted as a last resort by a CHL holder (CHL holders don’t go looking for trouble). I feel that this concern is actually an insult to the policing agencies within the UT system. A properly trained police officer should be able to quickly distinguish between a threatening shooter and a CHL holder. This has not been a problem for the various other law enforcement agencies that have had to deal with the same issue since CHLs were first allowed in 1995. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the reason for CHLs as whole. The reason CHLs exist is so people can protect themselves in the event another person threatens their life in any number of ways. I feel that stripping a person of the right to properly and completely defend themselves just because they are on a “safe” college campus is completely wrong. Crimes can and do happen on college campuses.

CHL holders can and do legally carry there concealed handguns in any number of places today including public libraries, movie theatres, and grocery stores just to name a few. Why should the buildings of a university be any different? I understand the statement that a university should be a place for learning and open discussion, but having CHL holders able to carry their means to protect themselves their does not prevent this. In a perfect world, yes, there would be no need for this, but alas we do not live in a perfect world and violent crimes do happen on campus and thus a means to defend one’s self is necessary.

I thank you for taking the time consider my arguments in support of the currently proposed campus carry legislation, and sincerely hope I have further enlightened you on this issue.

[Dave2]

Hi everyone, I am planning on sending this letter to the president of UTD in response to his call for a campus carry forum this thursday that I unfortunately cannot attend I just wanted to get some of yall's opinion before I send it. Thanks

Dr. Daniel,

I am writing you to express my support for the currently proposed legislation HB 750, HB 86, and SB 354. These bills would allow individuals with concealed handgun licenses carry there concealed handguns into campus buildings.

The spellchecker strikes again! It should be "their", not "there". I once wrote an entire essay for a final exam in college about the "untied states" because I was tired and forgot that a word can be correctly spelled, but not correct.

Also, in the fourth paragraph, "the possibility" is written twice in, "These requirements virtually eliminate the possibility the possibility of a CHL holder retaliating against a professor for a low grade."

K, I'm going to bed now.

[GeekwithaGun]

First, I think the content is good and clear on the points. Second, I claim to be no English major , however from helping with homework and some home schooling, not to mention being constantly corrected by my much smarter kids , I need to point out a few more errors....

Not to be nit picky, but I believe you shouldn't use "first" twice in the same paragraph

I would first like to address just who would be able to carry a gun under this newly proposed law by discussing the standards and requirements that go into attaining a concealed handgun licenses, as many people seem to be confused that these bills would allow just anyone to carry a gun onto campus. First of all to get a CHL an applicant must be 21 years of age or older.

Should there be a comma here or a different way to mean the same thing?

I would first like to address just who would be able to carry a gun under this newly proposed law by discussing the standards and requirements that go into attaining a concealed handgun licenses, as many people seem to be confused that these bills would allow just anyone to carry a gun onto campus. First of all to get a CHL an applicant must be 21 years of age or older.

First of all, to get a CHL, an applicant must be 21 years of age or older.

"there" and "their"

CHL holders can and do legally carry there concealed handguns in any number of places today including public libraries, movie theatres, and grocery stores just to name a few. Why should the buildings of a university be any different? I understand the statement that a university should be a place for learning and open discussion, but having CHL holders able to carry their means to protect themselves their does not prevent this. In a perfect world, yes, there would be no need for this, but alas we do not live in a perfect world and violent crimes do happen on campus and thus a means to defend one’s self is necessary.

[warhorse10_9]

Thanks I have corrected those mistakes.

Message Away! Hopefully it helps.

[Kythas]

Another concern that has been raised in response to these proposed laws is the increased access to guns around campus. I strongly believe the passage of these laws would rather, serve only to decrease access to guns on campus today. Currently, a CHL holder (who is allowed to carry his or her concealed firearm any where on campus, outside of buildings and provided no sporting event is taking place) must leave their firearm in their automobile in order to enter a campus building. This only increases criminal access to firearms as cars are often broken into and guns can be stolen. At that point you have a criminal on campus with a loaded gun. The passage of this currently proposed legislation would help ensure access to these firearms is restricted to people who are authorized to have them. As even when a CHL holder has his/her firearm no one knows they have it as it must be properly concealed, and even the verbal communication of possession is a violation of the law. Another area of “increased access” that has been discussed is in dorms. This concern though is quickly resolved as dorms on campus are mainly to my knowledge entirely occupied by people under 18 years of age. Additionally, the proposed legislation allows universities to regulate storage in on-campus housing. With this reasoning, it is easy to see that any concern of firearms falling into the wrong hands as a result of the proposed legislation is for the most part baseless.

This isn't true. Telling someone you're carrying does not equate to intentional failure to conceal, unless you follow up the "tell" with a "show".

[Purplehood]

Another concern that has been raised in response to these proposed laws is the increased access to guns around campus. I strongly believe the passage of these laws would rather, serve only to decrease access to guns on campus today. Currently, a CHL holder (who is allowed to carry his or her concealed firearm any where on campus, outside of buildings and provided no sporting event is taking place) must leave their firearm in their automobile in order to enter a campus building. This only increases criminal access to firearms as cars are often broken into and guns can be stolen. At that point you have a criminal on campus with a loaded gun. The passage of this currently proposed legislation would help ensure access to these firearms is restricted to people who are authorized to have them. As even when a CHL holder has his/her firearm no one knows they have it as it must be properly concealed, and even the verbal communication of possession is a violation of the law. Another area of “increased access” that has been discussed is in dorms. This concern though is quickly resolved as dorms on campus are mainly to my knowledge entirely occupied by people under 18 years of age. Additionally, the proposed legislation allows universities to regulate storage in on-campus housing. With this reasoning, it is easy to see that any concern of firearms falling into the wrong hands as a result of the proposed legislation is for the most part baseless.

This isn't true. Telling someone you're carrying does not equate to intentional failure to conceal, unless you follow up the "tell" with a "show".

You beat me to it, Kythas.