Concealed Carry on Campus

[insertNameHere]

Wow this board is getting big, noticed UK mentioned because they don't have guns, but they have a high rate of violent crime with other weapons. I believe that CC makes people safer, yes it does not give them the right to act like a cop, but as pointed out before you can't carry a police officer everywhere you go but you can a gun. You may carry for 50years and never need it, but the one day you do, you will be glad to to have it.

If im at my local wal-mart and someone comes in to rob it, thats fine take the fucking money Im not a cop, but start murdering cashiers, I will have to assume your on a rampage and take you down. My personal policy is I need to witness the whole thing, if I turn around to see a guy with a gun, Im gonna make sure he not another person who CC and defending himself.

Where i live the response time for the police is abotu 30mintues.... the substation is only 3miles from my house. if someone breaks into my house and tries to harm me, I would prefer to stop their attack than be killed waiting for the police to arrive.


OH and I have to bring up my favorite new argument for being armed, the tragedy at Fort Hood, where 13 people got killed and 30 injured. Those men and women where highly trained soldiers with weapons experience. Military bases located in the united states are gun free zones. The MPs on duty have weapons and people doing live fire training. Other than that, most soldiers are not allowed to be armed. I truly believe that had the people in that room be armed that wouldn't have had to wait for security to respond and may have even deterred the attack altogether.

I work at a convenience store, I feel safer having armed customers because criminals are more scared of a common person with a gun than a police officer.

[BlaqueKatt]

Not necessarily. It is possible to shoot to wound.

and although you should never draw unless prepared to fire-most of the time drawing the firearm is enough to stop the aggressor....or do the police in your area shoot every offender?


and those pointing to the UK's "success" should read this-including people arrested/imprisoned for defending themselves without firearms against assailants with firearms

During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose by 53 percent.

[Nyoibo]

Yes, but it hasn't stopped violent crimes in those countries either has it? And do I need to point out that we have a little document called the US Constitiution that gives us the right to be armed....which doesn't mean firearms necessarily.

Again, our 2nd Amendment Rights say this.

It also says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Now all you gun owners are you registered as members of a militia to be called up to keep your state free in case of invasion? No? No militia? huh, so we only like the little bit of that text that lets us do what we want?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It also says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Now all you gun owners are you registered as members of a militia to be called up to keep your state free in case of invasion? No? No militia? huh, so we only like the little bit of that text that lets us do what we want?

Which is precisely what you're doing right there. The amendment doesn't say that the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says 'the people' which, elsewhere in the constitution specifically refers to the people at large's individual rights. The first clause is an explanation for the necessity of the other.

Moreover, a Militia is just an organization of armed civilians for the purpose of defending themselves and others from threats both foreign and domestic. Some "Militias" have government support, but they are technically military organizations (by the State, for the State). All true militias rely on the individual's pre-existing ownership of a weapon. In order for the ad-hoc style system of a militia to work, it's potential members must be able to arm themselves. They also lack any sophisticated or rigid structure, 'members' simply remain ready for an incident, in which case they react to it independently. Membership is defined only by an individual's participation and preparation. Any gun club, the NRA, or even CC status can be construed as militias. All of which is irrelevant because it's the People's right that is guaranteed, not just militia members.

In short, it's impossible to have militias without armed civilians. The National Guard was organized for a similar purpose, but it is part of the Military. Just because two things endeavor to produce the same result, that doesn't make them the same. Nor does it mean that either should replace the other.

[radiocerk]

In reference to the theatre owner bit, I was of the assumption that someone's personal property rights trump a CC. If someone has posted a "no guns" sign, it is tromping all over someone else's rights because you feel yours are more special. Especially considering things like the Castle Doctrine, where do you stand on that opinion? Is a person's property theirs to do with what they wish, or can others flout that because they have the right to do things wherever they please, even though the 2nd Amendment only has to do with laws and the government?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

In reference to the theatre owner bit, I was of the assumption that someone's personal property rights trump a CC. If someone has posted a "no guns" sign, it is tromping all over someone else's rights because you feel yours are more special. Especially considering things like the Castle Doctrine, where do you stand on that opinion? Is a person's property theirs to do with what they wish, or can others flout that because they have the right to do things wherever they please, even though the 2nd Amendment only has to do with laws and the government?

In this instance it's up to the local government/courts. The problem stems from the fact that there are two sets of rights competing. Is the right to prepare one's self for self defense more or less important than a business owner's right to exclude service? In that sense it's not about CCer's flouting other's rights but which rights take precedent over which others (because technically both individuals have those rights even though they don't apply in a specific circumstance)

Now, I'm all for a business owner's rights to extend to where they can throw people out for causing trouble. But there's a limit to what that applies to. The act of being gay, jewish or wearing pink clothes for example are protected under free speech, the first amendment. Concealed carry, protected under the second, is quite similar in this regard. It can be construed (and I agree) that open carry is similar to indecently revealing or lack thereof of clothing in that it's passive existence can cause serious disruption. Whereas revealing clothing underneath covering clothing is similar to concealed carry in that both don't disrupt unless their revealed, at which point and only that point it becomes subject to business owner's rights.

[Vash113]

It also says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Now all you gun owners are you registered as members of a militia to be called up to keep your state free in case of invasion? No? No militia? huh, so we only like the little bit of that text that lets us do what we want?

How can a militia exist without Civilians who are armed? A militia is not the same thing as the National Guard, militias are not run by the Government, they do not have a rigid structure nor are there "Militia Recruitment Offices." Militias are really ad-hoc, loosely formed and loosely organised groups of armed civilians tasked with protecting their property and their nation from threat. It would be impossible for Militias to exist without Civilians rights to gun ownership.

That is why those two clauses exist in the Constitution, but it is also important to note that they are also two very seperate clauses. The full sentence is: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The founding fathers were not so careless anywhere else in the Constitution or Ammendments to refere to "the people" when they really meant something else. Whether you like it or not, the 2nd Ammendment specifically allows for "the people" aka all United States Citizens the right to own and bear arms. You can't just take half the sentence and try to twist it to mean what you want, it doesn't work that way.

With regards to "no gun signs" I see those as little better than "no Negroes" sign in that it is an attempt by some to exclude others and impede their rights because of personal bias. As Wingates said, open carry can be disruptive, like indecent exposure is disruptive, but concealed carry is not. The only way you'd know who was carying a concealed firearm was if you put metal detectors or security guards at the entrance to every store to frisk and search every single customer, and I shouldn't have to explain how that just isn't practical or acceptable. It's just as unacceptable as a store owner asking every customer if they're gay to try to exclude that group from their store.

There's an extent to where private property owners can reasonably expect their customers to not be disruptive and detract from their buissiness, but that does not extend to illegal searches or discriminatory interrogation.

Are those analogies cheap shots? Heck yes, but as this thread has shown, plain and simple logic, common sense and practicality have done nothing what so ever to mitigate the irrational and nonsensical fear some have concerning Concealed Carry holders.

[guywithashovel]

I have been following this thread since it started, and I haven't contributed anything because I haven't felt I've had much to add to the discussion.

However, could I request that some of you gun control advocates stop acting like all Concealed Carriers and all gun owners are reckless, paranoid, and ready to shoot anyone who offends them in any way? Just because one person you know who was a CC did something reckless with a firearm doesn't mean the CC testing isn't respectable or that all such people are like that. I'm sure many critical thinking gurus could draw more than a few distinctions with this analogy, but every single day, licensed drivers do reckless things with their cars. Does that mean that we should assume all drivers are reckless, that driving should be made illegal, and that drivers' tests are not respectable?

I suspect I may get chewed out for saying this, but grouping all gun owners together with nutcases who can't go to the bathroom without a firearm in tow is really no different from assuming all gay people are pedophiles or that all Hispanics are lazy and on welfare.

[Pagan]

If im at my local wal-mart and someone comes in to rob it, thats fine take the fucking money Im not a cop, but start murdering cashiers, I will have to assume your on a rampage and take you down. My personal policy is I need to witness the whole thing, if I turn around to see a guy with a gun, Im gonna make sure he not another person who CC and defending himself.

I had forgotten about this http://hockscombatforum.com/index.php?topic=980.0;wap2 until you posted. And might I note, he was the only one that did anything to help this woman. Everyone else was just standing around. I'm sure she's happy he was carrying concealed. As far as I know, this has been the only fatal CC shooting that we've had in 6 years.

and although you should never draw unless prepared to fire-most of the time drawing the firearm is enough to stop the aggressor....or do the police in your area shoot every offender?

Actually, sometimes it seems like they do. APD anyway. I don't know what they hell their problem is, but damn they pull some stunts. You rarely ever see any untoward behavior from Bern Co Sheriff Dept.

During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose by 53 percent.

Kind of like how Prohibition was such a rousing success? Wound up with more alcoholics after we came out of it.

However, could I request that some of you gun control advocates stop acting like all Concealed Carriers and all gun owners are reckless, paranoid, and ready to shoot anyone who offends them in any way? Just because one person you know who was a CC did something reckless with a firearm doesn't mean the CC testing isn't respectable or that all such people are like that.

Exactly. One of our regular customers has a CC. He is the nicest, most calm person I have ever met. And honestly, I feel safer when he's there because I know if any of the meth heads started causing problems, he would not hesitate to protect us.

[daleduke17]

It also says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Now all you gun owners are you registered as members of a militia to be called up to keep your state free in case of invasion? No? No militia? huh, so we only like the little bit of that text that lets us do what we want?

Illinois Constitution states that all citizens are members of the state militia. We just need concealed carry here.

[Tanasi]

My opinion on business owners posting no carry is: That's fine it's their business and if they don't want customers carrying inside their business then customers shouldn't. That being said unless I have no other choice I do not frequent such businesses. I'll respect their choice I expect them to respect mine.

[Tanasi]

Interesting read.

Woof.

[jackfaire]

Honestly if your afraid of people carrying concealed guns you should be afraid all the time because like so many other things all the license actually is is a piece of paper.

Those people that would get pissed about a grade and point a gun at you over it don't care about that piece of paper they are already carrying the gun. You speak as if this piece of paper is some magical thing where if someone doesn't have it they are physically incapable of strapping one on.

The other people who truly want to have a gun on them and so carry one would be more encouraged to properly know the weapon and how to use it. I personally know a CC who not only has the weapons training to handle her firearm but she also does weekly martial arts training.

Her firearm is her last line of defense. Not her first. Living in a state that allows CCs there aren't even near as many as you seem to think would suddenly crawling out of the woodwork and those that would use their weapons to commit crimes would never risk becoming a CC because that would mean registering the weapon they intend to use to commit said crimes.