Colorado State University, one of the few schools to allow CCW on campus, has now reversed that policy and created a "Gun-Free Zone."
Basically a bunch of academics (almost assuredly liberals) decided "guns are icky" and have no place on CSU's campus. It doesn't matter that school shooters and run-of-the-mill violent criminals carry guns within those gun-free zones. It doesn't matter that CCW at CSU was never an issue nor did it pose any threat to public or student safety.
Essentially they mandated defenselsssness based not on substantive data or any type of objective criteria, but because they "feel" that guns are bad. Presumably CSU's armed police force doesn't pose a threat to those on campus. I wonder if CSU will disarm them as well?
Given that the County Sheriff has publicly stated that he opposes CSU's policy and will not enforce it I say "carry on" to all those currently CCW'ing at CSU. As Sheriff Alderden said,"They ain't coming in my jail."
Remember, concealed means concealed and you'd only be violating CSU policy not the law. That decision depends on whether you're willing to violate school policy while retaining an effective means of self-defense. I know what I'd choose.
I also notice that the vice chair of the Board of Governors did the usual "I'm an advocate of the 2nd Amendment but...." The "but" being that he wants to prohibit CCW anyway. Do anti-gunners really think they're fooling anyone when they do this?
H/T to Dustin
UPDATE - I wanted to comment on something Sebastian discussed in his post. I'm not sure exactly how far CSU's new policy extends. My initial thought when writing this post was that they were prohibiting CSU students from carrying per the new University policy. Sebastian's post has me wondering whether CSU intends for this change to be a blanket CCW ban on their campus. If so I highly doubt they have the authority to make such a determination. They are a public University that has entered into contractual agreement with students and faculty. Such an agreement does not extend to others on the CSU campus.
As an example, University of Delaware policy bans guns, however their code of conduct is not binding against non-students / employees. If I wanted to lawfully OC in Newark, within the campus perimeter UD could not prohibit me from doing so. Whether the University could prohibit me from carrying into residence, lecture, or dining halls is a separate issue and I'm not sure I know the answer.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The worst they can do is expell you.
The worst that can happen if a gunman hit your part of the campus while you are disarmed is that you will die.
"Concealed" means concealed, and in Colorado, it probably would not be that difficult to keep it that way.
As always, it is good to see the hoplophobes relying on emotion more than logic or reason - the more often they do that, the more often we can point it out, and the more often people will catch on.
No, Linoge, there are a lot of things that could happen that are worse than that. Just use your imagination.
Mike, Why do you find it necessary to disparage the school administration just because you disagree? Isn't it possible that they're highly intelligent folks making policy that best fits their needs? And the fact that they're reversing the other policy should lend them credibility, no? Aren't you always claiming that intelligent people move from gun control to gun rights and that increases their credibility? I agree with that actually, but it works the other way too. Those of us who have moved from your position to that of gun control can also be taken more seriously for that fact alone.
Once again you don't base any of your comments in reality. You talk about " there are a lot of things that could happen worse then that" but only from the anti-gun view.
You don't talk about the rapes that could be prevented, the robberies, the muggings. Statistically and practically speaking those with CCW licenses are safer then the police.
As far as disparaging the administration; why shouldn't we disparage those that are interfering with the free exercise of a legal, constitutionally protected right?
Why is it you support people breaking the law? Is it because you broke the law and therefor think others should be able to do the same?
State laws says that CSU should not deny people their right to carry. CSU is not a private facility, they should follow state law. Right?
Isn't it possible that they're highly intelligent folks making policy that best fits their needs? And the fact that they're reversing the other policy should lend them credibility, no?
They made a decision that runs contrary to all avaliable evidence. Why would that lend them credibility?
They reversed policy based on "feelings" and hypotheticals without so much as even identifying problem(s) with the current policy.
Intelligent people make rational decisions based on the evidence at hand. This was an irrational, "feelings"-based decision where feelings and ideology trumped facts and logic.
Intelligent people don't come to conclusions and make policy decisons based upon ideology and fearful pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals.
Again Comes MikeB Calling for more people to die and be assaulted.
Evil little jerk, isn't he?
I wonder what his criminal activities were back when he said he packed guns against the law.
Just use your imagination, and you can figure out how dangerous MikeB302000 is!
No, Linoge, there are a lot of things that could happen that are worse than that.
To which hypothetical situation are you referring, MikeB302000? Also, what is worse in either of the hpothetical situation? Provide specifics, examples, and details, otherwise your comment is nothing more than continued specious nonsense.
Isn't it possible that they're highly intelligent folks making policy that best fits their needs?
If their "needs" involve disarming law-abiding, licensed, trained, adult Americans and rendering them defenseless for no better reason than their own personal fears, then they deserve to be ridiculed.
And the fact that they're reversing the other policy should lend them credibility, no?
So, wait, changing one's mind should automatically, regardless of the positions you once held or currently hold, increase your credibility?
Two minutes ago, I believed that you are an American ex-pat in Italy.
Right now, I believe you are a Martian living in an Edgar-suit.
So, am I more-credible in that belief since I changed my mind?
When someone goes from a position that is backed up by facts, history, reality, and statistics, to a position that is backed up by fear, emotion, illogic, and irrational beliefs, they are going in the wrong direction, and their credibility will suffer for it.
You, of all people, should know that.
C'mon guys, when I said "Carry On" I didn't mean "Carry on with the idiot in the comments.
MikeB is intentionally saying stupid shit to try and elicit a reaction. No one could possibly be as persistently stupid as him.
No one could possibly be as persistently stupid as him.
Wanna bet big money on it?
I'm betting on MikeB302000 on this one, I think he can be as persistently as stupid as he's shown and not be just a troll.
I think he truly believes the garbage he spouts.
Or he's just an articulate troll
You giving odds?
You guys are sure some name-callin' personal-attackin' folks. You really give a good name to gun owners.
As usual MikeB whines about people being mean to him in lieu of actually rebutting what we say with something approaching a substantive, coherent argument.
A statement of fact is not a personal attack, no matter how much he screams, cries and tries to play the victim.
Now MikeB, do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion that actually pertains to this post?
All right I'll add something substantive. Linoge said, "The worst they can do is expell (expel) you."
I say, that's not true. Imagine, since Linoge is already imagining what the worst they can do is, that the school security guard suspects you of carrying and aggressively orders you to surrender your weapon. He's probably not supposed to do that but those guys aren't the brightest, right? One thing leads to another and before you know it you're in a pushing match and your facing the big question of whether this could constitute lethal threat or not. It escalates and you end up shooting the guy.
Now, you carried on campus against their express wishes, yet the rent-a-cop wasn't supposed to get pushy. So who's at fault? That's what the police will have to sort out.
Now that's more like the worst that can happen, no?
Wow, everytime I read something MikeB writes my opinion of his intellectual ability and capacity for rational thought gets even worse.
I'm not going to refute your moronic, pie-in-the-sky hypothetical point by point (that would take forever) except to say this.
1. You clearly have no understanding of the word concealed or how security works on most college campuses. (no college I know of has "rent-a-cops" for security)
As usual your comment shows you're so far out of touch with reality you're in some other universe entirely.
2. If you initiate or escalate the conflict you will have an extremely difficult time making a sucessful self-defense claim.
I, as the CCW holder am not going to get into a petty "pushing match" with some busybody.
If he's an LEO I will comply with his demands, since it's a felony for me to use deadly force to resist an arrest even if it's unlawful. Only a complete moron or a criminal (but I repeat myself) is going to get into a physical altercation with a cop, particularly since the cop knows at the outset that he's armed.
If we're talking rent-a-cop I would ignore his request since he has no legal authority whatsoever to arrest or detain me, much less to compel me to surrender my firearm.
Jesus, this is long and I've only just begun to scratch the surface of all that was blatantly wrong with your comment.
BTW MikeB - Your comment? Still no substance or coherent position. Still no facts. Just your typical hysteria and baseless tripe. Do you even know how to make a coherent, rational point using logic and facts?
And you wonder why I say your stupid and boring? You continue to prove your mental deficiencies with each and every comment.
MikeB302000 starts out trying to refute the consequences of a person caught carrying concealed in violation of school policy and ends up imagining someone being murdered.
And the gun control advocates call us violent???
Hasn't been a good day for MikeB302000 today, has it?
Holy flying carp on a stick... I am not sure which is worse, this whole, "oh woe is me, I am being picked on for being a raging anti-rights hoplophobe" or MikeB302000's borderline lunatic imagination.
I say, that's not true. Imagine...
And speaking of a load of irrational hyperbole...
1. Concealed means concealed.
2. Security guards generally cannot do a gorramed thing, and generally cannot stop, question, or detain students who are not in the commission of a crime.
3. Your ridiculous hypothetical situation requires the handgun carrying student in question to react violently to the security guard, which fails the point of hypothetical situations (you are making baseless assumptions about how a situation would go down, assumptions that fail Occam's Razor, in order to further your agenda).
4. Those baseless assumptions go even farther to the point of the handgun carrier somehow shooting the rentacop for some unknown reason. Yes, because lawful handgun carriers are shooting police officers and rentacops left and right these days.
5. No, that is not the worst that can happen. The worst that can happen, without making any random-assed, baseless assumptions about how an otherwise law-abiding citizen who spent time and money to get licensed and trained and understands how tenuously the state allows him to hold that license would somehow miraculously decide to murder a rentacop/security guard/police officer is that you get expelled.
You see, MikeB302000, unlike you, the vast majority of handgun carry permit holders are law abiding citizens. Yes, there are exceptions - there always are. But you simply cannot abridge the rights of 99% of the population, you simply cannot make assumptions about 99% of the population, you simply cannot render defenseless 99% of the population based on the actions of less than 1% of that population.
It simply does not work that way... not that I would expect MikeB302000 to undrestand statistics.
But, then again, anti-rights advocates like you have a long and storied history aiding and abetting criminals (when you are not busy being a criminal yourself), so I guess you are used to taking the actions of those criminals and expanding them to cover the whole of a population. Sadly for you, though, those baseless and repeatedly unfounded assumptions are just that - completely meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
They surely are indicative of just how unglued you really are, though...
What bothers me about these kinds of policies is how the Universities treat their students like children.
We are talking about people age 21+ who have made the decision to carry and gone through the time, expense, and numerous background checks needed to carry a weapon.
We're not talking about the wanton decision of some sophomoric 21 year old who wants to stick a glock in his pants so he can show everyone how much of a badass he is.
These people, having come to a rational, informed decision are being treated like stupid children (not to mention criminals)
Figures. I am actually hoping to get a job at CSU either at the denver or boulder campus after I graduate. I didn't realize they were a campus that allowed CCW.
I like to think this is just a flash in the pan and they'll come to their senses, but I won't hold my breath.
Exactly, Mike W.! Until these individuals prove otherwise, through their own actions, neither we nor anyone else has any cause, whatsoever, to treat them as anything other than a law-abiding, mature adult.
Now, if someone does do something illegal, then hang their sorry arses out to dry. But until then, if they are over 18 for some things and 21 for others, they are legal adults, and should be treated as such.
Post a Comment