TexasCHLforum.com

In case y'all haven't already read it, Madison from Texas SCC did a great blog post the other day on the campus carry debate. Definitely something to share with antis who try to skew the argument.

http://texas.concealedcampus.org/2012/1 ... -it-is-not

Within those premises, .

Thanks, I hadn't seen it

Nice.

From the article,

IS NOT:

Involved with holding positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses on primary or secondary schools.

May I ask, why not?

Jaguar wrote:From the article,

IS NOT:

Involved with holding positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses on primary or secondary schools.

May I ask, why not?

Which part of that paragraph do you mean?

Generally speaking: from SCC's perspective, the organization was started to tackle this very specific issue. From a general legislative perspective, pushing more than one controversial gun issue at a time makes progress more difficult. Expanding to include the issues above opens a whole nother can of worms and would certainly make it harder to get widespread support (especially primary/secondary schools - just imagine the field day anti-gun folks would have with that!) It's probably best to push one issue through, then talk about whether those other issues have any merit.

Plus, there are differing opinions on those other issues. For example, I support campus carry but am uncomfortable with unlicensed concealed carry. If you roll in multiple issues, you risk weakening your support base.

katiethompson wrote:

Jaguar wrote:From the article,

IS NOT:

Involved with holding positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses on primary or secondary schools.

May I ask, why not?

Which part of that paragraph do you mean?

Generally speaking: from SCC's perspective, the organization was started to tackle this very specific issue. From a general legislative perspective, pushing more than one controversial gun issue at a time makes progress more difficult. Expanding to include the issues above opens a whole nother can of worms and would certainly make it harder to get widespread support (especially primary/secondary schools - just imagine the field day anti-gun folks would have with that!) It's probably best to push one issue through, then talk about whether those other issues have any merit.

The part in red.

I guess you are right, baby steps. I really don't see the problem with teachers, administrators and parents carrying on primary and secondary school campuses. Sure wish they had been at Columbine, or Red Lake High School, or Essex Elementary, or Kelly Elementary, or... the list goes on and on.

katiethompson wrote:

Jaguar wrote:From the article,

IS NOT:

Involved with holding positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses on primary or secondary schools.

May I ask, why not?

Which part of that paragraph do you mean?

Generally speaking: from SCC's perspective, the organization was started to tackle this very specific issue. From a general legislative perspective, pushing more than one controversial gun issue at a time makes progress more difficult. Expanding to include the issues above opens a whole nother can of worms and would certainly make it harder to get widespread support (especially primary/secondary schools - just imagine the field day anti-gun folks would have with that!) It's probably best to push one issue through, then talk about whether those other issues have any merit.

I understand "baby steps" but many issues are resolved by simply taking one "baby step" ...
moving one sentence under

in the Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

just needs to be word-processed into

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
...
(10) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

I understand the perspective, but the way they present things sometimes seems less than beneficial to their own cause, example: when organizations take a position such as "6 States allow concealed carry on campus" when in actuality it's something like "24 States do not legislatively forbid" concealed carry on campus.

This sets up a premise upon which an argument is based, but rather than a strong "jump on the bandwagon of a tested tried and true trusted method" ... it give an impression of "lets try this and let us show you it won't be blood on the streets like you though before" and people won't want the school their kid attends to be the experimentation grounds.

By setting up a premise which appears that we are asking to be in the minority that is experimenting with if it is safe or not, it is self-defeating instead of creating the argument that Even at Virginia Tech it's already legal, though they passed a policy to allow Cho to have the upper hand, and at all California Colleges it's already legal now as it is in almost half the States in this Country, so why the need to legislate the legality of defending ourselves and make it a criminal offense, obviously just school policy is effective enough to give evildoers the advantage government seeks to give them. when ..
Thursday, August 31, 2006
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
so a year later...
April 16, 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We're on the same side of the issue, I just think/hope/pray there's a simpler way of getting many issues resolved.
NO reason more than one arrow can't be shot in the direction of the enemy and see which hits the target
(Especially when most will just fall out of quivers and get lost during committee meetings)

I'm just saying, we need to not appear as though we are "asking permission to be allowed" to do something
instead
we are asking for the prohibitions to be removed so we can be like half the rest of the nation.

When I went to gun-restrictive California Forum, they chuckled at me with "we already can carry on campus, there's no law saying we can't"

Just like almost half the country has no law saying they can't, so they are "allowed/not forbidden to" and about half the country has campus carry, so why don't we?
... instead of presenting an argument on the premise:
... hey, 6 colleges tried it successfully and no massacres or CHLs shooting teachers/fellow students over differences of opinion in class "so far" lets see if we can join the experiment.

One argument is more palatable and easier to digest.

Get on the bandwagon as half the country does not forbid it, so it is alowed ... (which is truth)
or (cringe)
let's experiment with your kids' safety like those 6 schools are doing

If we can get that 1 sentence moved to where it should have been in the first place, it solves many issues.

good post Katie... as the father of two daughters who are already about going to college out-of-town, I worry about their safety... even now that they're still here at home. I hope campus carry passes

... hey, 6 colleges tried it successfully and no massacres or CHLs shooting teachers/fellow students over differences of opinion in class "so far" lets see if we can join the experiment.

Even if we approach it this way, it's way more than 6. The number SCC used last session was 71, and it's more now that other states legalized it, and waaaaay more if you count all the states that allow it only outside buildings. :)

katiethompson wrote:

... hey, 6 colleges tried it successfully and no massacres or CHLs shooting teachers/fellow students over differences of opinion in class "so far" lets see if we can join the experiment.

Even if we approach it this way, it's way more than 6. The number SCC used last session was 71, and it's more now that other states legalized it, and waaaaay more if you count all the states that allow it only outside buildings. :)

I know it's more now, and imho, we should use the larger numbers for a ...why are we the minority late to the party/of little understanding guys when Texas should be a leader instead of like New-York non-thinkers.

All states which do not "dis-allow" it ... allow it. I'd include them. The fact that Individual Universities can set a non-legally binding "policy or rule" has nothing to do with which states "allow" (do not have a law against) *carry on campus*

a large number to the non-thinkers, indicates it's the correct thing to do.

4 out of 5 dentists recommend ....

10 out of the 12 venturing into the Promised land said it's too dangerous, only Joshua and Caleb said it'll be ok ...
crowds of individual non-thinkers generally believe a majority or a large number must be correct.

Lemmings follow other Lemmings. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lemming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People tend to go along with the crowd - get on the bandwagon

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=fR0Te8GOyCc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=T3aWPfdIeAM[/youtube]

SCC wrote: SCC -IS NOT:

About pushing some radical notion that anybody should be allowed to have any gun anywhere, at any time.

Based upon hard cold facts in the form of crime statistics comparing the general public to CHL, this is far from "some radical notion." CHL's are 15 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public and this track record is many times better than law enforcement who can carry "any gun anywhere, at any time."

While I agree that SCC should stick to promoting campus-carry so as to avoid weakening its message and support, I strongly suggest that the organization abandon any tactics and/or statements that are damaging to the efforts of the very people and organizations that actually have a chance of passing campus-carry. There is more than one way to achieve campus-carry and some approaches have a much better chance of success than others, especially those that have failed multiple times.

Chas.

Heaven forbid people be able to defend themselves (gasp)anywhere (omg) what a radical notion,

(yes sir, I'm going to bed now sir)