5.23.09 Statesman editorial

[A-R]

Today's staff editorial from the Austin Statesman. Having just responded to the ridiculous "commentary" piece in yesterday's paper by the UT President, I'm not sure I want to also respond to this one and be instantly labeled "the gun nut" whose letters the opinion page staff will just laughs at and rejects.

Anyone else want to take a crack at responding to the Statesman on this one? I have made a list of talking points below, and may go ahead and craft them into another letter to he editor - unless someone else wants to take a shot.

Points I would make:

1. Why does it matter, for purposes of this bill, if society is more/less dangerous? The right to self-defense is not a sliding scale based on the latest crime stats.

2. The worry that CHL holders will "over react" or "accidentally shoot the wrong people" is a tired old retread from the mid 1990s debates on CHL in the first place. Since then CHL holders have proven their worthiness with a stellar track record. The fact that CHL would be extended to the current gun-free zone of a college campus does not make these old disproven arguments somehow relevant again.

3. The fears of drunk college kids with guns I already addressed in my letter yesterday rebutting the UT president. If they're drunk and have a gun, they're already breaking the law. Why leave a broader, over-reaching law in place that also denies self-defense gun use to students who ARE NOT DRUNK? Why punish hard-working, none-partying students for the drunken ridiculousness of the frat boys?

4. The universities CAN and already DO offer gun-free dorms. There are dorms that are limited exclusively to residents who are freshman and sophomores and under the age of 21 (by law no one under 21 may possess a concealed handgun anyway) - there, problem solved. Any student who is over 21 needs to be ready for life in the real world, where there are no "gun free" apartment complexes.

5. The reason allowing campus carry is so important is because now, with current law, law-abiding college students over the age of 21 who live on campus are denied the basic right of self defense guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (and the Supreme Court's recent interpretation) ... because they live ON CAMPUS they are not allowed to defend themselves within their "home". Whether you rent an apartment, a dorm room, or own your own home does not matter in the eyes of the law - that domocile is your HOME ... why do you think evicting deadbeat renters who haven't paid for months is such a cumbersome legal process? because you're tossing someone out of their HOME, even if they don't own it.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EDITORIAL: GUNS ON CAMPUS

Texas House should let bill die
Saturday, May 23, 2009

Gun-rights supporters are scoring some big victories these days. The Texas Senate has approved a bill to allow students who have a concealed gun permit to carry a gun into dormitories and classrooms. And Congress just approved legislation to allow visitors to national parks and national wildlife refuges to carry loaded weapons.

The main argument for approving these changes is that they will allow people to defend themselves in threatening situations until law enforcement officers can arrive. The worry is that they will overreact and shoot when it's not necessary, or accidentally shoot the wrong people.

More generally, is society really growing more dangerous? Do we need more legally armed but not professionally trained people wielding concealed weapons in public places?

The campus gun bill was inspired — in part, at least — by the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, when a deranged student shot and killed 32 students.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, is author of the campus gun bill. In defending his bill in Senate debate, he said, "I would feel personally guilty if I woke up some morning and something like this had occurred in Texas. They were picked off like sitting ducks ... in Virginia. It does happen very rarely, but when it does, it is catastrophic."

But if his bill becomes law, will

Wentworth feel equally guilty if a fraternity house or dorm room dispute, fueled by alcohol, suddenly escalates into gunfire and someone is shot, whether on purpose or accidentally, by a drunk student with a concealed weapon permit? Or by a student without a permit and who grabs the gun of a roommate who has one?

Wentworth and a majority of the Senate were so determined to let students go armed on campus that they beat back one amendment to allow a university to set up gun-free dormitories for those who want to live in one and another to ban guns from any place where alcohol is sold or served. (Private universities could take such steps under his legislation, but not public ones.)

So even those who prefer to take their chances by living in a gun-free dorm would not be allowed the privilege.

A similar bill died in the House on a technicality. The House would do well to let this bill expire as well.

In Congress, gun-rights advocates, led by Republicans but with considerable Democratic support, overturned a federal regulation that barred national park visitors from carrying loaded weapons. The measure would apply to parks and wildlife refuges the appropriate state law for carrying guns.

Last year, in a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a constitutional right of Americans to arm themselves in their own homes for their defense. We agreed with that decision.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative who wrote that 5-4 ruling, said it should not be taken to cast doubt on "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Texas doesn't have much in the way of national parks or refuges, and state law already allows visitors to carry weapons into state parks. But the Legislature should not require university campuses to allow concealed weapons into dormitories and classrooms.

[para driver]

Maybe I'll take a stab at this.. I'm a 51 year old, and have recently returned to school
to finish my degree. I am hardly the 'binge drinking, drug using' example they are so afraid of. So on one hand, these people are okay sitting next to me in Chili's, blissfully not knowing I carry a pistol. Then I turn into a trigger happy monster, the moment I step into my accounting class? Faulty logic at best.

[Oldgringo]

You've got a good response - go for it under a nom de plume.

I would add to...frat boys "and sorrority sisters".

I would emphasize heavily that underage drinking is against the law - with or without guns.

You've got a way with words - use 'em.

[para driver]

Let's see if they post it...
*******************************

Let's take the emotion out of the discussion? DPS releases statistics on CHL holders every year. CHL holders are proven to be highly responsible and law abiding citizens. CHL holders encounter drunken, and aggressive people every day without firing a shot, much less revealing their weapon. Applicants must be over 21 and pass strict background checks conducted by DPS and the FBI.

Underage drinking and illegal drug use are by definition, against the law. ADULT CHL holders are not going to associate with this behavior, that is pretty obvious.

Personally, at age 51 I have returned to college to complete my degree. I have a family and a strong career. The Austin Statesman's editorial suggests two Jekyll and Hide opinions: On one hand they feel perfectly safe sitting next to me at Chili's, blissfully unaware of me at the next table, carrying a pistol while I eat my lunch/dinner. On the other hand, the editor suggests that I will become a raving, trigger happy, lunatic the moment I enter my accounting class?

The Statesman's editorial opinion is fear mongering, faulty logic at it's best.

[A-R]

Let's see if they post it...
*******************************

Let's take the emotion out of the discussion? DPS releases statistics on CHL holders every year. CHL holders are proven to be highly responsible and law abiding citizens. CHL holders encounter drunken, and aggressive people every day without firing a shot, much less revealing their weapon. Applicants must be over 21 and pass strict background checks conducted by DPS and the FBI.

Underage drinking and illegal drug use are by definition, against the law. ADULT CHL holders are not going to associate with this behavior, that is pretty obvious.

Personally, at age 51 I have returned to college to complete my degree. I have a family and a strong career. The Austin Statesman's editorial suggests two Jekyll and Hide opinions: On one hand they feel perfectly safe sitting next to me at Chili's, blissfully unaware of me at the next table, carrying a pistol while I eat my lunch/dinner. On the other hand, the editor suggests that I will become a raving, trigger happy, lunatic the moment I enter my accounting class?

The Statesman's editorial opinion is fear mongering, faulty logic at it's best.

Very well articulated, sir.

[Oldgringo]

Well Done!

[dicion]

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most Frat/Sorority Houses located OFF-Campus?
Therefore making Gun ownership by people living there, and Concealed Carry Permits there already legal?

Also sort of shoots down the 'drunken frat party' arguement, as Concealed Handguns are already allowed at such events, and I don't recall any stories about a shooting at any.

[A-R]

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most Frat/Sorority Houses located OFF-Campus?
Therefore making Gun ownership by people living there, and Concealed Carry Permits there already legal?

Also sort of shoots down the 'drunken frat party' arguement, as Concealed Handguns are already allowed at such events, and I don't recall any stories about a shooting at any.

Was never in a Frat myself, but it was my understanding that even though they may be located off campus they are controlled by the university - or the frat is, which by turn means their house is? I don't remember all the details, but I'm fairly sure universities exerts a lot of control over Frat Houses.

[dicion]

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most Frat/Sorority Houses located OFF-Campus?
Therefore making Gun ownership by people living there, and Concealed Carry Permits there already legal?

Also sort of shoots down the 'drunken frat party' arguement, as Concealed Handguns are already allowed at such events, and I don't recall any stories about a shooting at any.

Was never in a Frat myself, but it was my understanding that even though they may be located off campus they are controlled by the university - or the frat is, which by turn means their house is? I don't remember all the details, but I'm fairly sure universities exerts a lot of control over Frat Houses.

The law doesnt specify 'controls', it specifies:

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
...
(c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
...
(f) In this section:
...
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So, unless the fraternity is on school grounds, OR POSSIBLY Owned by the school (the law is hazy here), OR there is a school sponsored activity going on there, it is not illegal. I don't see keg parties as being official 'school sponsored activities'.

As far as I know, most frats are paid for by alumni, not the school. However, I do not know how ownership is handled.

The school may place certain policies on the students that can result in their expulsion from the school itself, but I'm pretty sure they do not 'control' the frat building itself. If they did, I'm certain they would be able to prohibit the wild 'frat parties' that we are hearing about. That is one of the primary reasons If I understand correctly, why they exist, and people live there. That they are NOT Controlled by the university, and the university has no legal say as far as what goes on there.

So my point still stands. CHLers can happily carry at off-campus frat parties already. So this law has absolutely no bearing on that.

[Oldgringo]

Methinks the perception of rampant "Animal House" parties and behaviour, whether on campus or off, will be the main obstacle to passage of any campus CHL bill.

I must admit those images have crossed my mind.

[boomerang]

If they live at the house, I think they can legally open carry during a keg party if they want.

[A-R]

good points, dicion, and you're probably closer to the truth than I. But I just remember some Frats seemed to be "more controlled" than others. And part of that control, conceivably, could be the placement of 30.06 signs at each entrance to the Frat house. Yes, the Frat boys do live there. But each individual Frat boy does not control the entire house, so if a 30.06 was somehow mandated (by some group of Frat "elders" - I dunno) then I would think each member living there would have to abide by it both in terms of Frat rules but also the law. The control would seem to fall to whichever individual, group of indivduals, or legal entity (a limited partnership or and LLC perhaps?) was the official OWNERS of the property itself.

But I digress, going way off into tangents here that are getting further and further away from the core issue.

[para driver]

I had to chime in again, just to put the frosting on the cake.
Never send a boy to do a man's job!
*******************************************

FANG, you're speaking from emotion and ignoring the facts. I AM a college student, significantly over 21, and a CHL holder. I have been a CHL holder since the law passed in 1996. You wouldn't know me from the next guy, you may have sat next to me in several classes. FACT based reasoning indicates that CHL in the college classroom has statistically ZERO downside. Classrooms and campus areas are NOT secured areas like courtrooms, jails, or airports. Robbery, rape, and assault happen almost daily on every college campus in Texas. Police can't be everywhere, or respond quickly enough. Can we please stick to the facts here?