Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance-school not opposed

[RPB]

Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance told me the school is not opposed to the stalled legislation.

Rangel: Campus carry gets unloaded by university leaders
Posted: April 23, 2011 - 12:14am
http://lubbockonline.com/columnists/201 ... ty-leaders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RPB]

Same article, same author, "repackaged" (New title) and in Amarillo instead of Lubbock paper
Rangel: 'Weather' not right for gun bill
Posted: April 24, 2011 - 12:47am
By Enrique Rangel
http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-col ... t-gun-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[oldtexan]

Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance told me the school is not opposed to the stalled legislation.

Rangel: Campus carry gets unloaded by university leaders
Posted: April 23, 2011 - 12:14am
http://lubbockonline.com/columnists/201 ... ty-leaders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to me that you cherrypicked a single line from this article that is positive to our cause. You certainly found the silver lining in the dark cloud.

The gist of the article to me is clearly that campus carry is in serious trouble, and that the reason it's in serious trouble is that in a time of budget shortfalls, campus carry might cause state-funded universities to pay higher liability insurance premiums. That is a huge deal. This insurance issue potentially hits universities (and thus the state government) in the pocketbook.

This makes much more sense to me as an explanation of the opposition to campus carry than the simple ideological argument that university officials are anti-2d Amendment.

[GEM-Texas]

Yep, that' s not a positive article. The financial arguments about liability are telling. I've been saying that for a long time when others were more interested in ranting about antigunners and liberals, blah, blah.

Also, the bit about how even supposed progun members are quitely happy that it will die is also something that we've known about for quite a bit but some were in denial - again ranting about antis and ignoring real politics and influence.

Last, the bit about training is also telling. It's a great debate in the CHL / CCW world. Should training be mandated. RKBA purists argue NO! But many folks who are progun worry about the untrained CHL in a critical incident. The focus on campus carry is, maybe it shouldn't be, on fighting in a rampage incident. The idea of shooting an innocent or an innocent CHL getting shot by the law is a risk that many fear. Studies show that folks don't like taking an innocent life even to save others.

I know that some think folks who have training would be trusted in the campus environment but the level of training for a CHL is insufficient.

You may disagree but that's out there. The average college student who manages to get a permit and is an oncampus resident is not seen by many as a responsible actor in a rampage event. Yes, on many campuses the carriers could be older students or faculty and staff with a modicum of ability. But the kid with a gun vivid image predominates in the minds of many.

The article thus is a good one in pointing out the problems in the campus carry effort. Current strategies for passage didn't handle these attacks or concerns well. I'm not denigrating the efforts but you have to take a look at the problems. I've argued for carry at work and read the debates and that's what I've seen.

Liability, the risk of the young carrier and training are as potent as pure antigun sentiment. Progun folks buy those three factors - and add the anti folk and you have a tough mountain to climb.

[RPB]

Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance told me the school is not opposed to the stalled legislation.

Rangel: Campus carry gets unloaded by university leaders
Posted: April 23, 2011 - 12:14am
http://lubbockonline.com/columnists/201 ... ty-leaders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems to me that you cherrypicked a single line from this article that is positive to our cause. You certainly found the silver lining in the dark cloud. (I did)

The gist of the article to me is clearly that campus carry is in serious trouble, and that the reason it's in serious trouble is that in a time of budget shortfalls, campus carry might cause state-funded universities to pay higher liability insurance premiums. That is a huge deal. This insurance issue potentially hits universities (and thus the state government) in the pocketbook.

This makes much more sense to me as an explanation of the opposition to campus carry than the simple ideological argument that university officials are anti-2d Amendment.

Yeah ... Here's the thing

The "lie about insurance rates" to create ............ FEAR
about that "insurance premium claim"
Anyone have proof/quotes anything to substantiate that?

Does any "PRIVATE BUSINESS" pay higher rates for "failing to post" a 30.06 sign?

"University of Houston and other institutions in the Houston area told Sen. Mario Gallegos, who intended to support Wentworth's bill, that if the measure became law their insurance premiums would go through the roof."

Actually I think ... they'd be lowered, Here's why...
Insurance is a "risk business" the schools may have to pay millions if they "opt out" like Virginia Tech did. Therefore, rates should be lower if they "opt-in"

Real-life example:

Virginia Tech is paying multi-millions for their negligence in the foreseeable events because of prohibiting self-defense by a (OPT-OUT) "school POLICY" (even though a LICENSEE being armed on campus was not "ILLEGAL". They are paying because they "opted-out" by instituting a school policy. So they settled a bunch of lawsuits so they don't have to admit liability/be found guilty of negligence since the 2007 results were foreseeable. Two suits are still pending. Virginia Tech apparently had no sovereign immunity, as the STATE of Virginia allowed licensees to carry on campus, but the school passed a policy forbidding it.

This doesn't just apply to mass shootings, but say non-public colleges without any sovereign immunity (not State Supported) on campus rapes/robberies/murders/car burglaries to steal guns stored there ...

Speaking of sovereign immunity ... Public colleges ... insurance is risk based ... There's no more risk than before if they enjoy sovereign immunity; therefore no more risk equals no higher premium.

That "insurance argument" makes as much sense as the store/auto repair shop not allowing blacks to use the restroom because "it's an insurance thing"... "you can't go back there"

As the AT&T commercial says ... "It makes sense, if you don't think about it.
Obviously Gallegos, Ogden and some others, didn't think.

[RPB]

Besides ... Some bills contain "immunity" language.

If immune; then no increased monetary risk, therefore no increased insurance premium.

I'd hold harmless any business/place which didn't prohibit self-defense, and sue the "beejeebers" out of any which decided to be responsible for my safety and failed (like they always do in gun-free zones), while prohibiting me from taking personal responsibility.

Their whole scare tactic fails .... if you think about it.

[croc870]

The liability issue is simply an imaginary problem that does not exist. It has never been borne out by any of the "test locations" that currently allow campus carry. Expect to see a few articles pointing this out in the near future.

[Jasonw560]

I PMed a couple of friends of mine in the insurance industry of FB. One hasn't PMed me back, but the other basically said that the liability would go up because it's like if you owned a rental property and a renter put a trampoline in the yard. It increases risk, so it increases the liabilty.

Then I C&P'd part of RPB's post about sovereign immunity and VT. I haven't heard back from him again.

[MeMelYup]

By law a person can already carry on campus so the insurance requirement should be factored in. The change in law would allow carry into the classroom. Why would there be a change in insurance requirement? Guns are already on campus.

[RPB]

By law a person can already carry on campus so the insurance requirement should be factored in. The change in law would allow carry into the classroom. Why would there be a change in insurance requirement? Guns are already on campus.

Very good point; AND if certain bills passed, they'd enjoy immunity which they currently do NOT have .... therefore, premiums should decrease.

[MeMelYup]

Maybe the insurance company is anti 2nd Amendment.