5.23.09 Statesman editorial
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 9:38 am
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.
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.
