TexasCHLforum.com

http://blog.kingwoodareademocrats.org/2 ... ampus.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is another one... Lets get this survey to 90% negative like the last one.

-Smily

They are not going to like what is happening there either.

The comment displayed with the article reads like a typical anti list of talking points. The survey is now over 90% dislike. I doubt that will faze anyone. All of those who responded to the survey are probably just misguided souls, waiting for someone with true intellect to tell them how they should think.

"Senate Bill 354 is a bad solution to a serious problem. It makes us feel like we've gotten tough -- deputizing students -- but the fact is that the universities don't want it, the students don't want it and law enforcement doesn't want it because they know it will not make our campuses safer.

Just once, I'd like to see one of these antis back up their information with facts. Who says the student's don't want and and based on what evidence? Oh, I forgot. The good Senator has a pipeline to the students. It is right next to his pipeline to heaven.

Smily wrote:http://blog.kingwoodareademocrats.org/2 ... ampus.aspx

Here is another one... Lets get this survey to 90% negative like the last one.

-Smily

We're at 96% "Dislike" now. Yay

97.2 now:) i contributed.lol

The problem is that the poll question isn't about the opinion, it's about the article. So they'll probably take the results to mean the writer need to improve his style.

Emailed to Sen. Ellis' office:

Senator Ellis, your argument is based on the faulty premise that CHLs on campus will act in the manner of law enforcement, i.e., moving towards a threat, confusing the police, etc.

My counter-argument is that we have over fifteen years of experience with the Texas CHL law, including legal carrying by 20-somethings in college town. None of this deadly or confusing behavior has been exhibited. When the Texas CHL law was first enacted and CHLs started carrying, were there many, or any, instances of the police being confused about who were the good v. bad guys? No, there weren't many, or any. It was a non-issue then, and it still is a non-issue.

My second point is that people with CHLs are like people with pepper spray. They're into protecting themselves against personal attack. The most likely scenario is a dark parking lot or coming home from the library at midnight or whatever. To frame the issue as a crowded, confusing campus shoot-out is misleading. Muggers and rapists don't choose crowded settings to attack people.

Lastly, your opt-out proposal simply gives university administration the ability to maintain the status quo. They won't spend the money to have security and metal detectors in their buildings, nor a security guard in my parking garage. Moreover, allowing them to restrict campus buildings impacts me far off campus. It restricts me from carrying en route to campus. It restricts me from carrying when I travel to other institutions of higher learning across the State. The choice to get a CHL, carry concealed, and bear the attendant responsibility (and potential liability) should be my choice, not university administration.

Thanks for listening.

Regards, J.R.

"Kingwood Area Democrats[?]" All three of them?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:"Kingwood Area Democrats[?]" All three of them?

Chas.

"As it is today, campus law enforcement knows that if they see someone on campus with a gun, that person is violating the law and needs to be treated as a suspect. Under SB 354, we are going to make it much more difficult for law enforcement to know who the bad actors are.

Simply not true. There is nothing today (in the law) preventing a CHL from carrying on the campus. Only the buildings are off-limits.

4/4/2011 8:25 AM Some Othername wrote:
I have to go with the Democratic Senator supporting this bill, John Whitmire (D) instead of Ellis on this one.

sjfcontrol wrote:

"As it is today, campus law enforcement knows that if they see someone on campus with a gun, that person is violating the law and needs to be treated as a suspect. Under SB 354, we are going to make it much more difficult for law enforcement to know who the bad actors are.

Simply not true. There is nothing today (in the law) preventing a CHL from carrying on the campus. Only the buildings are off-limits.

Maybe he means if Campus LEO see's your CHL, you are intentionally failing to conceal...

ScottDLS wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

"As it is today, campus law enforcement knows that if they see someone on campus with a gun, that person is violating the law and needs to be treated as a suspect. Under SB 354, we are going to make it much more difficult for law enforcement to know who the bad actors are.

Simply not true. There is nothing today (in the law) preventing a CHL from carrying on the campus. Only the buildings are off-limits.

Maybe he means if Campus LEO see's your CHL, you are intentionally failing to conceal...

How about the sash and tiara?

sjfcontrol wrote:

"As it is today, campus law enforcement knows that if they see someone on campus with a gun, that person is violating the law and needs to be treated as a suspect. Under SB 354, we are going to make it much more difficult for law enforcement to know who the bad actors are.

Simply not true. There is nothing today (in the law) preventing a CHL from carrying on the campus. Only the buildings are off-limits.

Why carry if you cannot enter the buildings? The point is that you still have to disarm.