# Guns on Campus



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

I saw this video today and wanted to know your opinions on the subject. Although i am finished with school (i graduated from the U) I am all for guns on campus. Some in the video are not some are. Being a CWP holder myself i have carried on the U campus and know other who do as well. Whats your opinon..

I know some of the poll options are obvious and in certain situation you can carry in them which is why you can select 3 options.... I know each situation is different but i also have encountered in some way shape or form "NO GUNS" at each option.

Video Link about University of Utah....

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 ... eapons.ksl


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Is there an option for all of the above? That would be my choice, glancing at the list.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

jahan said:


> Is there an option for all of the above? That would be my choice, glancing at the list.


There is now...


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

if you have a cwp then anywhere if not then they shouldnt be allowed into sporting events or gov. buildings. for the rest, let them keep them. most of those other ones would be infringing on the second amendment (which will be blown to smithereens if Hillary gets in office).


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Where is the choice that would allow anywhere anytime ???

OK, now I voted.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I hear ya, Al. None of the above.

If you've been entrusted with a Concealed Weapons Permit by the government, then they would have no reason to worry about you. Having responsible, armed citizens throughout the population is much safer than having "No Guns" at all. 

The people that would cause problems involving firearms tend to disregard those signs, anyway. The best protection is to have CWP holders ready to take defensive measures...Or a slew of police officers everywhere. Like that'll happen.

I see nothing wrong with a responsible gun owner packing in a church, at an elementary school, at a cub scout meeting, or anywhere else they may wander. That right shall not be infringed.


----------



## Spry Yellowdog (Sep 8, 2007)

Al Hansen said:


> Where is the choice that would allow anywhere anytime ???


Thats my vote also...Anywhere-Anytime

Spry


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

OK, i added everywhere

I agree you should be able to carry anywhere. I went to the arts festival last year and there were metal detectors and signs stating no weapons. I know some of these places listed don't allow you to carry but ALL of the others i has witnessed a blockage of my right to carry. 

And YES i am talking if you have a CWP


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

If psychos and criminals have no limits on where they can carry guns - and the police feel that they need to have the right to carry guns in all of the above places - then we, as authorized CCP holders should be able to carry guns everywhere.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

Just to play devil's advocate...

Some of the options above include churches and businesses, which are usually private property. Even schools are sometimes private property.

Shouldn't a private property owner's right to make decisions about who does what on his or her property supersede a gun owner's right to carry a weapon there?


----------



## scattergunner (Sep 21, 2007)

Agreed Petersen.

Private property owners should have the right to set rules for their own property, and they should be clear and well communicated. Aside from that, I don't know as there are many places where it makes sense to me to ban lawful carry.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Just to play devil's advocate...
> 
> Some of the options above include churches and businesses, which are usually private property. Even schools are sometimes private property.
> 
> Shouldn't a private property owner's right to make decisions about who does what on his or her property supersede a gun owner's right to carry a weapon there?


I have no problem with that, unless the private property is a place that invites the public in. If anyone can come in then I should have the right to carry incase the bad guys show up.


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

Petersen, the only schools that are 'private' are PRIVATE schools.

All other schools are 'entities' of the state and cannot dictate or flout state law in regards to firearms.

PERIOD.

I am with LOAH on this one. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms. THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

Petersen said:


> Just to play devil's advocate...
> 
> Some of the options above include churches and businesses, which are usually private property. Even schools are sometimes private property.
> 
> Shouldn't a private property owner's right to make decisions about who does what on his or her property supersede a gun owner's right to carry a weapon there?


Which is why im the only one who voted for them. So far at least....


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

Because of my job I end up hanging around too many government buildings, mostly courthouses. I'm glad they don't let people carry inside, and personally I think there should be a buffer outside as well. Nothing like a contentious divorce proceeding to make you shuffel a little quicker toword the door. 

I also don't agree with allowing guns on campuses. It's a closer call, for me, but I once chose to not continue an academic argument (that was pretty heated) because I knew my opponent was carrying. That's kind of b.s. I regret it now and wish I hadn't backed down, but I'm a gun guy, and if I'm intimidated, what about all those who've never seen a real gun?


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

Every piece of actual, factual evidence I have ever seen on the subject of concealed carry indicates that the very presence (not even the use) of concealed weapons decreases the number of violent crimes. The debate at the U of U has been astonishing for me to watch, because the academic community prides itself on making decisions that are based on facts/research. Banning concealed carry has been statistically proven to increase violent crime percentages. We can only speculate about what might have happened at Virginia Tech if concealed weapons were allowed on campus, but one thing is certain: Students and faculty alike were DEFENSELESS against the armed lawbreaker and paid with their lives. IMO public venues, with the exception of government facilities such as law enforcment and court buildings, should allow concealed carry. It reduces crime for all, not just CWP holders.


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

> Shouldn't a private property owner's right to make decisions about who does what on his or her property supersede a gun owner's right to carry a weapon there?


Yes, a private property owner does have that right. However to make it stick they must register with the state as a no gun property and then post visible signs at entrances to the property, or in the case of buildings, at the doors. Once this is done it is illegal to carry there even with a Permit.

Many churches, have registered as no gun areas with the state, but they don't post the signs, so I don't know if they can make it stick. Its a technical question I can't answer. You may get the judge to agree with you, but it ain't worth the fight. I just don't carry at church.

Many businesses and factories have "no gun" rules written into their employee manuals. They can make this stick for employees, but if a non employee carries there it won't be illegal. They may fire an employee for packing, but what are they going to do with the visitor? I guess they can ask him to leave if they become aware of it. A gun properly concealed most likely won't be discovered any way.

Some areas are no carry because of Federal rules. Post offices and federal buildings are on that list.

I have no problem with CCW holders carrying anywhere. You must realize that to get a permit you must first undergo an FBI screening. The people who hold the permits are good people, law-abiding citizens, and they are not the perpetrators of violent crimes or any other crime.

Those who have permits must be willing to NOT carry anywhere it is illegal. To do otherwise jeopardizes their permit. I am sure they do observe these rules, because they have already demonstrated their character.

Carry on.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Personally I think that many individuals who aren't accustomed to firearms or who aren't educated about them or those who carry and use firearms, somehow equate guns and those who use them with criminal activity. Its as if guns are inherently evil and the people who carry them are going to hurt people. Its an opinion based out of either pure ignorance, or traumatic past experience. I would guess ignorance is the biggest reason. I also think that there should be some form of firearm education during school. Not necessarily educating kids how to use them, but to not be afraid of guns themselves, and to leave them alone outside of adult supervision. That's a fine line to walk though.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

It is probably largely a media-related issue. Gun-related media coverage is typically nearly 100% crime oriented. People are exposed to shootings in schools, post offices, Trolley Square, and other venues. Robberies, murders, and other crimes are always reported often with a graphic of a gun displayed. Accidental shootings are talked about too. What you generally don't see is a story showing factual evidence that responsibly owned and carried firearms are proven by facts and data to reduce violent crime and deter confrontational criminal activity. Outside of the NRA's publications, you also rarely come across stories about armed victims saving their own bacon.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Criminals carry everwhere, why should law abiding citizens be restricted from doing the same?

Fishrmn


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Isn't Trolley Square a private property/no guns area? Saw how well _that_ concept worked out...
I don't think that mere private property should be a reason to allow me to put my life in danger. 
I am not the type that will trust my life to the, perhaps, faulty reasoning of some property owner that really doesn't have my personal protection in mind other than to call 911 and have the cops draw a chalk outline around the victims. All of this hinges on the media-driven belief that CRIMINALS or psychos will respect any signs or laws, which is simply being naive.
Effective deterrence to violent crime is to create the impression that there are armed citizens EVERYWHERE. Anything else creates a danger zone that sends the message that violent crime can be committed with minimum risk to the criminal in such-and-such a designated "no-gun zone". CCP holders are NOT the danger!
I welcome all of you gun-toting CCP people on my private property. Someday _you_ might save _my_ life.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

+1


----------



## marksman (Oct 4, 2007)

If someone doesn't want visitors carrying in their home without permission they shouldn't be allowed to. It's their home! I think that any other private property owner should be entitled to the same ability to choose. In the case of privately owned places that allow the public to enter I find no difference It's their land, building, etc, they get to decided what goes on there.

As far as the idea "I don't think that mere private property should be a reason to allow me to put my life in danger.". I disagree It's your choice to visit places that prohibit firearms or not visit them. If you disagree with a private establishments firearm policy then don't frequent that establishment and maybe they will change their policy. Isn't that the free market way of dealing with things. I don't think the government should be making decisions for people what is allowed on their property, that just seems like a bad policy presidence to set.

I agree that It's a bad policy to prohibit guns. But I support a private institutions right to enforce bad policy on their own property.


----------



## Desperado (Sep 27, 2007)

When I got my CCP, the instructor told us that by law a place that does not allow you to protect yourself by carrying your firearm is required to have armed security guards to protect your butt. Does anyone know if this is accurate? My instructor was full of crap on quite a few things, but I am wondering if this is one of them.

Even if that is true, one guard with a gun in a mall or a movie theater full of people doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy. Especially since most of the "security guards" I see around here make Barney Fife look like Rambo.


----------



## scattergunner (Sep 21, 2007)

Desperado said:


> ...the instructor told us that by law a place that does not allow you to protect yourself by carrying your firearm is required to have armed security guards to protect your butt. Does anyone know if this is accurate? My instructor was full of crap on quite a few things...


I think you can add this to the list, Desperado. I'm no legal expert, but do have some familiarity, especially when it comes to the laws of our fair state. I'm not aware of any such requirement. Although, in a liability sense, it stands to reason.


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I believe the instructor may have said that business who prohibit firearms have no liability protection unless they are mentioned in the statutes. The last change in the law allowed churches to register with the state and they would be protected (kind of under-handed if you ask me). The local business that prevents you from carrying your weapon has no protection unless they make a reasonable attempt to protect the public (i.e. Armed Guards). This is my understanding, so check with a licensed instructor to make sure. I believe the BCI web site goes into this issue also.


----------

