Campus Carry Gun Law Passes House/Senate in Texas

Parent Cafe
121

Well, this shows only takes one person to scare a person, himself. This is just to falsely demonize people, and all they end up doing is giving themselves high blood pressure.

One thing I can say is that guns keep the bullies who demonize gun owners at bay quite handily. Only God knows what they would try to bully about if they thought they could get away with it. I had this explained to me first-hand.

My Dad did a great illustration when I was kid. He took a gun and put it on a table and closed the door to the room. We then went and did other things. Came back a few hours later and my Dad said, “Let’s go check on what the gun is up to.” Of course, the gun was in the same place just sitting there.

He went on to explain (paraphrased), “A gun has no motive, no intent and no capability to act on its own, and whenever someone tells me that they do not trust my guns, what they are really saying is they do not trust me. Now why would they not trust me, as I have done nothing to them or have ever given them any reason to think as much?”

He then said, to my sister and me, “Do not take you eyes off of anyone who does not trust you for no reason at all. And I can assure you whatever they are thinking, with your gun, they will never try to bully you, and they will keep their place.”

Yeah, I got the above. And yeah, he was correct.

The point - The reason I am not afraid of a female carrying a concealed weapon is I will never give her a reason to point it at me. Easy task to do - simply, do not bully her; do not hit her; do not take liberties one is not allowed - and, walla, the gun states put. The gun cannot do a thing without her, so I am just fine with that. The same behavior works for people who are afraid of law-abiding people with guns.

EDIT: I do believe Texas will find a workable solution to whatever gun laws are passed regardless if outsiders in other states saying they will not come there. I am thinking that Texans are thinking, “Good, stay away and go to school in another state.”

122

I agree with what your dad explained to you. It’s not that I don’t trust guns. I don’t trust those who are wielding it. When Florida was looking into the proposed gun bills, I thought of how quick a university would opt out when a shoot out took place in the parking garage. People are quick-tempered enough. But somewhat disagreeing with your dad, just because of your gun you shouldn’t stake your claim and demand no one “crosses” you. If someone takes your parking spot, you’re not supposed to pick up your gun and assert your dominance. Sure, it will scare them away, but that kind of dependence on a gun is unnecessary in my opinion.

123

I’m guessing your job allows you the luxury of making a list. Sad to say, Houston’s absorbed a multitude who either didn’t have your scruples or didn’t have the choice.

Seems like “Ma’am” and “yes, sir” is something I only dreamed of, even though I was raised on it, and the oddity these days is, when after holding the door for prosperous middle-aged women, getting a “thank you” for it.

Different strokes, different folks.

124

@lizard #119

Lol. Someone told me the problem with FL is too many New Yorkers.

I guess those New Yorkers are okay with FL’s gun laws.

125

Re Post 121 - Like with any tool, there are times and places to use them. The parking spot example is not one of them. Neither is the always mentioned Starbucks and grocery store.

My Dad was talking big picture, and I got that too. In the situation you mention above, we were taught to walk away. And I still do that today, if I see and idiot in the making. I have too much to lose than to enter into no sense with an idiot. His issue about bully was related to big societal and governance issues.

I suspect that is the case normally too for the vast majority with CCPs. With all the CCPs, where are all the Starbucks and grocery store shootings that some say are going to happen? Nowhere to be seen after millions upon millions of CCPs issued. People, again, scaring themselves.

However, what is lost in this discussion is the initial reason for the 2nd Amendment. It was not aimed at criminals, but at government.

The Federalist Papers discusses this clearly in several areas that if the government becomes tyrannical then it is up to the people to change it and defend themselves against it, by force, if necessary. The 2nd Amendment is not about national defense, hunting, or criminals, but most young people and too many adult do not even know this because of all the misinformation about the 2nd Amendment.

126

This is true. New Yorkers are crazy, but I like that about them.

Thank you for elaborating. I understand now.

127

I like New Yorkers in New York, too.

128

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve never understand the thinking here. First, were the founding fathers so pessimistic that they thought the Constitution, the vote, and the representative form of government were too insubstantial and week to ensure our republic would exist? Did they think we were doomed to become a tyranny? If so, why did they bother?

Secondly, if the Second Amendment is the bulwark against a tyrannical federal government, it seems a little strange that it is the province of the federal government through the Bill of Rights, to defend it.

129

“I don’t think Florida had widespread problems with shootings until after WW II when so many people started pouring into Florida from places like New York.”

I don’t think the over 65 snow birds from NY are the one’s doing all the shooting in Florida. It more people like George Zimmerman and that retired police captain who shot the guy in the movie theater for texting during the previews. Nut jobs with guns - Florida and it’s friend states are filled with them. No thanks.

“A gun has no motive, no intent and no capability to act on its own, and whenever someone tells me that they do not trust my guns, what they are really saying is they do not trust me. Now why would they not trust me, as I have done nothing to them or have ever given them any reason to think as much?”

Why should I trust someone with a gun I don’t know? I’m sure the retired Police Captain believed the same thing as your dad and look where it got the person sitting next to him in the movie theater.

130

Texas, Florida, they’re essentially the same unless one of them’s too hungover to make it to the competition. Yep.

Is that a personal opinion on who’s doing all the shooting, or is there some source for it?

131

These “carry everywhere” laws, and even current legal open carry laws like the guy with the semi automatic rifle with high capacity magazine parading around the Atlanta airport - this all bothers me greatly because a legal gun carryer only becomes illegal when he points the gun at someone and/or starts shooting. That just does not give anyone - a “good guy with a gun” or law enforcement enough time to stop a mass murder. You are legal right up until the moment you kill someone, and become illegal. And when I hear people talking about how they need the 2nd Amendment and guns to protect themselves against government I just laugh! When the government sends a SWAT team to your house, your gun ain’t gonna help. Even if you have a Bushmaster AR-15 wannabe, you won’t stand a chance against the armored robot vehicle they send to your house.

132

In Tampa city limits so far this year most homicides have been a combination of young males, poverty, and drug dealing…not concealed carry permit holders shooting up the town.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/string-of-killings-give-glimpse-into-tampas-recent-surge-in-violence/2232625

133

I’m afraid of criminals with guns. I’m afraid of mass shooters in public spaces. I’m afraid of power-tripping law enforcement armed with guns. I’m afraid of people who would shoot me through their closed door were I to hazard knocking on said door in the hope of receiving aid in an emergency. I’m afraid of unarmed people who would call power-tripping law enforcement to report that my son is threatening people with a gun, when he is merely holding an air-rifle he intends to purchase from the very store in which he is standing while talking on his cell phone. I’m afraid of road-rage warriors armed with guns. I’m afraid of the heretofore supposedly law-abiding citizen with a dangerous personality disorder, that suddenly goes on a shooting spree in a school or workplace. I’m afraid of the paranoid schizophrenic who should be receiving in-patient treatment from a licensed facility, getting hold of a gun and shooting a bunch of people that he’s sure are out to get him.

I am not afraid of guns themselves. I’m afraid of guns in the hands of people who would use them against the law abiding and innocent, among whom I count myself and those I love.

134

Which is why New York’s law which “altogether abrogates” the individual’s supposed Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is yet another thing that scares me. But I have lived long enough and learned enough history not to expect the likes of Ted Cruz to file an amicus brief, or even don so much as a Hanes brief in order to challenge that law.

135

OK, I will go out on a limb here. Well, really this requires little risk-taking on my part, I believe.

  1. I am going to say that in all cities across the US only a small fraction of one percent (< 1%) of homicides and shootings are committed by a person with a CCP.
  2. I go one step further and say that the vast majority of homicides and gun shootings (99%+) are done by people who already have criminal records and who could not even get a CCP.
  3. Furthermore, I posit that less than 1% of issued CCPs are revoked because of reckless use or brandishing of the firearm. (This is one thing I do not get - do people not know it is crime to brandish a gun in a place like Starbucks and the grocery store because you are in a argument about a place in line? That is a felony and jail time. For people to write on here that people would even casually think just makes no sense.)

I have not done any research here, so I have no problem being proved wrong. However, I highly doubt I am wrong about the above. And, if CCP data matches my hometown, then I am on very safe ground.

136

NYC seems to have a fondness for violating citizens’ constitutional rights
1st Amendment- arresting people for videoing the police
2nd Amendment- no right to possess a gun
4th Amendment- stop and frisk policies
did I miss any?

137

You might be surprised. Several of the Republican candidates are discussing the federal government’s undercutting of constitutional rights as a significant contributor to the breakdown of urban communities. Rand Paul has introduced legislation to stop the practice of civil asset forfeiture, even prior to conviction, commonly known as ‘policing for profit’.

Cruz focuses on overcriminalization (the avalanche of federal criminal offenses that may total as many as 300,000 if you include regulatory criminal offenses), excessive harsh mandatory sentencing, and the unfairness of a system where 97% of crimes are plea-bargained instead of going to a jury trial (with federal prosecutors unfairly holding all the cards).

Here’s a book of essays published by the New York University School of Law with essays on criminal justice issues by leading political figures in both parties.

www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Solutions_American_Leaders_Speak_Out_On_Criminal_Justice_0.pdf

Essays are from:

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Cory Booker
Chris Christie
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee
Cathy L. Lanier
Martin O’Malley
Janet Napolitano
Rand Paul
Rick Perry
Marco Rubio
Bryan Stevenson
Scott Walker
James Webb

138

This has nothing to do with lawyering or understanding law; it has to do with understanding the framework and the reason behind the various articles and amendments of the Constitution. You would be shocked how many lawyers are clueless on this specific issue.

Yes, they discussed that all the time. They understood that the natural direction of a government was to garner more power and control the people, with the end result being tyranny.

They also understand that there would be a segment of the populous who could be bought off by government to give up rights in exchange for goods and money - they lived through that with the colonists who supported the King.

Therefore, the set-up is designed to fight against tyranny arising at multiple levels. Tyranny requires single-handed coordination; there is nothing single-handingly coordinated about the set-up of this republic. That was done on purpose.

Interesting question. It is as if you believe in not trying and in surrender. That would be like asking me why I would spend energy and time defending myself if attacked, if I think my chances of winning are not that good. The answer is I try because I want to live and, more importantly, I want to live free.

The Founding Fathers bothered because they believed humans should be given a chance to live free, not under the tyranny that they experienced and for which the rest of the world was known. If you ever lived under tyranny, freedom would be definitely worth the bother.

More accurately, the 2nd Amendment is only one of the bulwarks against a tyrannical government - the one that allows use of force, the last resort when everything else fails.

However, there is a reason right to firearms is 2nd, not 1st. The 2nd Amendment is essentially irrelevant without the ability of freely associate, freedom of the press, and the right of free speech, i.e., the capability to influence your neighbors. The 1st Amendment guarantees that government does not have the only voice that the populous hears, which is a hallmark of tyrannical governments.

Overall though, the question misunderstands the relationship between the Federal government and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not the province of the Federal government to protect, not in the least. Specifically, The Bill of Rights are the rights that the Federal government has no purview over, cannot change, and must leave alone. It is up to the people to defend those rights against encroachment or reduction of said rights by government.

In short, the Bill of Rights is a big stop sign for government that says “Hands off!” in ten different and specific ways.

139

The founding fathers likely viewed the ownership of a firearm as an effective means of enforcing a polite request to “get off my property” given to a government official without a warrant. After all, they had just “politely” asked the king of England to get out of the colonies…

140

Here’s a direct link to Cruz’ essay in the Bennan Center collection mentioned above:

www.brennancenter.org/analysis/reduce-federal-crimes-and-give-judges-flexibility

This page takes you to direct links for the essays from all of the political leaders:

www.brennancenter.org/solutions-american-leaders-speak-out-criminal-justice