The Colorado State University Board voted 9-0 in favor of banning students from lawfully carrying concealed weapons onto campus. Previously, the policy at CSU allowed students with a valid concealed carry permit to carry firearms for personal protection while attending class and conducting business on school property. But alas, the gun haters in our state have motioned to make the campus a safer “gun free zone.” (Like Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Omaha Mall, etc.) More noticeably is the interesting fact that the board has voted in strict opposition to the results of a Student Senate vote which expressed the students desire to keep lawfully concealed weapons on campus.
Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board’s decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the “members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system.” The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating “there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime.” Which, in and of itself, may be a true statement. Of course by looking at the location of high profile massacres, it is interesting to note that one common denominator is, in fact, the implementation of disarming the targeted people. Take for example Virginia Tech which was a gun free zone. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood, where the cadets were not allowed to carry firearms during their ceremony. Consider the shooting at Omaha Mall, where concealed carry was banned by the mall administration; the list continues. As Thomas Jefferson once noted in his Legal Commonplace Book, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
But ironically it was the Virginia Tech shooting that prompted CSU to reconsider its policy on handguns. Strange how none of the board members considered the notion that arming law abiding citizens might create a hostile environment to any would-be armed lunatics.
The Board’s vote on Friday demonstrated a clear contempt for the will of the Student body. In a vote of 21-29 the students voted to retain the current CSU handgun policy. Even within the student body, however, there are those that support the idea of a ban on campus. One of the students in support of the ban explained his hesitation by saying “If I see a girl sitting next to me with a gun in her purse, I’d be wondering if she had ulterior motives.” But this student, Steven Titus, is missing the point of a concealed firearm. State Law requires a concealed weapon to be “hidden from ordinary view.” Everyone would be oblivious to the fact that Jane Doe is carrying around a .38 stub nose revolver in her purse. And has Steven considered the fact that if someone else on campus had an “ulterior motive,” his neighbor with the revolver would be the best chance at successfully ending a violent eruption in the classroom?
At the core of the argument is the notion that a “gun-free” policy would arrange for a safer learning environment. But why is it that some people think that school property somehow makes a lawfully concealed weapon any more dangerous? What substantial difference is there between carrying a firearm into a movie theater (as I did last week), or carrying it into a classroom? In the last week countless permit holders across the state carried their firearms (concealed) as they ate lunch, worked in the office, went to the ballet, shopped in the mall, and took public transportation. Are these same people any different by somehow stepping onto the property of a school? Are they any more prone to violence than the average unarmed citizen? It might even be argued that permit holders are in fact predictably more law abiding than the unarmed citizen given the training, background check, and preparedness that they undergo in obtaining permission to legally carry the means to defend themselves. At the very least, their permit demonstrates a clear respect for law and order. (After all, carrying a concealed weapon is not difficult. Plenty of criminals do it on a regular basis without obtaining any permission to do so.)
Moreover, (and it has been repeated countless times) only those interested in following laws and rules will abide by the decision of the Board. Permit holders are not criminals or murderous thugs. Nor are they any more of a potential threat than any regular citizen. No criminal plots a mass murder, and thinks to himself “If only I could get a concealed weapons permit so that I might legally carry the weapon to and from the crime scene.” And likewise, no sociopath will be deterred from harming others because of a sign or policy that politely reads “No guns allowed.”
Some are rightfully questioning the authority of the CSU Board to make such a decision. Colorado state law sets specific limitations on where a permit holder may or may not carry their firearm. (Click here to see the specific locations off limits to concealed carry.) Because CSU is publicly funded, some students are beginning to question the Constitutionality of a firearm ban on school property.
It is likely that some students will begin to fight the actions of the Board. With the Student Senate behind them, and organizations such as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners supporting the preservation of CSU’s current policy, it is likely that resistance will plague the board’s ability to move forward. But it is not likely that anything other than the board’s decision will actually become policy. A total of 23 states allow their campuses to decide their own gun policy, and nearly all of the schools ban weapons. In El Paso County a judge tossed out a lawsuit against the University of Colorado, determining CU had the authority to ban weapons on school property. (Yet, statutes pertaining to concealed carry in Colorado Law say nothing about the campuses of higher education.) Utah takes a different approach in ensuring the safety of their students by prohibiting schools from adopting any firearm ban on their campuses.
By a vote of 9-0 the board decided to prohibit the lawful act of carrying a concealed weapon (with a permit) on school property. How interesting that some in this country believe disarming the peaceable and obedient will somehow curb the actions of the violent and insubordinate.
Please watch the video below to hear an incredible story about the failure of gun control:
Please check out the Denver Gun Rights Examiner to read his take on this issue.
Please also consider reading: Conservatism 101: What is the role of guns in modern American society?
To receive Michael’s articles in your email as soon as they are published, be sure to click on the “subscribe” option near the top of this article. For more information or to contact Michael, please visit Conservativeproject.com. Also, be sure to find Michael’s face book page, and become a fan.
Comments
How many innocent people must die, due to “Gun Free Zones” disarming US Military personnel, students, and teachers?
This is another reason why our country is failing so miserably. Criminals are routinely released back into society, and kill and rape again, while laws are written to ban Free men & women their God given right to protect their own lives.
Become politically active, and vote out anyone who leans towards the banning of guns, your 2nd amendment rights, and your rights to conceal carry freely. Your life depends on it.
Join Gun Owners of America, and the NRA.
So, Colorado will now have only a person intent on killing as many people as possible carrying a gun on CSU's campus but will not allow the one person who could stop him/her, a law-abiding conceal carry permit holder, to carry the gun that can stop a mass murderer.
I am not specifically familiar with Colorado law, but the questions I ask are:
- Does Colorado law specifically state that businesses can post and adapt a "No Firearms Allowed" sign and policy?
- If not, how does a business stated policy override state and federal law?
- Third, the legal and moral right to defend yourself against deadly force is well established in history, society and law. If a business does limit your right to self defense, is it aware that it assumes - legally - the role of protector while you are on it's premises?
Gun-free zones are where students get killed by gunfire.
I am a freshman at CSU and now feel far less safer today than I did just yesterday. This is an insult to us as students and is a direct and blatant violation of what our senate has decided. The board obviously does not think that permit holders are responsible enough to protect themselves or their classmates. I hope and pray to God that nothing ever happens here at CSU but if it ever should the blood of the fallen will be on the hands of the board and not us students.
So, Colorado will now have only a person intent on killing as many people as possible carrying a gun on CSU's campus but will not allow the one person who could stop him/her, a law-abiding conceal carry permit holder, to carry the gun that can stop a mass murderer.
It has been proven that guns are animate objects. They are self aware and have the ability to control whomever it wants. On a whim, it could make the most alert, responsible, God fearing person go berserk and commit mass murder. This is truly the reason why people are so afraid of them. They will posses you.
Please read all of what I write. It was all sarcasm. I just had to see what it felt like to be an idiot spouting nonsense.
NCB stated that the blood of innocent victims will be on the Universitys' hands. While this is true in every aspect, they could actually care less. If they DID care, the right of every student on that capmus to defend themselves would not have been silenced. I say silenced because I believe ones' right to self preservation can never be revoked. It is a natural right. Inherent. That means it is yours and yours alone. Also being a somewhat free country, it is an individuals choice whether to envoke that right or not. (cont.)
(cont.) I just wonder if a class action lawsuit could be brought forth against those who are willingly putting innocent lives in danger. Given past incidents with "Safe Zones" it is very likely that it will happen again. I mean why wouldn't it? There is no-one there to resist. Or, if the numbers are great enough, stop going to class and demand a total refund on tuitions citing lack of trust in student body and unfreindly environment. Hit them all where it hurts. I know that's alot to ask of a young adult trying to better themself and prepare for their future but I believe the bigger picture is what needs to be looked at.
Are y'all aware also that it is out of our schools, especially those of higher learning, comes all of the teachings that are central to our woes of today? They are hotbeds of radical thinking. My place of business for instance was near a State College. A few did business with me. They were always telling me that we should take the rich peoples money away from them and divide it up equally with the rest of the people. I told them finally that I had served in the military for 3 years to protect their right to believe that crap. My dad served in the Marines during WW2 to protect their ri==ghts. Our armed forces had always fought and died to protect peoples rights to free speach. I would die to protect their right. Howevwe, If they ever tried to shove their ideas down my throat I would kill them. Sorry but that is just how I feel about it. The board of this college is violating their CUSTOMERS CIVIL RIGHTS! Didn't we just fairly recently have much turmoil over civil rights???? Now what????
It is time to do something about our employees in elected office. They are stealing from us. they do not our will. They do that which is not in our best interest. How long would you last in your job if you did this? How long would you stay out of jail? All of them, every one, are guilty in one degree or another of crimes against their employers. So if someone runs against an incumbant VOTE FOR him or her! Party does not matter. It really does not matter if they win or not. It does not matter if they are as bad as those we voted out. Think about it! We cannot llose. The next time we will have a much larger bunch of newbies running and a better choice. the third election and the incumbants will be messing their collective drawers. Then send them a mandate that they will make a law againsrt lobbying. Give each person running a million out of the taxpayers pocket. It will be much cheaper in thelong run. Oh and what they do not spend will be returned immedieately.
Now we will have employees that vote for what we pay them to vote for instead of voting for what the lobbiest is paying them to vote for. Now we are cooking! Set up a school that thereafter every one running for office will have to attend and pass the course before they can be sworn in. It will be a course on the Constitution of the United States set in context. Context would include the language of the day it was written (which is different than todays)and in the context of all the wrightings and speaches of those who wrote this great document. It is all there, contrary to what the trained liars have told us. Then have those same instructors along with their former students look at all laws on the books. Give them the authority to strike any and all laws that are not constitutional. Then require all judges and justices to take that same course. Any person who proposes an unconstitutional law thereafter shall be fired immediately.
Now we are really cookin. I believe that this will also get the IRS. Now we are so far in debt that we will have to have a tax to get us out. But no costly, unfair, unwieldy system like the IRS. there is two options that I know of. One is called a flat tax. Under this system every person would pay a percentage of their wages no matter how much one makes. In this I see two glaring faults. One, it makes a hardship for low wage earners and their children. but we need to end the beaurocracy inherant in tax returns and tax reports and such. Also, How do you get the fat cats to pay their fair share? they have so many ways of hiding their income and we want to end the beaurocracy inherant in inforcing the law. there is another called the fair tax. With this tax you only tas what is spent. Yes it is a national sales tax. It has its inadequacies also. It has to also have beurocrats. However all they do is to make sure that the money comes in ad goes into the bank. Some places of business will
try to cheat. So it winds up that both systems are about equal in the collection department. However both systems are much much better than the present system. think about it. All those offices in nearly every city in the country with two and many more employees. All that office equipment to maintain. all those people required to check tax returns and calculate the return. All those tons upon tons of paper and the ink to print them. all the people to do the work and the supervisors of supervisors of supervisors. The cars needed tye storage facilities the trucks and rdrivers. the env=forcers. Yea it wiol put a lot of people out of work but the economy would skyrocket so they would go back to work very quickly. At least the competent would. But just think about all of the tax money not going into the unions pockets to pay our employees to do that which is not favored by us the employers. Why the national debt could be retired in just a few years on a fraction of the taxes we are
paying now. also by getting rid of a bunch of unconstitutional laws we would be getting rid of a bunch more employees that could be better serving us instead of sucking our blood. We also have to get rid of the federal banking. we do not need such making policy on our money system. Lets go back to free enterprise. It has served us well for a very long time. I have said many times that I do not care if my boss buys a new rolls everytime his paint gets dity. i do not care if he has a castle on the hill. I just want to do a fair days work for a fair wage and have some dignity while doing it. If iI had the will and wanted what he has I could do the same as he is doing. Thats my country that allows one to do this. WE ARE FREE! We are men and real women. we do not need the government to do anything for us. If we cannot or will not do for ourselves there are those who will feed and cloth us and shelter us because we do not see the lazyness there. we only ,as a people, see the need.
Sorry to get on the soapbox people. i hope I have not offended. I just wish so much to do some good and get people aware of a few things. I only wish for you to listen to an old sheepdog and decide whether what he has to say has merit or not. LOVE YOU.
Thank goodness! A few sensible heads remain in CO. The students have every right to attend another school if they feel this is a bad policy. Yosemite Sam U.?
Great article.You said it: the gun haters are liars:"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime." when there really is quite the the opposite.They hate truth itself and,not only guns themselves,but also what they represent:freedom and the U.S Constitution.Also "The Board’s vote on Friday demonstrated a clear contempt for the will of the Student body..." and the right to protect one's self from harm. The Nazi tyrants are becoming more and more bold as they use their "authority" to steamroll over the common people they view as of no consequence.Much like King George III and the British before them,these people will ultimately have to be dealt with,I suspect,in the same way the Minutemen dealt with tyrants.I know that's a radical statement, but I don't see any way around it. The Nazi gun banners never change, never quit, and they will never relent in their ruthless warped warfare against America and freedom.
This Pic says it all!
images2.cafepress.com/product/280082632v22_480x480_Front.jpg
How stupid can the Colorado State University Board be?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!