Texas Senate approves bill to allow guns on college campuses

[freespirit]

(Reuters) - The Texas Senate on Monday passed a measure that would make the Lone Star State the second after Utah to specifically allow guns on college campuses.

The proposal, which would allow concealed handgun license holders to carry guns into buildings at public colleges, now heads to the Texas House, where it has broad support.

The Senate author, Republican Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said that his proposal would make college campuses safer.

"My goal this whole time is to put doubt in the mind of the shooter that, 'Well, maybe I shouldn't go on that campus and try to take a bunch of kids out,'" Wentworth said after the measure passed.

But Democrat Judith Zaffirini of Laredo, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Higher Education, said the proposal is dangerous.

"I think there will be increased violence and unnecessary tragedies because of this bill," Zaffirini told Reuters.

University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa told Governor Rick Perry in a letter this year that the presence of concealed weapons "will make a campus a less safe environment."

The legacy of the 1966 University of Texas shooting -- when Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the UT Tower and fatally shot 13 people and an unborn child -- still looms over the Austin campus.

Wentworth tacked the measure onto a budget-related education bill on Monday after he was unable earlier in the session to get enough support to bring the measure up as a stand-alone bill.

Texas was one of 22 states that banned carrying concealed weapons on college campuses as of late March, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, last month vetoed a bill that would have allowed guns on college campuses.

That's unlikely to happen in Texas, where Perry, also a Republican, believes people with concealed handgun licenses and proper training should be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the state, his spokeswoman has said.

The Texas Senate on Monday also passed a measure that would allow state lawmakers to carry concealed handguns into places where such weapons are not now allowed, such as churches and hospitals. That proposal now goes to the House.

(Editing by Jerry Norton)

my bolding- i like this logic! if you can complete the req'd training and licensing, why shouldn't you be allowed to CCW?

[madfranks]

"I think there will be increased violence and unnecessary tragedies because of this bill," Zaffirini told Reuters.

I wish he'd explain why he thinks this.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

now everyone thank the state for allowing us to exercise that right.

/sarc/=off

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

You know - although this is a step in the right direction- this rationale really does not seem to fit with the mass shooter scenario.



"My goal this whole time is to put doubt in the mind of the shooter that, 'Well, maybe I shouldn't go on that campus and try to take a bunch of kids out,'" Wentworth said after the measure passed.

Are not the "crazed gunman" killed +90% of the time? (eventually) Why would the possibility that students and faculty may be armed play into the thought process of a crazy guy?

[Awoke]

Well look at the Montreal massacre, in which the crazed gunman opened fire for 45 minutes and killed 14 women.

If they were all carrying, he wouldn't have been able to go one shooting for 45 minutes, and chances are extremely good that 14 women wouldn't have died.

Laws don't deter insane criminals, but guns can stop them.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

my bolding- i like this logic! if you can complete the req'd training and licensing, why shouldn't you be allowed to CCW?






I don't care for it.

It means that I have to submit to a federal background check.

It means that I have to submit to a skills evaluation of a CHL instructor.

It means that I have to submit to carrying a card that somehow unlocks a God given right.

It means that I have to submit to being disarmed at the discretion of a law enforcement thug if HE decides that HIS safety may be at risk at the expense of MY OWN.

Don't piss on my head and tell me its raining. Submission is not freedom.

[sirgonzo420]

my bolding- i like this logic! if you can complete the req'd training and licensing, why shouldn't you be allowed to CCW?






I don't care for it.

It means that I have to submit to a federal background check.

It means that I have to submit to a skills evaluation of a CHL instructor.

It means that I have to submit to carrying a card that somehow unlocks a God given right.

It means that I have to submit to being disarmed at the discretion of a law enforcement thug if HE decides that HIS safety may be at risk at the expense of MY OWN.



hear, hear!

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

Well look at the Montreal massacre, in which the crazed gunman opened fire for 45 minutes and killed 14 women.

If they were all carrying, he wouldn't have been able to go one shooting for 45 minutes, and chances are extremely good that 14 women wouldn't have died.

Laws don't deter insane criminals, but guns can stop them.


lol you kinda missed the point.

I agree with you ... was pointing out the idiotic logic of that particular legislator's response.



My point being: Crazed gunmen are usually prepared or planning to die anyway (thus negating that deterrent)


Typical conservative "NRA" talking point...


its just bs.

[sirgonzo420]

Well look at the Montreal massacre, in which the crazed gunman opened fire for 45 minutes and killed 14 women.

If they were all carrying, he wouldn't have been able to go one shooting for 45 minutes, and chances are extremely good that 14 women wouldn't have died.

Laws don't deter insane criminals, but guns can stop them.


lol you kinda missed the point.

I agree with you ... was pointing out the idiotic logic of that particular legislator's response.

My point being: Crazed gunmen are usually prepared or planning to die anyway (thus negating that deterrent)


Typical conservative "NRA" talking point...


its just bs.


Yes, a completely armed populace will not stop a crazy person with a death-wish, but it can make their "death-wish" come true much faster than an unarmed populace.

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

at the risk of coming off as obtuse...

Wentworth said:


'Well, maybe I shouldn't go on that campus and try to take a bunch of kids out,'" Wentworth said after the measure passed.

Wentworth is wrong at worse and short sighted at least. His argument is weak (and open to attack) because it is hypothetical and subject to the individual case.

I am trying to convey that argument should be made on the basis of natural rights - NOT on the basis of emotional play. ;)

I will however concede that the "law" likely wouldn't have been passed that way ;D

[Awoke]

Well, truth be known, I am a firm believer that every person should have the means to defend themselves. Being in Canada, if I carried, I would be looking at 5 years federal time if caught. As unfair as that is, to me it is not worth risking everything or serving federal time, so I comply with Canadian gun laws and follow all the rules.

It is total and complete Bullshit, but TPTB have all the systems in place to jail-up people that carry. So it's just not worth the risk. I admit that I am in compliance with the "laws". I will also admit that it is an infringement on my natural God-given rights to protect myself and my family.

Again, total Bullshit, but faced with that or 5 years Federal, I choose to become good with knives.

I am not trumpeting for the nanny state, in fact I am completely against it (as if you didn't know that by now) but if people are carrying in Canada or the States without jumping through the legislative hoops, they are facing serious trouble if caught. If you guys are willing to lose your house, wife kids and family in order to carry unregistered in the States, that's your call. I personally am not willing to risk that.

www.angelfire.com/alt/amendment
www.canadacarry.org/
www.concealedcarry.ca/ <- This is a permit for Canadian citizens to be able to legally CCW while in Utah. At least Utah gets it!

[freespirit]

[u][b]You know - although this is a step in the right direction- this rationale really does not seem to fit with the mass shooter scenario.


i was thinking the same thing, in my mind, i thought the rationale might have had more to do with sexual assaults, etc., on campus as opposed to mass shootings...?

[JJ.G0ldD0t]

[u][b]You know - although this is a step in the right direction- this rationale really does not seem to fit with the mass shooter scenario.


i was thinking the same thing, in my mind, i thought the rationale might have had more to do with sexual assaults, etc., on campus as opposed to mass shootings...?


right - that's what it SHOULD be -

Heck, wouldn't you get more milage out if it that way?...


stoopid politicians. Even here in Texas, we are not immune.

[Awoke]

Land of the free and home of the brave is the biggest misnomer and piece of propaganda I've ever heard.


QFT!