Decriminalization of concealed carry on Texas college campuses is heading towards a vote in the state Senate. In the history of campus carry, HB 972 has made it futher than any of the SCC-backed bills ever have in the Texas legislature.

Make sure you are calling your state senator every day – we need your help to push HB 972 through the Texas Senate. The senator’s numbers are listed below:

Kevin P. Eltife (512) 463-0101
Robert Deuell (512) 463-0102
Robert Nichols (512) 463-0103
Tommy Williams (512) 463-0104
Charles Schwertner (512) 463-0105
Sylvia Garcia (512) 463-0106)
Dan Patrick (512) 463-0107
Ken Paxton (512) 463-0108
Kelly Hancock (512) 463-0109
Wendy Davis (512) 463-0110
Larry Taylor (512) 463-0111
Jane Nelson (512) 463-0112
Rodney Ellis (512) 463-0113
Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
John Carona (512) 463-0116
Joan Huffman (512) 463-0117
Glenn Hegar (512) 463-0118
Carlos Uresti (512) 463-0119
Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
Brian Birdwell (512) 463-0122
Royce West (512) 463-0123
Troy Fraser (512) 463-0124
Donna Campbell (512) 463-0125
Leticia Van de Putte (512) 463-0126
Eddie Lucio Jr. (512) 463-0127
Robert Duncan (512) 463-0128
Jose R. Rodriguez (512) 463-0129
Juan Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Craig L. Estes (512) 463-0130
Kel Seliger (512) 463-0131

If you do not know who your senator is, you can look him or her up here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

We can’t do this without your voice! Please take the time to make this 30 second phone call and make sure your senator is listening to you. Tell him or her that you want to decriminalize concealed carry on Texas college campuses!

If you have questions, contact your Texas legislative director, Madison Welch, at madison.welch@campuscarry.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Michael Newbern
michael.newbern@concealedcampus.org

Today, Ohio State University is the subject of a threat of violence on its campus.  Emergency Management sent out a notice stating:

The Ohio State University Police Division has been informed of postings to fantasy, role player game sites which reference a potential public safety threat of violence focused on a ‘cafeteria’ today on ‘The Ohio State University campus.’

The notice goes on to say that university officials consider the threat serious enough to have “extra police and security presence on and around campus dining facilities.”

Several students report seeing an unusual amount of officers present in the Ohio Union and other dining facilities.

Third year Industrial Systems and Engineering student Yaniv Levi expressed concern. “ The notice is reactionary. What if the police had never been tipped off? It’s kinda scary.”

Joe Smith, President of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry asked the same question. “What if the police had not been tipped off? How much carnage would someone playing out a fantasy of violence be able to carry out? How would this be different if students were able to defend themselves?”

Smith points to recent mass shootings and other incidents that did not develop into mass shootings but could have as examples.

“In Aurora, Colorado, someone playing out a fantasy was able to kill twelve and injure fifty-eight before his firearm malfunctioned and he was apprehended leaving the theater.” He continued, “In stark contrast, someone playing out a fantasy in an Oregon Mall was met with armed resistance from a college-aged concealed permit holder and fled to take his own life after killing only two innocent people.”

Smith advocates that students who are able to take ownership for their safety can help save others as well as reduce crime around campus.

“When a gunman or any criminal knows there is a possibility he will face armed resistance, he moves to easier targets,” he said. “It’s time we quit legislating target rich environments on college campuses.”

About:
Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus is the Ohio State University chapter of Students for Concealed Carry, a non-partison, grassroots organization made of up over 40,000 students, faculty, staff, and other concerned citizens across the nation that advocates for legal concealed carry on college campuses.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Yesterday, we posted a link on our Facebook page to a piece on NBC4 about the Ohio Rally for Sensible Gun Laws challenging the coverage, Pros And Cons Of Gun Laws Debated At Columbus Rally, as an inaccurate description of the event. There was no open debate on gun laws. Furthermore, groups involved in organizing and promoting the event do not welcome us to and decline invitations to engage in the honest, open, reasonable conversation on sensible gun laws, in particular laws banning concealed carry on college campuses, they claim to want.

Buckeyes for Concealed Carry received a message on Facebook from Kelly Cameron with Moms Demand Action – OH/Columbus challenging our recollection of the event and our encounter with her. She claimed our account of the encounter was inaccurate and that at no time have we ever reached out to any leadership in her group seeking a discussion. While we stand firm in our recollection of the encounter, which was witnessed by a reporter, we will concede that messages to groups organizing the event may have been lost in the cyberspace shuffle.

We would like to take this opportunity to issue such an invitation publicly. We invite Toby Hoover of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence and Kelly Cameron of Moms Demand Action – OH/Columbus to engage us in the honest, open, reasonable conversation on campus carry bans they’ve been asking for. It is time we address the restoration of the right to self-defense as part of the solution to violence.

We will host on the campus of Ohio State University a moderated debate between myself, Michael Newbern, Director Ohio Students for Concealed Carry, Joe Smith, President Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, Toby Hoover, Executive Director Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Kelly Cameron with Moms Demand Action – OH/Columbus during the month of March on a date to be determined by the debaters. We will secure the location on campus. We will secure a student staff member of The Lantern to moderate. We will work with local media to cover the debate. We will also pay Ms Hoover’s and Ms Cameron’s travel expenses to and from Columbus.

Will you, Ms Hoover and Ms Cameron, accept our invitation to engage in an honest, open, reasonable discussion about concealed carry on Ohio’s college campuses?

Contact:
Michael Newbern, Director
Ohio Students for Concealed Carry
Ohio@ConcealedCampus.org

As many of you may recall, last year’s SB59 was a major victory for MI-SCC and other pro-firearms rights groups in Michigan. SB59 made many great changes to CPL law, including the elimination of all ‘gun free’ zones with extra training. However, after SB59 passed a Senate committee, the Senate floor, a House committee, and the House floor, Governor Snyder decided to veto SB59 – legislation that would have saved lives. In meetings with the Governor and his aides both before and after the veto, advocates of SB59 were presented with “a moving target,” as SB59′s sponsor Senator Mike Green said; Governor Snyder’s demands for an acceptable bill continued to change. We believe that Governor Snyder simply doesn’t trust Michigan CPL owners. Let him know how you feel.

On Tuesday, Senator Mike Green introduced SB213. SB213 makes many of the same changes that SB59 made, so we won’t go over all of those in full detail. For campus carry purposes, everything stays the same as SB59 – campus classrooms and dorms are removed from the list of ‘gun free’ zones. However, SB213 requires no additional training to receive this exemption, which SB59 did. SB213 also makes several changes of interest to CPL holders; lowering the price of a CPL to $90 (Michigan currently has the 5th highest CPL cost in the country, at $105,) transferring issue authority to the Michigan State Police, (which will remove many of the county-by-county nickel and dime charges,) and eliminating the almost century-old county gun board apparatus. As with SB59, Michigan Students for Concealed Carry supports SB213 without reservations. Senator Mike Green deserves your thanks for sponsoring both SB59 and SB213. As you write your reps to ask them to support SB213, make sure to thank them if they voted for SB59, (see SB59 votes for Representatives and Senators.)

Remember, SB213 would only decriminalize campus carry. That’s a huge step, but it won’t change the gun bans that most campuses have in place – at least not directly. However, we expect that some campuses would change their policy to comply with state law. We also expect that many more recalcitrant campuses will keep their policies in place – despite the obvious violation of state preemption law. At that point, litigation may likely be the only appropriate next step.

We’ll keep you posted on the status of SB213. We anticipate another long fight ahead, and we’ll need your support. Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter, and via RSS feed to ensure that you stay up to date.

For those interested, the full text of SB213 is available here.

NOTE: Many have raised concerns because SB213 states that “schools” will continue to be ‘gun free’ zones. In Michigan, “schools” are defined in Chapter 750, Act 328 of 1931, Section 750.237a as “a public, private, denominational, or parochial school offering developmental kindergarten, kindergarten, or any grade from 1 through 12.” In other words, “schools” are K-12 schools.

This story is a great reminder that public colleges must respect your first amendment rights on campus, even if they disapprove of your message. If campus officials try to shut down your event, don’t be afraid to ask your state or regional director for help. Sometimes, as in this case, all it takes is a simple letter reminding them of their obligations to clear the way for a peaceful protest:

GAINESVILLE, Fla., February 11, 2013—Prompted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Florida’s Santa Fe College acknowledged the importance of free speech last week by affirming a student organization’s right to symbolically protest in support of gun rights on campus. When the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter at Santa Fe College met with opposition to the protest from campus police, the group turned to FIRE for help.

“Campus police can be skittish when students use their First Amendment rights to advocate for controversial policies,” said FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley. “We’re glad that Santa Fe College quickly realized that the First Amendment protects all political opinions on campus regardless of viewpoint.”

On January 9, at a meeting of Santa Fe’s Student Government Senate, YAL representative Adam Edwards announced YAL’s intention to hold an empty holster protest on the Santa Fe campus. Empty holster protests, in which students wear empty gun holsters to symbolically protest laws prohibiting students from carrying concealed handguns on campus, have been held peacefully and without incident on dozens of campuses in recent years and constitute protected political expression.

Read the whole thing at TheFIRE.org

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Those 27 words have been the source of more modern day controversy than any other collection of words framed into our founding documents. However instead of debating gun rights and gun control in the ideologies that someone wrote down 224 years ago, let’s discuss gun rights and gun control in the context of problems we face today.

Last month, a group of intellectuals held a forum on the public health crisis of gun violence at Harvard University. In the panel discussion, professor of health policy and management at Harvard School of Public Health David Hemenway made the claim that because we had such weak gun laws that we experience homicide at a disproportionately high rate compared to other developed countries. “God forgive us,” he said, “if we do nothing and allow our children to die.”

On his position of complacency, I agree.

FBI data shows that in 2011, firearms were used in

• 8,583 (67.8%) of the 12,667 homicides,
• 146,366 (41.3%) of the 354,396 robberies,
• and in 159,240 (21.2%) of the 751,131 assaults.

Of the 1,118,194 violent crimes the FBI has weapons data on, 314,189 (28.1%) of those were committed with a firearm. The data also shows a continual downward of trend of 15.7% in violent crime since 2007.

Does that really constitute a public health crisis? And if so, how do we solve it? Let’s consider what gun control does. Let’s look to a city with very strict gun control. Let’s look to a city that up until just recently was effectively a gun-free zone. Let’s look to Chicago.

In Chicago, guns were used in 362 of the nation’s 8,583 homicides. Chicago’s share of gun related homicides is 4.2%. Gun crime in Chicago increased last year to over 500 homicides. This increase occurred with no mass shootings and in contrast to the downward trend experienced by the rest of the nation.

The US Census Bureau estimates the total US population for the same year at 311,587,816 total people. Chicago’s population for the same year was estimated at 2,707,120. During that year, Chicago’s share of the population was 0.87%.

Chicago’s share of gun crime for the year 2011 was nearly five times its share of the population for the same year.

But where does this gun crime come from? Chicago has had some of the most strict gun control laws of the past decade. Chicago’s city-wide gun ban was ended only a year prior in McDonald vs Chicago. Gun ownership is still heavily regulated making legal ownership very difficult. During the same year, the entire state of Illinois banned carry of firearms. That ban ended last year in Shepherd vs Madigan.

How does the rest of the country experience a downward trend in all crime while Chicago does not? Why is a disproportionate amount of gun crime occurring in Chicago? What is the rest of the country doing that Chicago is not?

The rest of the country is not empowering criminals like Chicago.

NICS background checks have been steadily increasing since 2005. With the exception of one year, the number of background checks increased by more than 10%.  In the last three years, 50,456,870 background checks were performed for the purpose of purchasing and carrying firearms.

The number of people with concealed carry permits and the number of states allowing concealed carry have also been increasing. In 1987 only 9 states had “shall-issue” concealed carry laws. A “shall-issue” law is one in which the issuing authority is required to issue a permit to an applicant based on criteria as opposed to a “may issue” law where there is no requirement that the issuing authority actually issue any permit. This year, all states will have some sort of concealed carry permitting provision allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms outside the home with only a handful of states holding on to their “may issue” licensing requirements. The states that do publish the number of permits issued are seeing increases in the number of active permits that closely track NICS background checks. Indeed some of the checks are performed to the purpose of permit applications.

While Chicago does serve as an example of criminal empowerment in the United States, there are still those gun control advocates who will insist that Chicago’s problems come from outside Chicago. They make the claim that until firearms are regulated across the nation in the same way they are in Chicago, the city won’t be able to fully realize its ultimate goal. And that goal is a crime free utopia they claim exists in the Great Britain.

But, is Great Britain the crime free utopia gun control advocates claim it is?

While a comparison of current data to current data is not salient because there are many factors influencing violent crime, a comparison of trends over time is. Great Britain’s Home Office reports a murder rate of 0.81 per 100,000 people in 1910 compared to the 7.9 per 100,000 we experienced the same year in the US. During the following 101 years, Great Britain effectively banned private ownership of firearms. We did something different in the US with respect to gun control. As a result, our murder rate dropped nearly 50% to 4.1 per 100,000 while Great Britain’s increased over 50% to 1.4 per 100,000. From 1992 to 2011 total US violent crime decreased from 757 per 100,000 to 386 per 100,000 while Great Britain’s increased from 547 per 100,000 to 1,361 per 100,000.

In fact, home invasions occur while homes are occupied at a rate nearly 4 times of that in the US because we can fight back.

While correlation is not causation and we may never fully understand the reason crime exists, we cannot ignore the impact that concealed carry has on crime. Where the law-abiding citizen is allowed to own and carry firearms, crime trends down. Research by Dr John Lott, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi and a bevy of other academics, criminologists, and economists confirm what is otherwise not rocket-surgery.

Gun control does nothing to decrease violent crime and only empowers criminals.

So, if we really do have a gun crime public health crisis, the cause is government restriction. The national conversation the President’s gun violence task force is having needs to include this idea. Instead of a discussion on how we can regulate violence away, let’s ask how we can de-regulate it away.

With the current political climate and the occurrence of several pro-2nd Amendment rallies, events and news stories lately, we felt it necessary to issue some guidance on how to participate in these activities, should you wish to do so.

As an organization, Students for Concealed Carry focuses solely on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses. We do not hold an official position on issues such as open carry, Constitutional (unlicensed) carry, carry on K-12 campuses, or the “assault weapons” ban.

However, we are at heart a group whose argument is founded under the protections granted by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution (and article 1, section 8 of Florida’s Constitution). If these protections are removed, our arguments essentially become useless.

Therefore, I encourage participation in 2nd Amendment events as members of Students for Concealed Carry. If questioned about our stances on any of these other issues, say that we support the right to keep and bear arms, but we are solely focused on restoring the option of effective self-defense on college campuses.

If you wish to participate and express support for other issues, we recommend contacting a broader based state level group such as Florida Carry, Inc, but that you don’t act as a representative of our group when making those statements and be aware of how statements and actions can be correlated and perceived.

A good friend of mine is a school social worker. She knows I think ‘gun free’ zones are a fallacy, but she wasn’t quite convinced. She wasn’t anti-gun, but she wouldn’t have felt comfortable with them in a school. A few years ago, she was interning at a school and sent me an interesting message, which I’ve paraphrased below:

Someone called in a threat at my school today – they said they were on their way to the school with a gun to kill everyone. The staff told us that they would lock the doors. My first thought was, ‘yeah, I’m sure that a locked door will stop him.’ Then I realized that you’ve been right all along.

My friend understood from that day forward that ‘gun free’ zones mean nothing to someone intent on breaking laws far more serious and with far greater consequences. When she realized criminals have no respect for ‘gun free’ zones, she realized that a door lock wasn’t at the top of her list of preferred countermeasures.

Her experience provided me with another question that I now ask opponents: “If an insane gunman rushes into your classroom intending to murder you and your classmates, what would you rather have – a law that says he can’t have that gun here, or another gun?” I have yet to hear someone respond with, “Trick question! He won’t be able to get that gun into my classroom, because it’s a gun free zone!” When even the people that support ‘gun free’ zones don’t attempt to deny their ineffectiveness, you wonder why they persist in the belief that they’re a necessity. They’ve admitted that such zones don’t keep the “bad guys with guns” out, but they’re still too afraid of the “good guys with guns” to abolish the zones. Ironic.

Many armed rapes and assaults on college campuses happen in these ‘gun free’ zones; violations of which prosecutors aren’t even going to bother including in their list of charges. (Side note: That’s not the prosecutor’s fault. Concealed Pistol Licenses exist for a reason – it’s illegal to conceal a firearm on your person without one. In many states, ‘gun free’ zones are a condition of a CPL. Ironically, if you don’t have a license, the zones don’t apply. Thus, many ‘gun free’ zones don’t apply to the criminals – legally or practically.) Many colleges do a good job of telling their students how to defend against a rape – kicks to the groin, fingers to the eyes, and so on. I wonder why this has yet to cause a national uproar – colleges are arming our young adults with martial arts techniques that could incapacitate an innocent person! The response to this question from a ‘gun free’ zone supporter would likely be, “of course, but these techniques would only be used for self-defense.” Oh, of course. If only there were tools that could even the odds even more in favor of the victim.

Opponents will often argue with me that, in the event of any violent crime – a robbery, assault, or even mass shooter – a CPL-holder with a gun will just complicate matters for the police who respond. I suppose that’s true, in that a living, armed, CPL-holder will take longer to clear than a dead CPL-holder who left their gun at home. That situation is decidedly less agreeable to the CPL-holder, however. And that’s the problem with this argument – ultimately, I’d much rather take my chances with the police, or “the good guys with guns,” than the sociopathic criminals, or “the bad guys with guns.” At the least, I’ve seen a lot of movies where police yell “put your hands up or I’ll shoot!” I haven’t heard of many murderers offering the same choice.

Let’s get back to my friend. Growing up, she saw guns as an instrument of destruction, used for all the wrong purposes. At best, they could go off on accident. At worst, they would be used by criminals to destroy innocent lives. In that mindset, guns do not prevent crime – they cause it. Any theories to the contrary – “CPL-holders are law-abiding citizens,” “the police can’t be everywhere at once,” “signs won’t stop criminals” – fell on deaf ears, because they didn’t address the root of my friends’ opposition – the belief that guns only harm. To prevent the implosion of that belief, my friend engaged in some cognitive dissonance. This belief that guns harm was so deeply ingrained that, without an emotional event powerful enough to shatter it, my friend never seriously reconsidered it. At least, not until she was faced with the likelihood of encountering one of the rare gun-carrying citizens out to do her harm, and realized there was nothing else that could give her a fair chance. In other words, she realized that a firearm is a tool of self-defense against those that haven’t bought into the laws of our society yet.

Any college policy prohibiting the use of kicks to the groin while defending against a rape or assault would, rightfully, be met with derision and ridicule. And yet, thousands of colleges continue to ban an even more effective form of self-defense – the firearm – despite the guarantee that any potential owners will be trained at their own expense and have no criminal record. Who decided what forms of self-defense were simply ‘too effective,’ and what sort of Kafkaesque rating system did they devise to do so? If there was no rating system, why did they arbitrarily exclude firearms from the victim’s armamentarium but decide that kicks to the groin could stay? Are effective tools for studying next on the ban list?

‘Gun free’ zones have a unique history as one of the most illogical, dangerous, and senseless policies pushed by gun control advocates. That means that you – armed with logic – have a very good chance of changing some of your friends beliefs with a few simple questions. I’ve seen it happen many, many times. So get out there, and ask your friends a few questions.

Reid K Smith serves as the Director of Development for Students for Concealed Carry, and the State Director for Michigan Students for Concealed Carry. He attends medical school in Downtown Detroit, where he has the privilege of commuting on foot to his choice of ‘gun free’ zones – hospitals or classrooms. This post was originally published on the Students for Concealed Carry national blog. 

In light of the media attention surrounding the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, we at the Texas chapter of Students for Concealed Carry wish to remind the media that we do not take a position on concealed carry at primary or secondary schools and, therefore, have nothing to contribute to the national dialogue about preventing such shootings. SCC’s sole objective is to ensure that trained, licensed adults (age 21 or above in Texas and most other states) are allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses as in other open, unsecured environments (e.g., movie theaters, churches, shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants, banks, the Texas Capitol). Although we understand and sympathize with those who believe that primary and secondary schools would be safer if faculty and staff were allowed to carry guns, we recognize that that issue is only tangentially related to the movement to allow concealed carry on college campuses (aka “campus carry”), and we wish to avoid conflating these two distinctly different issues.

College campuses are open environments populated with adults. People come and go freely, and the adults there (including students, faculty, staff, and administrators) are legally responsible only for their own safety. Yes, administrators are responsible for overall campus security, in the same way that a business owner is responsible for the security of his or her business, but they aren’t responsible for the safety of individuals on the campus. For example, a college administrator has no duty to break up a fight between two students, and a professor has no duty to make sure that his or her students get on the right bus after class.

On the other hand, a primary or secondary school is a controlled environment populated largely with children/adolescents. People’s comings and goings are closely monitored and regulated, and the few adults present (faculty, staff, and administrators) are charged with the task of safeguarding the students over whom they are afforded a limited measure of legal guardianship.

Although the push to allow concealed carry on college campuses is about allowing concealed handgun license (CHL) holders their usual measure of personal protection, the push to allow concealed carry in primary and secondary schools is about asking CHL holders to act as de facto security guards. This raises a host of issues not found in the debate over campus carry. One example of the disparity between these two issues is the question of whether or not CHL training is adequate to allow someone to serve as an armed security guard. In Texas, as in most states, the training required to obtain a CHL focuses on self-defense. CHL holders are taught to move away from the sound of gunfire, not rush toward it. Based on the training currently in place in Texas, a teacher with a CHL might be prepared to stop an active shooter from entering his or her classroom (a pretty standard self-defense scenario) but would, absent additional training, be unprepared to interdict in a shooting happening in another classroom. This concern and others like it dictate that questions about concealed carry at primary and secondary schools be addressed separately from questions about concealed carry on college campuses.

Since its inception, SCC has maintained the singular focus of promoting the legalization of licensed concealed carry on college campuses. We have never taken positions on open carry, unlicensed carry, or concealed carry in primary or secondary schools. Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims of the horrific tragedy in Connecticut, but we have nothing to say on how to avoid this type of tragedy in the future.

It is with a heavy heart that we report that Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 earlier today. SB59 had previously passed the Michigan Senate by a 27-11 margin and the Michigan House by a margin of 68-41. SB59 would have allowed CPL-holders to take an additional 8 hours of training (for a total of 16 hours) and be granted an Enhanced CPL, which would have exempted the licensee from current ‘pistol free’ zones. You can read more about all the positive changes that SB59 would have accomplished here. Michigan Students for Concealed Carry had supported SB59 without reservations. Despite today’s failure, we still owe our members an enormous thank you for the support of SB59 – it’s only through your support that SB59 was able to make it all the way to the Governor’s desk.

We believe that Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 because he believes that taxpayer-funded public institutions, such as colleges and schools, should be allowed to determine whether or not law-abiding CPL-holders can exercise their rights on those public grounds. Before SB59 was heard in the House, Gov. Snyder demanded that an “opt-out” clause be inserted allowed public institutions to just that – opt-out of what would become the law of the land for all other areas of the state. To his great credit, Senator Mike Green – SB59′s sponsor – refused to add such a provision. Michigan Students for Concealed Carry supported Senator Green’s decision at the time, and continues to do so without reservations. Senator Green is among many lawmakers (find a complete list of lawmakers that deserve a thank you here) that should be thanked for their support of SB59 – now more than ever. We’ll need the support of Senator Green and his allies when we try to legalize self-defense on college campuses in the coming legislative session, so thank yous are essential. 

Today is a dark day for both the 350,000+ Michigan CPL-holders as well as the non gun-owning public. Many of you are upset and in disbelief that we could come so close to accomplishing our goal, only to have our Governor – who professed to support our rights when he asked for our votes – veto such an important bill. There are some silver linings, however. SB59 brought Michigan gun owners together, and taught us all a little more about Michigan’s confusing firearms laws. Many of you may have written your state Representative or Senator for the first time – you learned a valuable skill that, hopefully, you will continue to exercise. Several lawmakers have gone on record to support the removal of ‘pistol free’ zones, and we’re hopeful that these lawmakers continue to support us in the future.

As many of you may know, SB59 would have outlawed open carry in “pistol free” zones in exchange for legalizing concealed carry in those zones. Governor Snyder’s veto will mean that open carry will continue to be legal in these areas, while concealed carry by licensed, trained, CPL-holders will remain illegal. While MI-SCC has absolutely no position on open carry, it’s hard for anyone to justify Governor Snyder’s opposition to that change in law. MI-SCC views Governor Snyder’s continued support of ‘pistol free’ zones as dangerous and unconscionable. You should contact Governor Snyder soon to politely voice your concern with his recent actions. If you feel comfortable, send your emails to us at contact@MichiganSCC.org as well – we’ll post the most powerful letters on our Facebook page or within this blog.

Parents should prepare to continue sending their children to Michigan schools or colleges where the best defense against an armed shooter is to start locking the doors. College students should prepare to go back to classes in January, secure in the knowledge that any criminals they encounter on their late-night walks home will have, at minimum, a police response-time to inflict whatever harm they desire. Finally, criminals can rest easy, knowing that their monopoly on force in Michigan’s college classrooms and dorms is safe – for at least a few more months. 

We hope that you’ll continue to support Michigan Students for Concealed Carry. Please ‘like’ our Facebook Page to stay in touch. Additionally, Michigan Students for Concealed Carry is entirely supported by your donations; please consider donating to Students for Concealed Carry today. If you’d like to earmark your donation for MI-SCC, simply email Donations@ConcealedCampus.org with that request.

Update: Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 on December 18th. We find Governor Snyder’s decision to preserve “gun free” zones – areas in which only criminals are permitted to carry concealed firearms – reprehensible and deserving of your scorn. Please let Gov. Snyder know how you feel. 

After a long, hard fight, SB59 – introduced by Senator Mike Green – was passed by the House on Thursday, December 13th. Having previously passed the Senate on November 29th, the bill now moves to the Governor’s desk and awaits his signature. SB59 is a long bill (making modification to 80 pages of statute) and we do not plan on publishing a detailed analysis of the entire bill – only the portions that are relevant to campus carry (the bill can be viewed here, and a PDF summary found here). Additionally, we will make another post answering any specific questions our supporters have (submitted via our Facebook page) in the coming days. All of these changes will take effect on May 1st, 2013, and are contingent on Gov. Snyder’s signature. SB59 was supported without reservation by Michigan Students for Concealed Carry (view our letter of support here).

What SB59 says: 

• SB59 will allow CPL-holders who complete advanced training – the NRA’s 8-hour “Personal Protection Outside the Home” course qualifies – to receive exemptions from all Pistol Free Zones, which include college classrooms and dormitories. The Enhanced CPL, (“ECPL”) will cost $20, and will be a ‘shall-issue’ license, just as current CPLs are – meaning that, if one completes the training and pays the fee, they must be granted an ECPL.
• Open carry – which was previously allowed in some Pistol Free Zones, including college classrooms and dorms – is now prohibited in those zones under any circumstances. While MI-SCC has no position on open carry, we owe a thank you to Michigan Open Carry for supporting the bill despite this provision, (which was added late in the process to ensure legislative support).
• SB59 does not alter the ability of private property owners to ask those carrying a concealed firearm to leave their establishment, either via a clear sign or a verbal request. If a gun owner refuses to do so, he or she is guilty of criminal trespass. Additionally, if the gun owner must use his or her firearm after being asked to leave, the gun owner is no longer protected by castle doctrine laws, (which only protect those who use justifiable force where they are legally permitted to be). This is not a new addition to Michigan law; media reports claiming otherwise are inaccurate.
• SB59 does not alter the ability of three universities – University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University – from continuing to enact and enforce ordinances that they currently make with regards to firearms. Many universities – including UofM and WSU – believe that they can charge law-abiding CPL-holders with misdemeanor crimes (using the force of law, not ordinances) for bringing firearms onto their campuses. This belief runs counter to the interpretation of statute by the Michigan State Police and many attorneys who specialize in firearms law. The controversy stems from Michigan’ s preemption statute, which states that “A local unit of Government shall not… enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to… pistols or other firearms.” Simply put, most people believe colleges and universities are a “local unit of Government.” Colleges and universities do not believe this is the case, and, curiously, claim this non-government designation means they can create their own laws. Again, this is not a new addition to Michigan law. This issue was discussed in more detail in a previous post.
• SB59 makes a host of other changes to CPL law, including the removal of gun boards, a requirement that county sheriffs issue a CPL within 45 days or refund a portion of the application fee, and general streamlining of the process. SB59 also mandates that Michigan CPL holders – who pay the 6th highest application fee in the country – receive a more durable license in the future, rather than the laminated sheets of paper that are issued at present. The bill also standardizes the process of CPL application, eliminating predatory fees and useless forms that were required by some counties. It also requires that a CPL license be mailed – just like a drivers license – eliminating the hassle that some counties imposed by requiring personal pickup. A full summary of these changes can be found here.

Why didn’t MI-SCC seek a more aggressive provision that required campuses to allow Campus Carry? Some have claimed that, by not clarifying the preemption statute above, SB59 doesn’t do enough for Michigan Students for Concealed Carry. We disagree, for several reasons. First and foremost, such a bill would be less likely to pass. Second, MI-SCC made a strategic decision several years ago to pursue the removal of campus classrooms and dorms from pistol free zones prior to pursuing an enforcement of preemption. We made this choice after the dramatic failure of a bill introduced by outgoing State Representative Richard LeBlanc (D) in a previous legislative session. In addition to the futility of attempting to pass a legislative solution, we believe that any legislation worded in a way that would be conducive to passage would likely be ignored by universities – either broadly, or by placing enough rules on concealed carry as to make it practically impossible, while still following the letter of the new law. Furthermore, we believe that current statute does not require additional legislation. Thus, after speaking to several attorneys, lawmakers, and fellow activists, we made the choice to pursue a judicial, rather than legislative, enforcement of state preemption law. It was at that time that the strategic plan was created to focus on the pursuit of a legislative removal of college classrooms and dorms from the list of pistol free zones, followed by a judicial enforcement of state preemption, if necessary. By achieving the first stage of our plan, we have decriminalized campus carry in the state of Michigan – an enormous first step, and one that we have long perceived as the most difficult.

So, can I carry on a college campus now? This bill only eliminates the state penalty for carrying in a college classroom or dorm for those that have an ECPL, effective May 1st, if Gov. Snyder signs. This means the State will no longer be able to prosecute you for violating a Pistol Free Zone, which carries with it a suspension of the CPL. Carrying on a college campus (except dorms and classrooms) was never illegal under state law, but is uncommon due to the aforementioned ordinances by campuses. If SB59 is signed by Governor Snyder, MI-SCC will begin a systematic inquiry of all public state colleges and universities, asking them if they plan to retain current policies or revise them, and to what extent. We’re hopeful that some colleges will revise their policies to comply with state law, but we expect that most colleges will continue to enforce ordinances that prohibit firearms on their campuses. Certain colleges have been advised by the Michigan State Police that, in so doing, they are putting themselves at the risk of litigation that they are likely to lose. After this review is complete, we’ll evaluate any further courses of action. In the meantime, MI-SCC would like to remind you that, not only are we not an attorney, but we would never advocate breaking any laws. If you’d like to speak to an attorney who specializes in Michigan firearms law, we would be more than happy to put you in touch with one.

Who should I thank for passage of SB59? You should thank any lawmaker that voted YES on SB59 – with special thank yous going to the list outlined below. If your Representative or Senator voted yes, they should be thanked as well. Thank yous help us ensure that we can count on support in the future, and should also include a mention of your support of Michigan Students for Concealed Carry – this ensures that lawmakers know that MI-SCC members are informed and appreciative!

• Every Republican lawmaker voted YES on SB59, with the notable exception of State Representative Matt Lori (mattlori@house.mi.gov).
• The following Democratic lawmakers broke with their caucus to vote YES, an action that MI-SCC appreciates as both difficult and extremely important: Sen. John Gleason, Rep. Richard LeBlanc (a past supporter of MI-SCC), Rep. Kate Segal, Rep. Charles Brunner, Rep. Stacy Erwin-Oakes, and Rep. Charles Smiley.
• Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville was instrumental in calling SB59 for a vote in the Senate, despite the opposition of many lawmakers. Sen. Richardville has supported MI-SCC in the past, introducing a bill that specifically removed college classrooms from the list of Pistol Free Zones in the last legislative session.
• Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof strongly supported SB59 from the beginning, and has also supported MI-SCC in the past.
• Senator Tom Casperson served as Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, and assured an immediate and favorable passage of SB59 through his committee.
• House Speaker Jase Bolger was responsible for assuring SB59 passed through the House on an extremely tight schedule.
• Rep. Frank Foster served as Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and, despite our initial misgivings, proved to be instrumental in his support for SB59. He assured passage through his committee, and was critical in ensuring that SB59 remained a pro-gun bill, despite numerous demands from lawmakers to water it down. We owe him a special thank you for his support.
• Rep. Joel Johnson and Rep. Paul Opsommer were both instrumental in supporting SB59. Both supported the bill despite some misgivings within their caucus. Additionally, Rep. Johnson was critical in publicizing MI-SCC’s support within his caucus.
• MI-SCC values the support of our fellow 2nd Amendment groups on SB59. Notably, the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) and Legislative and Membership Director Brady Schickinger lobbied tirelessly for SB59. We appreciate the support of Michigan Open Carry, Inc, (MOC) and President Phil Hofmeister, especially in light of a late provision which removed the ability to open carry in pistol free zones, a right that was previously permitted. Additionally, we appreciate the support of Michigan Gun Owners (MGO).

The most important thank you should be reserved for Senator Mike Green, who introduced SB59 and fought tirelessly for its passage. His enthusiastic fighting on behalf of Michigan gun owners is uncommon. Sen. Green expended political capital in fighting for this bill, but never wavered in his determination – because he knew it was the right thing for Michigan gun owners. Importantly, Sen. Green refused to add a provision which would have retained college classrooms and dorms as Pistol Free Zones – a provision that would have destroyed SB59 in the eyes of MI-SCC. Please contact Sen. Green and express your most sincere thanks. Additionally, Sen. Green’s staff – namely Ryan Mitchell – are owed an enormous thank you. Orchestrating a bill like SB59 is a 24-hour a day job, and Mr. Mitchell ensured that MI-SCC was included in the process.

That’s it! The fight isn’t over until Gov. Snyder signs the bill, and there is a chance he will not. However, we’ve done all we can for now. Make sure to thank the above lawmakers, like us on Facebook (for real-time news), and carry responsibly.

This Op-Ed was submitted to the Kingsport Times news by Nikki Goeser in response to an editorial by Debbie Arrington and a blog by a “concerned citizen of Kingsport.” It specifically address The Safe Commute Bill being considered in Tennessee. It also highlights the fallacy of gun-free zones.

Nikki’s husband was gunned down in front of her in 2009 by a stalker obsessed with her. Though a “right to carry” permit holder in Tennessee, state law prohibited her from carrying in the establishment where she and her husband worked, rendering them defenseless. Nikki is the 2012 recipient of the NRA’s Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award and Ohioan’s for Concealed Carry’s Tony Gordon Memorial Award for her efforts in educating citizens on the importance of the Second Amendment.

After reading Debbie Arrington’s piece on “Ramsey’s claim about ‘zero problem’ with permit holders dead wrong,” I thought I should give my perspective as a victim of a violent crime on her article and on gun control.

The 13 cases from over a six year period given by Ms.Arrington based on the Violence Policy Center’s claim of permit holders ‘gone wild,’ misrepresents the majority of good citizens in Tennessee that have handgun carry permits. The 13 examples come on the Violence Policy Center’s reading of news reports, but most of these cases involve arrests. Yet, there is a problem with that. When people use a gun in public, even if it turns out to have involved legitimate self-defense, they will be arrested. To count all those as bad cases is worse than extremely misleading, since many of those cases will turn out to be precise examples where we wanted permit holders to have guns.

Take Arrington’s example from Ashland City, where a permit holder shot a man during an argument in a shopping center parking lot. The man shot was able to wrestle the gun away from the permit holder and kill him with his own gun. Yet, Arrington leaves out a very important point: it was the non-permit holder, Ryan Dickens, who the permit holder shot, who was charged with the crime. If the permit holder had been behaving irresponsibly, as Arrington would like the readers to believe, police would have said that Dickens was behaving in self-defense.

There is further bias with these cases. If someone gets arrested, there will be a news story. But if the charges are dropped, it is unlikely that there will be another news story. Even the cases that the DA offices go ahead with prosecuting, they usually have a low conviction rate, much lower than their typical conviction rate. This is another reason not to rely on arrests but rather convictions.

The fact remains that less than 1% of handgun carry permit holders do anything criminal with a gun. There are over 376,000 permit holders currently in Tennessee according to the Department of Safety. I can’t think of any segment of society that is more law abiding.

Having lived the nightmare of being stalked, I can tell you that there is a legitimate need for citizens to be able to provide for their own self defense. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. I’ve been there and know this. Businesses that ban law abiding citizens with a permit from having the gun locked in their vehicle, disarm that person all day long. They will not have the gun with them going to and from work and everywhere they stop in between, which creates easy prey for any kind of predator whether it be a stalker, rapist, car-jacker, robber etc..

Let’s face it, there are evil people that walk amongst us everyday. I wish we lived in a Utopia where everyone followed the Golden Rule, but that unfortunately is not reality. Our founding fathers knew that we as a citizenry in America needed to be able to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic. Please don’t ever hand over your rights because of the actions of a few who used God’s gift of free will for evil.

Losing my husband at the hands of a man carrying a gun illegally has been tough. But never once did I blame the gun. I blame the murderer and those who legislated me out of my right to defend my husband. I hope our Legislators will pass the Safe Commute Bill. I’m sorry but the right for me to defend my life is more important than someone’s right to own land.

Update: Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 on December 18th. We find Governor Snyder’s decision to preserve “gun free” zones – areas in which only criminals are permitted to carry concealed firearms – reprehensible and deserving of your scorn. Please let Gov. Snyder know how you feel. 

On Wednesday, SB59 passed its House Committee, as we expected. It now awaits a vote on the House floor. With Thursday shaping up to be the last day of the legislative session, we have only one more day to urge our Representatives to pass SB59. Tomorrow morning, Representatives will receive a copy of the following letter. Rest assured, Michigan SCC is fighting for your rights in Lansing. (Click here to see the version sent to State Reps).

Representatives,

I write to you today on behalf of Michigan Students for Concealed Carry in support of immediate action on SB59.

Michigan Students for Concealed Carry maintains active chapters at most major Michigan universities, including Michigan State, Western Michigan, Wayne State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, and Grand Valley State University. We believe that responsible, law-abiding citizens stay responsible when they cross the boundary onto a college campus – or any other “pistol free” zone.

Our membership is composed primarily of students, parents, and faculty members. I’m sure that many of you have heard from them over the last several days. SB59 represents an enormous step in the right direction. For us, this isn’t about politics – it’s about far more important things. Our members desperately want to see the end of state-imposed “pistol free” zones that disarm the ‘good guys’ and provide a defense-free environment for the ‘bad guys’.

Over the last nine months, I’ve been eagerly asked by countless members how close I believe SB59 is to becoming law. When we share updates with our 800+ members on Facebook, we get countless ‘likes’ and support for SB59. Not one of our members has expressed any reservations towards the bill. Not only do they support the elimination of “pistol free” zones, they believe the extra training requirement strengthens their argument that CPL-holders are safe. They support the elimination of gun boards, and they support the countless other positive changes that the bill makes to CPL law.

Our members are informed, and they know that we’ve nearly succeeded in our five-year struggle to legalize self-defense on college campuses. I have never seen our members respond so positively, and in such large numbers, as they have to SB59. They want this bill to pass, and they will forever appreciate those that aid the bill in becoming law.

To Michigan Students for Concealed Carry, the successful passage of SB59 would mean we’re one step closer to making college campuses (and commutes) as safe as the rest of the State. We respectfully urge you to bring SB59 to a YES vote, and will be forever in the debt of those that choose to do so.

Most Sincerely,

Reid K Smith
State Director, Michigan Students for Concealed Carry

Update: SB59 passed the House on December 13th. Having already passed the Senate, the bill was enrolled by the Senate and sent to Governor Snyder for his signature. However Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 on December 18th. We find Governor Snyder’s decision to preserve “gun free” zones – areas in which only criminals are permitted to carry concealed firearms – reprehensible and deserving of your scorn. Please let Gov. Snyder know how you feel. You can read a full summary of the final bill on our Complete Guide to SB59 post. 

All the pressure you’ve helped us put on House Natural Resources Committee Chair Frank Foster has paid off! Rep. Foster, who previously pulled SB59 from committee, has now agreed to hear the bill TOMORROW. That’s Wednesday, December 12th, at 8.30am, in Room 426 of the Capitol Building (Committee Page). Rep. Foster (FrankFoster @house.mi.gov) deserves your thanks for his support of SB59.

If possible, attend the committee meeting and voice your support for SB59. Fill out a speaker card when you enter the room, and mark that you support SB59.

We expect SB59 to pass committee, and when it does, the full House will have to vote on it. That means that Speaker Jase Bolger (JaseBolger@house.mi.gov) will have to call the bill to a vote. This is the only potential roadblock to passage of SB59. It’s extremely important that you email Rep. Bolger ASAP and ask him to call SB59 to a vote. The House may only be in session for two more days, so those emails need to go out as soon as possible. Remember, all you need is a short email. Something along the lines of “I support SB59 because [your reason here]. Please call SB59 to a vote so that it can be passed and put in front of the Governor. Gun owners won’t forget your support!” Keep it short and sweet!

Finally, there has been some talk of a clause in the modified version of SB59 that ‘allows colleges to ban guns.’ This is absolutely, positively false. Nothing of the sort is true. The clause some people are referring to says:

Nothing in this section prohibits a college or university that has the autonomous authority under the state constitution of 1963 to enact and enforce an ordinance regulating the possession, carrying, use, or transportation of a pistol from enacting or enforcing such an ordinance.

As you can see, this merely reaffirms the right of three universities – The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University – to continue to enforce ordinances regarding firearms. An ordinance is not the equivalent of a law, and holds no legal penalties in the traditional sense of the word. As Michigan SCC and the Michigan State Police have continued to stress to colleges, they cannot make and enforce laws concerning firearms. The truth is, if we could get more universities to acknowledge that these are ordinances and not laws – as the above clause does – we’d be one step closer to winning our fight. Our lawyers – as well as those working for other Michigan Second Amendment groups – have reassured us that this clause has no negative effect on any upcoming potential preemption battles. Unfortunately, that’s all the detail that we can get into for now.

Update: SB59 passed the House on December 13th. Having already passed the Senate, the bill was enrolled by the Senate and sent to Governor Snyder for his signature. However Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 on December 18th. We find Governor Snyder’s decision to preserve “gun free” zones – areas in which only criminals are permitted to carry concealed firearms – reprehensible and deserving of your scorn. Please let Gov. Snyder know how you feel. You can read a full summary of the final bill on our Complete Guide to SB59 post. 

This evening, we came one step closer to achieving what we’ve worked for over the last five years in Michigan. SB59 finally passed the full Michigan Senate and was referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation Committee. You can see the full text of the final Senate version of SB59 here.

We haven’t seen a lot of action on SB59 since it passed Senate committee back in March – something that all our Michigan SCC members helped make happen by showing up and packing the committee room. State law requires that the House wait at least five days before taking action, but we hope for House approval of the bill shortly. We also expect Governor Snyder to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

We’ll post more information in the next few days, but for now – get ready to call or email your State Representative and ask them to support SB59. Thanks for all your help!

SB59 would eliminate Pistol Free Zones (PFZs) if a CPL-holder receives extra training. The bill also accomplishes many other things, all of which are beneficial to both CPL-holders and those of the public who choose not to carry. A summary of the bill can be found here, but some changes have been made in the last several months. We’ll be posting an updated summary of the bill and action list in the next couple days. 

Many colleges across Ohio have no classes scheduled today. As a result, lots of students will be traveling by car distances far and near to visit family and friends. Traveling in a car, roadtripping, with a defensive handgun requires some extra precaution, both legally and practically.

The best way to travel with a defensive handgun is to wear it. Removing it from a holster to enter a vehicle and putting it back in the holster when you exit the vehicle can lead to a negligent discharge resulting from excessive handling. An unsecured handgun with one in the pipe riding around in a vehicle is a recipe for disaster. At the very least, cover the trigger.

The likelihood that you will not be able to speed away from a threat when you are seated in your vehicle is low, and can be mitigated with proper planing and awareness. As long as the law in the state you are traveling allows  you to wear your handgun, you should just wear it. A happy handgun is on your hip.

The best way to win a handgun fight is to not get into one. Even when traveling by car in areas you may not be familiar with, you can still take action to prevent your unwilling participation in one. And the effort isn’t that much.

1. Don’t let your tank go past 1/4 full. You may buy yourself an extra stop, but the flexibility in choosing where you can fill up is worth it. Would you rather be looking at a needle on Empty in an urban jungle full of predators or have the option to just go to the next exit?
2. When you stop, do so in such a way as to minimize the effort required to flee in your vehicle. Don’t pull up to the gas pump that will block you in. Don’t crowd the car in front of you at the drive-thru. Try to back into parking spaces instead of driving in.
3. Travel in groups. Roadtrips are always more fun with a friend or two. And when you stop to answer that biological call, stay in your group. Your car and your stuff is indeed valuable. But your life or the life of a friend can never be replaced.
4. Scan your surroundings and be aware. If your Spidey Sense tells you something isn’t right, it probably isn’t. There’s food and gas at the next exit. Move on. If you come out of a gas stop, rest stop, or restaurant and get the same tingle on your spine, go back inside and wait until the time is right. Your friends and family will better receive a call explaining you are late than they would a call to help you or even worse to identify your body.

Traveling with a defensive handgun legally can be very confusing. Confusion and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Nothing will ruin the last few weeks of the term more than having to answer to criminal charges in an area far away from school.

Knowing the law is your responsibility. Fortunately, the web is a vast resource of information. Laws can be read online very easily in today’s world. And you’re all computer savvy college students.

In addition to the laws published on state and local websites, there are a couple of great resources everyone should be familiar with.

1. NRA-ILA Gun Law Guide – This great resource also includes information on traveling domestically.
2. HandgunLaw.us – This great resource include an interaction reciprocity map, so you can know where your permit/license is also valid. Each state has a PDF you can print out for later reference. Each PDF includes links to local and state laws for verification

Roadtripping safely and responsibly with a defensive handgun isn’t difficult. It just takes a little extra planning and awareness. You can still have fun and be safe.

In the past several weeks, there have been a number of false allegations regarding what the case for campus carry is all about and what exactly our supporters want.

Though the emphasis is usually what the campus carry movement IS, it is very important that we also stress what the movement IS NOT.

The campus carry movement as made by the national organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCC)…

IS NOT:

 About WHO can carry.

IS: 

About WHERE license holders can carry.

Students for Concealed Carry is in no way trying to change the restrictions or requirements in order to obtain a concealed carry license or purchase a handgun. We are only trying to change the boundaries where concealed carry permit holders are legally allowed to carry.
                                                                                                                                       _________________

IS NOT:

About pushing some radical notion that anybody should be allowed to have any gun anywhere, at any time.

 IS:

About ensuring that restrictions on where license holders can carry center around  fact-based risk analysis.

Legalizing campus carry would not and has no intent to lift restrictions on other prohibited places that may be located on college campuses such as the following:

• Bars (businesses that earn 51% or more of its income from the sale or service of alcohol for on-premises consumption.) Bars are required to post red “51%” signs at each entrance.
• High school, collegiate, or professional sporting events or interscholastic event
• Correctional facilities (jail, prison, youth correctional facility, etc.)
• Polling places on election day or during early voting
• Racetracks
• Secured areas of an airport
• And several other listed areas

                                                                                                                                       _________________

 IS NOT:

About expanding the scope or interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment.

 IS:

About ensuring consistent restrictions on the rights afforded by a concealed handgun license.

The case for campus carry, according to SCC, does not claim a Constitutional right. We support this movement on the basis of factual evidence, statistics, and consistency.
                                                                                                                                        _________________

 IS NOT:

An untested or an untried idea.

IS:

Supported by the available evidence and is consistent with other laws regulating concealed carry.

During the past twenty years, more than ninety U.S. college campuses allowed concealed campus carry for a combined total of more than 700 semesters, without a single resulting assault, threat, or suicide, and with only one minor accident and one gun theft.
                                                                                                                                        _________________

IS NOT:

Involved with holding positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses on primary or secondary schools.

 IS:

About ensuring that trained, licensed adults are allowed the same measure of protection on college campuses that they’re currently allowed outside of college campuses.

Students for Concealed Carry has no official position on open carry, unlicensed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses of primary or secondary schools. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA, a political party, or any other organization. SCC is a single-issue organization focused on the legalization of licensed concealed carry on college campuses.

                                                                                                                                        _________________

IS NOT:

A partisan-based movement.

IS:

A movement consisting of individuals with very diverse political backgrounds.

Among SCC’s leaders, you’ll find conservatives, moderates, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc. The members of SCC look beyond partisanship and toward the goal of achieving state laws and school policies based on factual evidenced rather than emotional rhetoric.
                                                                                                                                        _________________

IS NOT:

About campus protection.

IS:

About personal protection.

It’s about allowing individuals to protect themselves, not about creating a team of amateur security guards tasked with protecting campus.

Madison D. Welch
Texas Legislative Director, Students for Concealed Carry
madison.welch@campuscarry.com 

Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus kicks off the lawsuit challenging Ohio State’s violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68 fundraising efforts with an Italian family style dinner featuring Nikki Goeser, the NRA’s 2012 Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award Winner.

“Ms Goeser is a hero to me and many of our members. We are proud that she has agreed to speak at our first annual birthday dinner,” said Joe Smith, President of Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus.

The group says on its website that “Nikki’s story is a perfect example of how laws and policies make victims out of law-abiding citizens.”

Goeser, who has been featured in USA Today and has made appearances on shows such as Stossel’s Take on Fox News, watched as her husband Ben was brutally murdered while her defensive handgun was locked safely away in her car as required by Tennessee Law. Since Ben fell victim to Nikki’s stalker, she has worked tirelessly to change laws in Tennessee. Her proponent testimony also helped change gun control laws in Ohio.

“Her testimony before the Ohio Legislature helped lawmakers understand how victims were created by gun free zones,” said Linda Walker, Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair. “You just can’t listen to her tell that story without tearing up. She puts a face to the victimization created by gun control.”

Walker is also a member of the NRA’s Board of Directors and 2009 recipient of the NRA’s Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award.

Mike Newbern, Ohio Students for Concealed Carry State Director, says that Goeser’s appearance will mark the official kickoff of fundraising efforts.

“Lawsuits cost lots of money. Our challenge to OSU’s policies as violations of law won’t come cheap. This dinner will help us jumpstart our fundraising efforts,” said Newbern. “When we considered who we wanted to help us celebrate our first year at OSU and challenge the establishment empowering criminals, Nikki was an easy choice.”

“When Mike first reached out to me about the dinner, I was honored to accept,” said Goeser. “University policies and laws in several states make victims out of some of our brightest minds. They create a safe haven for criminals to carry out their dirty work.

That’s just plain wrong.”

Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus will host the dinner at Giammarco’s in Westerville on November 10. In addition to the dinner, the group has collected several items that will be raffled off. Details on the event and ticket purchasing information are available on their website, BuckeyesforConcealedCarry.com.

On Wednesday, the Ohio State and Columbus police departments formalized their joint jurisdiction agreement, giving law enforcement more flexibility in responding to crime on and off campus. In an email to the student body, Stepp outlined the capabilities OSUPD will have as a result of the agreement. OSU officers will now have the authority to take immediate action off campus if the officer witnesses or believes that a violent crime may take place. The department will also be able to share resources and assist CPD with situations and emergencies off campus.

OSUPD Chief Paul Denton described the impact the agreement will have on the ability an OSU officer has to respond to a crime telling the Columbus Dispatch that “if officers biking or walking on the campus side of High Street spot a crime on city property, they can cross and make an arrest.”

The agreement however does not give OSUPD the ability to increase patrols in the University District. A summary issued by OSUPD stated that each department “will continue to patrol their respective jurisdictions as they always have.”

“I just don’t understand how this is going to be any different or more effective than before,” said Michael Newbern, Ohio Students for Concealed Carry State Director. “So now, OSUPD can run across High Street to respond to a crime that is happening or is about to happen? What about the areas on the other side of High Street just beyond the officer’s view?”

Newbern points out that since the beginning of the semester 60 violent crimes have occurred in the University District and 13 have occurred on campus, including a rape in Morrill Tower. Crime rates during the first few weeks of the semester are just below what they were in October of 2011 when the university admitted there was a noticeable uptick in crime.

While crime is high off campus, campus itself is not immune. Stepp points out in his email that “Criminals do not pay attention to borders or jurisdictions.” He also said that “the path towards a safer campus is not complete” and that USG is “working with the university closely to move forward with new initiatives.”

Joe Smith, leader of Students for Concealed Carry’s OSU chapter Buckeyes for Concealed Carry, sees Stepp’s remarks as support for campus concealed carry. “Taylor made some great arguments for campus concealed carry,” he said. “But yet, the university stands by its policies that empower criminals. It baffles my mind that President Gee and the professors here can continue to ignore empirical evidence and interject their personal bias into what should otherwise be a logical decision.

“That spits in the face of everything a university learning environment is based on.”

Smith said there are 70 universities in six states allowing concealed carry on over 200 campuses without incident. Campus carry was passed into law in Colorado in 2003. Colorado State allowed campus concealed carry while Colorado University did not. Crime at CSU trended down 65% while crime at CU trended up 35%.

“Campus carry works,” said Smith. “All of these fancy initiatives just aren’t enough. It’s time we consider allowing students who are already authorized to carry a concealed handgun in many other non-secure locations the ability to carry on campus as well.”

Joe Smith, Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President

At approximately 7:00 pm Saturday night, Ohio State Students Joe and Amanda Smith were approached by a threatening white male near Westland Mall requiring Joe, Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus President, to use his concealed handgun to defend himself, his wife Amanda, and their sixteen month old son Kyedin.

The threatening male approached their vehicle while Amanda was buckling Kyedin into his stroller and Joe was near the tailgate. He began making cat calls at Amanda as he closed in on her. Amanda and Joe asked him to leave them alone. Joe placed himself between his wife and the aggressor while a panicked Amanda began to remove Kyedin from the stroller and place him back into the vehicle. The male then became belligerent and began issuing threats to Joe.

“He just kept coming, no matter what I said. Then he told me he had a gun and had no problem killing all of us,” said Joe. Joe instructed Amanda to call the police while he engaged the threat. “He kept saying he was going to kill us. He stopped short to answer his phone and told whoever it was where he was and to come help him get this ‘white honky.’”

“I demanded he stop, but he didn’t. When he was about fifteen feet away, I drew my handgun,” Joe explained. “I was prepared to shoot, but didn’t have to.”

According to Joe, the aggressor stopped, raised his hands, and began apologizing. An older vehicle arrived, presumably with the aggressor’s backup. He got into the vehicle and left.

“I was terrified,” said Amanda. “I’m glad Joe had his gun. Who knows what would’ve happened if he didn’t.”

Deputy Zachary P. Cooper (#933) of the Franklin County Sheriff’s office responded to Amanda’s 911 call in approximately 7 minutes. Deputy Cooper told Joe “this is exactly why law abiding citizens can carry firearms. I’m a firm believer in it.”

Ohio Students for Concealed Carry State Director Michael Newbern points out that “Joe was forced to defend himself with his handgun on a Saturday.” Newbern added, “What if this incident occurred on a weekday when Joe and Amanda were going home from campus and he would have been disarmed by Ohio State policy?

“This is why Ohio Students for Concealed Carry and Buckeyes for Concealed Carry is suing Ohio State to bring the student code of conduct in line with Ohio Revised Code,” he added.

UPDATE/STATE DIRECTOR’S NOTE:
Some in the anti-self defense community have been publicly questioning the validity of this story. This update/note will address those questions.

Some people have questioned why Joe and his wife would be at Westland Mall. They are indeed Ohio State students. Those questioning their decision to go to Westland Mall are correct in stating there are many other malls in the greater Columbus area and there are many other shopping options closer to campus. Joe and Amanda had actually been at Tuttle Mall looking for a Pittsburgh Steelers shirt. They left when they didn’t find what they were looking for. They stopped at Westland Mall on their way to their home in Grove City in one last ditch effort to find a shirt.

Some people are questioning why the aggressor wasn’t followed or held for police to apprehend when they arrived. A handgun is a self-defense tool only. An Ohio Concealed Handgun License allows one to carry that self-defense tool on his or her person concealed. It is not permission to behave like a police officer. Once the threat is stopped, the licenses is correct in going back to a holstered heightened state of awareness.

Had Joe pursued the aggressor and subsequently used lethal force, he would no longer be justified in a self-defense claim. Page 19 & 20 of the Ohio Attorney General’s Concealed Carry Handbook outlines the three requirements to justify lethal force in self-defense. Chasing the aggressor is escalating and would remove one of those conditions.

Some people are questioning the language of the aggressor. In particular, they are pointing out that a white male aggressor would not call Joe a “white honky.” A cursory understanding of human psychology can help one understand how a person may identify with a racial group that by popular definitions that person doesn’t belong to. In this context it is easy to understand how Joe’s aggressor doesn’t think “white honkey” is an insult to him while it is to Joe.

Some people are questioning Joe’s inability to obtain a license plate number. I personally challenge those people to draw a firearm in defense of themselves, their spouses, and their children and to see how much they retain. We are not police officers who face these types of scenarios frequently and are trained to remember details in the face of a threat. Even some police officers will miss details, especially when faced with the life or death defense of a loved one.

Finally, some people are questioning the truthfulness of Joe’s story in absence of a police report and other credible news sources. They are calling us liars. They are saying we as gun rights advocates are fabricating or at least embellishing a story to support our agenda.

Incidents like Joe’s are not newsworthy. They don’t get media coverage. According to Florida criminologist, there are approximately one million successful self-defense uses of a firearm in the United States every year 97% of which never involve a firearm being discharged. If the news outlets in Columbus covered each and every successful firearm use in their market (0.809% of total TV households and 0.2% of total US population) they would showcase six stories per day assuming the one million uses is evenly distributed across the United States. How many stories like Joe’s do the people questioning the validity of his claims see in news outlets daily?

Amanda did indeed call 911. We’ve included a scan of the business card Deputy Cooper left with Joe. The incident is recorded as response #12-155061 in the radio room log.

No police report was filed. We do not fully understand why a report wasn’t filed. Since shots were not fired, no one was injured, no property was damaged or stolen, and the assailant had fled, we imagine the incident didn’t meet the criteria for a police report.

We also do not understand why a Franklin County Sheriff’s Deputy would respond to the call instead of a Columbus Police Officer. The Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and Columbus Police Department operate in concert under agreements similar to the Ohio State University Police and Columbus Police department’s mutual aid agreement. While the agreements are probably subject to public records requests, we have not obtained them. Regardless of how much combined patrolling or mutual aid they provide to each other, a victim can expect a five to ten minute response time.

We understand the mechanism leading to the doubt of Joe’s story. We present years of empirical data, peer reviewed scholarly research, and real-life stories that debunk the untruths many people have held as fact for years. Some people react violently to the reality that what they have believed for so long is not true. We will never win them over.

Most people question the new reality. With enough factual based self research, they accept the paradigm shift. It is for them that we are providing this update.

The cat is out of the bag. We are preparing a lawsuit against Ohio State University. We’ve been dripping tidbits of information here and there. In my last interview as Buckeyes for Concealed Carry student leader, I finally told our very own student media outlet, The Lantern, about our plans.

Their report came out Friday. It is sure to stir up more buzz around campus, which is good. However, The Lantern misrepresented some facts, missed some important connections, and left out some critical information.

Let’s set the record straight.

First, it’s important to understand that concealed carry is authorized on Ohio’s college campuses under one condition right now. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 2923.126(B)(5) states:

A valid license does not authorize a licensee to carry a concealed firearm onto any premises owned or leased by any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher education, unless the handgun is in a locked motor vehicle or the licensee is in the immediate process of placing the handgun in a locked motor vehicle.

The one condition where we are authorized to carry a concealed handgun onto college campuses is when it is in a motor vehicle.

When I explain this to people, I like to phrase in a real world scenario most can relate to. This law allows soccer mom to rush Johnny to OSU medical center after he gets his teeth kicked in playing soccer without having to go home to secure her firearm first or parking far away from the ER. Under the way ORC is now, she can legally drive to the medical center right then, park her car in her garage, disarm and secure her firearm in her mini-van, and then take Johnny to the ER.

Ohio State University students, faculty, and staff do not enjoy that same right. Several policies restrict possession of firearms on campus. The Student Code of Conduct is the most prevalent. Section 3335-25-04(E) expressly prohibits:

Storage or possession of dangerous weapons, devices, or substances including, but not limited to, firearms, ammunition, or fireworks, unless authorized by an appropriate university official or permitted by a university policy, even if otherwise permitted by law. Use or misuse of weapons, devices, or substances in a manner that causes or threatens serious harm to the safety or security of others.

It is key to note that the University recognizes that law allows us to store firearms in our motor vehicles. The University Administration and the Board of Trustees still prohibit firearms “even if otherwise permitted by law.” This demonstrates the lack of any desire to follow the law and adhere to the will of the people of Ohio.

While these policies result in administrative punishments and the violator will not face criminal charges, the consequences of violating them are VERY severe. I recently wrote how one female student is faced with the decision between facing a stalker while defenseless or carrying her firearm in her vehicle and facing possible university administrative sanctions. Both choices present very serious risks. Her stalker could assault, rape, or kill her should he find her without her firearm. The university could expel her a year away from finishing a professional medical school for following the law, leaving her with mountains of debt and a mark on her record that may prevent her from ever being able to pay it back.

Our interactions with President Gee, Chief Denton, other administrators, and the Board of Trustees confirm that they have no desire to follow law and adhere to the will of the people of Ohio.

We’ve appealed to them on several occasions. Several of us have personally asked for permission to store our firearms in our motor vehicles on campus only to get the run-around or outright denial. We have emails to prove it. In fact, President Gee said in a town hall style meeting:

You and I can debate that all day long and you have clear arguments. But I’m in charge and we’re not going to do it.

During this same town hall style meeting, he said that the drinking age should be dropped to 18 and that he has instructed his police department to selectively enforce underage consumption. In the meeting, President Gee summed up his philosophy. He’s in charge. He is the sole authority on campus. He can allow or prohibit behavior on his campus regardless of whether or not that behavior is legal.

In President Gee’s world, he is the supreme ruler.

Fortunately for us, his world is not reality. ORC includes a neat little blurb. That neat little blurb in the ORC is the savior of our rights state-wide. It is what also prevents Mayors Against Illegal Guns Ohio Chair and Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman from banning guns in Columbus. ORC 9.68 is Ohio’s firearms preemption clause. It states:

The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry (OFCC) successfully used the preemption clause to bring Clyde, Ohio’s firearms regulations back in line with ORC. They also did it with the city of Campbell. Cleveland Heights changed its local regulations before the Buckeye Firearms Association and OFCC were able to bring their suits to court.

It is our firm belief that Ohio State University is also in violation of ORC 9.68.

It is also our belief that when we remove ORC 2923.126(B)(5) from law and licensed unrestricted campus concealed carry is made legal that Ohio State University will continue to violate ORC 9.68 and will continue to ban firearms. Much like we did in Colorado, we will eventually be forced to sue Ohio State University to bring it in line with law. We can either do that now, or we can wait until we change law.

Our position is that we need to move forward with such a lawsuit.

We are currently researching our case. We are working with Columbus attorneys to file a suit. We are raising money to fund our lawsuit.

Will we sue OSU next week? Will we sue OSU next month? Will we sue OSU next year? Right now we can’t say. The timing relies largely on funding. We have a solid case. We just need a solid bank account.

Of course, Ohio State could do the right thing. We doubt it. If you do too, please donate to Buckeyes for Concealed Carry.

You can send your check to:

Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus
1739 N. High Street
Columbus, OH 43210

Please also sign our petition.

With classes starting again across the state, our campus chapters are organizing, expanding and encountering new students who, understandingly, are hesitant to accept the idea of decriminalizing concealed carry on campus. At the same time, many members of our group are not necessarily confident with the arguments needed to educate people and dispel myths.

Many of these students’ arguments are based on common misconceptions or faulty logic, and can be easily countered by sticking to a core set of ideas. To help out newer members when engaging other students or faculty members in discussions, we’re going to approach several of these common arguments here.

The BIG ONE: “Drunk college kids at parties with guns? Are you crazy?”

Students for Concealed Carry advocates for the decriminalization of lawful concealed carry on college campuses by licensed, of-age individuals. These adults responsibly and effectively carry defensive firearms everywhere else in their lives. We do not seek to change who can carry a firearm; we just want to eliminate gun-free zones that only disarm individuals who do not intend on committing crimes in the first place.

In the State of Florida, one must be 21 years old, pass a background check and complete a training course on firearms laws as well as the safe handling of firearms. Any student who would carry on campus must also meet these requirements, hardly classifying them as “kids.” In fact, many of these students are graduate students who are well into their twenties and thirties, as well as combat veterans returning to school after receiving their firearms training in the mountains of Afghanistan and the streets of Fallujah.

Meeting these requirements allows individuals to legally carry in restaurants, movie theaters and churches. It would also allow them to carry in houses off-campus where many of these parties occur. If lawfully armed citizens were prone to breaking the law by carrying while intoxicated and recklessly handle their firearms, would that not happen off-campus as well?

ACADEMIC FREEDOM: If students were allowed to carry concealed firearms, heated class discussions would end in shootouts and academic integrity would be sacrificed.

The strongest argument we have against this assertion is that it DOES NOT HAPPEN in any of the over 200 campuses where concealed carry is currently allowed.

At Colorado State University, concealed carry on campus has been legal since 2003 and there have not been any incidents involving lawfully armed individuals threatening or shooting fellow students during discussions and arguments in class. Likewise, Utah’s nine public degree-offering colleges have allowed concealed carry on their twenty campuses since 2006 and have not seen these crimes committed by concealed weapons permit holders.

This argument also applies to the hypothetical where professors are afraid to give bad grades because a lawfully armed citizen may come after them with a gun, but especially in that case, why would a professor fear legal guns more than those who could illegally bring their gun in right now? When confronted with these “what if?” scenarios, one must simply resort back to the facts of “what is.”

BLOOD IN THE STREETS! If concealed carry is allowed on campuses, all these assaults and robberies would become shootings, and criminals would come onto campus more armed to shoot students.

This argument is the same one brought up whenever carry rights are expanded, from “shall issue” licensing to campus carry. Fortunately, these dire predictions have yet to manifest themselves. Neither states which enact right-to-carry laws nor campuses which allow concealed carry have seen subsequent increases in violent crime as a result. Once again, the “what if?” argument is defeated by “what is.” Despite these facts, anti-defense advocates still cling to this argument and use it as a scare tactic to deny individuals the option of effective self-defense.

In addition, while the actual number of armed individuals on campus would likely be very low, their presence in a population serves as a general deterrent to crime. Currently, criminals in Florida are guaranteed that any individual whom they target on a university campus will be denied by law the option of effective self-defense. By allowing this small percentage of individuals to carry on campus, you remove the assurance and therefore make the student population as a whole less appealing targets and increase individual safety.

TAKE NOTE of these arguments and the common themes. Use them to reason with individuals making emotional arguments based on hypothetical situations and misconceptions about concealed carry. Be confident when discussing the issue because the facts are on our side, and if you don’t know, don’t be afraid to defer the question to your campus leader or another member of your group. Together we will educate people, dispel myths, and restore the option of effective self-defense on college campuses.

Each fall campus and the University District is awash with eager students, some new and some seasoned. Their arrival is a welcome event for everybody on campus and the University District. The University loves to see students come back. The businesses thrive in the presence of students. And the criminals see their victim pool restocked and react accordingly.

Sunday afternoon, Ohio State University Police issued a public safety notice via email. In the notice OSUPD list three armed robberies in the past week, one attempted and one resulting in injuries both off campus and an armed robbery on campus. Officials were quick to downplay the incidents of crime.

The Public Safety Notice reported that “While there is no direct indication that the crimes are related, they do suggest an ongoing concern for public safety in the University area.”

Columbus Police Sgt. Richard Weiner denied an uptick in crime on the students’ return.

Taylor Stepp, OSU USG President, expressed gratitude and excitement over new initiatives to come, saying he is “glad to say the university has been working with USG” on safety issues and he “think(s) you’ll see big safety announcements this year.”

Last year was a huge negative publicity debacle that the City of Columbus and the University both want to avoid.

The University was pro-active in its efforts to inform students of crime in the area. The Administration quickly discovered that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Crime alert after crime alert got the attention of the media. The situation was even reported by national outlets.

As a result, President Gee formed a task force to address safety concerns. The task force suggested several initiatives that were put into effect just after finals winter quarter 2011. The Buckeye Block Watch Program was the flagship of Gee’s autumn semester task force efforts. The Office of Student Life looked to the program to empower students to take an active responsive role for their safety. OSUPD also amended it operational agreement with Columbus PD enabling more police presence.

The university and the city of Columbus both have an interest in minimizing the negative press that could result from crime alerts required by federal law. The number of crime alerts is not as high as the number that resulted in last year’s negative publicity. But the picture painting a non-increase is far from true.

In only three days of classes, criminals have welcomed students back to campus with 32 violent crimes.

Since the beginning of welcome week on August 20, Columbus and Ohio State Police have filed reports on thirty-two violent crimes on campus and in the University District. The incidents of crime in the first week occurred at a rate nearly twice that of the last three months of autumn quarter 2011 when “there was a noticeable uptick” and 1.5 times that of October, the worst of the three months. While alerts and the public interest in them is down, crime is higher.

Sgt Weiner was correct in saying to the Lantern that “Every year when the students come back, you know, it’s a new cycle. We have fresh faces, you know, the freshmen come in and they’re coming from all different parts of the country, from rural areas as well, and they’re not used to the city crime, and the criminals know that as well,” Weiner said. “We have to educate them.”

Sgt Weiner acknowledges that criminals victimize students because they come to Ohio State with naivety. The university has been on an education blitz since last January. Dr Javaune Adams-Gaston, Vice President for Student Life, sent an email filled with safety tips to students just last Thursday. What he and the administration fail to acknowledge is that despite all of the education and preventative medicine, criminals still victimize students.

Criminals victimize students because they are defenseless.

Carrying a firearm onto Ohio’s college campuses is a felony. Possessing a firearm even when allowed by law is a violation of Ohio State’s student code of conduct and could result in expulsion. Law-abiding student licensees don’t carry firearms and criminals are free to carry out their business.

The charge to render students, faulty, and staff defenseless by Mayor Coleman and President Gee must be stopped. They are misrepresenting the truth to keep us quiet. When that doesn’t work, they rely on a law that needs to be changed and rules that need to be challenged.

You can help us and here’s how!

• Sign our petition – It’s easy and only takes a few seconds.
• Send a personal email – When you sign our petition, President Gordon Gee, Senator Kris Jordan, and Rep Joe Uecker get an email. You can be more effective by sending a personal email to them.
• Contact your lawmakers – Phone, email, and write your lawmakers. Senator Jordan and Rep Uecker are our potential sponsors. Your lawmakers are the votes.
• Make a donation to Students for Concealed Carry and email us your receipt to buckeyesforconcealedcarry@osu.edu so we can earmark for use in Ohio.
• Lastly, tell all of your friends about us, our petition, and our cause. Post on your Facebook. Post in forums you visit. Email your friends. Ask everyone to help us. Together, all Ohioans can restore our right to self-defense.

Screenshots of CPD and OSUPD logs for welcome week:

Kansas Students for Concealed Carry is pleased to announce the formation of a new chapter at Kansas State University. The K-State chapter now joins Pittsburg State Universities’ Gorilla’s for Concealed Carry in educating Kansas students, faculty and staff about common myths surrounding conceal carry at public colleges and universities.

Andrew Seufert applied for the position of Campus Leader via the national Students for Concealed Carry organization and participated in a thorough phone interview. Kansas Students for Concealed Carry is excited to have Andrew as a campus leader and Andrew and the new chapter looks forward to dispelling common myths regarding conceal carry on campus, and working with other college students to change law at the state level to allow those legally licensed by the state to carry concealed the option to do so on campus as well.

Andrew has been working for several weeks to prepare for the start of the Fall 2012 semester by having meetings to generate interest about the group and planning events to generate awareness about self-defense on campus. The K-State chapter will be sponsoring a Refuse to Be a Victim seminar for the K-State and Manhattan community on Thursday, October 4, 2012 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. For more information contact Andrew Seufert (ams785@ksu.edu) or Robert Auten (robert@conditionredcch.com).

More information about Students for Concealed Carry can be found at:

www.concealedcampus.org

www.kansas.concealedcampus.org

Facebook – KansasStudentsforConcealedCarry

Robert Auten
State of Kansas Director – Students for Concealed Carry

Nikki Goeser: 2012 Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award Winner

Florida Students for Concealed Carry would like to congratulate Nikki Goeser  for winning the NRA’s Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award. Other recipients of the prestigious award include Florida’s Marion Hammer and Ohio’s Linda Walker.

Ms. Goeser’s late husband, Ben Goeser, fell victim to an illegally armed stalker in April 2009. He was murdered in front of her while she was working as a DJ in a Tennessee bar. Per Tennessee law, bars are designated as gun-free zones and because of those laws, Ms. Goeser was prevented from lawfully concealing her defensive firearm.

Instead of blaming the gun for the incident, she blames the madman and the government for disarming her. She has since worked tirelessly to eliminate defense-free zones including campus carry bans both in Tennessee and across the country.

Nikki, deservedly so, is named a Second Amendment hero.

Guest Post by Walter Vosburgh. Mr. Vosburgh is a South Florida campus carry and 2nd Amendment supporter. He is a US Navy veteran as well as a former Deputy Sheriff. While Mr. Vosburgh’s views do not represent an official position of Florida Students for Concealed Carry, his opinions and advice are held in the highest regard and are presented here.

Carry Always

I am all-too-often asked by family and friends why I carry a gun, even when I’m “just” going down the street to Publix to go grocery shopping or pick up some lottery tickets.

Some have even asked me what I’m “afraid” of, and some think I’m over-reacting to society’s woes and tell me that I should just carry my cell phone so I can call 911, and let the police worry about the criminals.

These questions seem unusual to me because these very same family and friends all know I have been around firearms my entire life and that I am an avid sportsman, hunter, shooting enthusiast, and huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment and an individual’s right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property.

My response to all of them is always the same. “I’m exercising my Constitutional right to carry a firearm to defend myself, my family, my property, and/or those who can’t defend themselves should the need arise, regardless of where I am, because let’s face it, criminals do not advertise when or where they are going to strike next”, nor do they give a damn about your Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And…when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

To those who imply that I might be “afraid”, I tell them, “I don’t carry a gun because I am afraid, I carry a gun because it makes me unafraid, in any situation, at any time of day or night, wherever I am.”

Case in point…a Boynton Beach Publix was robbed by an armed criminal on Tuesday, July 10th.

Photographer: WPTV Copyright 2012 Scripps Media, Inc. Used under Fair Use Terms

This is the Publix that is 1/4 mile from our house, and it is in a very nice neighborhood. It is where we go grocery shopping and get our lottery tickets. Me, Chere, and our 13-year old girls’ dentist is actually in this shopping plaza as well, and so is the salon where I get my hair cut and Chere gets her nails done. Between Chere and I and the girls are in this store/shopping plaza at least 3-4 times a week, depending on what we’re doing.

I’ve been to this Publix/shopping plaza at 7:00 am, 11:00 pm, and every hour in between, on every day of the week. I just happened to NOT be there last night. The “Customer Service” desk inside this Publix where this crime occurred is also the same exact counter where I buy my lottery tickets.

Need I say anything more about why I am always armed, even if it’s to go to the grocery store to pick up a few things or get lottery tickets?

I know I just told you about the Mayors Against Illegal Guns infiltrating local governments just yesterday, but Florida Carry‘s Freedom of Information Act request just came back with a stack of emails from Linda Vaughn, the MAIG representative employed by the city of Orlando.

Needless to say, these emails are both revealing and unsettling notes Sean Caranna as the legal team starts working through them. Ms. Vaughn is working both to paint concealed carry licensees as dangerous and to repeal concealed carry laws. She is also utilizing internal documents from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and has marching orders from MAIG in direct violation of federal regulations prohibiting lobbying by a 501(c)3.

Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition is pulling out all the stops in their attempts to further restrict your ability to protect yourself and your family, and if we are to have a chance at eliminating defense-free zones on university campuses we must step up to the fight.

Local governments and school administrations can be a touchy subject when dealing with firearms reforms. On one hand, they could provide valuable support when approaching state lawmakers to propose changes such as removing defense-free zones on college campuses. On the other hand, they could and usually do stand in stubborn opposition to changes, especially those involving expanding firearms rights.

Even that we can deal with. That’s our mission after all, to change lawmakers’ minds by presenting them with reason and facts, right?

What causes trouble though, is when local governments hire staff members from organizations such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a vehemently anti-defense organization, and receive grants from those organizations in return. Sean at All Nine Yards recently turned up evidence of just such an operation in the City of Orlando.

Photo by Getty Images used under Fair Use Terms

While this is troubling in itself, what does it have to do with the campus carry movement? Well, according to the list of coalition members on the MAIG site, in addition to Mayor Buddy Dyer of Orlando, Mayor Craig Lowe of Gainesville and Mayor John Marks III of Tallahassee are also members of this organization. With local government opposition in the cities that house three of our state universities, it is going to take a lot of support to change public opinion on the subject of campus carry.

Luckily, Florida now has teeth in its preemption statute which would prevent local governments and public entities from overriding state law once universities are removed from the list of defense-free zones.

Even when it is legal, though, we still have to continue to educate the public about the safe and responsible ownership, carry and use of firearms in Florida and on campus. Ask your friends and family to help us out by spreading the word.

Lately, I have earned a reputation as a “gun nut” and, frankly, there is a grain of truth to the label, but that wasn’t always the case. I grew up as far from the right side of the fence as any girl could get—despite my father’s insistence on playing “the devil’s advocate”. I grew up in small town USA, behind a white picket fence and shielded by the protective bubble of my mother’s democratic values and constant worries. I grew up knowing what guns were and what they did, but never touching, let alone firing, one. Guns were to be feared in our household. The only firearm permitted in our house was my father’s old shotgunand that was only after a year-long bickering match with my mother. Looking back, I still don’t know how my dad won that argument, but he did.

Unlike my father, I took what my mother said about guns as law all the way through high school and nearly into my twenties. I remember the moment my eyes finally opened, the moment I finally realized I was no longer in the protective shield my mother had provided. I was at a house party when my drunken ex-boyfriend decided to get handsy with me after the rest of the crowd went to sleep for the night. Even as a panicked freshman, I knew what he intended, ran out of the house, and called a ride home as my planned ride was no longer sober. I escaped before things got out of hand, but my sense of security was shattered and couldn’t be replaced. Thoughts like, “what if I hadn’t been sober,” “what if he hadn’t been hammered,” and “what if he had done the unthinkable,” raced through my mind as I lay awake that night, unable to sleep. The illusion, ‘I will always be safe, nothing bad could ever happen to me,’ ended and reality set in.

I wouldn’t fully regain my sense of security until my sophomore year. I was picking a friend up from her class out in west campus when she asked if I wanted a shirt that was being sold in her building. As a college student, free shirts were always welcome and she came out with a black “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus” t-shirt. I shrugged it off thinking it looked cool and I guess I would wear it if I ran out of clothes. A few weeks and an ignored laundry basket or two later, I was wearing it, standing in academy, while she looked at guns. A guy approached us and complimented the shirt I was wearing which didn’t surprise me because it had already happened more than once that day. That guy then informed us that he ran the organization selling those shirts and asked if we wanted to get more involved. I said yes and assumed I would attend a few meetings, maybe work an event or two, but I joined primarily to pad my college résumé.

It has been almost a year and a half since I started participating in Students for Concealed Carry and I haven’t looked back. I have managed to go from a girl who wouldn’t touch a gun to one that will be getting her CHL; from the girl who didn’t know what the SCC was to running one of its chapters and being bugged to write a blog for the website. So here I am. I don’t know everything, nor will I pretend to, but, I see things from a different perspective since I once feared guns. This blog is my gun life exposed, and hopefully it has provided a bigger window into our organization.

This post was written by Camille Mohle, Chairwoman of SCC’s Texas A&M chapter.

After a long and overly anticipated wait, the 2012 Texas primaries are finally in. Many of the races were trampled by a “long shot” while others were leaving their candidates biting their nails – some ending in a run-off election as well. One race in particular has the state sitting on the edge of its seat – the senate district 25 seat, that is.

Beginning in 2009 and then following in 2011, Senator Jeff Wentworth has been the primary author of the senate campus carry bills within the Texas legislature. This year, he had two very prominent opponents fightin

Every day individuals become victims of violent crimes. They don’t expect to be victimized, often they are in the places where they feel safest. The effects of such an attack can resonate long after the physical injuries have healed.

Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus was able to interview two brave young men who survived attacks. The outcomes were drastically different. Share their story so that others do not have to be left defenseless.

Listen to their stories here. Leave a comment showing your support. Gun-free zones are defense-free zones.

Is the federal government or the police responsible for my personal safety? Is the Kansas legislature or school administrators responsible for my personal safety? Who is responsible?

Ultimately, we are each responsible for our own personal safety, and must continue to be diligent that the human right to self-defense is not infringed upon. Individuals who have chosen the option to carry concealed, who have passed rigorous background checks at the local, state and federal level, who have successfully passed an approved course outlined by the Kansas Attorney General that includes a written and shooting qualification, should be allowed that option without interference from imaginary boundaries or impotent ‘no guns allowed’ signage.

There are those who would argue that individuals should depend solely upon the police for our personal protection, when even the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal responsibility to prevent crime and protect the victim. On Sunday, March 16, 1975, two men broke into a home shared by three women in the District of Columbia. As one woman in the lower floor was being raped and sodomized, two of the woman in an upper floor called police. After being told by dispatchers that police were on the way, and seeing police cruisers drive by and even stop and move to the front door, the two women in the upper floor called down hoping police were in the house to help. They were not. The call only alerted the two men on the lower floor and they moved upstairs to attack.

The three women were held hostage and raped for the next fourteen hours.

The three women brought a suit against the District of Columbia Police in a case that eventually made it to the Supreme Court. In a 4-3 decision the court ruled that “…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…” -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981).

Warren v. District of Columbia clearly illustrates that the individual cannot depend on the federal government or the police for our personal protection. Recent events in the Kansas Senate clearly indicate that there are elected representatives who feel that a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide the individual with the option to self-defense in public and municipal buildings. Certain Senators are so loathe to the idea, they even refuse to vote on the matter.

Most recently, two bills before the Senate (HB 2353 and SB 394) contained wording that would have prohibited ‘no firearms allowed’ signage to be posted on a public or municipal building unless added security was in place to prevent ALL weapons from entering the building, instead of just disarming law abiding citizens. In both cases, certain Senators are satisfied to see the bills expire rather than vote and being held accountable by their constituents. This is hardly the leadership Kansans deserve nor are these the individuals we want making decisions about our personal protection and safety.

Kansas citizens, along with students and employees of public colleges and universities, must work together to change the Kansas political landscape and elect those who will work to eliminate laws eliminating gun-free zones. This elimination will allow those legally licensed by the state to carry concealed virtually everywhere else in Kansas the option to carry concealed in public and municipal buildings, including those on public college and university campuses.

Submitted by Robert Auten in a personal opinion piece to Kansas media sources in reaction to the tabelling of SB 394.

SB 394 TABLED

PLEASE CALL THE KANSAS SENATORS THAT VOTED YES TO TABLE THE MOTION TO CONCUR AND LET THEM HEAR YOU DON’T APPROVE OF THEIR ACTIONS!

The Public Building Security Act, originally HB 2353 and the Corrections Officers Concealed Carry Bill, originally HB 2422 stalled in the Senate after both passed the House. This is the bill that would allow concealed carry unless adequate security was provided in public and municipal buildings, college campuses and hospitals. Most knew that they would end up having to allow concealed carry. In order to make some headway concessions were made that would allow colleges to opt out provided they did it college by college and provided they gave an explanation to the Attorney General and the exemption would expire after 4 years. The concession for hospitals would have allowed them to restrict patients but not visitors. Please note that hospitals are not automatically restricted but you will find most posted with the NO CCH signs.

When it became apparent that the Senate was refusing to give these bills a hearing, the language of both bills was transferred to a dormant Senate bill, SB 394. That is why if you look up SB 394 on the legislature website you do not find the correct and current language of the bill.

Yesterday, our good Second Amendment friend, Senator Terry Bruce motioned to concur on SB 394 which in essence forced a floor vote on the bill.

Citing Rule 26, Senator Tim Owens moved to lay on the table the motion to concur.
Upon the showing of five hands a roll call vote was requested.
On roll call, the vote was:

Yeas 22; Nays 17; Present and Passing 0; Absent or Not Voting 1.

Yeas: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, King, Kultala, Longbine, Marshall, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Schodorf, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil.

Nays: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelly, Kelsey, Love, Lynn, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Taddiken, Wagle.
Absent or Not Voting: Steineger.

The motion carried.

PLEASE CALL EVERYONE ON THE “YEAS” LIST AND LET THEM KNOW YOU DO NOT APPROVE OF THEIR ACTIONS! THEY MUST HEAR FROM ALL OF YOU!

Our Kansas Senate must hear from us or they will continue to ignore our needs and our Constitutional rights! Many Senators said they had heard nothing from constituents who wanted this legislation.

And please do remember to thank those that stood with us on this important piece of legislation. They are the ones who voted “Nay”.

The landscape of the Kansas Senate MUST be changed or the same issues will continue to occur next year. It is our understanding that Governor Brownback would have signed this bill in to law if we could have gotten the Kansas Senate to take action on it and vote to pass it.

This has been a busy month for the Students for Concealed Carry Chapter at PSU. We have been carefully following HB 2353 and have distributed petitions in support of the bill, to be sent to the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. In the past month we have participated in the Empty Holster Protest and sent a representative to the 141st Annual NRA meeting in St. Louis, MO. The NRA meeting was very inspiring and a great opportunity to meet prominent figures leading the fight for gun rights. We would highly recommend attending next year, May 3-5, in Houston, TX.

We also participated in the Crawford County Relay for Life to support the American Cancer Society. In addition to walking during the relay we raffled off three arrows signed by Ted Nugent to supplement our fundraising efforts. Most recently we hosted a booth at the PSU Spring Fling, a carnival type event put on by the Student Activities Council. Our booth, which featured a prize wheel and prizes such as giant pixie sticks, was very popular, pulling in around 200 students. For May we plan to host an on campus BBQ during our regular meeting time to further promote our group and close out the semester. We are looking forward to next semester and hope that we will soon be joined by other groups across the state.  Participating in these events allows us to educate other students, faculty and staff about Students for Concealed Carry and emphasize the critical, life saving difference between feeling safe and being safe!

Edwin Stremel
President
Gorillas for Concealed Carry on Campus

Nationally recognized self-defense expert Massad Ayoob has popularized a term for criminals and predators whose actions are thwarted by individuals defending themselves – the criminal made “a fatal error in the victim selection process.”  With increasing regularity, individuals, legally licensed by their respective states, are successfully defending themselves against the threat of great bodily harm or death.  Some statistics indicate that armed citizens are defending themselves up to two million times a year – many without a shot being fired (Gottlieb and Workman. Shooting Blanks: Facts Don’t Matter to the Gun Ban Crowd. Merril Press, 2011).  But for many who work at, or attend, a public college or university, the option to carry concealed is forbidden, making victim selection all the easier for the attacker.

There are far too many examples of criminals entering the target rich environment of a college and university campus and perpetrating crimes unimpeded – sexual assaults, rapes, aggravated battery, kidnappings, and in extreme cases, killing students, faculty and staff who have not been allowed the option to carry concealed.  Painful reminders of the failed policy are documented at Oikos University, at Northern Illinois University, at Arkansas State University, at the University of Memphis, at Delaware State University and at Virginia Tech University, just to name a few.

Conversely, when students, faculty and staff have been allowed the option to carry concealed, examples exist where they were able to refuse to be a victim and protect themselves with firearms while off campus. The Associate Press reported that on Thursday, October 16, 2008, a 23 year old University of Arizona student was able to defend his life when two men in their 20’s forced their way into the students’ house for unknown reasons.  The Detroit Free Press reported that on January 19, 2008, a 28 year old University of Michigan student defended himself when 4 men broke into his home.  A student at Texas Tech University was able to detain one of at least two men attempting to break into his home on January 25, 2007.  Other students have refused to be a victim while attending the Citadel, Utah Valley State College, the University of Akron and Virginia Commonwealth University.
 
The above cited examples of legally licensed citizens, also students, who successfully defended themselves with a firearm off campus.  What would have become of these individuals had they been assaulted on campus?  The option of self-defense legally afforded to them off campus would not been available.  These students responsibly used their firearms off campus to defend themselves and that option should be available to them on campus as well.

Students, faculty and staff, allowed the option to carry concealed on campus, is not an untested idea.  Over 220 campuses in 6 states (Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Mississippi) allow campus carry, and have done so for years without incident. These states have now made the victim selection process much harder for the criminal. Students, faculty and staff who attend, and work, at these campuses will no longer be soft targets for criminals on campus, and criminals at these campuses will no longer be government-guaranteed defenseless targets for criminals on campus. Criminals will no longer have a government-guarantee that a cornucopia of defenseless citizens waits for them on every public university and college campus in the state.

Kansas students and employees must make the victim selection process difficult for the criminal and must work together to change laws eliminating gun-free zones and allow those legally licenses by the state to carry concealed virtually everywhere else in Kansas the option to carry concealed on public college and university campuses.  

Robert D. Auten
State of Kansas Director – Students for Concealed Carry
kansas@concealedcampus.org

We’re going to take a break from talking about campus carry for a bit so we can have a discussion about spreading your message and influencing your audience. If you’re going to effect change in any issue, it’s not enough to simply exist as an organization and talk out into space. You have to make an impact. Make sure people are noticing you and hearing what you’re saying.

We all know how great it is to have a blog, Facebook page and people who are interested on campus, but how effectively are you utilizing these resources? Is the valuable time you spent writing that blog post being wasted because nobody is reading it? Are your flyers on campus being ignored because they don’t engage individuals passing by? Why aren’t we getting “Likes” and interactions on our Facebook page?

If you ask yourself these questions and cannot give a good answer, this post is for you.

All organizations, whether they are businesses or nonprofits, have a finite amount of resources. Whether it is time, money or manpower, those resources need to be allocated as efficiently as possible. If you waste those resources, the results will be disappointing. Luckily, there are a couple simple techniques you can use to get the most bang for you buck.

The first thing you can do to maximize your impact is FOCUS. I’m not talking about getting sidetracked by Youtube and Pinterest, but rather making sure you choose a topic and a target audience and stick to it. This goes for blog posts, newspaper articles and even Facebook statuses. By doing this, you’re more likely to pull a reader in, get your point across and get them to share it.

Speaking of sharing posts, you need to do it too! Don’t just let your blog sit around collecting dust, post links to it on your Facebook page. Send it to other groups that might be interested in what you have to say. At the same time, don’t just spam the link to every site you can find, post a short paragraph to show them how it is applicable to their organizational purpose. That way they’re more likely to further share your post with their fans. At the same time, if another group posts something interesting, share their post and they’ll be more likely to return the favor. Same goes for embedding links to other blogs in your posts, the “pingback” will show up in their comments and your blog will be on their radar for the future.

Make your posts appealing. Yes, you can write a thesis paper breaking down the logical arguments from campus carry, but let’s be honest, one of the most common phrases on the internet is “tl;dr.” If a post is just a lot of text, people will gloss over it and not interact. Use a variety of posts, including polls, pictures and links to engage your fans. If they enjoy your posts, they’re going to share them with your friends and you get even more exposure. This is even more important with flyers around campus. The flyer you post has less than a second to capture the attention of people walking by, and then it has to communicate your message in the next 3-5 seconds while being memorable.

Finally, just ASK people to interact with your posts. At the end of each of your posts, tack on a comment along the lines of “if you agree that students should have options other than running and hiding, ‘Like’ and ‘Share’ this post with friends and family. As a followup, when people do interact with your page, use Facebook as your page to respond to them in a timely manner. If someone posts comments on your blog, thank them and respond to any issues they have.

Using these simple techniques will drastically affect the impact you have with your blog posts, Facebook actions and advertising around campus. Once you get multiple groups within your region working on these techniques, it’s like setting a series of small fires in dry underbrush. The wildfire will spread and your message will get out to more people than you ever thought it could.

This post was written and submitted by Dr. Jeff Edgens and originally appeared on PeachPundit.com. Dr. Edgens is a former college dean and an At-Large Representative for the Libertarian Party of Georgia. Dr. Edgins received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University and previously worked with the Mackinac Center – one of the largest state-based think tanks based here in Michigan.

Colorado’s highest court has ruled that licensed students may legally carry firearms on a college campus. I say, what is good enough for Coloradans is good enough for Georgians.

It appears, Atlanta lawmakers have a similar idea in mind, but SB 102 doesn’t go far enough. Where Colorado provides legal carry on campus, SB 102 only allows a teacher or a student to have a firearm in the car as long as its locked away. Lawmakers in Georgia need to understand my life is just as important to me on campus as it is off campus and equally important to that of someone living in Colorado.

Indeed, a concealed carry permit holder can legally carry into stores, and anywhere else provided by law. A permit holder can protect themselves and their family inside and outside of the home. A permit holder can stand their ground when someone is trying to kill them or someone else.

Personal protection, therefore, is an individual responsibility. Long established court rulings show that law enforcement has no duty to protect a person. Individuals are the their own best line of defense.

Students in Georgia know better than university bureaucrats — and have taken to social media pages to raise awareness for self-protection on campus. Students understand that a no gun zone equals a victim disarmament zone. Such an area is a threat to their own personal safety.

In fact, students at the Appalachian School of Law stopped an active shooter, but not until he had killed the dean. Students at that one school in Virginia stopped a situation from becoming worse, but employees and students at another college were not as fortunate.

We all remember that horrible day at Virginia Tech. Authorities knew of a threat to campus and that this shooter had killed others, but the employees and students were at the mercy of university leaders to report the threat. They did not until it was too late.

Everyone followed the public safety script — but the shooter. He refused to cooperate with the gun free zone or with the laws making murder illegal. He acted alone and in his own irrational way. Universities,indeed, are victim disarmament zones.

Surely, though, parents, students and university employees would be protected by the university and by outside law enforcement authorities. College officials would not allow employees and students to be unduly harmed. But, let’s be clear, no one can protect you as well as you can protect yourself.

Virginia Tech can ban guns on campus, but cannot guarantee the safety of their employees and students. Today, Virginia Tech is being sued in a wrongful death case by the parents of some of the students killed on that tragic day. Virginia Tech is fighting the court case and denying any responsibility. [This case was eventually decided against VT, with each family being awarded $100,000.]

Sure, colleges can put in more metal detectors, add roving armed guards throughout campus, and paint the illusion the academic community is safe, but they cannot guarantee safety. It should be known that all the active shooter drills on a college campus will not prevent a determined shooter from causing mayhem and death before SWAT teams arrive. Explain to the victims and their families why not being armed is a good thing.

As a college teacher the best strategy I have to defend myself and my students is to throw a trash can at a shooter, cower under our desks and hope we’re not the ones selected for extermination. Pathetic.

I worry more about what happens when an active shooter walks onto my campus, than I do anything else. The powers that be figure disarming me suffices, but that only leaves me vulnerable to those who can’t read no guns allowed signs. Worse, they don’t have a legal duty to protect me.

In the end, academic administrators are more concerned with control than they are with my life. I don’t recall placing those folks in charge of my life.

It’s well past time for school employees to protect themselves on campus since colleges won’t. Georgia lawmakers can allow me to defend myself or read about my demise under a desk at school. I know my choice.

This post was borrowed from Florida Second Amendment supporter Adam Stack regarding the flaws surrounding gun control laws. Guest posts do not necessarily represent the official position of Florida Students for Concealed Carry, but we believe they provide good alternate perspectives. If you would like to contribute a guest article to this blog, feel free to contact me with your idea.

The Reality of Restrictive Gun Laws
by Adam Stack 

We’ve all been exposed to the public relations sleight-of-hand coming from those who would place greater restrictions on firearms ownership. They sound so noble and well-meaning. They seem to have your safety in mind.

But the reality is quite different. Each of these self-serving politicians builds their agendas upon foundations of half-truths, outright lies, and false statistics that would not withstand any critical scrutiny. Worse yet, they callously build their agendas on the blood of unarmed crime victims.

Here’s all you need to know. You can easily verify the accuracy of these statements, and there’s no confusing statistics to cloud the issue.

1. The police have no obligation to protect you. I love and support the police. I recognize that their job is very difficult and very dangerous. This statement is not made to disparage or disrespect anybody who chooses this noble profession. Rather, this is simply a statement of fact. The Supreme Court of the United States has actually ruled that police have no affirmative obligation to protect you. Of course, any police officer would stop a crime in progress. But there just aren’t enough police. They can’t be everywhere at all times. Criminals know this. Police are obligated to enforce laws and investigate crimes. If you are murdered or raped, the police will do their very best to find and arrest the perpetrators. But you will still have been murdered or raped. This happens every single day in our country.

2. Criminals do not respect “no guns” signs. Where guns are prohibited, criminals are free to victimize you. Think about the definition of a criminal. It’s somebody who commits a crime. Seems simple, right? Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law. There are plenty of statutes on the books making robbery, rape, and murder a crime. Yet robberies, rapes, and murders still happen. Have you ever heard of criminals using guns to rob or kill people in places like New York City or Chicago? Of course you have. Aren’t guns illegal in those cities? Of course they are. But as you already know, criminals don’t care about laws. If you think about it factually, places where guns are prohibited are really places where criminals can prey on victims much more easily. These locations are actually safer for the criminals.

3. The legally armed citizen is the criminal’s worst nightmare. If you have read to this point, you must realize that the police can’t be everywhere to protect you all the time. And you realize that places designated to be “safer” because no guns are allowed, are actually “less safe” for everybody but the criminals. The stark reality is that we are each responsible for our own safety to a far greater extent than most politicians will admit. By making a choice to acquire the necessary training in safe firearms handling, and making a choice to carry a firearm with you for the protection of yourself and your loved ones, you are choosing not to be a victim. Will you definitely become a victim of violent crime if you don’t carry a firearm? Of course not. Nobody would suggest such a thing. But making those choices for your safety and your family’s safety takes away the significant advantage many politicians would prefer to give to criminals.

Please share this simple message.

Kansas Statute Annotated 21-5230 states that ‘a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s ground and use any force which a person would be justified in using..’ – except if they attend or work at a public Kansas college or university. Once a student or employee, legally licensed by the state of Kansas to carry concealed, steps onto campus, a place where they are not engaged in an unlawful activity, a place they have a right to be, are stripped of the option to defend themselves should they be threatened with great bodily harm or death. What then? Is retreat the only option?

Retreat, as an option, was a failure for the 7 dead and 3 wounded on April 2, 2012 at Oikos University in Oakland, California. Retreat, as an option, was a failure for the 5 killed and 17 wounded at Northern Illinois University on February, 14, 2008. Nor was retreat, as an option, particularly successful at Arkansas State University or at the University of Memphis or at Delaware State University or at Virginia Tech University. Where will the next example of retreat be proven a miserable option?

As we wrap up the nation-wide Empty Holster Protest, we must continue to work diligently to change current state law and allow those legally licensed to carry concealed the option to do so on campus as well as off campus. These individuals, who can legally carry concealed virtually everywhere else in Kansas, are currently forced to resort to one option when they are on campus – retreat.

We need students from across the state to volunteer to be campus leaders and become actively involved with Students for Concealed Carry, students who can then begin to educate at the local level and garner support. In time, these individuals can be called up to email and call state legislators, and testify during committee hearings. I have the privilege of meeting with the K-State Young Americans for Liberty on April 16, and with KU College Republicans on April 24 to discuss Students for Concealed Carry how we can no longer afford the high cost of retreat.

If you are interested in becoming a campus leader, or would like me to come meet with your group, please contact me at kansas@concealedcampus.org

Robert D. Auten
State of Kansas Director – Students for Concealed Carry

Every year, Students for Concealed Carry hosts a national, week-long Empty Holster Protest. Students participate by wearing empty holsters throughout their campus and informing fellow students about the issue of campus carry. The empty holster is a symbol of the reality that the same permit-holding college students that are permitted to defend themselves throughout the state are prohibited from doing so once they cross an arbitrary boundary onto their campus. Throughout the last several years, Michigan Students for Concealed Carry have hosted protests at most state Universities. This year, we have more participants than ever before. They include:

Grand Valley State University, Central Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Ferris State University, University of Detroit Mercy, Oakland University, Kettering University, Grand Rapids Community College, and Lake Superior State University.

Many people – supporters and opponents alike – ask us what we hope to accomplish with the Empty Holster Protest. I usually have two answers. First, the event is a great chance for students to share their thoughts on campus carry to a student body that, by and large, probably doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about the legalities of concealed carry on campus. Second, the event gives our chapters a chance to find – and create – even more supporters than a normal tabling event does due to the increased media coverage – both on- and off-campus.

If you’re looking to get in touch or get involved, visit our State Facebook Page. You can find the national Facebook Event Page for the Empty Holster Protest here.

At least seven individuals died yesterday morning in a campus shooting at Oikos University in Oakland, CA on the same day that a national protest began to call attention to the fact that students are left helpless against such murderers.

The national Empty Holster Protest, organized by Students for Concealed Carry, involves students strapping on empty holsters to illustrate their defenselessness at the hands of college gun bans. The event runs through April 6 and involves hundreds of college campuses across the US, including colleges and universities in Kansas.  The Kansas legislature has an opportunity to allow those legally licensed to conceal carry by the state of Kansas the option to carry concealed on college and university grounds and buildings in SB 394 and HB 2353, and Students for Concealed Carry in Kansas is contacting legislatures urging action.

“This appalling tragedy once again proves it takes more than signs to fend off killers,” said David Burnett, the national group’s spokesman. “Colleges invite these shootings by guaranteeing criminals their victims will be disarmed.”

Although the details of the massacre are still unclear, it remains apparent that prohibitions against firearms were completely ineffective. Over 20 such college shootings have occurred on so-called “gun-free” campuses since 2001. At the same time, more than 200 campuses in six states allow students to carry handguns to class without experiencing any such rampages.

“Gun-free zones are defense-free zones,” said Burnett. “Since our colleges can’t guarantee our safety, it’s time for them to allow us a fighting chance and decriminalize self-defense.”

Robert D. Auten
State of Kansas Director – Students for Concealed Carry
kansas@concealedcampus.org

Yesterday, around 10:40am PDT, the (as some like to refer) “impossible” occurred. Oakland, California is in mourning of a tragic school shooting at their local University, Oikos Christian Medical school. Several resources have claimed six dead and several others claim five. However, all resources are boiling down to one point – the fact that this terrible incident has happened to a religiously-based university.

Why is this occurrence such a shock? Religious universities lack metal detectors and stationed trained enforcement at every building entrance just like public universities do. In every news article I read, I see the word “CHRISTIAN” in all capital letters with every headline…as if Christian-centered facilities were impenetrable. Religiously-affiliated locations are susceptible to all forms of crime that happen in other community locations as well. Even churches can allow concealed carry for the very purpose of precaution in case of incidents like the tragedy at Oikos University. Religious or not, all universities around the nation are prone to crime. It is a dark and unpleasant fact to face, but these problems cannot be helped until we embrace these facts.

Apparently, the suspect is a former nursing student and is now in custody; it’s also unknown whether the student had dropped out or had been expelled. He is described to be an Asian man in his 40’s and police had to request a Korean speaker in order to communicate with him.

It doesn’t matter where you go to school, what religion you study, what color your hair is, what language you speak, or whether or not you applied lipstick before leaving the house… crime is everywhere unlike armed police officials. Crime does not discriminate.

‘The race is not to the swift, but to those who endure to the end’ As a Kansas Attorney General approved CCH instructor and NRA instructor in several disciplines, including Refuse To Be a Victim, one of the most critical fundamentals I stress to students is the importance of mental preparation and conditioning.  When all other options have failed and should they ever be forced to defend themselves in the direst of circumstances, they must have the desire to survive – to win and prevail in the encounter and endure to the end.  Kansans must also steel themselves to prevail and endure to the end as we work to enact legislation that will decriminalize self-defense on campus and allow those legally licensed by the state the option to carry concealed on college and university grounds and buildings.

Currently, HB 2353 resides in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, and there it may expire as the committee is taking no action that would allow it to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote.  SB 394, amended in House to include the same critical wording in HB 2353 ( which would allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed in state or municipal buildings unless such buildings have adequate security measures (metal detectors) to ensure that no weapons were allowed in the building), has been sent to a special committee composed of three Representatives and three Senators.  This committee will then write a report that will determine if the amended bill will go back to both chambers for a full vote.  It is critical that the members of this special committee determining the fate of SB 394 be contacted respectfully urging support that would allow for SB 394 be voted on in both chambers.

The committee members are:

Senator David Haley                     david.haley@senate.ks.gov
Senator Jeff King                           jeff.king@senate.ks.gov
Senator Tim Owens                       tim.owens@senate.ks.gov
Representative Janice Pauls        janice.pauls@house.ks.gov
Representative Joe Patton           joe.patton@house.ks.gov
Representative Lance Kinzer      lance.kinzer@house.ks.gov

And what if both HB 2353 and SB 394 expire ? Are we prepared to prevail though the struggle may be longer than anticipated?  Kansas students, faculty, staff, and others who wish to see this life saving change enacted into law must prepare themselves to prevail and endure to the end.

The first step is to educate at the local level at the various college and university campuses and garner support – something that can start with this week’s Empty Holster Protest,  turning that support into local Kansas Students for Concealed Carry chapters.  Then, when a future bill is introduced, we can speak with a strong, unified voice.  We will have educated individuals emailing and calling legislatures, and testifying before committees.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we must endure and prevail to achieve victory, however long and hard the road might be.

Today was supposed to be the quiet and symbolic protest of how we are forced to be defenseless in trade for our university education. Students strapped on their empty holsters as if to say, “Look, I can defend myself everywhere else, but not here…even though crime has no bounds”.

Today became a tragic reminder of how defenseless we truly are. Today a madman killed 7 people and wounded 3 at Oikos University in Oakland, California. I’d like to start out in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those lost and with those survivors as they are recovering. It’s unthinkable how any human being could take the life of an innocent person, much less so many. While we struggle to find a reason for such senseless violence and loss of life, we have to also search for a way to potentially help prevent future tragedies. The problem is that we already have a common sense solution, to allow students and faculty the ability to be prepared for such events, to be able to carry concealed on campus.

Our opponents call these tragedies extremely rare, as one leading opponent from the University of Texas once so confidently guaranteed a talk show host in an interview that she would never be in a campus shooting. The problem is that a lot of events in our lives are rare, yet they do happen and we do have to prepare for them. It’s idiocy to believe that we are invincible and nothing bad will happen to us. Bad things happen to good people. It would be a rarity that I would be in a car crash, yet I wear a seat belt in case I am. It’s even rarer still that my car would catch fire or be submerged and I not be able to escape, yet I have a window breaking device in my car. It’s extremely rare that someone would have cardiac arrest in the campus building where I have classes, yet we have a defibrillator. There’s something to be said about preparedness. Preparedness is the proper planning and having the proper tools in case a rare event does happen. We are prepared not because we expect this event to happen, but because we know it does happen, and if it does happen to us, we want to survive it. If a CHL holder decides not to carry concealed one day, he better guess right that the worst two seconds of his life are not going to happen that day.In the case that the next madman runs into our classroom and starts shooting innocents, will we be prepared and be able to stop the threat? Or will we continue to be forced to be unprepared and pay for it with human lives?

How many times must this happen until we realize that disarming innocent, law abiding citizens only serves to protect criminals who do not care for laws, rules, morality, or human life? How many more examples do we need of gun free zones failing? How can anyone possibly believe that criminals will obey these laws or that it is any more difficult for a criminal to smuggle guns in their backpack instead of books? Words and books do not stop mass murderers, but armed citizens can.

It’s amazing the things we take for granted, for instance, the ability to walk, run, or to defend ourselves against acts of violence. I’ve gained an appreciation for these abilities lately. I was in a rock climbing accident three weeks ago and broke my ankle. Since then, I’ve been hobbling around on crutches and I still won’t be able to walk for a few weeks. What does this have to do with concealed carry? Everything.

I still cannot believe some of the responses we’ve had when we ask school officials what to do in the case of an active shooter situation, or otherwise a bad situation where someone wants to physically harm us. We’ve been told to run to one of the “blue phones” on campus to call for help in the case of an emergency or to run from the attacker. But beyond the obvious logical flaw of thinking a criminal is going to Wait patiently for you to make your call for help, what about those of us that cannot run?

I cannot run and will not be able to for a while. I cannot effectively defend myself. I can barely get myself a sandwich, much less fight off an attacker! But regardless, I CAN still conceal carry and I CAN still shoot, as I demonstrated at the firing range this last weekend. In the case that someone wanted to harm me, I do have that option to defend myself and I can effectively protect myself everywhere…except on campus.

Criminals are predators and, like predators in the animal kingdom, they attack those that they view as being weak or helpless. Someone limping along on crutches or in a wheel chair is an easy target for a criminal to attack—the person cannot run and they cannot fight back (so the criminal thinks). Concealed carry changes the dynamics of our society, turning it from a Darwinian “survival of the fittest”, to a civilized society where all are equal, even those who are either temporarily or permanently disabled.

Our campuses promote this Darwinian ideology of the strong preying upon the weak, disarming those who have no other means of defending themselves so that criminals naturally have the upper hand. This is completely unacceptable. Those who are disabled deserve a fighting chance and should not be viewed as weak, easy targets by criminals. We should allow concealed carry on campus so that these individuals and all others will be able to effectively defend themselves against criminals. Concealed carry is an equalizer; without it, the predators always win.

Update: SB59 passed the House on December 13th. Having already passed the Senate, the bill was enrolled by the Senate and sent to Governor Snyder for his signature. However, Governor Snyder vetoed SB59 on December 18th. We find Governor Snyder’s decision to preserve “gun free” zones – areas in which only criminals are permitted to carry concealed firearms – reprehensible and deserving of your scorn. Please let Gov. Snyder know how you feel. You can read a full summary of the final bill on our Complete Guide to SB59 post. 

We’ve got great news to report – this morning, Senate Bill 59 successfully passed the Senate’s Natural Resources committee (5-1) and was referred favorably to the Senate Floor, where we hope it will be voted on within a week. You can read the full story on SB59 here, but the short version is that this bill will create a “shall-issue” exemption from Pistol Free Zones (PFZs) for any CPL-holder that completes an additional 9 hours of training. In other words – college classrooms and dorms will no longer be off-limits for law-abiding CPL-holders. Clearly, the truth that we’ve been spreading for the last five years has finally reached the ears of the State Legislature – so-called “Pistol Free” Zones are only obeyed by those citizens who obey the law – and they’re ones we don’t need to worry about.

Michigan SCC has been fighting for this day for five years. This is the first time that any of the many bills proposed to remove campus classrooms and dorms from the list of Pistol Free Zones has been favorably referred by committee to the House or Senate floor. We expect the bill to pass the Senate; at that point, it will be referred to the House, where a similar process will unfold. As always, we’ll keep you posted.

At this time, your best course of action is to write your Senator (see our page for tips on contacting your Senator) and express your support for the bill. Point out that you support allowing CPL-holders with increased training to carry in Pistol Free Zones. If you’re a student or otherwise affected by Pistol Free Zones, you should briefly share your personal story, (here’s a good example of such an email). Finally, tell your Senator that you’ll remember and appreciate their support of gun owners come election time. As always, it doesn’t hurt to mention your support of Michigan Students for Concealed Carry. When you’re done with that, share this story on Facebook or Twitter and email  all of your fellow gun owners and ask them to do the same (get a short link here).

SB59′s sponsor, Senator Mike Green, and his staff deserve a thank you from each and every one of us. Senator Green and his staff worked tirelessly to ensure this bill passed committee – and their work isn’t done yet. Contact Senator Green here to send him a well-deserved thank you. Additionally, Senator Tom Casperson, Senator Phil Pavlov, Senator Mike Kowall, and Senator Arlan B. Meekhof all deserve your thanks for their “yes” votes on SB59. Contact all of these Senators to let them know that their support will be remembered by you and your fellow gun owners.

Stay tuned for more updates!

Kansas Students for Concealed Carry extends their thanks to Representative Knox, who succesfully amended SB 394 tonight to allow campus carry. This bill, whose amendment reflects the language of Knox’s HB 2353, will allow licensed concealed carry on the campuses of public universities and colleges, unless they provide adequate security measures. These measures are defined as metal detectors manned by trained personnel at all public entry points to campus. While the amendment also includes an “opt-out” provision, which allows universities to exempt themselves from this language for four years, SCC recongnizes HB 2353 and SB 394 as steps in the right direction in Kansas. Both of the bills have helped spread further the discussion and acceptance of campus carry in the state, and we appreciate all of Representative Knox’s efforts. SB 394 will now go back to the Senate floor for approval of the House amendments, and then will go to Governor Brownback. HB 2353 still waits to be heard in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs.

So Kansas students and citizens, write to Governor Brownback expressing your support of campus carry and SB 394 and HB 2353, and write to the Senate committee members asked them to hear HB 2353! With your help, we can de-criminalize self-defense on campus in Kansas.

SB 394: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/sb394/

HB 2353: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/hb2353/

Governor Brownback – 785-296-3232 – https://governor.ks.gov/serving-kansans/constituent-services/legislation-and-policy-issues

Chairman of the Senate Committe on Federal and State Affairs: Senator Pete Brungardt – Pete.Brungardt@senate.ks.gov

All eyes are on Topeka as Representative Forrest Knox’s HB 2353 waits to be heard in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. The bill passed the House floor on March 12th 70 to 54. You can see how your representative voted by clicking here. A key amendment made on the House floor allows universities to exempt themselves for four years from the legislation involved in this bill if it passes. Despite this “opt-out” clause, this bill is still a step in the right direction and opens up the discussion further of decriminalizing self-defense on college campuses in Kansas.

If passed, HB 2353 will allow concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed on public university and college campuses in Kansas, unless those campuses have adequate safety measures, metal detectors at every public entry. Show your support of HB 2353 and licensed concealed carry on campus by emailing the Senate Committee members:

Chair – Senator Pete Brungardt – Pete.Brungardt@senate.ks.gov

Vice Chair – Senator Roger Reitz – Roger.Reitz@senate.ks.gov

Ranking Minority Member – Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau – Oletha.Faust-Goudeau@senate.ks.gov

Senator Steve Abrams – Steve.Abrams@senate.ks.gov

Senator David Haley – David.Haley@senate.ks.gov

Senator Jeff Longbine – Jeff.Longbine@senate.ks.gov

Senator Steve Morris – Steve.Morris@senate.ks.gov

Senator Ralph Ostmeyer – Ralph.Ostmeyer@senate.ks.gov

Senator Tim Owens – Tim.Owens@senate.ks.gov

The Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs page can be viewed here: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/committees/ctte_s_fed_st_1/

One day last year on Texas A&M’s campus, I was going about my business posting fliers, when one of my friends told me there was someone with a gun on campus. I of course had not gotten the code maroon warning since code maroon seems to be extremely unreliable and sporadic (though I did get the text 30 minutes later—I later found that everyone I talked to got the message at 4PM like myself). I asked for details and was told a bus driver had reported someone with an AK-47 in their backpack. Automatically I thought to myself that this had to of simply been someone in the corps with a decommissioned M-16 or M-1A (as they are commonly seen training with them) and some ignorant person who knew nothing about guns or our corps here must have reported them. Regardless of what I thought or felt though, this was a very serious situation. I have to admit that, at this point, I’ve been pretty desensitized by all the false reports of a guy with a gun on campus, so I would really only be worried if there were reports of shots fired. My friends and myself continued posting fliers, heading to HECC where things seemed normal besides a professor coming out and asking what was going on with the reports. We then went to the academic building, where it was quite a different scene.

When we walked in, there were dozens of students sitting on the floor—it seemed as though everyone was packed into this one room, who knows for how long. A lot of them seemed, understandably, terrified. Instead of going home or being disbursed across campus, they were stuffed in the room like sardines. If someone were to walk into the building wishing to do harm, it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. Even worse than this concentration of students was the fact that if someone did come in that building wishing to kill them, they wouldn’t have even half a chance to stop the psycho. There was no police officer to guard them and there was not a single student or faculty member who could have taken down an attacker. You just can’t expect an unarmed person to go against an armed subject and win.

We walked out and decided to all go home. I passed Rudder on the way, which seemed to be surrounded by police officers. When I got home, my (now ex) girlfriend was there waiting for me. She was pretty shaken up and scared. I assured her that everything was ok, but it didn’t help much after what she had been through. She had been in the Whener building when they locked it down, coming over the loud speakers to say to barricade the doors and hide under the desks. I couldn’t help but think of Virginia Tech and how crazy it was for the administration to basically tell the students to stay in their one entrance, one exit rooms, where someone could just walk in, start executing people, and there being no escape. She said the girl next to her was crying and praying as though she was going to die. I could see why she was pretty shaken up!

This whole situation was bad from the start with an ignorant person who couldn’t identify an M-16 that our corps uses all the time from an AK-47, which I have yet to see on this campus and which our corps would not use to train with seeing as how this is not an American military weapon. What made it worse was the policy to hide and wait instead of evacuating campus. The administrations’ number one priority should be to evacuate students, not stuff them in death traps, AKA one entrance, one exit rooms, and tell them to hide, hoping the psycho going on a shooting spree doesn’t select their room.
The absolute worst part of this event was that only the police had the guns/means to defend students and faculty and there wasn’t a police officer in every room in every building in every place on this campus. The police could not protect everyone; they actually could protect very few people.

I strongly support our officers and appreciate everything they do; however, I realize that they cannot be everywhere at once and when seconds count, they take minutes to get there. They’re not superhuman, they have to get in a car and drive to campus like everyone else and then get out and walk or run to the reported area—it takes time, very precious time.

People who are opposed to concealed carry on campus often say that it would make them feel unsafe. Well what is worse? Having trained, licensed students and faculty with effective means of defense? Or waiting helplessly in a room, waiting to be executed by some psychopath? I would much rather have some good guys in that room with the means to defend themselves and myself. I would much rather have the much less likely chance of being accidently shot by a concealed carry holder than the much more likely chance of being in a school shooting. With concealed carry on campus, students and faculty would have a fighting chance; as it is, we remain as helpless targets huddled under desks hoping not to be executed by the next psychopathic killer.

http://www.theeagle.com/am/Gunman-on-A-amp-amp-M-reported-all-clear

When I first came to A&M in August of 2008, I had plans to join a lot of different organizations to occupy my free time, but I never knew what organizations I would eventually settle into. While walking across A&M’s campus on April 16th I came across five students holding signs, protesting HB1893, which would allow concealed carry on campus. I was confused as to why anyone would be against such a logical bill that would essentially legalize self-defense on campus. I argued with the protesters for over an hour until they no longer wished to discuss the issue. I was amazed and appalled that they would choose the anniversary of the Virginia Tech Massacre for their protest and it was clear that those who supported the bill were respectful enough to not protest on this day. I was even more amazed at the illogical reasons I was given for these five to oppose concealed carry on campus.

I have seen lives saved through concealed carry and it’s a topic very dear to my heart. I was so impassioned and frustrated that day that I searched for a pro-concealed carry group on the internet until I came across a group called “Texas A&M Students for Concealed Carry on Campus” on facebook, run at that time by Derek Titus. I read over the page and messaged Derek, asking when they were handing out fliers again. He informed me of the empty holster protest on April 24th. I attended the group picture four days later on April 20th, 2009, strapped on my empty holster, and handed out fliers on April 24th, 2009, where we were interviewed by KBTX. At the time, the facebook group had 126 members and it was very loosely organized with a handful of people helping out.

I got together with Derek and started messaging those who I saw at the protest, asking if they would like to be officers in TAMU SCC. I was appointed Vice Chairman by Derek and both of us soon drew up an official structure for TAMU SCC with our five first officers. We started working together, planning out how to run TAMU SCC and how to get concealed carry on campus passed. We started posting flyers and began the process to become an official student organization. We became official in April of 2010. Our membership skyrocketed and donations started coming in soon after. By 2011 we had over 2,000 members, 6 officers, 10 assistant officers, and a decent amount of funds in our account.

I have to admit that it wasn’t easy, but it’s truly amazing what can be accomplished with a couple of dedicated leaders and some hard work.

Chase Jennings is the former Texas State Director for SCC.  He currently serves as a senior advisor in Texas and as the Campus Leader for Texas A&M University.