CU Loses On Concealed Carry

plaidvillain wrote: Does it promote a healthy atmosphere for education to have armed students in the classroom? In my opinion, no. As with all of our rights and freedoms, there are levels of reasonable restriction. Clearly, where that line is drawn is debatable and perhaps can only be determined by each individual. Given the choice, with all other factors equal, I'd prefer a school that did not permit weapons...but that's just me.

It would only be unhealthy if one had an irrational fear of guns. A common site does nothing to alter the learning atmosphere. If it were common for teachers to be armed, there would be no change in the learning atmosphere because there would be nothing out of the ordinary to alter it.

I agree that reasonable restriction of rights and freedoms is permitted - once you have demonstrated that you will willingly violate the rights of others and thus misuse the rights you possess. You are not allowed to defame or libel with your speech - but that is a result of violating the rights of another. The law does not stop one from being defamed or libeled - it only provides for a remedy if it occurs. That is the restriction - when the exercise of your rights infringes on the rights of another. My carrying of an arm, openly or concealed, does nothing to deny to you any of your rights. My ownership of a select fire weapon made in 1990 does nothing to deny any of your rights to you. It is reasonable and proper to punish someone for violating the rights of another, but it is unreasonable to restrict their rights beforehand to prevent that violation from occurring. If it were reasonable to do so, it would be reasonable for the government to have access to everything prior to it being published so that no violations of the rights of others occurred when you exercised your right of free speech.

PrintSmith wrote: How many laws were broken by those cowards at CHS? How many of the laws since enacted in the wake of those laws being broken would have stopped what happened? The answer to these questions is that they broke many of our laws and that not a single law passed in the wake of that tragedy would have prevented it from occurring. The instant background checks at gun shows would not have prevented the sale of the shotgun used in the attack from being sold because the person who purchased that weapon at the gun show would have passed the background check. Making straw purchases illegal has not stopped straw purchases from being made and would not have prevented the straw purchase of the weapon used by the cowards at Columbine. The law against selling, or giving, a handgun, or a long gun, to a minor, or ammunition to minors, were also laws that were on the books at the time and laws that were broken. The laws against murder were broken. The laws against carrying weapons onto school property were broken. The laws against discharging a firearm within X feet of a road, or residence, or on school property were also all broken. Laws offer no protection - they only provide for remedies once one of the laws is broken.

PS, on this part of your quote, I am in total agreement. Every conceivable law regarding gun control was broken by the perps of the Columbine High School massacre. That's why I'm advocating a website and a facebook page that discusses this issue (among many others).

I will not get into a discussion with you regarding the issue of freedom and liberty as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. That issue has pretty much been settled in the courts already, in my opinion. Gun ownership is a guaranteed right. There, I've said it. Hope that satisfies all you 2nd amendment aficianados out there.

My issue has, and always will be, school safety, not just the issue of gun control/ownership. Bear, perhaps you misunderstood the intent of The PEACE Challenge pages, I don't know. The reality is both sites are intended to discuss the issues surrounding school safety, in general, and to try to provide an open forum for discussion of same - not limited solely to gun control. It was an invitation to participate, not a mandate. You, and anyone else here on 285Bound, will always be welcome if you choose to visit. If you choose not to visit, that's ok by me, too. Your choice.

On my way to work this morning I heard on the radio about this latest ruling - and one of the anti-gun opponents said "Now hundreds of teenagers will be carrying guns at CU".

Of course not a single word of that statement is true. But don't expct to hear the truth- they are spreading their fear tatics.

Teenagers are not allowed to carry guns- one must be an adult. And on top of that they must ask for permission to excersize their right to protect themselves via CCW.

I consider the CCW permit itself to be un-constitutional.

A couple questions, currently, only public universities are required to allow concealed carry? Private colleges like Regis and DU can still ban it IIRC. Doesn't seem fair?

And people are worried about immature 21 year olds with permits carrying guns and acting out on college campuses? What about 21 year olds who aren't on college campuses? Are high school dropouts any more mature than college seniors?

School shootings and where students got their guns

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/28/sc ... z1oLzTBlcX

I'm waiting to see if this ruling trickels down to Metro State College, soon to be University. As someone OVER 21 and WITH a CCW permit I will be carrying if allowed. I've come close to being mugged twice, seen backpacks ripped from people's bodies, and recieve many e-mails a week from campus security about crimes committed on campus. Why do the criminals prey on people on campus? Because they know that Metro does NOT allow concealed carry. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with the anti-gun crowd. Maybe some of them should take the class and training to see the kind of people that are able to legally carry.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: School shootings and where students got their guns

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/28/sc ... z1oLzTBlcX

Martin, care to elaborate a little on what your take on this article is? Seems the article is saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) most, if not all, guns brought to school in the examples listed came from relatives/acquaintances who did not have their weapons under secure lockdown. At Columbine High School and at Platte Canyon High School that apparently wasn't the case for many of the weapons used. At Columbine High School there were also home made bombs, both pipe and propane, that were detonated. Not disagreeing with the posit that many times weapons are taken from relatives/acquaintances to school and, regrettably, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally discharged killing and injuring people in the process. Is the "need" for more gun safety training your point?

FredHayek wrote: A couple questions, currently, only public universities are required to allow concealed carry? Private colleges like Regis and DU can still ban it IIRC. Doesn't seem fair?

Public versus private property rights Fred. If I own the property and don't want you bringing a gun onto my property, your right to bear arms does not trump my rights regarding the use of my property.

PrintSmith wrote:

FredHayek wrote: A couple questions, currently, only public universities are required to allow concealed carry? Private colleges like Regis and DU can still ban it IIRC. Doesn't seem fair?

Public versus private property rights Fred. If I own the property and don't want you bringing a gun onto my property, your right to bear arms does not trump my rights regarding the use of my property.

So CU could go back to gun-free campus if they distanced themselves from the state. Re-create themselves as a non-profit corporation that continues to get state money.

FredHayek wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

FredHayek wrote: A couple questions, currently, only public universities are required to allow concealed carry? Private colleges like Regis and DU can still ban it IIRC. Doesn't seem fair?

Public versus private property rights Fred. If I own the property and don't want you bringing a gun onto my property, your right to bear arms does not trump my rights regarding the use of my property.

So CU could go back to gun-free campus if they distanced themselves from the state. Re-create themselves as a non-profit corporation that continues to get state money.

Sure they can- right after they pay back all the taxpayer money they have been collecting and spending. And it's nice to know that they have been using that money to enforce un-constitutional rules, regulations and laws.

I'd be glad to privatize them as soon as I get my tax money back.