TexasCHLforum.com

In a perfect world, everyone could carry freely in all locations without infringement.

Since we aren't quite there, what would the "next best" option look like regarding campus carry? (Honest question).

Our institution is finally entering into this discussion. I've been watching and reading other plans as they are posted and want to be able to respond appropriately and accurately when the topics arise in our meetings. I'll leave the institution's name out to protect the innocent .

I agree that there should be as few restrictions as possible.

While a few liberal colleges have proposed restrictions that most believe or hope the legislature will revisit, most others include these basics:

1. Prohibited in science laboratories.
2. Prohibited in areas where school children frequent or receive treatment.
3. Prohibited in patient care facilities.
4. Prohibited in locations where disciplinary hearings are conducted.

Are these reasonable? Why? Or why not?

The biggest 2 that I wonder about are the science laboratories and areas where minor children frequent. The child issue has been addressed in more than 1 thread. But what about the science labs? Obviously areas that have magnets, etc make sense for prohibiting carry, but what about a basic biology lab that does dissections or medical techniques. Should those "really" be excluded??

Thanks for your help.

Labs deal with a lot of very dangerous materials. It's not an environment you want to use a firearm because the potential for harming everyone in the room, or in the entire building, or even the entire city block is extremely real. The ones at my university had extremely large (several hundred pound) canisters of god-knows-what being exchanged all the time. They're very possibly a single bullet away from killing or maiming everyone in that corner of a room.

Yes, sometimes these labs are being used for dissecting frogs, but that says nothing about what is being stored there. I think it would be too much to have to make safety committees to determine what is currently stored in which labs and whether they pose a threat due to possible firearms discharging and to put up or take down signage accordingly.

In regards to "are these reasonable?" as always, it depends from person to person. Me and probably most everyone else on this forum is unhappy about campus carry restrictions, but I respect that other voters' opinions count, too. If we as a society, or as a state, or as a campus come together and have a consensus that they don't want something, I respect that. Some people get upset at this because they misinterpret something like the second amendment to be the absolute gospel of law, but there are other factors in our legal system that supersede the apparent and obvious interpretation of the second amendment.

A discussion made at a campus-wide level like you're discussing is really past the point of trying to make arguments as to what is safe or reasonable. It's a discussion of what most people want, and whether those wants are valid or have some sort of logical basis to them is irrelevant. I think the only thing you can really do is say, here, look at the statistics for people who have been harmed on university campuses by people lawfully carrying firearms. If they dismiss that, there's really nothing else you can do because you're already beyond the point of logic and reason.

1. Prohibited in science laboratories.
I spent all of my years in college in laboratories, biology and chemistry. There's only a few things that are really dangerous and contrary to the movies, everything that gets shot doesn't all go boom. Off the top of my head the only things that would be bad if they got shot would be various acids because they would splash or drip all over. There may be others, but what's the risk of being in a lab where some maniac comes in with a gun to kill someone else and you could be armed, but have disarmed because the school is afraid your gun will spontaneously go off and break a beaker filled with acid?

Also, for science majors and likely many others, excluding laboratories would effectively ban someone from carrying their entire day at school.

2. Prohibited in areas where school children frequent or receive treatment.
I never understand this argument. I am frequently around young children and the movies and grocery store or department store. There are hospitals and doctors offices that do not post and everyone has been just fine. I've carried in my own doctor's office and my child's pediatricians office for years.

3. Prohibited in patient care facilities.
Same argument as #2.

4. Prohibited in locations where disciplinary hearings are conducted.
Maybe this one is reasonable, but how would it be applied and ensured? Will there be metal detectors or wands or pat downs before anyone enters a disciplinary hearing? How have the universities ensured there haven't been any firearms brought into one of these in the past?

IMHO, none of these are reasonable with the possible exception of #4.

A&M has a nuclear reactor on campus. I can agree that you don't want firearms in there. Also, around MRI machines, or other magnets for obvious reasons. I can give a little about chemical labs where volatile chemicals are used and stored. That's it.

Disciplinary hearings?!?!?! What is preventing a disgruntled student from walking in that same building / room with a pistol right now? NOTHING!

What I cannot abide is the idea that somehow children are a special class of citizen that those of us who are more law abiding that the cops should not be able to carry a pistol in their presence. I OC my G17 around my house in a Safariland ALS holster while I am rough housing with my three kids. If I can do that, I am sure that I can walk the halls of an elementary school without causing harm to the children.

I would say that any place (school or not) that wants to ban guns must have an armed guard and a metal detector. Otherwise, nope.

AJSully421 wrote:A&M has a nuclear reactor on campus. I can agree that you don't want firearms in there. Also, around MRI machines, or other magnets for obvious reasons. I can give a little about chemical labs where volatile chemicals are used and stored. That's it.

Disciplinary hearings?!?!?! What is preventing a disgruntled student from walking in that same building / room with a pistol right now? NOTHING!

What I cannot abide is the idea that somehow children are a special class of citizen that those of us who are more law abiding that the cops should not be able to carry a pistol in their presence. I OC my G17 around my house in a Safariland ALS holster while I am rough housing with my three kids. If I can do that, I am sure that I can walk the halls of an elementary school without causing harm to the children.

I would say that any place (school or not) that wants to ban guns must have an armed guard and a metal detector. Otherwise, nope.

You hit the nail right on the head there!

If a place is so dangerous that it is necessary to exclude the law-abiding from carrying then, by extension, it must also be dangerous enough to necessitate excluding any criminals from carrying also. Since criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, this would require enforcement via metal detector and a LEO to operate and enforce. Cost should not be an issue... It''s a dangerous place, so safety must come first, right?

Pardon the simpleton answer, but prohibiting guns from any of the 1-4 above does nothing to protect the innocent and it does everything to infringe upon law abiding citizens right.

It also gives criminals areas where they can strike with impunity, hedging their bets that calamity will be great as people will be unarmed.

Just say no to usurpation of your right, especially when based on logical and statistical fallacy that guns in those areas in hands of good guys have promulgated disaster.

You wouldn't tell cops to disarm prior to entering science lab to go after active shooter, right?

If the materials in these labs are so dangerous, then the whole argument against campus carry (can't have dangerous things on campus) really just boils down to elitism. The elites that run the labs can be trusted with dangerous things, but the mere subjects cannot.

I am learning some really interesting things in this thread. A&M has a nuclear reactor, but guns are "too dangerous"? And do powerful magnets have the ability to cause negligent discharges (not sure I understand the connection on that one)?

How about this for an ideal plan.

Require that anyone who carries a gun first completes a training course on the laws, proficiency test, and background check. Then allow them to carry weapons anywhere that LEO (including campus police) may carry.

If there is truly a place where something is going to cause a weapon to discharge (magnets?), or any discharge is likely to have disastrous consequences (labs full of high explosives), then no one should have a gun. Any areas such as this need metal detectors and armed guards outside all entrances.

AJSully421 wrote:A&M has a nuclear reactor on campus. I can agree that you don't want firearms in there. Also, around MRI machines, or other magnets for obvious reasons. I can give a little about chemical labs where volatile chemicals are used and stored. That's it.

Disciplinary hearings?!?!?! What is preventing a disgruntled student from walking in that same building / room with a pistol right now? NOTHING!

What I cannot abide is the idea that somehow children are a special class of citizen that those of us who are more law abiding that the cops should not be able to carry a pistol in their presence. I OC my G17 around my house in a Safariland ALS holster while I am rough housing with my three kids. If I can do that, I am sure that I can walk the halls of an elementary school without causing harm to the children.

I would say that any place (school or not) that wants to ban guns must have an armed guard and a metal detector. Otherwise, nope.

Is a reactor and associated cooling equipment so fragile that a handgun bullet is going to release dangerous amount of radiation? I worked with a federal employee at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (where they make the "bombs" among other things) and he used to keep a .357 in his truck.
18 USC 930 kept him from carrying in the buildings, but you're not gonna set one of those things off with a ricochet...

With MRI machines and magnets, it is not the danger of a discharge, it is the fact that a steel pistol will forcibly rip itself form any holster and fly across the room, or take the person carrying along with it. There are videos of MRIs doing crazy things to ferrous items.

AJSully421 wrote:With MRI machines and magnets, it is not the danger of a discharge, it is the fact that a steel pistol will forcibly rip itself form any holster and fly across the room, or take the person carrying along with it. There are videos of MRIs doing crazy things to ferrous items.

I had to check this out

Then, this exposes a whole new discussion subject, namely, why would there not be armed guards at the entrance points to facilities that have MRI's capable of producing these effects?

It may mean that every hospital, school lab etc. would need armed guards in front of MRI (if it is this powerful).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... qus_thread

AJSully421 wrote:With MRI machines and magnets, it is not the danger of a discharge, it is the fact that a steel pistol will forcibly rip itself form any holster and fly across the room, or take the person carrying along with it. There are videos of MRIs doing crazy things to ferrous items.

Serious question. Are metal detectors required outside the entrances to locations with these machines? If the magnets are powerful enough to propel a 200 pound man carrying 40 ounces (or possibly a lot less) of metal, then they can surely cause loose keys and other small unsecured objects to fly across the room as well.

I've only had one MRI, but I don't remember any grave warnings along these lines.

The ideal campus carry plan would be one in which there are no more restrictions than already exist in a non-campus setting.

Bans in healthcare areas don't make any sense to me, but most healthcare facilities I have seen recently are posted. I suppose an argument could be made for doing so on campus, but I'm not sure what that argument would be.

Bans anywhere minors are frequently present is being used a lot, and makes zero sense. I spent 2 hours walking around the mall yesterday while waiting for the shop to put new tires on my motorcycle. Lots of minors around; zero problems. Know what the minimum age to shoot at the range I go to is? Eight years old. Eight! The presence of minors should have absolutely no bearing on the licensed carry of a firearm.

As far as dangerous materials go, I can agree that there may be places that it would make sense to prohibit carry, but they would have to be pretty extreme cases. I can agree that LEOs should also be prohibited from carrying in those areas. Furthermore, lockers should be provided outside those areas for firearm storage.

Disciplinary hearings make a certain amount of sense, but that could be handled by including language in the correspondence notifying the people involved that firearms are prohibited during their hearing. No need to post the room.

Anyway, just my pair of pennies. Overall, I just don't understand why college campuses should be treated any differently than anywhere else. Especially since you have to be 21 to get a LTC, and that eliminates a large portion of college students. It's also pretty expensive to get one, and that eliminates a bunch more. Hope this helps.

C-dub wrote:.... but what's the risk of being in a lab where some maniac comes in with a gun to kill someone else and you could be armed, but have disarmed because the school is afraid your gun will spontaneously go off and break a beaker filled with acid?

What are the odds of you sitting in a Luby's Cafeteria with your parents, your pistol in the glove box of your car, when a lunatic drives his truck through the wall and begins executing everyone he can while you watch, helplessly?