Central Texas College (next to Fort Hood)

[RPB]

http://kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=40779" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CTC tables talks about concealed gun policy

Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 15 2010 11:46 PM
By Rebecca LaFlure
Killeen Daily Herald

Central Texas College board members voted Thursday to delay talks about allowing licensed concealed handgun carriers to bring their weapons on campus.

Board member Scott Isdale asked the board to table the item so officials would have more time to gather information on the current policy, which bans people from storing or carrying weapons on the college premises. The other board members quickly agreed.

Last month, Isdale asked that members review the college's weapons policy in the wake of the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood. The CTC main campus is adjacent to the Army post.

"After Nov. 5 (the Fort Hood incident) … people with concealed handgun licenses should be considered eligible to do what they're licensed to do," Isdale said last month.

According to the Texas Penal Code, licensed concealed handgun carriers are prohibited from bringing their firearms onto college campuses, unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it.

Isdale said Thursday that he didn't know if he would vote in favor of allowing concealed carry at the CTC campus, but he thought it was important to review the college's current weapons guidelines to ensure students are as safe as possible while attending class.

"The administration's intent is to follow board guidance and comply with the laws of the state of Texas." CTC spokeswoman Barbara Merlo said.

A date for members to discuss the issue was not set.

[joe817]

According to the Texas Penal Code, licensed concealed handgun carriers are prohibited from bringing their firearms onto college campuses, unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it.

Huh? Does this mean there is an exception to the rule?? "unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it." I know that there WAS wording to that effect in the campus-carry bill that died in the House last session.

I thought PC 46.03 specifically prohibited(regardless of what a school administration's policies are)from carrying on campus.

Am I missing something here, or is that an incorrect statement??

[chabouk]

According to the Texas Penal Code, licensed concealed handgun carriers are prohibited from bringing their firearms onto college campuses, unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it.

Huh? Does this mean there is an exception to the rule?? "unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it." I know that there WAS wording to that effect in the campus-carry bill that died in the House last session.

I thought PC 46.03 specifically prohibited(regardless of what a school administration's policies are)from carrying on campus.

Am I missing something here, or is that an incorrect statement??

PC 46.03(a)(1) bans carry on the "actual premises" (buildings) of a school or educational institution, "...unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution".

[joe817]

I see it now. Thank you. Some day I'm going to learn how to read.

[C-dub]

Remember, there is also that school district up near the Red River that allows its teachers to CC at school.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

IIRC, that school is the Harrold ISD in Wilbarger County, Texas.

SIA

[evo_whiplash]

UPDATE: CHL NOT ALLOWED IN CLASSROOMS AND BUILDINGS BUT WILL CHANGE POLICY TO ALLOW WEAPONS TO BE STORED IN VEHICLES

http://www.centraltexasnow.com/Global/s ... S=12674807

VOTE IN THE POLL ON THEIR HOMEPAGE: http://www.centraltexasnow.com/

Local college delays concealed guns talk

Posted: Jun 18, 2010 5:22 PM CDT

It's statistically the safest campus in all of Texas and Central Texas College wants to keep it that way. That's why their board turned thumbs down to allowing concealed handguns in school buildings.

Signs enforcing that policy will go up in the fall. Students like Daniel Brahn doesn't agree with the ban completely. He says lawmakers should require gun owners on campus to take an extra course.

"They have requirements they have to meet so it would make me feel better knowing there are legitimate citizens who go and take a class and they know the requirements, obligations and responsibilities," he says.

CTC student Kaniela Aken supports the school's ban. He worries the wrong person could get ahold of a concealed weapon.

"It might trigger something that he's gonna do that he'll regret later on."

Campus police officer Joe Ribar makes sure the classrooms are locked up. He says students having handguns would be a nightmare if they had to take down a mass shooter. Would-be heroes with their own guns could get in the way.

"When we go into a building we don't know who's a good guy or bad guy. I would not like to have a civilian who's trying to do good end up as a threat to us," Ribar says.

Meanwhile, students like Daniel will have to continue to rely on those who are armed with a weapon like Ribar.

"There's always a police presence and if there is a problem we can always call them. They're very responsive," Daniel says.

CTC says they won't vote on a policy on concealed handguns in classrooms but they'll discuss the issue if the state legislature changes the law.




CTC rejects allowing guns in classrooms
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=42368

Posted On: Thursday, Jun. 17 2010 11:24 PM

By Rebecca LaFlure
Killeen Daily Herald

A push to allow guns in Central Texas College classrooms failed Thursday after board members decided to allow firearms only in vehicles.

The decision came after months of delayed discussions spurred by board member Scott Isdale, who felt officials should allow licensed concealed handgun carriers to bring their weapons to class.

As a compromise, board members agreed to permit students, teachers and visitors to leave their firearms in their vehicles while on campus. The former policy banned people from storing or carrying weapons on the college premises.

The modification did not require a formal vote, but CTC Chancellor Jim Anderson said he will change the written policy to bring it in line with current state laws. Officials will post signs on campus doorways indicating no firearms are allowed inside the buildings.

During an hourlong board workshop meeting, Isdale stated his case for allowing concealed carry at CTC.

Isdale originally asked that members review the college's weapons policy in March in the wake of the Nov. 5 shooting at Fort Hood, saying he wanted to ensure students and faculty members were as safe as possible while on campus.

According to the Texas Penal Code, licensed concealed handgun carriers are prohibited from bringing their firearms on college campuses, unless an institution adopts its own policy allowing it.

"We're talking about a group of people who are highly qualified to carry a gun, … not just students carrying around pistols," said Isdale, adding that banning concealed carry also is a Second Amendment rights issue. "They're typically law-abiding citizens who are concerned about safety."

Texas issued 73,090 licenses in fiscal year 2008. The state requires applicants to pass a training course, a criminal background check and be at least 21 years old.

However, Mary Wheeler, chief police officer at CTC, said allowing students and faculty members to carry weapons would create a safety concern for officers who are trained to look for the person with the gun in violent situations.

"If there are other people with weapons, how do we differentiate who's the bad guy?" she said. "It's going to change the way we're trained."

Deborah Shibley, director of risk management at CTC, said allowing concealed carry could negatively impact CTC's insurance premiums, saying the college would have to pay an additional $50,000 a year for general liability insurance, and its carrier, United Educators, could drop the college as a client.

Anderson added that most of the students and faculty members he's talked to are opposed to allowing guns inside the school's buildings.

Board member Rex Weaver raised concerns about the number of police officers who patrol the campus, particularly during nighttime hours.

Wheeler said the police force consists of a nine-person staff that rotates shifts over a 24-hour period. On an average day, there are two CTC police officers on duty between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., she said.

Mari Meyer, chairwoman of the board, echoed Weaver's concerns.

"If I had to make a choice … it would be to increase the number of people who are working on the safety of the college."

Board members agreed to delay further talks of concealed carry in anticipation of a possible review of the issue by the state Legislature next year.

They also plan to evaluate staffing numbers and training requirements at the CTC Police Department.

"We've got our own safety mechanisms in place," Shibley said. "Let's use them to make a better police force."

[baldeagle]

Campus police officer Joe Ribar makes sure the classrooms are locked up. He says students having handguns would be a nightmare if they had to take down a mass shooter. Would-be heroes with their own guns could get in the way.
"When we go into a building we don't know who's a good guy or bad guy. I would not like to have a civilian who's trying to do good end up as a threat to us," Ribar says.

This, I believe, is a legitimate concern. I think it can be alleviated by two things: proper training of CHL holders (when you encounter the police and they don't know who you are, announce that you armed, expose your weapon and raise your hands so they know you are not a threat) and having those CHL holders who routinely carry on campus meet with campus police and inform them that you are usually armed and will be glad to help if asked.) Since I work at a university, this is something that I've given some thought to. From the perspective of a uniformed officer, they have no way of knowing, when they first arrive on scene, if I'm a BG or a GG. Getting to know them ahead of time would help alleviate that as well as being certain not to appear threatening when they first arrive on scene.

I wonder what any of the LEOs on the board think about this? I know it must be a nightmare, from an officer's point of view, to encounter an armed citizen and not know if they are a threat or not. They don't want to kill someone unless they really are a threat, yet they only have seconds to make a decision.

[srothstein]

As a recently retired LEO, I will tell you that I honestly think this argument is not valid. I have never yet had any problem telling the good guys from the bad guys on calls, even when I went to crime in progress calls where some citizens had responded to try to help. And given the time I would expect police to take to respond, this is even less of an argument.

Consider the times really involved. Someone busts in and starts shooting. One of the students will call 911. Campus police do not get 911 calls, but have their own emergency numbers (ask any student on here if they know the campus emergency number). This takes 1 minute to get the call in and answered. The police dispatcher takes the information and puts the calls out to officers to respond. This takes another minute (might be a little quicker, but say 2 minutes from the person dialing 911 to the call hitting the radio). The officers take a couple minutes to drive to the scene. Most agencies strive for a 3 minute response time for this type of high priority call, so it will average 5 minutes from the time someone starts to dial until the first officer arrives at the scene. Current LEO philosophy has the officers wait until a four man stick arrives (first four cops), but some will go in as a pair. This slows up the response further.

Now, look at what happens with the CHL's at the scene. Most do nothing since they are just trying to protect themselves. They will run away if the shooter is not in their room or hallway. They can be discounted. If there is one in the room where the shooter is, he will probably engage and take action immediately. Shoot-outs do not last long, in most cases. And even worse, most active school shooters suicide when they encounter resistance. So, by the time the cops get there, there will probably be a dead shooter on the ground and a CHL standing over him with a gun. The gun may have already been put away, but assume he is still holding it. The cops do not bust in shooting, but give commands to drop the gun and surrender. The CHL will almost always obey these commands. This makes it easy to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

There is a distinct possibility that the CHL may be in shock from the shooting and may not respond correctly to the officers. Hopefully some of the other people will be helping him, but this cannot be counted on either. This is the only point where the officer may have some trouble, but even then, the CHL will not be shooting at the cops and can usually be identified. They may need to take him down or something, but they still do not bust in shooting.

And that is always without counting the odds of a CHL even being there. Given that there are only about 3% of the population with CHL's, it means a class of 33 would be required before the odds would favor a CHL being there. With the number of under 21 mixed in, the class would need to be even larger. A community college that caters towards the non-traditional adult student might have a slightly higher chance of having a CHL. But, the class in Killeen would also have a much higher chance of having combat trained vets in it from Ft. Hood. Are the police really afraid of the military having CHL's? Somehow, that makes less sense than most schools' arguments.

[baldeagle]

srothstein, thanks for the input. I have thought about what I would do if CC is allowed on my campus. I am a staff member, so I'm there every day. Were something to occur close enough that I would become aware of it, my first thought would be to determine the probable location of the shooter and determine if it was safe to get everyone in my area out safely. If it was, that would be my first priority, but it would be with gun drawn and at the ready. If I didn't think it was safe for them to leave, I would instruct them to go into their offices and lock their doors. Then I would try to find a position that would allow me to engage the BG before he became of aware of me and from a position that gave me the best chance of survival. I would hope that the campus police, when they arrived, would recognize me, but I would expect them to want me to have my hands in the air, gun not in a tactical position and follow their commands immediately. Of course it wouldn't hurt that another member of this forum would be armed as well and only three doors down from me.

[Douva]

As a recently retired LEO, I will tell you that I honestly think this argument is not valid. I have never yet had any problem telling the good guys from the bad guys on calls, even when I went to crime in progress calls where some citizens had responded to try to help. And given the time I would expect police to take to respond, this is even less of an argument.

Consider the times really involved. Someone busts in and starts shooting. One of the students will call 911. Campus police do not get 911 calls, but have their own emergency numbers (ask any student on here if they know the campus emergency number). This takes 1 minute to get the call in and answered. The police dispatcher takes the information and puts the calls out to officers to respond. This takes another minute (might be a little quicker, but say 2 minutes from the person dialing 911 to the call hitting the radio). The officers take a couple minutes to drive to the scene. Most agencies strive for a 3 minute response time for this type of high priority call, so it will average 5 minutes from the time someone starts to dial until the first officer arrives at the scene. Current LEO philosophy has the officers wait until a four man stick arrives (first four cops), but some will go in as a pair. This slows up the response further.

Now, look at what happens with the CHL's at the scene. Most do nothing since they are just trying to protect themselves. They will run away if the shooter is not in their room or hallway. They can be discounted. If there is one in the room where the shooter is, he will probably engage and take action immediately. Shoot-outs do not last long, in most cases. And even worse, most active school shooters suicide when they encounter resistance. So, by the time the cops get there, there will probably be a dead shooter on the ground and a CHL standing over him with a gun. The gun may have already been put away, but assume he is still holding it. The cops do not bust in shooting, but give commands to drop the gun and surrender. The CHL will almost always obey these commands. This makes it easy to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

There is a distinct possibility that the CHL may be in shock from the shooting and may not respond correctly to the officers. Hopefully some of the other people will be helping him, but this cannot be counted on either. This is the only point where the officer may have some trouble, but even then, the CHL will not be shooting at the cops and can usually be identified. They may need to take him down or something, but they still do not bust in shooting.

And that is always without counting the odds of a CHL even being there. Given that there are only about 3% of the population with CHL's, it means a class of 33 would be required before the odds would favor a CHL being there. With the number of under 21 mixed in, the class would need to be even larger. A community college that caters towards the non-traditional adult student might have a slightly higher chance of having a CHL. But, the class in Killeen would also have a much higher chance of having combat trained vets in it from Ft. Hood. Are the police really afraid of the military having CHL's? Somehow, that makes less sense than most schools' arguments.

From the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website:

Argument: How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed civilians and armed assailants?

Answer: This hasn't been an issue with concealed handgun license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It's not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys—from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians—in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the crowd, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the crowd.

[Douva]

Campus police officer Joe Ribar makes sure the classrooms are locked up. He says students having handguns would be a nightmare if they had to take down a mass shooter. Would-be heroes with their own guns could get in the way.
"When we go into a building we don't know who's a good guy or bad guy. I would not like to have a civilian who's trying to do good end up as a threat to us," Ribar says.

This, I believe, is a legitimate concern. I think it can be alleviated by two things: proper training of CHL holders (when you encounter the police and they don't know who you are, announce that you armed, expose your weapon and raise your hands so they know you are not a threat) and having those CHL holders who routinely carry on campus meet with campus police and inform them that you are usually armed and will be glad to help if asked.) Since I work at a university, this is something that I've given some thought to. From the perspective of a uniformed officer, they have no way of knowing, when they first arrive on scene, if I'm a BG or a GG. Getting to know them ahead of time would help alleviate that as well as being certain not to appear threatening when they first arrive on scene.

I wonder what any of the LEOs on the board think about this? I know it must be a nightmare, from an officer's point of view, to encounter an armed citizen and not know if they are a threat or not. They don't want to kill someone unless they really are a threat, yet they only have seconds to make a decision.

This is a letter I sent to a few of our legislative supporters in 2009 (I've emphasized the relevant portion of the letter):

Dear Senator:

After helping Students for Concealed Carry on Campus take on the “campus carry” battle in a number of states, I am familiar not only with the slew of (misguided) arguments against allowing concealed carry on college campuses; I am also familiar with the various amendments that opponents propose to try to water down concealed carry on campus legislation.

One such amendment proposes allowing only current/former members of the armed forces and/or ROTC cadets to exercise concealed handgun licenses on college campuses. This proposal flies in the face of the intended purpose of concealed carry. Concealed handgun license holders carry concealed handguns for personal protection, not so that they can act as amateur police officers/volunteer security guards for the rest of society. Most soldiers receive only minimal training in the use of handguns, and most ROTC members have received little or no tactical training; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they are substantially more qualified than the average concealed handgun license holder to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This is a classic example of a feel-good amendment with little basis in fact, and it should be vehemently opposed by anyone who supports Texas gun rights.

Another proposed amendment would allow concealed carry by college faculty and staff only. Again, this proposal conflicts with the personal protection intent of concealed carry. Though it is reasonable to believe that the presence of armed concealed handgun license holders, through their ability to mitigate dangerous situations, could potentially benefit all students, faculty, and guests, it is unreasonable to expect faculty and staff to act as de facto security guards for an entire campus. More disturbingly, allowing concealed carry by only faculty and staff could endanger the lives of ALL professors and campus employees, regardless of whether or not they are armed, by giving active shooters reason to target them first. It doesn’t make sense to tell would-be shooters who poses the greatest threat to them and their nefarious plans.

A third, equally silly proposed amendment would require concealed handgun license holders to register with school officials or campus police before carrying concealed handguns on campus. This is bureaucratic red tape at its finest. At the heart of this proposal is the misguided belief that school officials and campus police would somehow be able to keep up with the whereabouts of every concealed handgun license holder on campus, at all times. This is utterly absurd. There is no way of knowing how many concealed handgun license holders are in the library or the student center or auditing classes in which they’re not enrolled or skipping class to attend a rally or doing any of the multitude of random things college students do on a daily basis. Such a proposal would also place an undue burden on visitors and guests. Should a man with no affiliation with the school be required to stop by the campus police headquarters and register his concealed handgun license before visiting his fiancée for lunch at the student center? Should a professor from another college be required to register her license at the campus she is visiting, before attending a speech by a renowned guest lecturer? It’s a logistical nightmare, and such an amendment serves no purpose but to discourage concealed carry on campus. Law enforcement officers are already able to determine whether or not a person possesses a concealed handgun license by running his or her driver’s license (this ability would be limited but not eliminated by the passage of House Bill 410). That measure of protection is sufficient in the rest of society, and it should be sufficient on college campuses.

Sincerely,

W. Scott Lewis
Former SCCC National Media Coordinator