Get Real or Get Lost!

[bobcat50]

The campus carry bill is good legislation but let's "Get Real" college campuses and no more and actually less dangerous places for crazed gunmen shooting innocent students/faculty than workplaces where there are numerous documented incidents where a disgruntled employee has been fired and returns to shoot anyone that gets in their way going after their boss, HR person or some other employee they don't like. Much better and more comprehensive legislation would include not only legal carry on college campuses but inside almost all workplaces where there is a long history of shooting incidents in workplaces that have killed many people across the country. Leaving your weapon in the car in the parking lot does absolutely nothing to stop shooting and killing inside the workplace. By the time you run to your car to get your weapon, you may be shot and certainly other employees will have already been shot while you're digging around trying to get your weapon out. The college campus carry and workplace parking lot legislation is nothing more than window dressing if the politicians don't have the guts to address the whole issue.

[jacobsd8195]

Much better and more comprehensive legislation would include not only legal carry on college campuses but inside almost all workplaces where there is a long history of shooting incidents in workplaces that have killed many people across the country. Leaving your weapon in the car in the parking lot does absolutely nothing to stop shooting and killing inside the workplace.

I'd love to be able to carry 24/7... including my workplace. However, I really doubt that the Texas Legislature will ever allow a CHL holder to carry into a K-12 public school. What the parking lot bill would do for me, is legally allow me to carry my gun in my vehicle the 15 miles I drive on Houston's fine freeways to work. I could even run an errand and have some personal protection without having to go back home and get my gun out of the safe.

[Purplehood]

The campus carry bill is good legislation but let's "Get Real" college campuses and no more and actually less dangerous places for crazed gunmen shooting innocent students/faculty than workplaces where there are numerous documented incidents where a disgruntled employee has been fired and returns to shoot anyone that gets in their way going after their boss, HR person or some other employee they don't like. Much better and more comprehensive legislation would include not only legal carry on college campuses but inside almost all workplaces where there is a long history of shooting incidents in workplaces that have killed many people across the country. Leaving your weapon in the car in the parking lot does absolutely nothing to stop shooting and killing inside the workplace. By the time you run to your car to get your weapon, you may be shot and certainly other employees will have already been shot while you're digging around trying to get your weapon out. The college campus carry and workplace parking lot legislation is nothing more than window dressing if the politicians don't have the guts to address the whole issue.

The issue in the minds of the American Sheeple is not that of needing firearms in public and private places, it is the opposite. The majority of folks simply assume that firearms are the problem in the first place. The RKBA community simply needs to correct that misperception through organizations such as the NRA and the TFC.

[RPB]

The campus carry bill is good legislation but let's "Get Real" college campuses and no more and actually less dangerous places for crazed gunmen shooting innocent students/faculty than workplaces where there are numerous documented incidents where a disgruntled employee has been fired and returns to shoot anyone that gets in their way going after their boss, HR person or some other employee they don't like. Much better and more comprehensive legislation would include not only legal carry on college campuses but inside almost all workplaces where there is a long history of shooting incidents in workplaces that have killed many people across the country. Leaving your weapon in the car in the parking lot does absolutely nothing to stop shooting and killing inside the workplace. By the time you run to your car to get your weapon, you may be shot and certainly other employees will have already been shot while you're digging around trying to get your weapon out. The college campus carry and workplace parking lot legislation is nothing more than window dressing if the politicians don't have the guts to address the whole issue.

which campus?

San Antonio College, where armed robbers are on campus or in bathrooms (seems like at least 1 a month lately)?

Or Texas Southern University's surrounding area?

Here's the thing, you can't really legislate to allow campus carry for some high crime rate/area campuses, without legislating for all.

Still, we are a bit ahead of Florida, which is just now proposing legislation to allow campus "carry" as long as you leave it in your car.

I agree with you in principle, a lot needs to be addressed, but if we stop teaching children to turn in all guns to the "bash-o-matic" because they are "bad" then we'll stop the socialization that no one should have one anywhere, before we turn into Ciudad Juarez.

Let's see, I was employed for over 40 years, got held up 2 times, went to college 4 years, had a knife pulled on me once ... so, I think percentage of times I went to work/school and was confronted by an armed person... college was about 5 times (or is that 20 times? math wasn't my major.) more dangerous than work.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is why the parking lot and campus carry bill carry roughly equal weight for me. Businesses are generally located on private property, or the equivalent, which is leased property which is under the business's control. Property owners have some rights in the matter too. A REASONABLE compromise is the parking lot bill, which ensures that the CHL holder will not be disarmed when they are on their own nickel, while still giving the private property holder the right to bar you from bringing a weapon inside the premises. Their reasoning may be flawed, but they have a constitutional right to their opinion in the matter, and they have a constitutional right to control their private property in the manner they see fit to do so.

Now, I don't particularly care if a CHL holder carries a gun into my house, although I would personally be more comfortable if I knew about it, but your constitutional right to carry a firearm does not override my constitutional right to control my private property in the manner I see fit. You don't pay the utilities. You don't pay the property taxes. You don't pay the mortgage. I do. Therefore, I have greater rights on my property than you do. There is a general principle that one person's rights end where they trample on another person's rights. When you're inside the premises of someone's private property, their rules prevail. If you don't like it, don't go. Nobody is forcing you to be there.

I grant guests to my home a provisional right to be there. "Provisional" means that I set the terms under which they may enter. If they are not willing to submit to those terms, then I may deny the person the right to enter, because their right to be in my home is superseded by my right to control my private property in the manner I see fit to do so. If that is not acceptable to you, then my answer is, "get lost."

Businesses operate under the same property rights as a private homeowner, but there is the additional matter of necessity. The parking lot bill creates a compromise under which the business owner may bar someone from carrying into their buildings while not creating a situation where the employee is forced to be disarmed on the way too and from work. A compromise is justifiable because, although employment is at will, it is also necessary, and it is too much to expect that a company has the right to reach into your private life and dictate how you will exercise your constitutional rights while you are not on the job. An analogy would be if the city water department would not send a worker to my house to fix their equipment because I have guns in the house.

You, as a non-employee of mine, don't need to be on my property. But you do need to be at work, so when your employer tries to keep you from securing a weapon in your car, they are reaching into your private life and forcing you to comply with their gun policy during hours which you are not on their clock. That justifies the legally imposed compromise while still preserving their constitutional right to control what happens inside their premises.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Much better and more comprehensive legislation would include not only legal carry on college campuses but inside almost all workplaces where there is a long history of shooting incidents in workplaces that have killed many people across the country. Leaving your weapon in the car in the parking lot does absolutely nothing to stop shooting and killing inside the workplace.

I'd love to be able to carry 24/7... including my workplace. However, I really doubt that the Texas Legislature will ever allow a CHL holder to carry into a K-12 public school. What the parking lot bill would do for me, is legally allow me to carry my gun in my vehicle the 15 miles I drive on Houston's fine freeways to work. I could even run an errand and have some personal protection without having to go back home and get my gun out of the safe.

Actually you can, if the school board says so. There is a small school district in north Texas that has a 30+ minute response time from the local Sheriff that has authorized its administrators and teachers who have a CHL to do so.

Harrold Independent School District

http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2008/ ... chers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jacobsd8195]

Actually you can, if the school board says so.

Unfortunately it is pretty clear in our Employee Handbook. The district my wife works at is the same... in fact they are almost verbatim. I think TEA has a template for the "local" policies for school districts.

[Katygunnut]

This is why the parking lot and campus carry bill carry roughly equal weight for me. Businesses are generally located on private property, or the equivalent, which is leased property which is under the business's control. Property owners have some rights in the matter too. A REASONABLE compromise is the parking lot bill, which ensures that the CHL holder will not be disarmed when they are on their own nickel, while still giving the private property holder the right to bar you from bringing a weapon inside the premises. Their reasoning may be flawed, but they have a constitutional right to their opinion in the matter, and they have a constitutional right to control their private property in the manner they see fit to do so.

Now, I don't particularly care if a CHL holder carries a gun into my house, although I would personally be more comfortable if I knew about it, but your constitutional right to carry a firearm does not override my constitutional right to control my private property in the manner I see fit. You don't pay the utilities. You don't pay the property taxes. You don't pay the mortgage. I do. Therefore, I have greater rights on my property than you do. There is a general principle that one person's rights end where they trample on another person's rights. When you're inside the premises of someone's private property, their rules prevail. If you don't like it, don't go. Nobody is forcing you to be there.

I grant guests to my home a provisional right to be there. "Provisional" means that I set the terms under which they may enter. If they are not willing to submit to those terms, then I may deny the person the right to enter, because their right to be in my home is superseded by my right to control my private property in the manner I see fit to do so. If that is not acceptable to you, then my answer is, "get lost."

Businesses operate under the same property rights as a private homeowner, but there is the additional matter of necessity. The parking lot bill creates a compromise under which the business owner may bar someone from carrying into their buildings while not creating a situation where the employee is forced to be disarmed on the way too and from work. A compromise is justifiable because, although employment is at will, it is also necessary, and it is too much to expect that a company has the right to reach into your private life and dictate how you will exercise your constitutional rights while you are not on the job. An analogy would be if the city water department would not send a worker to my house to fix their equipment because I have guns in the house.

You, as a non-employee of mine, don't need to be on my property. But you do need to be at work, so when your employer tries to keep you from securing a weapon in your car, they are reaching into your private life and forcing you to comply with their gun policy during hours which you are not on their clock. That justifies the legally imposed compromise while still preserving their constitutional right to control what happens inside their premises.

TAM, You make great points, as always, and I agree with you on the need to balance between rights of employees and private property owners.

However, I would like to see a consistent standard applied in the ability of business owners to legally restrict our constitutional rights. I think that a business should have no greater ability to restrict the RKBA of their employees / customers, than they do to restrict the right to Free Speech, or protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or the guarantee of equal protection. By virtue of holding their business out as a public establishment, I personally feel that they should have less lattitude to restrict the constitutional rights of the people in that establishment than I do as the owner of my house.

I am well within my rights to kick you out of my house for saying something I don't agree with, or wearing clothing I find offensive, or being of a sex, race, or religion that I don't like. My standard for what I personally want in my house should not really need to meet any legitimacy threshold under the law. A business can also generally restrict these rights of their customers and employees. However, they rightly have much less latitude than I do as an individual homeowner who is not running a business that is open to the public. Safety of other employees and customers could be a legitimate reason to restrict these rights, and that might be a sufficient justification to bar handguns (per 30.06 signs, and other means). However, that logic would also allow a business to implement a policy barring anyone under the age of 30, or of a specific race, etc., based solely on the business owners belief that those individuals might be more likely to cause violence.

I am not saying that business owners should be forced to allow items on their premises that they don't like. However, I am very frustrated that the RKBA does not seem to get the same level of protection under the law as our other constitutionally guaranteed rights and I would like to see business's and others held to a consistent standard where they need to sufficiently justify the restriction of those rights for employees or customers that might want to use that business.

[bobcat50]

Thank you all for the great points you make. Additionally, there is considerable research out there where you will find statistics going back for many years on the significant number incidents of workplace violence that occur every day across the country. Just because it doesn't make the six o'clock news does not mean it didn't occur somewhere on that day. If my employer fails to uphold their duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace as required by OSHA because they do not implement reasonable security measures to preserve my safety while on their property (negligence) then I should have the right to take reasonable measures to protect myself.

If someone is injured in your home because of your negligence then you are liable for that injury that occurred on your property. If you leave you weapon unsecured in your home and a friends child finds the gun and shoots himself are you not liable for that incident on your private property?

[The Annoyed Man]

Katygunnut, I understand and agree about the frustration over seeing the RKBA get short thrift time and time again, particularly the ignorance that people have about the mutually supportive nature of the relationship between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But that particular problem is going to require a revamping of the entire education system so that we don't graduate constitutionally ignorant students, as we have been doing for the past 40 or 50 years.

bobcat50, I agree that it is unreasonable for a business to deny you the ability to protect yourself and deny any responsibility for your safety in the same breath. My answer is that the world is full of unreasonableness. It isn't right, but there it is anyway. I'm no lawyer, but I would be interested to know if a corporation has ever been successfully sued for failing to provide a safe workplace in a manner which resulted in injuries and/or death to its employees.....

....you see, the problem with that is that antis think that guns are unsafe, just like screwdrivers and hammers. They can just jump up and injure you without any warning. Therefore, according to their pretzel logic, the way you make the workplace safer is to ban guns from it. Then when they get sued by a crippled employee who was shot by a lunatic on a rampage on the company premises, the company can claim that they did make the place safer by banning guns from it, and it isn't their fault that a crazy person broke their rules... ...thus placing all the blame on the assailant, and absolving themselves of any responsibility in the matter. It's chicken maure, but there it is.

[bobcat50]

Good point and the same logic could apply to college campuses but the politicos seem to think arming students and faculty will make the place safer somehow, which it might. But by the same logic it might also make workplaces safer. I'm gathering from some of the other posts that it sounds more like a public vs. private property issue, which in my opinion it's really about having the freedom if you can legally carry to be able to do so for your own personal safety and protection regardless of the type of property you happen to be on at the moment. My life can be placed in immediate danger at work as well as at school or home or on the street or in my car. If self defense becomes necessary then we should have the freedom to defend ourselves no matter where you are. My employer can't protect me, the police can't protect me, my professor can't protect me, my neighbor can't protect me...however, I can protect myself if properly armed and well trained and of course granted the freedom to exercise my constitutional right to do so. I guess it's just too politically risky to go that far out on a limb.

[Heartland Patriot]

Some short time ago, I posted a couple of replies/discussion points in an exchange regarding open carry. I don't want to rehash that topic by any means, but only bring that up to say that I learned some things from Mr. Cotton in that series of exchanges. One of the things that I took away from that discussion was the need to SLOWLY chip away at the barriers to our individual rights that have been built up against us over the years. He was certainly correct to say that they didn't just come out one day and say "You no longer can do this, or that"...it was done a bit at a time...and people got used to it, a bit at a time. Wrongly so, but there it is. Now is the time for us to undo this stuff, A BIT AT A TIME...and I think that having gotten a reasonably workable CHL standard in this state, that campus carry and parking lot laws are a good couple of steps in the right direction to continue to roll back the restrictions on us. Once those are in place and folks in the GENERAL PUBLIC see that they have positive effects it will help to make the next steps easier, much like CHL itself. I'm not as old as some on here, and while I'm also not a spring chicken I am one who tries to continue to educate himself as much as possible. I can only hope that incremental and reasoned steps in regards to pro-2A firearms law in Texas will do the same for the public at large. It is them that we must pin our hopes on, not the small core group of liberal anti-2A folks that will never see things our way.

[Keith B]

Heartland Patriot is correct. We will NEVER get the legislature to throw in the towel and drop all regulation at once; just ain't gonna happen. We have to use finesse and tact to gain our rights back slowly a little at a time. Just as they boil the frog by turning up the water temperature slowly, we have to slowly reverse the process so the antis don't realize we are turning it back down.

And bobcat50,
While I agree we should be able to carry at our place of employment, there is a difference with college campuses. One of the issues with college campuses vs. work is many students live on campus and walk everywhere, including late nights from libraries and labs back to dorms, etc. They don't have the right to protect themselves because they can't have a handgun even on campus or in their dorm/apartment. Not too many folks live within walking distance to work, and they drive to work and park in the parking lot. The caveat is if they ride mass transportation and have to try and find a place to store their weapon.

One of the reasons I think we can get campus carry to pass is many of the colleges are publicly funded, so just like the government can't prohibit us from carrying in lots of government owned buildings, students and faculty should be allowed to carry in a publicly funded college. The majority of people work for private employers and we will be really lucky to get any more than a parking lot law passed to force a private employer to allow a handgun stored in your personal vehicle. I really don't think the legislature will ever pass anything that states a private company can't ban you from carrying. That's just the way it is unfortunately.

[MeMelYup]

A little off thread but goes along with the subject. I read somewhere that professors were not going to allow students in their classes to carry or they wouldn't teach. I wonder if they realize that would open them up to litigation if something happened in the classroom.

[RPB]

A little off thread but goes along with the subject. I read somewhere that professors were not going to allow students in their classes to carry or they wouldn't teach. I wonder if they realize that would open them up to litigation if something happened in the classroom.

Yeah I saw that A&M prof saying that, found it funny, sine he wouldn't know who carried and who doesn't anyway. Unless he wants to do a daily unconstitutional search and seizure of each student as they enter ...

He'd be best teaching ONLY online courses and not going to WalMart, Movies, Concerts, Grocery Stores .... (Poor guy sounded scared of younger people in general really... probably needs to seek counseling. )