Thursday, December 03, 2009

CSU Student Board Votes to Retain Concealed Carry



"We wrote this bill because we felt that a student should have the right to self defense on campus. We don't believe that crime stops at a campus' borders."

CSU Junior Cooper Anderson and author of the student government bill.

For several years now, Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins Colorado has allowed, with restrictions, students with valid Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permits to carry their handguns on campus. (Note; in Colorado you must be at least 21 years old to be eligible for a handgun permit, and you must have training from a certified instructor.)

In October of this year, the CSU campus police and the university’s president, Dr. Anthony Frank, and other unnamed “public safety experts” have proposed a change in that policy. These anti-gun “experts” think the CSU campus should become a “gun-free zone”, except for “security officers”.

The CSU faculty senate asked for a review of the CSU gun policy sometime last year, because of the April 2007 mass murder at Virginia Tech University. Seung-hui Cho, a senior student at Virginia Tech killed 32 people and wounded at least 25 others in his cowardly rampage.

CSU has never had a violent gun incident on campus.

But despite that significant fact, at Colorado State University, unnamed public safety experts and the university president's cabinet all support a “gun ban”.

The president’s office said it wanted to hear from the student government to get their take on the proposed ban. So, on Wednesday night, the student governing body voted 21-3 in FAVOR of keeping CSU a conceal carry campus. Five student senators were absent or did not vote.

CSU spokesman Brad Bohlander said President Anthony Frank would consider the student leaders' resolution before making a decision. Apparently CSU's Board of Governors will discuss the issue at a meeting Friday morning in the system's Denver office, but the final decision is Frank's.

"Our police can respond to an incident anywhere on the main campus within about two minutes or less, and the highly populated classrooms in about a minute. They have all gone through active shooter training," CSU spokesperson Brad Bohlander said.

Bohlander obviously isn’t aware that at Virginia Tech, at least 30 of the victims were killed within the first 2 minutes of the attack.

After all, when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

When police arrive at such a scene it still takes a few minutes to assess and prioritize the situation.

Regarding the university administration, faculty senate and their unnamed experts, I am constantly amazed at the ignorance of the anti-gun nuts regarding the issue of carrying a concealed handgun. Getting your Concealed Handgun Permit (CCW) in Colorado is a lengthy and expensive process. You MUST take a training class that covers the legal aspects of when you can justifiably use deadly force and when you can’t. I have never heard of a CCW class that was under $100.00. In Adams County the combined fees of applying for a CCW permit was $152.00 in 2006, I’m not sure if this has changed. So, you’re looking at a minimum of $252.00 just to obtain the permit. This doesn’t include the cost of the handgun itself.

Before a permit is approved, a background check is performed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Those individuals seeking a carry permit are decent law abiding citizens who have made a conscience choice to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary, they understand what deadly force is and what the consequences are if they are forced to use it.

Simply put, permit carriers obey the law in Colorado.

After undergoing training and going through the permit process they have become known to the State of Colorado and their home County as a person with the intent to carry a concealed firearm.

They simply aren’t going to start shooting up a campus or a mall. There are a lot of permit holders in Colorado. At sometime or another you have stood or sat next to someone with a permit and a handgun and you never knew it.

Murderous cowards like Cho and don’t forget the Fort Hood islamic terrorist Nidal Hasan, aren’t going to bother with the legal aspects of concealed carry. Yes, I know, in both instances the murderers bought their handguns legally. However, both purchases should not have occurred. They should have been rejected based on the previous actions and history of both of these men. The purchases were allowed because of political correctness in both instances. Cho was deeply disturbed mentally and emotionally, but the powers that be at Virginia Tech knew about his problems, but chose a policy of don’t ask don’t tell. Hasan had already been investigated, somewhat, by the FBI. The Bureau also chose not to ask or tell regarding his islamic, jihadist rants.

These were failures of the vetting process for purchase of firearms. Not failures of the concealed carry permit process.

All of you anti-gun left wing nuts shouldn’t be so ignorantly paranoid. And before you speak out on something try to get your facts straight.

One positive note, in an e-mail statement, Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden said his office would "not hold or detain a valid permit holder who violates that policy, nor would his department have anything to do with enforcing that policy."

The good Sheriff also said he did not believe unelected university officials have any authority to enact such a ban, which would "directly counter" Colorado law.

Sources;
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=128141&catid=339

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13913814?source=commented-

http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2009/12/03/News/Ascsu.County.Wont.Enforce.Gun.Ban-3844240.shtml

5 Comments:

Blogger God Of Bacon said...

How do you propose to protect students from violent sociopaths who are big and strong enough to have no need for a firearm? Do you consider criminals who commit acts of violence with their hands to be morally superior to those who are small enough to need a weapon of some sort?

http://columbine101.blogspot.com/2009/04/columbine-101-lesson-five-methods-of.html

6:00 AM  
Blogger Rocky said...

Question 1:

At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s truly too bad that there are violent sociopaths who prey on the not so big and not so strong. I mean that sincerely. But that’s the point of self-protection and self-defense.

When the violent trolls decide to attack you, they have not asked your permission. They have decided to injure, maim and possibly kill you, and they have left your opinion out of the equation.

Every person has the right to self defense. Up to and including the use of deadly force. And if that means going through the legal process of obtaining a concealed handgun permit to defend yourself with deadly force, then so be it.

Every person must have the proper mindset to defend themselves in this manner. If you don’t, you’re toast.

Question 2:

Criminals who commit acts of violence are worthless scum, no matter whether they use a weapon or not.

1:13 PM  
Blogger God Of Bacon said...

Answer to Question 1:

Morally, everyone has the right to self defense. Legally, the use of deadly force is allowed only after a criminal puts you in a situation where you are no longer able to do much of anything.

Answer to Question 2:

If criminals who commit acts of violence without a weapon are worthless scum, then why are they given athletic scholarships (Rocky Hoffschneider) and multimillion dollar salaries in the NFL (Ryan Tucker)? Americans like to talk about civilized behavior and love to feign shock and bewilderment at the behavior of Cho and the Columbine killers, but as long as a steroid bloated sociopath is raping someone else's daughter or brutalizing someone else's son they'll continue to chuckle about the offender's "bad boy" behavior, continue to pay for tickets, and continue to cheer wildly when a well known criminal prances onto the field.

Campus massacres are no mystery. They're an embarrassment.

6:18 PM  
Blogger Rocky said...

Answer to question 1.

You stated; “Legally, the use of deadly force is allowed only after a criminal puts you in a situation where you are no longer able to do much of anything.”

I don’t know what state you live in, but what you have described is a DUTY TO RETREAT. But in Colorado DUTY TO RETREAT does not appear in the statutes concerning deadly force.

The Colorado Revised Statutes concerning Use of Deadly Physical Force are as follows:

http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm

Colorado Revised Statutes:
Use of Physical Force and Use of Deadly Physical Force

18-1-704 Use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
a. The actor has reasonable ground to believe and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
b. The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

c. The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

a. With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

b. He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from-the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
c. The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.


Answer to question 2.

You’re asking the wrong person.

1:39 PM  
Blogger Rocky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home