Campus Carry: SCC’s Pre-lim Response to University of Houston’s Draft Campus Carry

Campus-Carry

The University of Houston’s draft campus carry policy is a major improvement over the policy proposed by the University of Texas; however, the UH policy is too aggressive in attempting to prohibit licensed concealed carry in any location where minor children may be present, something the Texas Legislature never intended.

Students for Concealed Carry commends the University of Houston campus carry task force for avoiding the types of overreaching policies proposed by the University of Texas and for having the foresight to propose policies such as making community gun storage available at the campus police station and allowing faculty and staff to temporarily store handguns in locked desks or cabinets.

SCC’s one concern with the UH draft policy is that the task force seems to have operated under the assumption that licensed concealed carry cannot be allowed anywhere children are likely to be present. This was clearly never the intent of the Texas Legislature, which saw fit to allow licensed concealed carry in movie theaters, shopping malls, churches, grocery stores, restaurants, all state museums, all public libraries, and even the Texas Capitol.

SCC hopes to see the UH policy refined so that, with regard to locations where children may be present, licensed concealed carry is only prohibited at day care facilities and primary/secondary schools—the locations dictated by state law.

About Students for Concealed Carry:

Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.

For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land

Texas News: Campus Carry to be allowed at UT Austin

The Obsolete/Outdated “Empty-Chamber” Pistol Carry Method  

 With the preceding post about the spineless liberals at the campus at UT-Austin in my home state of Texas promoting the “empty-chamber” method of handgun carry for carry on University campus grounds, I thought it appropriate to have one of HCS’ contributing authors and one of the leading authorities on handgun training and self-defense with firearms, Mr. John Farnam of Defense Training International, put his two cents in. I think he not only makes the case against this MORONIC/OBSOLETE/OUTDATED practice, but SHUTS the case on it as well. Let her rip Mr. Farnam and give em’ both barrels! -SF
 
farnam
By John Farnam
“Truth is… a streaming fountain.  When her waters are not in perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” -Milton
Uniformed troopers of the 1700s universally carried their flintlock muskets with the muzzle always pointed up.  Reasons for this were obvious to everyone of the period.  Military muskets were long (by today’s standards), and troopers carrying them were, on average, shorter than is the case today.  Carrying them with the muzzle down, particularly with bayonets affixed, was nearly impossible for most.  In addition, with the muzzle down, the projectile (ball) may well roll out the barrel!  Such lead balls were, of course, generously undersize (in order to facilitate fast reloading), and only a slight amount of friction held them in place.
Thus, it was the general custom of the era to handle all longarms so that the muzzle was continuously pointed in an upward direction.  In fact, as late as WWII, the short, light M1 Carbine was still carried by most with the muzzle up, a classic example of “cultural-lag,” where deep-rooted cultural practices stubbornly lag behind technology, sometimes for generations!
A similar example is the long-obsolete practice in Israel of carrying pistols with the chamber empty.
Starting in the late 1940s, pistols smuggled into Israel (prior to recognized nationhood) were often defective, even broken, and were thus not “drop-safe,” the empty-chamber-carry practice was settled upon at the time as the only safe way to carry many of these guns.
Once more, seventy years after this custom became outdated, indeed altogether obsolete, many in Israel still religiously adhere to it, even to this day!  I don’t think it can all be ascribed to just naive cultural-lag.  I believe many observe this “tradition” (silly as it is) as a way of commemorating and manifesting respect for Founders and visionaries like Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, and others.
That is where the “empty-chamber” tradition got started in Israel, and I surely understand why.  Don’t get me wrong! Israelis are good people, but they have allowed themselves to be philosophically castrated by their nanny-state.  For one, I don’t show my respect for George Washington by carrying a flintlock!  We have to maintain our respect, and sense of history, but relentlessly move forward at the same time!
Today, we carry our wonderful, modern, military rifles with the muzzle down, and our modern pistols are always carried, in modern holsters, fully-loaded.  The best way to honor our spiritual antecedents is through ever-seeking new paths to personal victory, much as they did in their time!
The vast majority of modern, autoloading pistols and revolvers are designed and manufactured to be mechanically “drop-safe.”  That is, no external blow to the pistol, no matter the severity, will cause it to discharge.  Putting continuous pressure on the trigger is the sole method for persuading these weapons to fire.  Thus, carried with an empty chamber, most modern autoloading pistols and revolvers are not one bit “safer” than if a live round were in the chamber, but they are a good deal less useful.
The myth of “perfect safety” is believed only by naive egg-heads.  Guns that are “perfectly safe” are “perfectly useless!”
So, what is the advantage associated with carrying a modern pistol, in a holster, with the chamber empty?
None!
The “empty-chamber-carry” method provides the user with no “safety” advantage, but it makes the pistol a good deal less useful, as noted below.
So, why do certain people still insist on carrying that way?
They are willfully, fearfully, arrogantly naive and impervious to logic, even when their very lives are in the balance.  They probably shouldn’t even own a gun, nor anything else dangerous!  And for one, I really don’t care what they do, nor what happens to them as a result.  I get annoyed, however, when these dithering buffoons presume to dictate to me methods for preserving my own safety, when they obviously have not the foggiest idea of what they are presuming to talk about!
That brings us to our present situation:
Naive, modern-day gun-phobic twits at UT/Austin claim “it’s just not ‘safe’ to carry a loaded pistol in public” “Besides,” they continue, “… all you have to do is rack the slide after your pistol is drawn.  Then you can shoot.”
Really?
They have clearly not thought the issue through:
(1) Who promised you that both your hands will be available the next time you need your pistol?
A pistol is an item of emergency/safety equipment.  We carry pistols for “unexpected” threats.  You may be pushing your children behind cover with one hand while trying to draw your pistol with the other, all at the same time.
You might find a home-invader on top of you doing his best to stick a screwdriver into your eye. As you fend-off the screwdriver with one hand and draw your pistol with the other, how will you then persuade it to fire?
(2) And, after you rack the slide of your pistol, and then don’t have to fire immediately, what do you do with it?
Do you take the time, in the middle of this life-threatening situation, to unload it before re-holstering?  Or, do you re-holster it loaded, in which case we’re back where we started!
The sad fact is:
Who don’t carry loaded pistols needn’t bother carrying at all.  As I’m sometimes compelled to remind my students:
Get serious, or get out!
/John
Stay Alert, Stay Armed and Stay Dangerous!

Propaganda Alert: Gun Free UT’s Claim about CHL Holders and “Mass Shootings” Does Not Stand up to Scrutiny

Bullshit Alert!!

Bogus-Research

 

AUSTIN, TX – The anti-campus carry professors behind Gun Free UT love to cite statistics suggesting that a concealed handgun license (CHL) holder is more likely to commit a mass shooting than to stop one; however;

Gun Free UT’s statistics—which are never offered with any type of context—are at best misleading and at worst untrue.

Gun Free UT likes to claim that concealed handgun license holders have committed twenty-nine mass shootings since 2007; however, an examination of those twenty-nine incidents reveals twenty-six in which licensed concealed carry played no part whatsoever, two in which it is highly unlikely that licensed concealed carry played any part, and one in which licensed concealed carry very well may have played a part. The one incident in which licensed concealed carry may have played a part resulted in only three murders (the minimum to qualify as a “mass killing”), took place during a confrontation at the home of the perpetrator’s ex-wife.

The perpetrator should never have been ineligible to own a gun, much less obtain a concealed handgun license, but still received a Pennsylvania license due to an error in the criminal database.

Gun Free UT points out that one CHL holder was paralyzed while attempting to intervene in a mass shooting; however, the group fails to include the context that this incident took place in a state with no training requirement for license applicants [not that it should be needed] and that the license holder broke one of the first rules of licensed concealed carry—he inserted himself into a crime that did not already involve him.

Read the Remainder at Ammo-Land

 

Please Support Students for Concealed Carry Today at Concealed Campus

Students-for-Concealed-Carry-on-Campus-Logo

SOME TEXAS UNIVERSITIES TO CREATE ‘GUN FREE ZONES’ TO CIRCUMVENT CAMPUS CARRY

gun-free-zone-AP-640x480

By Hammerhead

When I read headlines like this one, I am reminded of a maxim my father used to say when I was a kid:

You can offer a drowning man a life jacket, but you can’t make him use it. The decision to live, is ultimately, always up to the individual.

But what about when these confused individuals try to influence others, (and by “others” in this case, I mean our own children), to take the same course of action as they? Don’t we, as parents, have the right to draw the line in how far a person (especially an educator) can go in leading our kids down a primrose path as dangerous as this?

According to an article in the LA Times, some Universities across the nation, including the University of Texas, who seems to be leading the charge in this endeavor, are planning on installing “Gun Free Zones” in an attempt to circumvent Campus Carry Laws recently enacted into law (which go into effect August of 2016) which allows those students with concealed carry licenses to carry a firearm on campus for self-defense.

To all these so-called “educated” people (Professors mind you) leading the charge in this foolish endeavour I ask the following questions:

  1. What makes you think that installing so-called “gun free zones” in your school makes you any safer? Do you think a confused individual who has set it in his mind to kill people with a firearm  will pay attention to a sign?
  2. Were not these same types of signs installed at:
  • UC Merced where 4 students were recently stabbed
  • Umpqua Community College where 9 people were shot and killed?
  • St. Louis Military Recruiting Center where 5 People were shot and Killed?

I think the stats show that Mentally Confused People and Criminals Don’t care about signs, Just like they don’t care about Gun laws, so why punish the legal citizens who have to abide by them?

As for your other argument, where is your Data that students who carry firearms while on campus are dangerous or a threat to other students? On the contrary, if you look at the data we have on schools that already have campus carry, like in Colorado for example, which has had Campus Carry since 2003, their record is stellar as regards to student safety.

For a much more detailed analysis of WHY Campus Carry is a GOOD IDEAL, check out Students For Concealed Carry.

Stay Alert, Stay Armed and Stay Dangerous!