Now, the Missouri legislation is being expanded to include university and college campuses. This is from KBIA news.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2009-04-09) Republican Representative Brian Munzlinger sponsored an amendment that would allow people to carry and conceal guns on college campuses around the state.
This latest change, which still needs to go before the Senate, besides going contrary to public opinion, is not without it's detractors among those involved. The Maneater reports that the Missouri Students Association Senate voted in clear opposition.
The resolution to oppose the amendment passed through the MSA Senate Wednesday night, with 14 in favor, 9 against and 2 abstaining.Among State legislators, there are opposition voices as well. Democratic Representative Chris Kelly explained his stance on guns being brought to fraternities, and dormitories around the state.The House bill provided an amendment for weapons on college campuses, which concerned MSA Senate Speaker Amanda Shelton.
"For weapons to be introduced into any environment where they were presumably not present before, quite a bit of exploratory work is warranted to ensure that the change will provide a net benefit to safety," Shelton said.
Shelton began doing research into large-scale campus and community shootings in order to find possible benefits of having concealed carry on campuses, she said. Her findings led her to co-sponsor legislation in opposition to the proposed amendment.
"College boys who round up 25 possums half drunk can do amazingly interesting things with fireworks, bottles of gasoline, with all kinds of interesting devices. Fraternity boys are a very inventive lot, let's make sure we give 'em guns to play with too."
Kelly believes that guns will be misused on college campuses, while Munzlinger believes that it will make campuses safer. The Missouri House adopted this amendment.
What's your opinion? Will college campuses in Missouri be safer or not? Do you think something is wrong with the representative government that doesn't represent the will of the majority of the people? On something like this, shouldn't a straight majority decide? Is it better for a more vocal and more powerful minority to make changes that affect everyone?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with the State of Missouri and guns?Maybe they recognize something you are incapable of doing, that firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens aren't a bad thing. It is called liberty, it is called respecting people's rights.
The interesting part for me is that surveys and polls taken at the time, indicated the majority of Missourians were opposedI would be interested in seeing those "polls". Is it significant that you couldn't be bothered to find any and link to them? Or did you just read the press release from the Brady Campaign and copy it?
According to them, Democracy is dangerous because you can't always trust the majority to know what's best. That's why we have a Republic.“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority” - James MadisonWould it be okay if the majority of the people said that anyone named MIKE had to work as indentured servant to the state?
That would be your democracy in action....and why we are a republic.
It is also why we will stay armed, to make sure the majority respects our rights.
Now, we get into the Pants Soiling Hysteria (PSH).
"For weapons to be introduced into any environment where they were presumably not present before, quite a bit of exploratory work is warranted to ensure that the change will provide a net benefit to safety," Shelton said.First, guns are present on campus. Most campus police are armed.
Second, the exploratory work has been done already. Utah has allowed campus carry for years, how many problems do we hear out of Utah? NONE. How many campus shootings in Utah?
Lastly, as so often proven, the "GUN FREE CAMPUS" is actually just a victim disarmament zone. Signs and laws do not stop mass murderers like at Virginia Tech and NIU.
Fraternity boys are a very inventive lot, let's make sure we give 'em guns to play with tooDoes it sound like the person who takes the time to get a CHL is going to be in that group? Usually not and if they are, there is nothing to stop them from bringing a firearm into the frats and dorms now.
There are laws against underage drinking, hazing, etc none of those stop the behaviors but we are supposed to believe that the sign saying no guns will be obeyed.
Wait, it is!! By the law abiding.
Most people with CHL are older, more mature and responsible. Over 25% of students in college today are 25 years old or older, most are people returning to advance careers by obtaining a degree or advanced degree. Those are the mature people who will be carrying. NOT the drunken 19 year old frat kids.
Do you think something is wrong with the representative government that doesn't represent the will of the majority of the people?The ability to obtain a majority vote does not give anyone the authority to trample the rights of a minority. What is hard to understand about that MIKEB?
On something like this, shouldn't a straight majority decide?The voice of the majority is no proof of justice. – Johann von SchillerAnd this:
The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. – Albert Gallatin (1789)
"Some years ago legislators decided to make Missouri a "must issue" concealed carry state, which means anyone who is not a convicted felon "must" be issued a concealed carry permit upon request."
ReplyDeleteKinda like how your innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
So, Mike, what parts of the Bill of Rights DO you respect?
"What's your opinion? Will college campuses in Missouri be safer or not?" Utah seems to be doing fine, as is the town just outside all the colleges in the nation where the right to carry is honored.
Is there some Magic line I'm missing that turns a lawful permit holder into a foaming psycho when they cross off of Main St. USA to College Ave? (Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer this question either...but of course you aren't dodging them! *snicker*)
"Do you think something is wrong with the representative government that doesn't represent the will of the majority of the people?"
I think there's a LOT wrong with US citizens totally unaware that we DON'T live in a democracy.
Of course besides a few fringe people, the majorty if Americans are fully supportive of CCW expansion.
Now if only they'd let me carry in the Post Office!
Oh BTW Mike I forgot to point out this:
ReplyDelete"Only Vermont is more lenient than that"
Well like you I know very little about Missouri conceal carry (Just that I can legally carry there)
But unlike you, I'm #1. not talking about Missouri on my blog, and #2. I actually want to not only sound knowledgeable, but BE Knowledgeable.
I know I shouldn't be doing all the legwork for a lazy ass like yourself, but two seconds on Google got me this page.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C571.HTM
I stopped reading after scanning this page:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000111.HTM
So Missouri, is about on par with just about every Shall Issue state, in that a training course of some sort needs to be completed (didn't bother reading the requirements, but that's OK, I'm not writing about Missouri on my blog, and I've already done far more research that you've done)
I got sick of doing research, but I know for a Fact that Vermont and Alaska BOTH require no permits for Conceal carry. New Hampshire requires no safety training of any sort for their permit (I know this because I have a Permit from there and regularly carry there)
I found from "The Gun Guys" (who are paid bloggers from the Joyce Foundation, which is the #1 Bankroller for many anti-2nd Amendment groups like the Violence Policy Center.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=915
That 14 other states also don't require training. I don't trust that number, as they are known and proven liars, but it's worth mentioning.
So I just wanted to point out that you were full of it on that one, Mike, and point out that you just made the quoted line up out of thin air, rather than doing a few MINUETS of research.
This is the AMAZING face of Gun Control!
I don't mind that you're making it an easy fight for us. We shouldn't be having to fight for a inalienable right in the first place.
Some years ago, most US states decided to make themselves "shall issue"-40 states are currently shall issue, with another handful that are effectively shall issue. See http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php for an animated map from 1986 to 2006 detailing the expansion of non-discriminatory CCW.
ReplyDeleteWhen states have discretionary licenses, rich white campaign contributors get licenses. Other people, especially minorities are far less likely to "qualify".
What other type of license should be at the whim of officials?
As far as CCW on campus--Irresponsible frat boys aren't likely to bother with licenses-Many are too young to qualify. Most of those carrying will be older students and the occasional less-liberal staff. People like me...
...and Utah hasn't had blood in the dorms, and they allow campus CCW.
What is the "will of the majority"? I'd say a representative democracy should represent the will of the people, if the people were fully informed on that particular issue. Most people who are against CCW don't care all that much, most who have really looked into the issue support CCW licenses. Should a small majority who are tepidly on one side of an issue but don't really care overrule a large, passionate minority?
let's make sure we give 'em guns to play with too."
ReplyDeleteExcept that this legislation DOES NOT give guns to frat boys. Pure emotional fearmongering.
In fact, it doesn't give guns to anyone.
No retraction? No Correction? No Update?
ReplyDeleteNo integrity, evidently.
Certainly makes our job easier.
Virginia colleges sure were safer before guns were banned on campus.
ReplyDeleteIn Grundy Virginia, a nutjob decided to shoot a dean, a couple of professors and some classmates. He was stopped by two other students with guns.
Then Virginia tech. The madman killed at will until challenged by a cop. Had there been students or faculty with guns in that building or close by, perhaps not as many would have died in that tragedy.
Virginia Tech had banned guns just two weeks prior. Why didn't the gun ban stop the madness? Why do liberals cling to the fantasy that more gun bans will stop this?
Then there are those that claim that if you take away all of the guns, then the idiots will use knives and clubs.
Since "banning" stuff works so well, instead of a gun ban, how about we just put up signs banning murder? Wouldn't that be better. We can just close the murder loophole that way. And since silly laws and signs work so well, we can go the extra mile at schools, malls and other public places and create "massacre free zones".
"On something like this, shouldn't a straight majority decide? "
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what form of government we have in the U.S. Mike?
Serious question BTW.
Three things I think are important to cover:
ReplyDeleteFirst, we don't let a simple majority decide what Constitutional rights we enjoy. A simple majority can't decide that their state won't allow you to speak in favor of gay marriage, or allow a douchebag Klansman to speak against miscegenation. A simple majority of Mississippians can't decide that people can't practice Judaism inside their borders. And a simple majority of Missourians can't decide to ignore the right of sane, law-abiding citizens to bear arms inside _their_ borders. There _is_ a remedy for this: 3/4 of the states can agree to amend the Constitution, stripping us of our fundamental legal right to keep and bear arms. Our nation deliberately makes this kind of thing very hard to do because removing Constitutional protection of a right shouldn't be something you can ddo every time the winds of politics blow a small majority your way; it should (and does) require a strong national consensus. And that consensus doesn't exist when it comes to overturning the Second Amendment.
Second (and I know you already know this, but I think emphasis is needed), this law doesn't "arm" any students. It refrains from disarming them. These are people who've obtained concealed carry permits, and are able to carry them everywhere else. They carry in movie theaters, supermarkets, shopping malls, restaurants, cars, busses, parties in private homes, and (literally) everywhere in between. Disarming them when they cross the line where the campus begins seems a little silly. Framing the issue as "arming students" misrepresents the situation.
Third, The stereotype of the stupid, beer-swilling, irresponsible college student is unhelpful and insulting. We know from experience that college is full of irresponsible jerks, meticulously responsible people, and every gradient in between, just like the rest of the world. CCW permit holders are one of the most responsible, peaceful demographics in the country (with a lower violent crime rate than off-duty cops), and to treat them like booze-addled dumbasses simply because they go to the same kind of school that booze-addled dumbasses go to is prejudicial and unfair.
I think I read that only Vermont was more lenient. Could it have since changed. Could that be? Otherwise I just misunderstood?
ReplyDeleteIs what you're telling me now, Weer'd that, MO is like most but there are now a bunch of them like Vermont even more lenient?
I've said it from the beginning, if you're allowed to carry, it seems foolish to make you disarm to enter the post office or some other government building, especially if that means leaving the gun in the glove compartment where it's more vulnerable to theft.
Yet, I'm not convinced about carrying on college campuses and in churches.
I do agree with those who have said that to characterize the concealed carry guys who would carry on campus as rowdy frat boys is misleading. I can see that would not generally be the case.
Do your own damn research, Mike, I won't be an errand boy for your pro-ignorance site.
ReplyDelete"I've said it from the beginning, if you're allowed to carry, it seems foolish to make you disarm to enter the post office or some other government building, especially if that means leaving the gun in the glove compartment where it's more vulnerable to theft.
Yet, I'm not convinced about carrying on college campuses and in churches."
Care to explain why?
What makes a Church or a College Campus any different?
Because these laws are not "arming" but not mandating disarmament, the PEOPLE are the same. I can walk down Mass Ave in Cambridge all day long and step into ANY building open to the public...EXCEPT the Post Office, and the various Colleges that line that long road. What's the difference between the sidewalk and the Harvard Green? Separated by inches, but a world apart legally?
Also I'm perfectly welcomed in any Church and am not legally obligated to disarm. What's the problem there?
Can I expect for you two answer these questions?
I think I read that only Vermont was more lenient. Could it have since changed. Could that be? Otherwise I just misunderstood?
ReplyDeleteMissouri's laws are actually very standard policy for shall-issue states. Basically, whenever a citizen applies for a permit, the permitting authority is required to issue the permit unless the applicant doesn't meet one of the specific legally disqualifying conditions laid out in the law.
So in Missouri, to deny a permit the sherriff has to say something like "I'm not issuing this permit because you were convicted of a violent misdemeanor in the last five years". By contrast, in New Jersey for example, if I was to apply for a concealed carry permit, my chief of police could (and almost certainly would) say "I don't think you really need that", and deny the permit. You can understand how giving a cop that much discretion over our Constitutional rights disturbs us.
Missouri requires a clean mental health and criminal record, a clean DUI record, checks to see if you've been dishonorably discharged from the military, requires formal safety training, disqualifies known drug addicts (including alcoholics), and actually does give the sherriff a bit of leeway to deny problematic people who still have no convictions (he has to show that the the applicant has "engaged in a pattern of behavior that leads the sheriff reasonably to believe the applicant would be a danger to himself or others".)
This actually makes Missouri a good bit stricter than many other shall-issue states. New Hampshire, for example, doesn't require formal training and has no disqualifying conditions (basically, you get your permit unless you meet one of the conditions under federal law that disqualifies you from posessing a firearm).
I'm guessing your source figured "the four categories are no-issue, discretionary, shall-issue, and no-permit-required Vermont. Since Missouri is shall-issue, the only state more lenient is Vermont..." This is a bit deceptive, since it implies that Missouri is number-two in leniency, when it's actually middlin' on the spectrum in the majority category. And it's a big majority, too; there are currently 38 shall-issue states.
[For the sake of completeness, there are actually two free-carry states: Vermont and Alaska. Alaska also issues permits on a shall-issue basis for citizens who want them, though, so that they can carry in states that honor the permits of non-residents.]
Vermont and Alaska don't require licenses, Alaska has a license available so their citizens can carry in states that have reciprocity agreements.
ReplyDeleteMany states don't require training, others have various training requirements. Florida is credited with being responsible for "modern" CCW, requiring training but issuing based on objective criteria rather than the whim of an official.
States with training generally recognize or enter reciprocity agreements with other states that also require training. States without training will generally recognize all licenses, or will recognize licenses from states that will recognize theirs.
Ohio requires 12 hours of training, with at least 2 of it being at the range firing live ammunition. New Hampshire does not require training, will issue non-resident licenses to anyone with a license from another state, and will enter reciprocity agreements with anyone that will recognize their license. I have a New Hampshire license to cover me in most of the states that don't require training.
Missouri requires 8 hours of training. That is mid-range for states that require training.
There is no evidence that a lack of training results in a higher rate of misuse or accident.
"By contrast, in New Jersey for example, if I was to apply for a concealed carry permit, my chief of police could (and almost certainly would) say "I don't think you really need that", and deny the permit. You can understand how giving a cop that much discretion over our Constitutional rights disturbs us. "
ReplyDeleteRemember, Mike wants Tasers taken away from police officers because they "might abuse them" but discressionary powers to deny a protected right is 100% OK and won't be abused.
This is the "logic" we're dealing with.
I wasn't here for the TASER discussion, but FWIW I think they're complicated. If cops use them only in situations where they'd otherwise be using a gun, mazel tov. A crime stopped and a life saved.
ReplyDeleteWhen cops use TASERS in situations where deadly force isn't justified, though, that concerns me. I'm not especially comfortable with the idea of cops casually using pain compliance and incapacitating citizens. It seems easily open to abuse, and like it makes it too easy to suppress non-violent disobedience.
Tasers aren't "Pain Complaiance" they short-circuit the neuro-muscular connection and cause the target's muscles to spasm for a short amount of time (This DOES hurt like hell I've heard....but it hurts LESS than pepper spray which IS more-or-less "Pain compliance" with a few bonuses like diminished lung capacity, and diminished breathing). You fall down and stop fighting no matter WHAT you may want to do, and no matter how many pain-killing drugs are in your system.
ReplyDeleteOf course once the current is stopped muscle control is quickly regained. If the target is not restrained at this time they may continue the fight.
This is why it's a GREAT tool for law enforcement, as it allowed minimal contact between the officer and the suspect, both for the officer's protection and for the suspect's protection, and can eliminate more phyical means of restraint such as choke-holds and baton holds/strikes, that can often cause server injury.
They make really lousy civilian self-defense tools tho, as you only have a single shot (if it misses or one or both of the darts fail to contact the skin or break contact, the taser becomes useless) and your time for escape before the attacker is able to continue the fight is mere seconds.
Mike of course was having an issue with an unarmed but violent suspect who was resisting arrest and was tasered, and because of the drugs in his system he died.
Mike wanted to take all tasers away because of this "Abuse" but didn't care much to discuss what police SHOULD do in such a scenario.
But again, Mike hates police when they're arresting violent criminals, but roots for them when they're hasseling lawful people because they want to posess an item Mike wants banned.
His morals are 100% subjective to his agenda.
Criminal kills people with a gun, he's an example of why we need to ban guns. Violent criminal gets killed by a lawful person with a gun, the criminal was a gentle little snowflake, and the defender is a killer enacting street justice because of feeling of inadequices/racism/whatever.
Logic has left the building!
When talking of pain compliance, I'm referring to the drive stun function found on many police Tasers, which is marketed by the manufacturer as a pain-compliance tool.
ReplyDeleteStill no retraction on MikeB's misinformation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a propaganda site, little more.
"This is a propaganda site, little more."
ReplyDeleteWell of course Weer'd.
Who was it that said,
"Gun Control cannot survive without an accompanying sea of misinformation."