Alphecca

Not in school ... but requiring non-governmental institutions to allow people to carry weapons concealed or otherwise? Seems a bit big government N(ational) R(epublican) A(ssociates) style doesn't it? I mean ... what's next? Making the Boy Scouts accept those who, among a multitude of other attributes, prefer same gender sex?

Tut tut.

Sounds like a bad bill, though I'm not opposed to the idea in principle if applied to public entities open to the public. Applying it to "churches, day care-centers and homes" or even private universities is an outrageous intrusion on private citizens.

I am mindful of the general foolishness of college students, but I also believe there is an argument against requiring, say, permitted delivery people to "check their guns at the door", as it were. So if a bill could be written that would allow the (public) university to keep students from doing so if it chose but did not interfere with the general public's right to carry, that might be good. Sounds like a very difficult bill to write, though.

BTW, for someone who claims to take weekends off, you're sure posting a lot. Rock on, buddy.

I thought about this a lot a few semesters ago. My conclusion was that the kids that would be prone to doing something stupid while drunk (or sober for that matter) wouldn't be the ones carrying. Most kids my age that carry or enjoy shooting demonstrate a greater sense of responsibility and respect for guns then most, as far as I can tell. Think back to when Castleton State College students were known to bring their rifles to school on Fridays during hunting season. Not exactly CC, but I don't recall hearing about any shootings then. College students are dumb, but not that dumb.

The law says if you're 21 you can have a carry permit. If you think 21 isn't old enough, change the law. But be careful, or soon you won't be able to drink before your 32. If you can prohibit guns from dorms, can you do the same from public housing? (And do you think it would work?) Can any landlord or homeowners association ban guns, or just the government? Why not prohibit guns from everywhere? Oops, this is the WRONG position about guns.

As things now stand, people who work for universities can't carry. I did a whole litany of the failure of restraining orders recently. One of them involved a woman who was killed on a college campus - she worked there - by her ex. She was disarmed by law. He ignored the law and shot her - in violation of several gun restrictions. So who did the gun-free zone protect? Him, or her?

And if you look around, you will notice that not all universities are set in pastoral rural settings. Some are in pretty tough sections of major cities. Muggings, rapes, all manor of violent crimes are committed on campuses every year. Should we just say, "Tough, as a student you give up your right to self-defense?" Or we'll grant you the right, just not the means.

Either you believe in concealed carry for everyone who meets the critera, or we go back to "may issue."

And do you really think the 21 year old studying engineering at Ohio State is less responsible than the 21 yr-old HS drop-out? Or do you just think 21 is too young?

I had a lot to say ont his, but I see Zendo Deb beat me to it.
AND
Expressed my opinon much better than I ever could.

I'm all for folks of legal age being able to carry, no matter if the "where" is an airport, a church or a campus. We can scare ourselves to death with a bad case of the "what ifs" in ANYTHING.

Don't make the good the enemy of the perfect. It's better for folks of legal age to be armed than not IF they choose.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As a suporter of property rights I think that any owner of a Church, day-care center or home may restrict who may carry on their property.

As for drunken 21 year olds, we allow 18 year old to enter the military, they could receive the death penalty, enter contracts, get married, and vote so why no allow 21 year olds to CCW.

BTW, those same 18 to 20 year olds can not drink legally, not that that ever stopped me ;-)

I'm inclined to agree with those who think this IS a good idea. When I was in school, the local nasties regularly preyed on college students coming home at night. Several young women were raped as well as mugged, and a few were killed. We were forbidden to keep anything with which we could defend ourselves, and I for one resented the hell out of it.

The age of responsibility keeps getting pushed back, and then we're surprised when the people failing to be responsible seem to be older and older. Imagine.

Tell the students it's about "choice".

It's only the "must allow" part that bugs me. If it's someone's private property, the gov't has no right to tell them they have to allow someone to carry a gun on it. As much as it bugs me when I see those "NO CCW" signs in stores, I respect that they are perfectly within their rights to refuse service to anyone they please.

Just take out the parts of the CCW law that PROHIBIT carrying in churches, gov't buildings, schools etc, and we'll be doing alright.

I've read through the RCW on this area several times, and I haven't found anything that prohibits CCW on public university campuses in the state of WA. I've carried myself on the UW campus a couple of times. Of the public universities in WA state, UW (Seattle), UW-Tacoma, and Western WA U are in urban areas.

I haven't noticed any reports of wild shootouts on university property in Washington state.

As far as forcing non-government entities to allow CCW, that's wrong. Property owners should be able to bar whatever behavior they like.

Oh, and WA law allows CCW permit holders to carry their pistols inside the state capitol as well. A bill to change this died in committee, despite the Dems controlling both houses of the Legislature and the office of the Former Attorney General.

Speaking as a fully qualified firearms instructor who lives in Ohio, I'd have to say that most of the people who commented are missing one very important component of the Ohio CCW law. The state doesn't simply issue CCW licenses due to age. The applicant must first take and pass an approved firearms safety course. The course must include a minimum of 2 hours of range time.

It appears that the major objection expressed in the comments is about how the law will allow people qualified for a CCW license, but who never actually applied, will be given a pass if caught with a gun. The assumption seems to have been that any irresponsible 21 year old, prone to drinking and wild behavior, would be able to pack a firearm. This is simply not true.

I'm 41 years old and a current student at the Columbus campus of the Ohio State University. (I'm working on my Ba in Military History.) For 13 years I've run a charity where I teach victims of violent crime self defense skills. The majority of my 600+ students have come from the university area.

I'm very supportive of my students, and I've devoted my entire life to reducing the chance of violence. I don't see anything wrong with removing the rstrictions on carrying a firearm on campus.

James

Heartless,

You'd better do a bit more reading, as you're putting yourself in a very bad situation. Washington State law provides that institutions of higher learning may determine their own rules regarding permitting CCW. Guess what?
.
.
.
Big surprise--they virtually all ban CCW. No shocker that UW seems the most gun-hostile, banning: (e) Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the university campus, except for authorized university purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the vice president for student affairs, or any other person designated by the president of the university;By slight contrast, Western is a little more lenient: (2) Other than the law enforcement officers or other individuals referenced in subsection (1) of this section, members of the campus community and visitors who bring firearms or other weapons to campus must immediately place the firearms or weapons in the university-provided storage facility. The storage facility is located at the university public safety department and is accessible twenty-four hours per day.Eastern and Central have very similar provisions.
And again no surprise that, as best I can tell from a few moment's browsing (IANAL and most definitely TINLA), WSU is the most lenient of all: (1) No student may carry, possess, or use any firearm, explosive, dangerous chemical, or dangerous weapon (including, but not limited to, shotguns, rifles, pistols, airguns, pellet guns, longbows, hunting bows, throwing weapons, etc.) on university property except in transit to or from approved storage, to leave campus, or when authorized by the university. (2) Any student who wants access to his or her firearm while enrolled at the university must store the firearm with the Washington State University Department of Public Safety.The most interesting part of my little tour through the WAC is that, whereas I assumed that Evergreen State would be the most anti-gun of all, it turns out that their conduct statement is so new-agey and loosey-goosey that I think they forgot to mention the evil devices! Heh!

"Private property" doesn't trump laws or basic civil rights. As a trivial example, private property to which the general public has access is required to have fire extinguishers, marked exits, emergency lighting, doors of a certain width, handicapped access ramps, etc etc.

You can't violate animal welfare laws just because the dog you feel like beating to death is in your own back yard. You can't say that the institution of slavery is OK so long as your slaves don't leave your house. In some states you are required to have, and use, seatbelts, even though you're in your own car. Your house is built according to building codes which apply to private property, and those are non-optional. You can't have child porno photos even though they're on your own personal computer. Try pouring large amounts of dangerous industrial chemicals down your drain and see if the local water authority doesn't come a-knockin'.

Your own behaviour is not free of law or regulation on your own property, nor should it be. And businesses are very restricted in their options as well, as they should be. Try putting up a "Negros will not be served" sign in the local diner, and watch the fireworks.

big dirigible highlights my counter-example, but uses it as an assumed good supporting the imposition of CCW on private property. I'm more inclined, however, to say that I have no problem at all with a private business discriminating against whomever it chooses for whatever reason (race, CCW, sex, shoe size, etc.), as long as it is open in such so I may make an informed decission on whether or not to patronize their establishment.

If you don't want to server black people, for whatever misguided reason, that's fine by me. Just understand you're also giving up a lot of business from non-blacks who simply don't want to implicitly support your biggotry. Likewise, if you explicitly prohibit CCW customers you are makign a choice to loose their business (as well as freely advertising to the bad guys that your customers are easy marks). After all, if liberty and freedom doesn't include the freedom to be an idiot and do stupid things with your own property it doesn't mean much.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the stipulation that one must to allow weapons into their home. I'm a gun owner, but in the same way that I want others to respect my right to own a gun and carry it if I wish, I think that a man's home is his castle, and the law should support him in keeping it gun-free if he wishes.

Have any of you actually read the bill in question? I think not.

The bill does not legalize carrying a firearm on school premises, in school buildings, nor at school functions. There is essentially no change other than that you don't need a CHL to carry legally within 1000 feet of school premises, school buildings, or school functions.

I moved from a state where you could carry up to the schoolhouse door. There are several states that have no prohibition on CHL holders carrying firearms into schools. If such behavior actually leads to increased violence, couldn't those supporting banning bring forth numerous examples of unlawful violence? Wouldn't the states repeal their laws allowing it?

Gee. Doesn't seem to be happening. The conclusion that it is dangerous to allow CHLs in schools looks to be in error. What does that say about the assumptions and/or logic behind banning?

Neither does the bill prevent churches or daycares from banning. It just removes churches and daycares from being automatically banned. Just like most states that have "shall issue" CCW laws.

And nothing about the bill prevents private individuals from banning on their own property.

Do some research. Read HB 91 for yourself.