Yes, those guys and gals driving around with “Campus Police” on their car doors are real cops. And in Texas, they are armed.
In Texas, law enforcement departments on college campuses seem to be ahead of this trend, with nearly 94 percent of surveyed universities arming their police and just as many employing sworn officers.
In Texas, 44 of the 47 universities surveyed have armed officers, compared with about two-thirds of universities nationwide. But only four Texas schools reported giving their police Tasers, compared with 20 percent nationally.
No Tasers? Hmm. That’s probably a good thing given the tendency shown by officers around the nation to overuse them. But what about those guns?
“Texas is Texas: We are a state that has firearms,” said Bill Taylor, chief of police at Rice University, which has sworn and armed officers. “If you don’t have firearms on campus, what are the campus police going to do if somebody shows up with a weapon?”
Well….why not allow students with CHL’s to carry their weapons on campus? Think about the lives that could be saved. In fact, Friend-o-LST Rorschach introduced a resolution at his precinct convention to do just that and it passed, moving on to the next level.
Whereas: The right to self defense is absolute and granted by God. The second amendment of the US Constitution recognizes and affirms the God given right of the individual to arm themselves against aggression.
Whereas: “Gun Free Zones” have time and again proven to be magnets for the misfits of society that wish to kill large numbers of unarmed people as a means of gaining posthumous notoriety. Because law abiding people will not arm themselves in violation of the law but criminals have no such compunction.
Whereas: The state has usurped the right to self defense by instituting rules governing the possession of weapons on the grounds of schools and college campuses, by individuals with Concealed Handgun Licenses. Such rules impair the ability of teachers, administrators, and college students to protect themselves and others in the event that a gunman attempts to use the school as a killing field.
Whereas: Numerous instances of a CHL holder halting such rampages before the gunman can complete his plan exist, including Pearl Mississippi High School, Appalachian Law School, and others.
Therefore Be it Resolved:
The Harris County Republican Party calls for the passage of legislation that eliminates the restriction of trained and licensed CHL permit holders from arming themselves on the grounds of a school or university, and withholds all state funding for schools that implement local rules that prevent the carrying of licensed concealed weapon on school or university grounds.
Not bad. Let’s get this thing passed on March 29 and move it on to the state level.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
30 Responses to “Campus Cops Packing Heat Not Enough”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Got my vote. Sounds good to me
Won’t matter much if Hillary or Obama are able to pass what they want in terms of gun control.
#2 Which brings us back to the presidential race. The SCOTUS, as it stands now, would rule unconstitutional any attempt to further erode the 2nd Amendment. With the next president most likely appointing two, maybe three justices, who do you want in the White House, Obamillary or McCain? (rhetorical question; I know where duhmoose comes down) I may be ignorant but I ain’t stupid.
hamous, but you can’t vote for McCain because he actually has Democrat friends and goes on trip to foreign countries with them.
This reminds me of a story I read somewhere. Don’t know if it’s true, but it teaches a lesson:
*******
A Texan was visiting her New Yorker friends (ed note: they must have been related or there must have been a work reason, else why else would a Texan be in New York?). One day on the subway, a man started going nuts, brandishing a weapon and threatening to shoot everyone in sight. He finally exited the car, and the three women sighed in relief. “It’s a good thing I had my cell phone,” one New Yorker said, “I would have called 911 if he had actually started shooting!”
The Texan looked at her strangely, and drawled,”Wayull, in Texas, if he had acted like thayut, I would’ve pulled out my gun and shot him before he killed anyone!”
*******
It’s hard to call 911 with bullet in your brain, eh? I think this gun carry resolution should also apply to buses and all public places, except courthouses and police stations. Those places already have armed security of one kind or another, and I wouldn’t want the friend of some thug smuggling a gun in.
This resolution is a step in the right direction, and I will certainly support it on the 29th.
The trouble is, it’s a quick fix, not a permanent one. The original laws that made it illegal to carry a concealed firearm are just as offensive to the 2nd ammendment as the ones that establish “gun free zones.”
The thought that a citizen MIGHT legally have a concealed weapon is a deterrant, albeit a small one, to some criminal intent on commiting a crime with an ILLEGAL weapon in certain currently outlawed areas like schools. I remember when banks banned legally concealed weapons from their premises but dropped that when the possiblity of being sued by a customer who could have defended himself and the other bank customers became a victim at a bank robbery. Look, criminals don’t play by the rules so why are we hindering people from protecting themselves trying to play by the rules.
Yeah, but they’re all angry fat slobs that don’t know how to shoot, with an IQ just above retarded.
/sarc
The trouble with our gun laws is we always pass legislation that affects honest people, not criminals. Honest folks with guns do not carry in places where guns are prohibited, criminal do.
Honest folks do not have firearms that are prohibited, criminals do.
Criminals like the legislature defining places where guns are not allowed, it gives them a target rich environment without risk.
Pretty similar to the one I introduced in Montgomery County.
RESOLUTION
TO PERMIT CAMPUS CARRY OF LISCENSED CONCEALED HANDGUNS
Whereas students in attendance of an institution of higher education, who possess a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) are forbidden to carry a concealed handgun on college campuses; and
Whereas institutions of higher learning have a “no-gun zone” policy in effect; and
Whereas criminals, aware of the policies forbidding Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders from carrying their handguns on campus; and
Whereas there have been numerous recent school shootings take place; and
Whereas responsible Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders should have the ability to protect themselves while attending an institution of higher learning; and
Whereas studies have shown that in areas where concealed carry is allowed, violent crime rates are reduced; therefore
Be it resolved that we urge the Texas Legislature to enact legislation allowing Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders the ability to carry a concealed handgun on college campuses
Passed the precinct convention onto the Senatorial convention March 29.
Remeber the 2006 platform included passage of the Castle Doctrine and Jessica’s law. Both passed last year.
How do we citizens help get these right-to-defend ourselves resolutions passed?
Vote affirmative when they come up at your convention.
It will get my vote on the 29th in Montgomery County. Saoder, hope to see ya there!
Bravo!
Liberals always think that paper is as effective as enforcement.
Passing bills and ordinances (paper) is NOT the same as enforcing existing laws. Although it makes the legislators feel better, it does nothing to solve the problem. They all suffer from the “they’ll do as we say, right?” syndrome, also known as the HUTA (head up the a–) syndrome. Doctors cannot cure this medical problem, only voters with backbone can.
Outlaws are not afraid of being hit with a sheaf of pressed wood pulp with ink on it. However, a piece of metal screaming through the air aimed at sensitive parts of the body gives them pause.
Let’s be sure I’ve got this straight. Mr. BJ is afraid of law enforcement officers having scary looking guns but is OK with CHL civilians packing? If you want to pack and are certified, go for it. If you are a LEO, get all the firepower you can. Remember Charles Whitman at UT - the police were out gunned. How many others, including todays border sheriffs, are out gunned. It’s serious out there folks.
Anybody thinks the Austin crowd will ever allow CHL firearms on any campus in Texas is day dreaming.
That illegal carry privilege is reserved for mass murders and the criminally insane.
I understand the mind set that hopes McCain will nominate conservative judges. I just don’t see any proof in his actions, except he tells us he will, when he is president. Sorry, he’s running for office. It’s like Obama’s folks calling Canada to tell them not to worry about what Obama says, it’s just what he has to do to get elected. If you believe only the dems use those tactics…. I’ve got a bridge I want to sell ya in Arizona.
AW, it’s like this, you can vote for Osama Obama or Shrillary, and KNOW they won’t appoint conservative judges or vote for McCain and hope he might.
It ain’t much of a chance at conservatism, but it is something, beats no chance at all.
Bob42, baby steps my friend, baby steps….
Clayton Cramer had an interesting post up today that fits with this pretty well:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_03_09_archive.html#1716479404531978245
Quoting the meat of the post:
The two great Laws of humane Society, from whence all the rest derive their Course and Obligation, are those of Equity and Self-preservation: By the First, all Men are bound alike not to hurt one another ; and by the Second, all Men have a Right alike to defend themselves: Nam jure hoc evenit ut quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit, jure secisse exitstimetur, says the Civil Law; that is, “it is a Maxim of the Law, that whatever we do in the Way, and for the Ends of Self defence, we lawfully do;” all the Laws of Society are entirely reciprocal, and no Man ought to be exempt from their Force; and whoever violates this primary Law of Nature, ought by the Law of Nature to be destroyed. He who observes no Law, forfeits all Title to the Protection of Law. It is Wickedness not to destroy a Destroyer; and all the ill Consequences of Self defence are chargeable upon him occasioned them. [John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters (London: W. Wilkins, T. Woodward, J. Walthoe, and J. Peele, 1723), 2:256-7]
AW, one thing you can say about McCain, he seems to back up what he says, whether we like it or not. I don’t think he’s been real shy about saying what he thinks and acting on his promises.
Look voting for pres is a personal decision. A supreme court judge must be approved…remember what we have gone through in the past. I may change my mind by November. Like I said, it’s early. But right now… I’d rather skip the box, and take my chances with Hil for 4 years. Obama might force me to vote McCain. If I vote for the pseudo-conservative, then I am to blame for helping him gain his office. Every time he does something I detest, I will know I sacrificed my principles out of fear. Both parties are too powerful.
AW, yes, any appointment has to be approved by the Senate, but you also need to look at the makeup of the Senate as well. There are enough democrats there that if Shill or Osama propose somebody that is the modern day analog of Stalin or Mao, then you can bet your bippy that they’ll rubber stamp them into the Supreme court post haste. Anybody McCain proposes will have a long row to hoe, I admit. But we need to remember that we (and our grandkids) will be living with the results of those appointments for the next 70-100 years, not just 4. We really need to think about this thoroughly before we do something rash. Remember the DC vs Heller case? That is the first time since 1939 that the supreme court has revisited the 2nd Amendment. We have lived in the shadow of US vs Miller for the last 69 years. How long will we have to live in the shadow of Roe Vs Wade? Or Kelo Vs New London? or any of the thousands of other reprehensible decisions that can be laid at the feet of the democrats and their appointments?
#23, Yes I know it’s a pickle. In Texas we had 3 non-binding resolutions attached to our ballot. They passed by 92-94%. Maybe we Texans are cutting edge, or maybe we share sentiment with the other states citizens. If I were a smart Republican who needed to keep his seat, or If I were a Republican trying to take an incumbent Dem’s seat…. I’d start talking about those three items. I think it’s important to take the senate and house.
I know there aren’t all that many we can take, but we need to take every one that’s available.
Amen sister.
Every time a law has been passed that allowed ordinary citizens to carry or possess firearms, the predicted carnage has not occured. If laws are passed that would make the public possession of a firearm while under the influence a felony level crime, that should prevent 99.99% of the same honest citizens from drinking and carrying firearms. The other .01% could slip over into the non honest citizen category, but that’s the breaks for them. You don’t infringe on the rights of honest citizens because dishonest citizens abuse their rights.
And for anybody who wants to to bring up the silly red herring of the Patriot Act, I challenge you to show me what rights we’ve lost, and what rights have been infringed upon.
Good luck with that request! All you’ll get are nebulous rantings like, “Just because we haven’t personally lost rights doesn’t mean they haven’t been taken away!”
Know of a better description for this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IZlcbJwfP4
I’m perfectly fine with campus cops carrying whatever they want…just as long as civilian CHL holders are allowed to do the same.