Option not to carry a firearm

[Doc Hoy]

I could probably read this in one of the posts here but I don't have that kind of time. My question is at the end of the post. If you want to skip all of the BS, just go directly to it.

I am an academic administrator at a university. Shootings on college campuses and school property have inserted themselves into our consciousness.

All school administrators live in fear of the day they will get the call.

We are all scrambling to embrace many different aspects of Emergency Response policy. This includes the decision to permit legal and authorized weapons in our classrooms.

First of all, let me say that I am a 26 year veteran of the U.S. Navy. An avid blackpowder shooter. I have sixteen weapons in my home. I have both a healthy respect and a fairly complete lack of fear of firearms properly handled.

But I have established the policy that we will not permit any weapons to be carried by our students on our campus unless they are authorized specifically by us. That means that those desiring to carry a weapon must prove tous that there is a documented and valid reason for the carry.

I have included in this policy that we will only permit police officers who happen to be students to carry their service weapon when they can show me documentation that makes it mandatory for them to do so. That would include some form of identification as a police officer, the general order to police officers which governs the time and nature of the carry, such as, "I will carry my sidearm at all times when I am in a duty status." and some indication that they meet all of that criteria. (A watchbill or some such.)

I have done a little research and I can find no law enforcement body which includes in any general order a requirement to carry the weapon at all times, only at all times when on duty. However I have met many overzealous or overimaginative young officers who incorrectly interpret their guidance using it as an excuse to bring the weapon with them.

You might ask why I am so uptight about it. The answer is simple. This is Virginia. It is very easy to acquire a weapon (which I am in favor of) and motivation for purchase is never really checked. I f I permit police officers to carry a weapon onto the campus even at times when they are not mandated by their policy, then I am powerless to argue that non police officers may not carry.

I told you there was a question. Here it is.

Do any of you know of any law enforcement, security, or intelligence service which requires, and I mean requires and not authorizes, their officers to carry the weapon at all times?

Tnx,

[Sevens]

then I am powerless to argue that non police officers may not carry.

As well you should be, IMO. I can't quite wrap my head around why you should have judgment and "power" over any free, law abiding American citizen.

Can we agree for a moment that if there is a wacko that intends to do random or specific violent acts that the policy out of your administrative office isn't likely on his checklist over breakfast the morning of his planned massacre?

Are you to be the one rushing to the aid of all the free and law abiding citizens in a lecture hall if some off his rocker lunatic opens fire... or, perhaps, is simply swinging a machete and spritzing gasoline all over the room?

[Kyo]

all of them. you aren't effective unless you are armed. You should know that yourself if you are military. Sometimes, to make people alright with things, they are given "choices"
You can "choose" to not carry. Or you can "choose" to. There is no choice. It is mandatory already sugar coated with the "option" of not.

[alloy]

Shootings on college campuses and school property have inserted themselves into our consciousness. All school administrators live in fear of the day they will get the call.
We are all scrambling to embrace many different aspects of Emergency Response policy. This includes the decision to permit legal and authorized weapons in our classrooms.

That means that those desiring to carry a weapon must prove tous that there is a documented and valid reason for the carry.

Im lost, doesn't the first part automatically prove the documented and valid reason part? Why is a further official okee-dokee required when professors are scrambling and have decided to permit legal weapons? Or are you guys the legal part?

[maustypsu]

To answer your question "No" I'm not.

To answer the rest of your 'BS', as you called it, this really hurts my head to read.

Are you asking someone to not carry when they are entering a place that you, yourself are scared of?

Does anyone have any FACTS as to what percent of those school shootings were done by someone who was carrying legally???

Trust me prof, if someone is willing to break a law as serious as mass murder, they are willing to break a law that disallows carrying. So your campus rule isn't going to stop them.

It isn't the person who visits his sheriff and follows all the rules of carry that you have to worry about. In fact, one of them may save your life some day.

[Sevens]

Many of us call the "gun free zones" CPZ's. Read that as "criminal protection zones." These are the places where folks who don't break laws are not allowed to carry firearms, but wackos, murderers, rapists and crazy violent types need not worry about anyone defending themselves with a firearm since the good normal people aren't allowed. (because of administrators and such)

The bad guys carry whenever and where ever they want. The don't read signs and they don't heed laws and rules and regulations.

Last I heard, murdering people in cold blood was already against the law, but the existence of such laws hasn't stopped people from murdering in cold blood. How an educated person believes that keeping his beloved campus free of firearms by only the people with no criminal record and licensed by the state is going to keep his campus safer from law-breaking wackos and violent sociopaths is, well, hard to understand.

People who put such rules in to place should be held personally accountable for tying the hands of free people behind their backs and forcing them to be victims.

All school administrators live in fear of the day they will get the call.

Here's a short dose of reality: While you and your cronies live in fear of the day "you get the call", your students live in fear of the day that some imbalanced nut comes in to your gun-free zone and shoots them in the back while you sit in leather chair and make revisions to your campus policy book.

[Kyo]

+1 for sevens...pretty much nailed it

[Sevens]

To get my concealed handgun license in Ohio, I had to prove to the state that I had no felonies on my record. That I had no prior history of mental illness. That I have had no drug convictions. That I had no personal protection/restraining orders levied against me and no history of domestic violence. I had to complete a proficiency course including 12 hours of training that I paid for. I had to show the state every address I've ever had since the day I turned 18 years old, so they could look for skeletons in my closet. I had to submit fingerprints to prove this as well.

Many states are similar to this when licensing it's citizens to carry concealed.

Fact is, if you have 10 random people that you nothing whatsoever about, but you know that one of them is licensed by the state to carry concealed, you automatically know all that I've listed above, or at least whatever criteria your state has for getting the license.

[christcorp]

Doc; to answer your question; the answer is: "It depends". It depends on the state and local agencies on whether they require their officers to carry at all times. In the town I live in, the officers; including state patrol; are expectedto carry at all times unless they are out of area (Which can mean even 1 town away) on vacation. But if they are "Subject to Call", then they are expected to carry 24/7. Again; each agency is different.

Now, to the MORE IMPORTANT question that I HAVE. Can you tell me 1 person on your or other college campus, that had a LEGAL CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS permit and went on a shooting spree? I'm not talking about someone who had a legal firearm. I'm talking about someone who had a legal CCW permit. I can not for the life of me understand where you see problems with students who are LICENSED to carry a concealed weapon; being on the campus. The unfortunate situation in Virginia months ago had absolutely NOTHING to do with any students having a concealed weapon permit. And while hind site really sucks; it's almost 100% guarantee than if some student had been legally carrying a concealed weapon, that maybe the situation would have turned out a lot better. It almost definitely couldn't have turned out any worse.

Bottom line is that I; having served 21 years in the military; and something you should understand and appreciate; do not like being punished for something I MIGHT DO!!! I also don't like being punished for something someone else did. In other words, punish those who break the law. Don't punish those because they MIGHT. Our country assumes innocence until proven guilty. If you can show me where a set number of students who were LEGALLY carrying a concealed weapon, had inappropriately used that weapon in a crime of any kind; then you'd have my fullest support. But if you can't tell me when LEGALLY concealed weapon carrying students committed a crime while concealing a weapon, then you have absolutely no right to punishing students and taking away their rights simply because of what they MIGHT do. Especially when you have no way of taking similar appropriate actions on those who WILL ILLEGALLY carry a weapon on your campus anyway. If someone wants to come onto your campus with a gun and cause havoc, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

However; if your college started a "Shooting" club/class; that was taught by law enforcement agencies; along with other self defense classes such as Aikido, you would make major progress. The students would respect these classes. They would fill up faster than you could teach them. You could make them part of the "Criminal Justice" department; (Assuming your school has a Criminal Justice program). Over time, your school, it's students, and faculty would respect guns, gun owners, and carrying weapons. Crime would go down. Young ladies walking campus late at night would be safer just by the fact that a rapist wouldn't know if you was one of the students armed or not. Psycho students, even in their delusion, would analyze the numerous scenarios of armed students/faculty prior to one of their episodes. And those who take the class, successfully pass it, get a concealed weapons permit, etc...., and maybe are the highest ranking in the class; could be part of a campus citizen on patrol type of system.

There are so many options. But to close your eyes and bury your head in the sand is irresponsible. There isn't one thing that you or similar schools and faculty are promoting that would have eliminated the possibility of what happened in Virginia. However, there are so many possibilities that could have made it less deadly. And that includes a student body that knows how to protect themselves. In our society at one time, all men knew how to protect themselves. They also knew how to protect their families and their property. As time went on and we became more "Civilized"; most forgot hot to protect themselves. They believed that either the police would do it for them, (The supreme court has ruled that it is NOT THE POLICE's job to PROTECT the individual), or that our society has become compassionate enough that crime doesn't really exist. And instead, we like to blame guns, society, a person's family, etc... instead of holding the individual accountable. If your students knew how to protect themselves; and guns weren't demonized as evil; then your college and others wouldn't even have these problems. Best of luck to you.

[Dubs]

Originally Posted by christcorp

Bottom line is that I; having served 21 years in the military; and something you should understand and appreciate; do not like being punished for something I MIGHT DO!!! I also don't like being punished for something someone else did. In other words, punish those who break the law. Don't punish those because they MIGHT.

That is actually the philosophy behind background checks. People get barred from purchasing firearms long before they go on a spree or even do anything illegal (mental illness). Early detection is not an exact science.

Not that I'm supporting gun bans, but that might be oversimplification there. Determining how "dangerous" someone is is incredibly complicated. I've met incredibly violent people from all places with all sorts of backgrounds.

[christcorp]

I actually don't have a problem with a certain level or accountability. Just like driving; while it's not a right like the 2nd amendment; driving does require a license. And so it should. Not a license to own a car; anyone can own a car. Just a license to drive it on a public road. In just about every state in the country; an individual is allowed to buy a car and drive it on their private property all they want without a drivers license. Because just about ALL STATES have Instant Background checks; I have no problem. When it took 3 days; I was against that. Why? Because firearms are a right. However, there are some rights that do need to be curbed at times. Free speech is also one of them. Well, guns are one right that can have immediate consequences to others. So I am not for permits. But I have no problem with an instant background check. And concealed carry is not a right, so having a permit for that is totally permissible. Open carry on the other hand should never be restricted from a person authorized to own a gun. Some states don't allow that. That should not be allowed.

[Sevens]

I am not following your argument as to why concealed carry should be regulated but open carry should not. Please explain.

[Dubs]

I'm afraid I don't follow either. I don't see anything about weapon visibility in the 2nd amendment, but I do agree with the rest. My own interpretation - as everyone has their own - is that the background checks fall into the "regulated Militia" part, i.e., anyone you would kick out of the military for being too unstable to bear arms would not be allowed to carry in general.

[chris in va]

and motivation for purchase is never really checked

True. But prohibitions only restrain the law abiding.

If a student really wants to carry and go against school policy, they'll do it anyway. If caught they'll get expelled, at least in Virginia anyway.

You're aware that carry is allowed in Utah, right? Heard of any mass shootings there?

[KyJim]

Metro police in our area get the privilege of using their cruisers during off-duty hours in the county. In turn, they are expected to take appropriate action in the event of an emergency. I've heard of off-duty police dropping off family members riding in the cruiser in order to respond to emergency calls. To that extent, I would say they are "required" to carry if they want the benefit of driving their cruisers.

As much as I disagree with the logic of disallowing carry by any lawfully CCL holder, I am astounded you also want to disarm police officers. Police officers are legally in a different category than non-LEO CCL holders.

[Dubs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129021/

[christcorp]

Any law; no matter what it is; is intended to keep honest people honest. Obviously, open carried is publicly known. You know who has a gun and who doesn't. Again, assuming we're dealing with honest people. I have no problem with the 2nd amendment being limited to people who have not committed a felony and so on. With concealed carry, the populous; especially private establishments; have no idea of who is armed and who isn't. A private business has the right to not allow a weapon in his store/shop. That is his/her right of property. The right to keep and bear arms is a public right. I believe you have the right (Assuming you aren't a felon and so on) to bear arms. That is a right that is done in public. When a weapon is concealed, you very well could be carrying it places where the owner of that place may prefer that you didn't. However; being it's concealed; they may never know. Having a permit to carry concealed gives a level of assurance, should the reason arise, that the person with the permit is a trustworthy person. Again; laws are only to maintain order and to keep honest people honest. A bad guy will conceal all he/she wants and no law can change that. The permit isn't for the person carrying the weapon. The permit is for the other citizens, law enforcement agencies, and others who may at one time or another become involved with the carrier, to acknowledge their trustworthiness. In open carry, the citizenry, law enforcement, and others are aware that you are carrying and can exercise their rights and needs accordingly.

And as I said, I am for a certain level of accountability. And a concealed weapons permit is a level of accountability. Similar to a drivers license, it states that you have been trained in the safe carrying and handling of weapons; and that you know where you can and can't carry it. In open carry, it doesn't matter if you're an idiot. Others can use their judgment to avoid you or not allow you to enter their property. That is their right. And your rights do not over ride someone else's rights when it deals with their property or business. But concealed carry automatically carries with it mis perception. As such, putting the burden of responsibility on the person carrying is acceptable in my opinion.

P.S. Let's not let this topic run away. I am very curious as to why the OP "Doc" is so against college students legally being trained and obtaining a concealed weapons permit and carrying a weapon on college campus. I am not aware of any college campus shootings that were done by someone legally carrying concealed. If there were, I'd definitely like to know. However, a concealed carrier in a number of college campus tragedies could have been minimized or thwarted all together.

[Dubs]

Oh yeah, we derailed fast. To answer the OP's question, I have not heard of a law enforcement agency that requires its officers to carry off-duty.

[kraigwy]

Do any of you know of any law enforcement, security, or intelligence service which requires, and I mean requires and not authorizes, their officers to carry the weapon at all times?

It is the policy of the Anchorage Police Department ( or was when I was a member, Mar 74- Mar 94) that officers carry at all times within the third judicial District of Alaska.

[pax]

Doc,

Just hang a sign on the entrance to the campus that says, "No mass murders allowed." That will stop them!

Originally Posted by Sevens

Here's a short dose of reality: While you and your cronies live in fear of the day "you get the call", your students live in fear of the day that some imbalanced nut comes in to your gun-free zone and shoots them in the back while you sit in leather chair and make revisions to your campus policy book.

Repeated for truth.

What right do you have to tell adults how they may not defend themselves?? Who in the world gave you the idea that you have the moral authority to strip defensive tools away from the very people who may need them?

All the bleating in the world about background checks, psych checks, fingerprints, and whatnot won't stop a single nutcase from arming himself and murdering your students. He doesn't give a dirty word about either your politics or your policies. He can arm himself by buying a weapon from one of his thug buddies, or by stealing it from a good person, or by trading it for drugs, or in any one of a dozen other ways. And there's literally nothing you can do about that.

The rapist chasing the cute little 110-pound woman across your campus doesn't give a rip that you don't approve of him carrying a firearm. And truthfully, he needs no firearm nor any other weapon in order to overpower that woman, enjoy his sick moment of power, and leave her cooling corpse behind him as he strolls away. She's the one who needs the weapon, but you deny it to her. You deny it to her because you're more afraid of her than you are of him.

The mass murderer who comes onto your campus to slaughter innocents has a nice, open killing field, and you are working to give it to him. Why? Because you're more afraid of his victims than you are of him. Remember, he isn't worried about your "policies" or your "procedures." It's only the innocent law-abiding who give any thought to those things at all.

And now here's an article for you.

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/...ctive-killers/

The link goes to the newsletter archives of the Force Science Institute, a think tank devoted to studying police use-of-force issues. The first article in the linked newsletter discusses whether or not a single officer should make immediate entry during active-shooter events. Here are some perhaps relevant quotes from that article:

Where times have been reliably documented, the average post-Columbine “rapid mass murder episode” lasts just 8 minutes, according to Borsch’s calculations. “The murderer’s timeline begins when he says it begins. Any prevention, deterrence or delay efforts have failed at that point, and the police are handicapped with catching up whenever they are notified.”

Borsch, who logged 17 years as a part-time SWAT team member before retiring from street work, has analyzed more than 90 active-shooter incidents on the basis of data largely ferreted out from Internet reports. Most involved schools and colleges, but workplaces, shopping malls, churches and other public places are also represented. Among his findings that have helped shape his tactical thinking:

* 98% of active killers act alone.

* 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

* Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

* They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

* “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

* They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

* 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Unlike conventional criminal predators, who often have no reluctance about attacking police, active shooters tend to be “cowardly,” Borsch says.

“They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant."

All emphases above are mine, not in the original article.

I cannot link the recent update, which does not appear to be on the Force Science site yet. However, Borsch has updated his data and extended it to over 100 such events all over the world, and some of his discoveries are fascinating.

Borsch did an interview with Massad Ayoob not too long ago, which you can download from the May 7 2009 entry at http://proarms.podbean.com. Borsch's portion of the program starts at approximately 36 minutes into the show. It's definitely worth a listen.

pax

[Lost Sheep]

Doc Hoy,

I congratulate you on having the courage to describe your policy to "not permit any weapons to be carried by our students". I imagine you must have known you would generate some objections here.

I know (as the ex-police officer from Anchorage, kraigwy, posted) that some law enforcement agencies do require their officers to be equipped with "the tools of arrest", badge, ID, handcuffs, firearm, notebook, etc. at al times. I also believe such requirements also have exceptions which might have to be taken into account in your proposed policies. An officer on medical leave, for example might be excused from the agancy's 24/7 requirement, and if he/she were attending classes his/her status might be a gray area.

I also reason that no law enforcement agency would be able to extend such a requirement to their officers when they are out of their jurisdiction. An officer outside his/her jurisdiction would be in a position to enforce laws as a peace officer only as a matter of the courtesy of the jurisdiction where he/she is. If I am right about that, you really only need to check with the agencies with jurisdiction in your area. In any event, the top law enforcement officer of each of your local agencies would be able to shed some light and be a good place to start your research.

I believe I understand some of your concerns, and do not quite understand some others, so I hope you will join the debate by starting other threads to discuss the advisability or inadvisability of what you might call an "open campus" where law-abiding and responsible students and visitors are not actively disarmed.

If your concern is about the ability/inability of your institution to disarm law enforcement personnel who happen to be attending classes or selectively allow the arming of only those individuals, that's one thing. If your concern is about whether a significant percentage of your student population being armed and knowledgeable makes your campus safer or less safe, that is something else. I would be interested in how you find the actual truth, which could inform your policy decisions.

It would be a bold administrator indeed who took a stand on these issues for truly valid reasons rather than what looks good in a brochure or sounds good in a sound bite.

I wish you well.

Lost Sheep

[glock06]

I agree entirely with what PAX presents. You can't even begin to prevent any wacko from causing deaths of innocents, so why do you think restricting the ability of the victims, the mandated unarmed innocents to defend themselves will do any good?? That's totally illogical.

Better for the innocents to be armed and confront the wacko--They would have a better chance of survival during the wacko's "8 minute rampage".It will be the students who have to face the wacko until the police arrive.

What is your problem with innocents being able to defend themselves?

[Hellbilly5000]

San Antonio Police are required to carry a weapon on them at all times unless there is alcohol in there system (or they used to I don't know if that is still the policy)

[Blue Steel]

If I permit police officers to carry a weapon onto the campus even at times when they are not mandated by their policy, then I am powerless to argue that non police officers may not carry.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Why must the officer's policy require them to carry at all times in order for your campus policies to allow police officers to carry at all times? And why would a campus policy allowing police officers to carry while off-duty render you powerless to restrict non law enforcement from carrying concealed?

Why would you want to restrict police officers, on or off-duty, from carrying firearms. You are in Virginia, so I'm sure you're familiar with the tragedy at Virginia Tech. The murderer Seung-Hui Cho started his killing spree in room 206 of Norris Hall, killing ten people. What if an armed off-duty police officer had been in that classroom? Or in room 207 where five more people were killed? Or in rooms 204 & 211, where an another fifteen people were killed? What if a trained, armed member of the faculty had been in one of those rooms? What if a trained, armed citizen had been in one of those rooms?

[Doc Hoy]

Thanks for your answer Dub.

Now to clarify, were it up to me we would not prohibit we would encourage weapons to by carried by any who were authorized. Alas it is not up to me. But I would do that not without some profound reservations.

Our policy reflects two things. 1) The overwhelming desires of our students. 2) The unfortunate effect exerted by lawyers.

No part of this conversation had anything what ever to do with the obvious positive impact of responsibly handled weapons.

To Lost Sheep:

You said, "I imagine you must have known you would generate some objections here."

No. What I was hoping that I would get what I asked for. That was an answer to my question.

In your defense, you did provide a partial answer (for which I am greatly appreciative.) when you said, "and if he/she were attending classes his/her status might be a gray area." The fact that it is "gray" implies that the governing agency understands the limits of their control. Also that they acknowledge the dominion of other agencies.

To Stevens, You said, "your students live in fear of the day that some imbalanced nut comes in to your gun-free zone"

No they don't. The only time students will tell you they fear such an event is when some photojournalist shoves a microphone in their face the day after one of these shootings. And even then, statistics show that most of the students do not fear a repeat of the event, nor were they concerned about the event before it happened. But those students don't get their face on TV. Reason does not sell air time as well as terror.

Pax, You included some good points, "On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves." (Source quoted). Of course.

By the way, in the heat of armed combat, an accuracy rate that approaches 50% would be pretty good wouldn't it?

The problem with a policy that permits weapons in our classrooms is that it would be very unlikely to result in enough weapons to be a functional deterent. When we had no policy, in our entire history, only one person ever brought a weapon into our classrooms (that we know about). That was a police officer who was actually on duty and was required. His weapon would clearly have been permitted by our present policy. I might add that this same officer has had his weapons carry authorization temporarily suspended by his department. He won't say why. His situation is partially behind our reason to examine the policy.


It would indeed be a practicel deterent. The fact that a would-be shooter considers that he might encounter armed defense might deter some, might have prevented some.

Another problem with such a policy is that it would permit people to come into that classroom who may not have much training or experience with handguns. In addition, they may have no training in armed combat. Tell me they won't do more harm than the shooter in a classroom of thirty people. So three people are shot in one of these situations. The shooter shoots Dick, the legal and authorized student shoots Jane, accidentally, and then the shooter shoots himself. Can you imagine trying to explain to Jane's husband that you permitted that student to carry the pistol into the classroom?



Chris in va said, "You're aware that carry is allowed in Utah, right? Heard of any mass shootings there?"

Faulty logic. Show me one researcher who has been able to establish that correlation.

To kraigwy, You said "It is the policy of the Anchorage Police Department ( or was when I was a member, Mar 74- Mar 94) that officers carry at all times within the third judicial District of Alaska."

Did you take it into church? Did you take it to the amusement part with your kids? Did you carry it into the dentists office. Did you take it to the PTA meeting? Or at these times was the weapon safely locked in your car?

To whoever it was who accused me of spending all of my time in an leather chair, I invite you to visit with me for just one day. I am not sure I even have a chair. I work sixty hours per week trying to do what I percieve to be the best ojob I can for my students. Your assumption about me is wrong.