Monday, July 06, 2015

Skeptic Texan Educates on CHL & Campus Carry

I wrote several pieces on the Texas Legislature's passing of Campus Carry, which will allow concealed handgun license holders to bring their guns on campus.  The Skeptic Texan sent me their thoughts on aspects of my pieces.  Skeptic educated me on the CHL world, which is vastly occupied by responsible citizens and responsible gun owners.  I learned CHL statistics predict a miniscule number of college students carrying on campus.  I am grateful for the opportunity to listen and learn about a subsection of America's gun owners, who carry for their own protection. 

State of the Division:  “The structure of this bill tracks with how public and private property are generally treated elsewhere in the state under the concealed carry law.” 

Skeptic Texan:  Not really, if this were the case then all that would have been necessary is to strike the specific restrictions from the current concealed carry law. This law is instead intended to lay out very specific and special rules for institutes of higher education. In doing so, this law will go a long way to needlessly muddy the water so to speak for Concealed Handgun License holders (CHLs).

“A Texas Women's University Sociology professor offered one. Bullying students would use their concealed weapons to intimidate professors into giving them higher grades.”

ST:  No student that would make such threats is waiting for a change in the CHL law to do so. This hypothetical scenario that she dreamed up is a gun control advocacy group’s wet dream; unfortunately for her it is also completely illogical. It is one of many that thrive on the incorrect assumption that every student will suddenly have a gun when nothing could be farther from the truth.

In reality this law will apply to very few students as it is but the ones that this professor is describing are certainly not your Texas CHL holder. Even if they were so inclined to seek a license, the vast majority of these “bullying students” would not qualify anyway let alone make it past the scrutiny of a CHL instructor. I would think that a Professor of Sociology would be better equipped than most to identify the type of personality likely to perpetrate that type of behavior and realize that they are about as far from the CHL demographic as you can get. Perhaps her own personal political views and agenda have clouded her critical thinking skills.

I find it interesting that ALL arguments I have found against campus carry are regarding students with CHLs when statistically and logically this will pertain to faculty and staff far more often than students.

James Adams and CHL training – Oh, where to even begin…

ST:  James Adams’ opinion on concealed carry is not in line with the majority of police officers and police organizations across the state. The arguments that he makes regarding CHLs on campus show that he is either ignorant of proper tactics and police work in general or that he too is far more concerned about airing personal political views than doing his job which affects the safety of everyone on campus.

Further, I have a hard time respecting the opinion of a “Law Officer” that cannot seem to stay on the right side of the law himself. Keep in mind that this is the same James Adams that was arrested for intoxicated boating in 2013. In my opinion James Adams has no business being the Police Chief for Angelo State University or even a law enforcement officer in any capacity for that matter.

In his comments Adams claims that he has a problem with the training of CHLs which means his problem is not with campus carry but rather with CHLs in general. Most professional law enforcement officers across the state overwhelmingly support and encourage CHLs because they know that in a world where they have to approach everyone as a potential threat, the ones that hand them a CHL are the least likely to be any trouble.

He also says that “He and his department” do not support the legislation. I bet if you polled his officers (and got honest answers) you would get a very different story.

He also claims that officers receive an extraordinary amount of training but still might not react properly to a shooting situation. He is correct in that there have been many LEOs that have found themselves in a shooting situation and did not react according to their training and procedures. This is not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing or a lack of training on their part; it simply serves to highlight the fact that there really is no way to completely prepare someone for responding to a situation like this.

I’m not sure what he considers “extraordinary” but I can tell you that far too many LEOs are not even what I would call proficient with the use of their sidearm. There are also officers that take a personal interest in shooting and train constantly on their own. They have what I would call an extraordinary amount of training and those officers will tell you that there is no such thing as “enough” training.

It seems Mr. Adams along with a disturbing number of other people obviously do not understand what exactly CHL training is supposed to cover. It is not in any way tactical training to prepare people to respond to attacks as CHLs do not “respond” to anything. The classroom portion is designed to educate people on the legal aspects of using lethal force to protect themselves. The shooting portion is only to demonstrate basic firearm proficiency.

The comments about CHL’s presence at a shooting scene complicating the situation are interesting as this is absolutely part of what is covered in CHL training and should be the least of Mr. Adams’ worries. Every prospective CHL holder is taught that they have no special privilege when responding officers arrive at the scene of a shooting and they should expect to be arrested at a minimum. It is very, very clear to all CHL holders that if they do not comply with all LEO commands they will likely be shot. CHLs are all taught that they and they alone are responsible for their actions.

Drew Darby: A moron for sure but not a criminal (in this case anyway). 

ST:  Any politician that has been in office as long as Darby probably needs to be in prison for one reason or another and I personally have no love for the man. A part of me wishes that they would have thrown the book at him for making the rest of the CHL population look bad but at the end of the day, the way his case was handled is exactly how it should have been regardless of whether or not it happened for the right reasons. The “Darby Treatment” you referred to is also called due process.

Darby didn’t actually commit a crime and had no intention of doing so. Contrary to popular belief there is nothing sacred about the airport, only the secured area of the airport which the TSA miraculously (in light of recent TSA undercover tests) stopped him from carrying his gun into. There is some legal grey area here but it is typically dealt with by determining intent. I’m sure his intent was fairly easy to justify, if he was a suspected terrorist or gang member with a long list of threats on his Facebook page it likely would have ended a little differently (but then he wouldn’t have had a CHL then either). All Darby really did was make a fool of himself and draw un-needed attention to the issue of carrying firearms.

Thanks largely to the efforts of the left when concealed carry was first enacted, there is an enormous amount of statistics kept and reported on for CHLs. Unfortunately for them, every year the statistics show that CHL holders are just about the poster children for good behavior compared to the population as a whole as well as just about any other demographic you could gather the data on.

By the way I think someone did once upon a time make a mini “Luger” in .380 but I sincerely doubt that is what was in his bag. More than likely a Ruger LCP in .380 ACP.

“Texas universities have the challenge of deciding how to carve up their campuses into carry and no carry zones. Parking lots are already carry zones. We'll see how much further administrators go.”

ST:  Put your carving knife away, the assumption that campuses will be “carved up” into “carry and no carry zones” is not accurate at all. Everyone somehow seems to forget that the entire campus (not just the parking lot) is currently free game for concealed carry, it is only the inside of the buildings that is specifically restricted under current law. As for the “How much farther will administrators go?” question – well if they don’t want to be the campus that draws the bank breaking lawsuit, they should do what the law says and allow concealed carry – period.

This option for universities to designate “reasonable gun-free zones” will turn into much more trouble that it was worth. The intent (of the left) was to give university officials in opposition a foothold to fight campus carry. In reality it gave universities the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot in more ways than one (pun intended).

By adding the vague allowance for “reasonable” gun-free zones each campus has been given the opportunity to choose their own destiny in a way, but not the way that I’m sure some administrators think. If they try to restrict carry in too many places or in very important and necessary places the issue will have to be settled in court. After all, there are dozens if not hundreds of people all working diligently right now at crafting their own definition of “reasonable,” how could this end up anywhere but the courts for a decision and all because the legislature was either incompetent or unwilling to do their job correctly in the first place by laying it all out up front. I’m sure those same legislators will just complain later that the judges are legislating from the bench.

Another major problem (as if it really needs any more explanation) is the fun little fact that gun free zones don’t work. A “gun free zone” is only a place that law abiding folks get to be voluntarily disarmed or face prosecution (or is it persecution?) while those intent on criminal malice are free to walk right in and slaughter the masses. Sorry, there is no nice way to put this one; I simply do not understand this mentality.

There is of course the incredibly expensive option which is to install metal detectors, armed guards and lock boxes at every entrance of the building or building area in question. This is really the only way to truly have a “gun free zone” but this is a very expensive, invasive and unnecessary option. Aside from court houses (I won’t even cover the worthless TSA) the rest of the state and most of the country for that matter seem to get along just fine with CHLs standing right behind you in the checkout line or right across the table from you at a restaurant. If universities chose to go this route, to burden the students and tax payers with this ridiculousness they will do so on their own and can blame no one but themselves. Allowing campus carry does not have to cost anyone a single penny, it would however cost the critics some rational thought. That is apparently a price too steep for most.

“Campus police training for active shooters will be more complicated. Procedures will be needed for identifying the shooter(s) vs. CHL holders, assuming the shooter does not hold a CHL.”

ST:  There is really no reason why the campus carry bill should change university police training or tactics. There is no need to try and “identify CHLs and differentiate them from an assailant.” The CHL knows that they are responsible for their actions and they are keenly aware of the proper protocol for self-preservation. The only difference will be that CHLs are now allowed to carry in buildings so I would certainly hope that whatever training they think is necessary for having CHLs “on campus” is already in effect.

 It does seem reasonable in light of the current leadership that the ASU police should receive some extended classroom training regarding CHLs as they are obviously not getting correct information from their management structure.

Oh, and nice cheap shot on the shooter being a CHL.

“Police will need to deal with students with handguns and ammunition in prohibited areas of campus in the case they pull a Darby and forget what's in their bag.”

ST:  Unless they are planning on buying metal detectors and turning the UC in to a court house, police will likely rarely if ever encounter “students pulling a Darby” as the C in CHL stands for concealed so unless they happen to need it, no one would ever know they had a gun. In the off chance that a CHL holder prints, shows, or more likely a magazine falls out of their pocket and they happen to be somewhere designated a “gun free zone” police would handle it just the same as any other violation of this sort anywhere else. It is nothing special or new that would require extra training.

“They may need to envision a student in a mental health crisis obtaining a weapon from another student with a concealed handgun license.” 

ST:  Police have already “envisioned a student in a mental health crisis obtaining a weapon” that is the whole reason behind and basis of, most active shooter training. Now, the notion that a new and important problem is these potential nut jobs obtaining their weapon from a CHL holder is nothing less than asinine. There goes that pesky little “C” in CHL again. It would be far more likely for this mental health crisis nut to obtain their weapon from family member, store or even a police officer or police vehicle. About the least likely place for a nut to obtain a weapon is a from a CHL holder – mainly because he/she would never know who they are.

“Universities will need to consider additional training for student/faculty CHL holders as how to respond to an active shooter situation. That is not covered under Texas CHL training. Until the parties with guns know their role, responsibilities and how to communicate with law enforcement under an active shooter situation, universities could return to the wild, wild West. Fortunately, there's a year to work on these issues should Governor Abbott sign the bill.”

ST:  Not just no, but hell no – this is way, way off the mark.

Except for a very limited number of K-12 school teachers (with CHL licenses) that have been given special permission (and private tactical training) to carry on school property for the express purpose of deterring, preventing, stopping or at least limiting the damage from an attack on their school, armed CHL holders do not “respond” to anything. Response to an active shooter on campus is not specifically covered in CHL training as it is in no way meant to be a tactical education. CHLs are not there for any of the above mentioned duties and do not need to be trained for them.

 CHL holders are however trained to “know, their role, responsibilities and how to communicate with law enforcement under an active shooter situation” it’s just apparently not the role, responsibilities and communication that you apparently think it is. CHLs carry weapons to defend themselves and their families as a last resort only if someone threatens their life or the lives of their family. If there is an opportunity to remove themselves from the situation, most will take it.

I also don’t recall the universities ever being in the wild, wild, west so I don’t believe they will be “returning” now that Abbott has signed the bill. Unfortunately CHLs will have to spend another year defenseless on campus but I guess they can use that time to educate the many people that apparently have no idea what concealed carry actually entails.

I'd like to think I have a better idea now.

No comments: