• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest - Press Release & T-Shirt Information

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims—He wasn’t concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech’s status as a “gun free zone,” this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

In thirty-nine U.S. states, thousands of collegiate students and faculty—age twenty-one and above—are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals might pose any more threat to college campuses than they do to office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc., they are currently prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses. On October 22 these students, through their Empty Holster Protest, will ask for a change.

In the last twenty years, the vast majority of the mass shootings in America—from the Texas Luby’s massacre to the Columbine High School massacre—have happened in “gun free zones.” Labeling an area “gun free” may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.

For over a year, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies, including studies by John Lott, David Mustard, William Sturdevant, and state justice departments, show that license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. Clearly, license holders pose little threat to college campuses.

While some may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, the students of the Empty Holster Protest contend that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place on America’s college campuses, and these students respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

T-shirts are now availablefor anyone wishing to support the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC)empty holster protest.

http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/concealedcampus

Please note that these shirts are being sold at cost. Nobody but the print shop makes a profitfrom them.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Link? or is this the OP link? What organization is responsible for the press release?
 

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

Sorry--I had the link in the title, but it wouldn't fit. I forgot to go back and add it to the body of the post, after I shortened the title.

The organization is Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), and the web page is http://www.concealedcampus.com (the same web site as on the T-shirts).

The Group: http://www.concealedcampus.com

The Group's Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2383535699

The Protest: http://www.douva.com/sccc/press.htm

The Protest's Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2359003596

The T-Shirt: http://www.shirtmagic.com/shop/concealedcampus

FAQ: http://concealedcampus.org/faq.htm

Answers to Concerns: http://www.douva.com/sccc/arguments.htm
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

I'm a little concerned with the strong bias toward concealed carry with this organization. Normally I'd be fine with any initiative to put more guns in the hands of peaceable citizens on college campuses, but the fact that "concealed" modes of carry are used as part of their arguments doesn't sit well with me. :uhoh:
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
I'm curious as to why you make that statement. Are "kids" less resposible than anyone else? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but quite frankly if someone is going to exercise poor judgement in carrying and using a firearm, they'll exercise poor judgement regardless of if they're age 18 or 40, and regardless of how many hours of courses (that the students are required to pay for) they take.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
I'm curious as to why you make that statement. Are "kids" less resposible than anyone else? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but quite frankly if someone is going to exercise poor judgement in carrying and using a firearm, they'll exercise poor judgement regardless of if they're age 18 or 40, and regardless of how many hours of courses (that the students are required to pay for) they take.

Depends on your defintion of kidsbut , in general, I think yes. I look at my four year old and certainly know she's not as responsible as an adult. I look at myself when I was 18 and see that I'm now supremely moreresponsible than Iwas -- life experience tends to have that effect.

What I am mostly refering to is having that training. When I purchased my first firearm, I knew nothing about it at all. I went into a gun store for the first time, talked to the guy behind the counter and he showed me a weapon which I then proceeded tosweep in his direction and justlooked at it,not really knowing what to do.

There's a difference between acting responsibly and actually knowing the rules of, and how to handle a firearm. In Delaware, if you have a CCDW permit, I *know* you do because you've been instructed how to carry, store, present and shoot in a safe manner.

Even with someone who has a CCDW, I'm still very wary when the firearm is out and about because I've never seen them personally handle it and I'm concerned for my safety.
 

WhiteFeather

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
221
Location
Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Does anyone know if they are protesting at Kutztown University? I read the rules and they seem vague. They use the wording "Authorized weapons." That would lead me to believe that since it is a State School if the State Authrorizes you to own and carry a firearm you may. But I would like some clearification on the matter....
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.

Furthermore, ANTI'S conceive a firearm as only doing anything when you're pulling the trigger. Gun owners recognize the deterence factor. Mass shootings take place in gun free zones only. Make schools gun friendly zones, and suddenly those with shooting on the mind will have to find a softer target. Training doesn't even enter in.

Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.

Finally, I have been in three self defense situations. Each time, I didn't even have to pull the trigger. No amount of training aided in my merely presenting the firearm and the criminals scattering.

Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Demarest wrote:
Wynder wrote:
Considering it's an academic environment, I see that the whole premise of changing the school policy from completely banning guns to allowing people who have their CCW (and thus, in several states, the required formal training) as a fair compromise.

As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.

Furthermore, ANTI'S conceive a firearm as only doing anything when you're pulling the trigger. Gun owners recognize the deterence factor. Mass shootings take place in gun free zones only. Make schools gun friendly zones, and suddenly those with shooting on the mind will have to find a softer target. Training doesn't even enter in.

Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.

Finally, I have been in three self defense situations. Each time, I didn't even have to pull the trigger. No amount of training aided in my merely presenting the firearm and the criminals scattering.

Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.
Thank you for stating exactly what I wanted to say so that I didn't have to type it :D

I also don't see how an openly carried firearm disrupts and "academic environment".
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Okay, but we don't have the right to lord over who gets what rights. It's not YOUR decision how THEY live their lives. Maybe the cost of attending university leaves them unable to afford the course.

It's not my decision; however, once again, it's PRIVATE PROPERTY and the property owners have a right to regulate anyone, anyway they wish under penalty of tresspass or, in this case, expulsion.

Furthermore, "I have a gun," can stop many crimes before they're attempted or before they're completed. Open carry is a way of saying "I have a gun" BEFORE dropping a load in your shorts and being put through the trauma of an adrenaline dump.

No crap-- I'm on these forums, I've open carried. Right now it's a debate on property owners rights versus the rights of an individual who's willingly on that property.
Training is what anti's use to "support" their fantasy that only police can have guns. It behooves us to join them in such a self-depricating measure.
I'm talking a basicNRA safety course -- if you want to give a loadedpistol to someone who has potentially never used one and DOESN'T know the safety rules and let them walk around your house eight hours a day, feel free. Having been to the range and seeing (and making) many, many stupid mistakes, while I'd LOVE to have guns on campus, I want to ensure that the person who's carrying them knows, understands and puts into practice those four basic rules.

This is the same compromise that GMU is trying to propose, that only people who are 21 and have their concealed license be permitted to carry on campus. I'd be ecstatic with this because, with our college's situation, 30-40% are continuing education/retraining (ie. in their 30's-60's) so that's more people carrying guns.

It strikes a fair balance between the rights of the property owner and ensuring fundamental safety of having armed students, staff and faculty on campus with ageneral understanding of how to carry and operate their firearm.
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

- your personal view not dictating the lives of others
- your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
- added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
- an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

YOU need to reread, because NOWHERE did I state that I would want them to be required to conceal carry. I said I'd feel more comfortable if they have their state CCDW permit which requires that safety training. After that, they can carry however they like.

READ and COMPREHEND before you criticize or, if you don't understand, ASK for clarification.


Evidenced by my first post:

As much as I'd love to see open carry as many places as possible, as a college instructor myself, knowing some of the kids that I teach, I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.

Demarest wrote:
No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

- your personal view not dictating the lives of others
- your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
- added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
- an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Demarest wrote:
No, the premise of the stance you took that I was criticizing had nothing to do with property rights. It was your statement that as an academic institution, YOU would feel more comfortable if the allowed carry was concealed only. You took that stance on the basis that those with a license have received basic training in firearm safety. My rebuttal debunked both the fallacies that training at all enhances the effectiveness of the deterrence factor or the stopping power of even an unloaded gun merely being presented to a criminal that was not prepared for prey that would not just cave under their aggression. I then additionally pointed out that because we are victim of such elitism, it really is unbecoming of us to inflict it upon others. Particularly for the comparitively petty reason of personal comfort.

Firearm safety IS paramount. So if your students open carrying over concealed carry at all spooks you, here's what you do: Take them to the range. This will accomplish the same with the added benefits of

- your personal view not dictating the lives of others
- your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
- added bond between educator and the minds he's been entrusted to mould and would be allied with in the unlikely event of an attack on a newly gun friendly campus
- an improvement of the grit of this nation and the "sanctity" of its higher education

We don't have to infringe upon the rights of others to accomplish our goals and we shouldn't have an interest in so doing.
Agree entirely once again, but I'm still trying to figure out, also, how an "academic environment" requires everyone to not carry openly. Isn't one of the goals of an "academic environment" to promote education through debate and exposure to new ideas?

And, I'm still trying to get one of our criminal justice instructors to take our class to the local handgun range on a field trip... oddly enough she doesn't want to :(
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrot
Agree entirely once again, but I'm still trying to figure out, also, how an "academic environment" requires everyone to not carry openly. Isn't one of the goals of an "academic environment" to promote education through debate and exposure to new ideas?

And, I'm still trying to get one of our criminal justice instructors to take our class to the local handgun range on a field trip... oddly enough she doesn't want to :(
Yes! Which is why I'm in full support of it; however, as a compromise, they must have taken a safety course which is required by the state to receive their carry concealed permit.

After that, open carry. Concealed carry. Thier choice.
 

Demarest

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
245
Location
Toledo, Ohio, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
YOU need to reread, because NOWHERE did I state that I would want them to be required to conceal carry. I said I'd feel more comfortable if they have their state CCDW permit which requires that safety training. After that, they can carry however they like.

READ and COMPREHEND before you criticize or, if you don't understand, ASK for clarification.
No, sir, because clearly YOU did not read what I wrote. It appears that you got to where I said concealed only and stopped. Sadly, the very next sentence both demonstrated that I WAS reading what you said and identified that it's not the style of carry that concerns you, but rather the attached training to the unConsitutional process of licensing. I even went on to suggest a way you can get what you want without infringing upon them and while making yourself look better and giving yourself a REAL reason to feel better by taking action instead of supposing for your own personal comfort level.

For somebody that preaches the seeking of clarification, I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time repeating myself for the sake of clarification. First tell yourself that we are on the same side. Then open your mind to the possibility that what I'm saying could be right. Then let's work together. Because I'd rather not repeat myself a third time.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

No, sir, because clearly YOU did not read what I wrote. It appears that you got to where I said concealed only and stopped.
No, I didn't bother responding to them because they're simply not feasible. Mind you, this is after your previous post where you went through all of the benefits of open carry because you didn't comprehend the conversation; however, to amuse myself, I'll go through some of your suggestions.

Take them to the range.
I work 8:30-4:30, I teach two evening classes, each class being five hours. I'm taking a law course myself, and I have a wife and two children. Supposing the number of people who are interested is in the twenties or even in the tens, my free and family time is finite and valued.

-your personal view not dictating the lives of others
My personal view doesn't dictate the lives as others as it stands. I don't WRITE school policy, I program and I educate. However, it seems odd to me that taking students to a range would be.

-your satisfaction that they have been properly trained in the area of safety
I am not a certified instructor, nor do I think I am qualified to make that decision.

Your other two points are just hyperbole.

...the attached training to the unConsitutional process of licensing. I even went on to suggest a way you can get what you want without infringing upon them...
Constitutional or not, it's currently the law until otherwise changed. It's been challenged and its lost so, until a miracle presents itself and everyone comes to their senses and the state shifts to unlicensed concealed carry, it's not an infringement.

I'm currently going through the process myself and while, yes, it is a huge inconvenience, I'm doing it nonetheless.

...while making yourself look better and giving yourself a REAL reason to feel better by taking action instead of supposing for your own personal comfort level.
It's about SAFETY. I want to come home to see my two children each and every evening and my comfort around people who haven't had remedial firearms safety training is shared by anyone who's in the immediate proximity of that person -- anyone who says otherwise is stupid or a liar.

First tell yourself that we are on the same side. Then open your mind to the possibility that what I'm saying could be right. Then let's work together.
As long as you come off as a self-righteous fanatic who spouts that someones right to bear arms trumps property rights, you hurt the cause and probably give the anti's more fodder to fight with.

It's a schools right to ban guns on their property; is it stupid? I think so.

If that was to change, it would be reasonable for the purposes of safety, and even fiscally, to use the state permit as a benchmark as, in the state of Delaware, we'll be assured that person is of age, has undergone a background check, has had five references vouch for them, they've taken a 10-hour safety course, public notification has been made and the DA and the Superior Court sign off on that person.

Pitching this to a board of directors, who would ultimately make the call, might be swayed because there's no added budget for similar checks and that peace of mind that a person has undergone these measures and would be allowed to carry firearm on school property.

At one point, I though that my college, as being very much state funded, should be held to the state Constitution and open carry laws; however, after this discussion, you've changed my mind otherwise.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
...as a college instructor... I'd enjoy knowing that they'd have at least gone through the requisite 10 hour course required here in Delaware before carrying a firearm.
[sarcasm]
I think we should force people to take a 10-hour training course for each of the following:
  • Voting
  • Free Press
  • Free Speech
Then and only then will I be comfortable with them exercising these potentially dangerous rights.
[/sarcasm]

Your psychological comfort is not more important than your students' rights.
 
Top