Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Is the Students for Concealed Carry of Campus (SCCC) against OC? I joined the JMU chapter of the SCCC on Facebook and I was basically getting bashed for talking about OC'ing (I joined the group but I can only OC since I won't be 21 for three years). They were telling me how people who OC will be the first to get shot by a criminal and that it stresses out the public too much. I don't know about everyone else, but I care more about my personal safety than about the "stress level" of some gun-hating stranger. It just seems odd to me that a group about CC would be so anti OC. We're all on the same team.

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    SCCC is not anti-OC.Â* They have no stance whatsoever on open carry.Â* They have a sole limited objective of makingÂ*concealed carry lawful on universities for permit holders, in states that issue concealed carry permits. Some of their talking pointsÂ*howeverÂ*do mention how "concealed guns on campus wouldn't be a distraction because they areÂ*concealed" in response to some arguments like "Wouldn't it be a distraction?"

    If your local SCCC leader is anti-OC that is his personal POV and he shouldn't be representing that the organization is anti-OC.

    http://www.concealedcampus.org/about.htm

    [quote]

    SCCC supports the legalization of CONCEALED carry by LICENSED individuals on COLLEGE campuses. SCCC has no official positions on open carry, unlicensed concealed carry, or concealed carry on the campuses of primary or secondary schools.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    IMO, taking no stance on an issue is just as bad as being against it. They told me I was 83% more likely to get shot with my own gun if I OC'ed rather than CC'ed, which I think is total BS.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post

    hunter45 wrote:
    IMO, taking no stance on an issue is just as bad as being against it. They told me I was 83% more likely to get shot with my own gun if I OC'ed rather than CC'ed, which I think is total BS.
    could you please post a link to the thread where they told you "83% more likely", while I am sure there are individuals within the group like this, we must educate those individuals, so as to prevent their ignorance from smearing the entire group.

    I am a Campus Leader for SCCC, in Michigan. our groups (OCDO and SCCC) have some similar goals here in MI. for example, the upholding of the states preemption law over public universities and colleges. here in MI OC is fully legal on college campuses with/without a permit, but CC is illegal in dorms or classrooms. and all the schools make their own policies.

    so, to answer your question.
    SCCC has NO official position on OC, they are solely concerned with allowing concealed carry on campuses, they do not advocate, nor support any further restrictions on OC, and they do not advocate nor support and loosening of restrictions either.

    I will say that they are mostly a bunch of CC'ers and have not been "enlightened" regarding OC. and the their forum is not the place to discuss it, as the group has already determined that they will be SOLELY concerned with CC on college campuses. strike up a dialogue with some individuals, and invite them here (not on the forum, they'll troll you). educate the individuals.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    hunter45 wrote:
    IMO, taking no stance on an issue is just as bad as being against it. They told me I was 83% more likely to get shot with my own gun if I OC'ed rather than CC'ed, which I think is total BS.
    This is 10X as ridiculous as the claim that an OCer will be the first one taken out by a felon committing another crime. Both are the worst of Urban Legions.

    Ask them for a cite - a specific reference where a legally OCing, non-law enforcement person had either of these acts performed against them. No takers in over 40 years of issuing this challenge.

    Best part is if they find one somewhere that meets the test is that the decimal/percentage result will look a little like this - .00001%.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Part of the structural with SCC is that many or most college students are under 21 and can't get a permit to conceal in most states.

    Oddly, these students would benifitdirectly from legalizing open carry in Texas and the other 5 states banning open carry, and only indirectly from clarifying that concealed carry is not prohibited on campus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Western Washington, ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    The fact remains that an OCer is more prepared for any threats against his or her life and those around them. What many people disagree with or take issue with about OCing is the visible nature of their choice to carry defensive arms. Whatever this is because of, it is too bad people can't recognize the validity of OC and its double duty as very visible reminder of everyone's rights and as an educational tool, outside of being a deterrent and potential life saver.
    CCers, especially SCCC members should appreciate the commonalities to their own struggles and not dismiss it as something negative to their cause.
    At a very basic level the OCer and CCer are fundamentally the same.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125

    Post imported post

    It's shameful that so many otherwise pro-RKBA people are so willing to throw OC under a bus. With all the antis out there we don't need infighting in our ranks. That said, not being officially associated with "radicals" like us probably helps the cause when SCCC is attempting to convince people. As a political tactic I have to admit it's a smart move.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Seigi wrote:
    ...That said, not being officially associated with "radicals" like us probably helps the cause when SCCC is attempting to convince people. As a political tactic I have to admit it's a smart move.
    Conserving ammunition is always a worthwhile endeavor.

  10. #10
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Seems like SCCC IS against open carry and OCDO.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/21315.html
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    SCCC has lost its mind by officially speaking against open carry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    Seems like SCCC IS against open carry and OCDO.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/21315.html
    Correction: The TX SCCC has spoken against open carry.

    Let's not lump them all in the same basket.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Mr. Guzman is THE PRESIDENT of SCCC. See http://www.concealedcampus.org/contact.htm

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    IF this is substantiated:

    A) Contact SCCC and let him/them know of your displeasure

    B) Join their Facebook group and do the same


    P.S. - two of the founders of SCCC went to college around Cincinnati, and OC is definitely supported by them.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    IF this is substantiated:
    SCCC's site confirms this http://www.concealedcampus.org/contact.htm

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Mr. Guzman is THE PRESIDENT of SCCC. See http://www.concealedcampus.org/contact.htm
    Thank you, I stand corrected.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    IF this is substantiated:
    SCCC's site confirms this http://www.concealedcampus.org/contact.htm

    Yata hey
    The "substantiated" I referred to is that a) Mr. Gunzman said what the newspaper said he said, and b) that it wasin context - not whether or nothe was the organization's President.

    Nothwithstanding,we all know that the media are always factually correct, and quote everyone accurately and in context, right? :quirky

    There is currently some question about how substantiated the statement is:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/21315-3.html

    look at DKSuddeth's post of 10:54AM today.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Why can't we just have people who support carry? If half of us want concealed carry and the other half want open carry we all still want carry. We all use an argument that has nothing to do with mode of carry (2nd amendment). Why must we be stuck on trivial issues such as how someone views our firearm?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    NCSU chapter of SCCC is pro-open carry, just not on campus.


    We meet at a pizza place beside campus and most of us OC at the meetings.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    JDriver1.8t wrote:
    NCSU chapter of SCCC is pro-open carry, just not on campus.


    We meet at a pizza place beside campus and most of us OC at the meetings.
    One giant step at a time is probably all we can hope for right now. Getting the foot and shoulder in the door with CC on campus for those not allowed to do so presently would IMO be an excellent beginning.

    BTW - good show OCing at your meetings.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    JDriver1.8t wrote:
    NCSU chapter of SCCC is pro-open carry, just not on campus.


    We meet at a pizza place beside campus and most of us OC at the meetings.
    One giant step at a time is probably all we can hope for right now. Getting the foot and shoulder in the door with CC on campus for those not allowed to do so presently would IMO be an excellent beginning.

    BTW - good show OCing at your meetings.

    Yata hey

    As of tonight, I am now the State Director for North Carolina. :celebrate

    No more being argumentative on the internet for me.

    As you said, one step at a time.

    For full availability, I am MaximaDrvr on Glocktalk.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hammond, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    I've found no evidence of this on the SCCC website. In fact, the SCCC website is about the most lame thing I've seen in recent times.

    It would appear that the SCCC not only does not have an "official" position on OC, they don't have much movement or activity in ANY regard as far as legally carried weapons on campus.

    As a college student (an old one!) that lives within 1 block of a campus, I am a proponent / advocate of individuals carrying weapons on campuses. However, for reasons of sensibility I'm ALSO an advocate of limiting WHO can carry on campus.

    There will be some here who disagree with that, of course. However, the "Hey, I just bought a gun, so I'm packing on campus!" concept is not conducive to increasing the safety level of all on that campus, IMO.

    IMO, there should be a common sense approach, and additional criteria (above that needed in Indiana to obtain a CCW) in order to CC on a college campus, due to the nature, the layout, and the congest prevalent on campuses.

    The means that ANY law-abiding citizen SHOULD be allowed to CC on campus, IF they can demonstrate a high proficiency with their chosen CC weapon, proficiency of gun retention, a high level of understanding and proficiencyof shoot / don't shoot / tactical shooting scenarios, a high understanding of the laws surrounding these issues, etc., for safety reasons.

    I'm much less comfortable with OC on campuses UNLESS the OC individual can demonstrate additional proficiency above and beyond the level for CC. For instance, and increased level of proficiency at weapons retention.

    This will infuriate those "ANYONE should be able to pack heat, it's our RIGHT!" types, but those are my personal thoughts. If you can't handle your chosen, and demonstrate a high ability to handle your weapon, I would disagree with your carrying a weapon in such a congested scenario.

    I for one, am willing to subject myself to the stringent training, and demonstrate the competency needed, in order to CC on campus. If someone else is unwilling to do so, I have to have serious doubts as to their REAL motivation behind wanting to pack a piece.

    Just my thoughts.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    JB-Indiana I understand your thinking and reasoning. The flaw is that if you apply this to other crowded, densely populated areas i.e. large cities, shopping malls at Christmas etc. you create more sheep and lambs for the wolves to no benefit.

    Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves? Why should anyone fear a defensive tool on the person of an honest citizen? While you do not directly say so, your words would indicate a fear of what might happen if honest citizens were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to legally carry on campus.

    BTW - this is exactly the condition that exists 12" off campus in majority of our nation and is the state law on campuses in one state. Guess what - no OK Corrals in any of these places.

    Trust the honest citizen to be just that. Do not project your fears of what you imagine might be in order to restrict others. It just doesn't happen as you imply.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hammond, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    JB-Indiana I understand your thinking and reasoning. The flaw is that if you apply this to other crowded, densely populated areas i.e. large cities, shopping malls at Christmas etc. you create more sheep and lambs for the wolves to no benefit.

    Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves? Why should anyone fear a defensive tool on the person of an honest citizen? While you do not directly say so, your words would indicate a fear of what might happen if honest citizens were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to legally carry on campus.

    BTW - this is exactly the condition that exists 12" off campus in majority of our nation and is the state law on campuses in one state. Guess what - no OK Corrals in any of these places.

    Trust the honest citizen to be just that. Do not project your fears of what you imagine might be in order to restrict others. It just doesn't happen as you imply.

    Yata hey
    I understand, and respect your thinking as well. I won't "argue" with you, since we're on the same side of the issue. But I would like to respond to an item or two.

    Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves?

    If you'd prefer a one word answer, Yes. However, the wording of your question is somewhat "loaded", pardon the pun.

    The fact of the matter is that if ANYONE chooses to arm themselves and carry a weapon in a public area, campus or otherwise, they have the SOLE duty and responsibility to be proficient with that weapon, period. In my not-so-humble (in this instance) opinion.

    I'll be the first person here to proffer that, generally speaking, a citizen of this country has the right to keep and bear arms. But NOT just any citizen, as has been well established. Felons, for example, are prohibited. So are individuals that are found, through a specific process diagnosed by specific, credentialed individuals, to be mentally deficient / incapacitated. So there ARE limitiations we as a society have come to agree to "EVERY" citizen having the RKBA.

    Same thing with the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. Despite the claim that comes about every now and then, we can NOT just "say whatever we want to whomever we want". That's GENERALLY true, but there ARE limitiations, the most common being not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there really IS a fire. Why? Because we don't want to create a general panic.

    The same is true with carrying a weapon in a public environment. Despite the protests of a select few individuals, the generally accepted limitation is that we do NOT want to create a panic in an area of public access. SOME individuals may not like that, notably the "I can do whatever I want, I have the RIGHT, d****it!" No, there are limitations to that right, as there are with virtually ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    There is ALSO an implicit responsibility of proper handling and usage of a weapon, if the individual chooses to carry a weapon with them. If some BG attacks, they HAVE the right to protect / defend themself, or someone else on their behalf. They do NOT, repeat N-O-T have the right to yank a weapon from their holster and start banging away in "spray and pray" mode and HOPE they hit the BG, in the interim filling the surround area with flying rounds.

    IF that weaponeer does that, he / she is responsible for EVERY SINGLE ROUND they've let fly, and will be called to account for that action. Shoot something they should NOT have (a window, a wall, an automobile, a cherished pet, god forbid an innocent bystander!) and cannot justify, and they WILL, absolutely, be held accountable in a court of law. Found to be wanton and negligent, perhaps even found to have acted in reckless disregard for the safety of persons and property around them, they will be found guilty.

    At the MINIMUM they'll forfeit their right to carry a weapon in public. More likely, they'll be found criminially irresponsible in some manner and found guilty of criminal negligence, reckless homocide, manslaughter, perhaps even murder.

    Therefore, it's NOT me, as folks here might feel. It's historically been proven again and again in law, and in our society.

    Therefore, it's my STRONG belief that ANY individual who chooses to arm themself in public, which they DO have the right to do, has the duty and responsibility to be HIGHLY trained and skilled.

    For those here who were in the military, they know that in order to be allowed to utilize small arms (what we're talking about here) they're REQUIRED to QUALIFY with THAT weapon (or weapon type) BEFORE they're allowed to utilize it.

    For LEO's, they're REQUIRED to qualify, demonstrate their training and skill, BEFORE they're allowed to utilize their weapons on the city streets.

    It's my STRONG belief that the armed citizen SHOULD be held to the exact same criteria. Why? Because the armed citizen is no different then the military or LEO manor woman, who are ALSO American citizens.

    Should only highly trained, skilled operators be allowed to defend themselves?

    The question, IMHO is asked, essentially, backward. The question should be asked as

    "Shouldn't anyone carrying a weapon in a public forum be highly trained and skilled?" The unequivocal answer is "Yes".

    ANY person choosing to carry a weapon in public OWES a duty and responsibility to EVERY OTHER citizen, even other armed citizens (including cops and military guys) to take it upon themself to BECOME highly trained and skilled. IMO, if they're not willing to commit to that, then they shouldn't be toting a weapon among the general population. THAT'S the commitment, that's the responsibility.

    Failing that, they're NOT really defending themself anyway, as they may very well miss their intended target. Worse, they're now a friggin' hazard to everyone around them.

    Do I trust EVERYONE out there packing a weapon, as per the 2nd Amendment? NO, I do NOT. And, as mentioned elsewhere by me, one look around at virtually ANY gun range (holes in the ceiling, dings on the walls and floors, holes through the dividers between booths!) will prove my exact point.

    I trust ONLY thosewho have shown they take their responsibility VERY seriously, and have taken it upon themself to become highly trained and skilled, and practice at regular intervals to STAY highly skilled.

    Let's look at it from a practical perspective. I'm out at the mega-mall with my lady, suckin' down a Latte Grande. BG attacks "JoeArmed Citizen" across the mall, facing me and mine, more than 100' away. Joe Citizen, who hasn't"bothered" to attain a high level of skill because "he has the RIGHT, d***it!"draws his shiny new .45 and starts bangin' away at the perp, but also in MY direction.

    Now who, at this moment, is the greater threat to me and my lady? Who may I now have to fire upon to eliminate that lethal threat to ME? That's right "Joe Armed Citizen".

    Now, because of Joe's reckless lack of responsibilty and reckless act of arming himself without "bothering" to become highly skilled, I find myself in a scenario I had nothing to do with wherein I'M now shooting Joe to stop HIS wanton act of violence.

    I strongly, wholeheartedly, and vehemently disagree that "it just doesn't happen as you imply". It HAS happened, and innocent bystanders HAVE been hit by stray bullets coming from lawfully present firearms.

    It's happened more than once over the last 233 years since this country was established. And it's BECAUSE of this wanton and reckless disregard by SOME American citizens (including LEO's, btw) that CAUSED the anti-gun nutballs to freak out and begin their incessant attempts to prevent lawful AND responsible, armed citizens from being able to enjoy their rights.

    Gun bans did NOT begin in the "Roaring Twenties". Hardly. Even Wyatt Earp had a gun ban in place in Tombstone, the enforcement of which is what led up the the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, btw.

    So yeah, it HAS happened, and if we don't approach things with a common sense mindset, it WILL happen again.

    The big "roar" from the gun public after Virginia Tech was that "SEE! We should be able to protect ourselves from nuts like Cho!" Agreed. But I ALSO know that Cho was, at the outset, a LEGALLY armed citizen, who became a nightmare. But Cho was not some "street scum coppin' a gat in the back alley at midnight".he initially WAS legally armed, guns legally purchased.

    So, I'm not "implying" it happens, it DOES happen. I intend to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure it does NOT happen to me and mine. That INCLUDES constant and consistent training so I'm at the highest skill level I can possibly attain, AND doing what I can to restrict those who CHOOSE not to be highly skilled and trained, and recklessly, wantonly, and willfully act in complete disregard for MY rights and safety.

    They DO have their rights, of course. But, I'm not going to let anyone assert their rights by stepping on mine. I've CHOSEN to beresponsible and become proficient in both execution and tactics, andI insist they do the same.

    Just some thoughts.

    J.B.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I'll be straight forward, I didn't read all of your post. It's about 10 minutes before I head to work and I just skimmed through it.

    You say Joe Armed Citizen is dangerous to you and your lady because he's engaging a bad guy. I assume you're meaning that he isn't hitting the bad guy and stray bullets are flying everywhere. And you say this is a lack of training. However later on you mention Mr. Cho killing students in Virginia Tech. I wasn't aware that he had any formal training. If a crazed gunman who has never had any formal training can kill 30+ people over the course of a few minutes I think you're underestimating Joe Armed Citizen.

    You also mentioned something about the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. You said that shouting fire is not within your right to free speech. That is not the same as causing panic in a public place because someone saw your firearm. If I shout fire I am creating a false alarm if there is no fire. If I am carrying a firearm in a holster how am I creating a false alarm?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •