Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Colorado Sheriff refuses to support campus gun ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    http://www.gazette.com/opinion/state-94668-gun-ban.html

    OUR VIEW: Sheriff says he'll undermine gun ban.

    Anti-gun theorists impose dangerous policy February 23, 2010 6:10 PM The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.


    Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.
    CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.

    “I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”

    Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.

    Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.
    “There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.
    Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.

    At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers. “This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”

    Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.

    “I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!) The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.
    “God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.

    Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff's to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.

    “If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said. In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.

    “They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.
    That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime. — [size=Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board]


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Wow! we need more LEOs and public officials like this guy... Hopefully we can get some, and hopefully this one stays in office for a long, long time.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    My God, these people are crazy.

    +100 to Sheriff Alderden and Sheriff Maketa for their stance.

    People are sick if they base decisions like thissolely off of emotion and ill-informed (and ill-informing) campaigns and information. All they're doing is setting themselves and others up for tragedy.

    I have stated this before, but police were aided greatlyby armed citizens in pinning down Charles Whitman when he decided to take his Marine-sharpshooter training and lay waste to an entire area by cutting down over a dozen people and wounding more than 30 others. Do you think it would have been worse if some people had not driven around with their firearms?

    Gun bans! Heck, they even banned pepper spray and taser guns (something I am advocates of for peopple that want to defend themselves but don't wantor can't have a gun, even I want a taser for various reasons)....Poppycock

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Should Colorado State students ignore the new weapons ban, as one sheriff suggests?

    Yes, they should ignore the ban 93%

    No, they should obey the campus rules 6%

    I don't know 0%

    I don't care 0%

    Total Votes: 3449
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    I hope those morons who support this ban do not breed.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    zack991 wrote:
    I hope those morons who support this ban do not breed.
    yup.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I admire that sheriffs courage. One thing that still gets me though is anytime you agree to any Licensing or Permit papers from the government you are giving up your freedoms. So concealed Weapons Permits, issued by the government; You are not exorcising your right to keep in bear arms, you are exorcising your privilege consented by the state.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    He may not necessarily agree or disagree with it but he must operate in law of the land, as a sheriff, to give people to carry their weapons how they choose to under what is legal. But you are exactly right.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Good editorial and good for that sheriff.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Good editorial and good for that sheriff.
    We need more like him and our Sheriff in El Paso County, Terry Maketa. Now if Denver would disappear into a sink hole--taking Tax Ritter and the democrap legislature with it, Colorado would be a great state again. It will be after the Nov elections anyway.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    The the republicans with them, please. Take all politicians.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I wonder if the Sheriff could arrest the Board of Governors, that voted in favor of the ban,for "accessary to criminal activity" should any student or staff member be injured during a crime on campus?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I wonder if the Sheriff could arrest the Board of Governors, that voted in favor of the ban,*for "accessary to criminal activity" should any student or staff member be injured during a crime on campus?
    Utah is currently trying to pass a law that would make businesses who do not allow guns on their property liable for shootings, other violent crimes, and AD/NDs that take place on their property. Businesses that allow guns would not be able to be held liable or sued

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Eh, that's silly. The same laws that give us the right to carry, give them the right to ban it. If they do not want guns on their property, that is their option. Penalizing small business owners because of this could lead to other over government regulation -- imagine tomorrow you get sued by someone in your house because you didnt have a security system.

    People need to take their own responsibility. If you want to protect yourself, come armed. If you choose not to, that's your personal thing.

    Let's not tread on the rights of others to promote our own cause.

  15. #15
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    tekshogun wrote:
    He may not necessarily agree or disagree with it but he must operate in law of the land, as a sheriff, to give people to carry their weapons how they choose to under what is legal. But you are exactly right.
    Depends on the state and local governments if he doesn't want to prosecute.

    I'll clarify a misconception people have in law enforcement. Just because people are found to break the law, have a police report made, etc doesn't mean they'll be charged. DAs can decide to not charge a person, just as law enforcement can decide to confront a person when they see break the law.

    I recently discussed this on a furry related group, as this is a HUGE misconception. There are tin foil hat people on this forum, which their incorrect opinions are not welcome. law enforcement works above like I mentioned in PA and AK, both which have understanding law enforcement. Sure there are always the cases where an officer makes others look bad, you can't stop those from happening.

    Depending on state and local government, the sheriff may just have the power to deny jailing people.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Depends on the jurisdiction. There are states that require law enforcement to take action if they are confronted with illegal action.

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    tekshogun wrote:
    He may not necessarily agree or disagree with it but he must operate in law of the land, as a sheriff, to give people to carry their weapons how they choose to under what is legal. But you are exactly right.
    Depends on the state and local governments if he doesn't want to prosecute.

    I'll clarify a misconception people have in law enforcement. Just because people are found to break the law, have a police report made, etc doesn't mean they'll be charged. DAs can decide to not charge a person, just as law enforcement can decide to confront a person when they see break the law.

    I recently discussed this on a furry related group, as this is a HUGE misconception. There are tin foil hat people on this forum, which their incorrect opinions are not welcome. law enforcement works above like I mentioned in PA and AK, both which have understanding law enforcement. Sure there are always the cases where an officer makes others look bad, you can't stop those from happening.

    Depending on state and local government, the sheriff may just have the power to deny jailing people.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    ... There are states that require law enforcement to take action if they are confronted with illegal action.
    A citation please, IAW Rule 7), removing discretion from sworn officers.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Sorry, we are talking about police discretion. There are states
    that require, for example, that there must be an arrest in domestic abuse cases, such as NJ, under the NJ Domestic Violence Act.

    Off the top of my head, I don't know the other laws, but there are states that require action for felonies for example. I'll see if I can find it on LexusNexus


    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Pace wrote:
    ... There are states that require law enforcement to take action if they are confronted with illegal action.
    A citation please, IAW Rule 7), removing discretion from sworn officers.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Man chose not to enforce a bad law, my hero of the week. A few thousand more Sheriff's and police chiefs like him would be a wake up call for outlaw administrators, regulatory agencies and legislators who pass bad laws with impunity and no repercussions on them.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

Posting Permissions

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