A quick note to my daughter Kim and others who might be ready to start carrying on campus today. You need to have the “Enhanced Carry” permit before you can legally carry on campus and you need to wait until July 1. Send me an email if you want to get the training for the enhanced permit in the Moscow, Idaho area. I know some people…
Students for Concealed Carry sent me an email with the following news release. From here:
Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed campus carry bill SB1254 into law, which is expected to go into effect on July 1st. The bill allows law abiding adults over the age of 21 who have been issued an Idaho enhanced concealed carry permit to be able to carry a firearm onto most parts of campus without fear of reprisal from university policy.
With the passage of this bill, Idaho joins the states of Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin which have provisions for law abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms onto parts of campus grounds proper. Some additional states such as North Carolina and South Carolina allow licensed persons to store firearms in a car, but otherwise forbid firearms on college campuses. While Idaho will not allow firearms into dormitory buildings or into campus building hosting a sporting competition or similar events, this measure allows students in Idaho to join their counterparts in Colorado and Utah in being able to defend themselves while attending class.
“This is a major step forward for Idaho, and for our nation as a whole”, said Kurt Mueller, Students for Concealed Carry’s Director of Public Relations. “We have seen these policies in effect in other states without the massive negative consequences predicted by our opposition, and we have every expectation this will likewise be Idaho’s experience.”
Students for Concealed Carry is working to ensure that the momentum from this move will spread to similar efforts underway in nearby states, particularly Texas. “Texas has proposed campus carry a few times over the past couple of years, with various versions being passed by either the Texas House or Senate. We hope that the shared experience of its sister states will show Texas and the rest of the nation that these types of laws are successful and do not impact the academic mission of universities.”, Mueller said.
CONTACT
Kurt Mueller, National Director of Public Relations, Students for Concealed Carry
kurt.mueller@concealedcampus.org
http://www.ConcealedCampus.org
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY – Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, professors, college employees, parents of college students, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC has members in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC at the national level, visit ConcealedCampus.org.
“Enhanced carry”?
Sounds interesting!
“Enhanced” should be a major improvement over plain, old every day carry…
Perhaps it mean my loader can carry the spare barrel and belts for me? Or that I can use the jeep to tow my “carry gun”?
(I really would like to know what “enhanced” is supposed to mean. Probably won’t be as good as I imagined though.)
Basically an enhanced carry permit requires more training.
Enhanced carry permit.
Standard carry permit.
Good stuff. Just one little nit to pick;
“…these types of laws are successful and do not impact the academic mission of universities.”
We need to get beyond the claim of zero impact and assert the more realistic claim of positive impact. More like;
“…these types of laws are successful and help further the academic mission of universities.” They make mass killings FAR more difficult, and dangerous for the perpetrator. This illustrates the importance of prosecuting enforcing 241 and 242– they have been getting people killed through their deprivation of rights.
Where is the proof of this positive impact? All I see are claims but I see no proof….
Coy, coy ubu; “Proof” is what is demanded from people who support human rights. We are asked to “prove” that respecting human rights would NOT be a horrible thing. Cute. But I don’t fall for it.
First; I don’t need “proof” that respecting a human right is a good thing that leads to other good things.
Second; no one ever used a gun to stop an active killer? Do I really have to dig up a few hundred, or a few thousand cases to satisfy you, or have you been so self-blinded that you never heard of them?
Third; I don’t suppose common sense would have impinged upon your belief system to the point where it would be obvious to you that criminals don’t obey gun laws, and so any gun restriction is in effect a government-enforced monopoly for criminals’ use of guns? I don;t suppose Chicago’s and WA DC’s violent crime rates compared to Boise, Idaho’s crime rate, and many, many other examples of gun restrictive places being more violent than gun free places could touch your understanding either.
You’re running scared here, and I can smell fear. It’s making you desperate, but I’ll take heart in the fact that I just changed the conversation. Did you notice how we’re not talking about guns putting people in danger, but instead we’re talking about whether and by how much they make people safer?
THAT’S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE CONCEPT. This is a message to my fellow freedom lovers out there. SEE HOW THIS WORKS, PEOPLE? YOU DON’T NEED TO FIGHT ON THE ENEMY’S TURF. EVER.
ubu, do you get *paid* to be a perpetual gadfly here?
She’s not here for the hunting.
ubu’s reply is why I actually prefer simply stating “no negative effect”, which requires only a basic perusal of raw data and not detailed analysis, and leave it at that. Make the point that we are dealing with a fundamental right and the peaceable exercise of fundamental rights doesn’t require defense or justification. With that premise it is sufficient to show no appreciable harm.
Although the evidence exists for positive effect, getting into a pissing match over competing cites with an anti-gunner is handing them a gift. You will not convince people determined to not believe, all you can do with battling stats in a public forum is confuse the audience, people who are not ideological and won’t take the effort to really educate themselves.
What you are trying to do is present yourself, accurately, as the calm, rational, factual proponent whose statements correspond with their observed reality after a moment’s reflection. Given that the anti-rights crowd usually goes from pseudo-reasonable to batshit crazy in about 5 minutes if properly handled, all you have to do online is wait them out.
Some comments.
Any kind of permit is constitutionally suspect, and one requiring training is even more so.
Lyle is correct, but even if carry DID impact the “academic mission” [sic], it would be a constitutionally protected human right. Any such hypothetical impact wouldn’t be a valid excuse to infringe the right.
I looked at the Students for Concealed Carry website. Just before this news item, there’s an “open letter”. It’s extremely well written, and definitely worth reading.
That said, of course, in the spirit of incremental improvement this is a great step.
I’m over here at BYU-Idaho and we’ve got a movement for carrying on campus. It hopefully isn’t too far off now.
Wonkette has spoken: http://wonkette.com/544085/congratulations-idaho-now-you-can-carry-concealed-weapons-on-college-campuses#idc-cover
With typical nonsense.
As Robb Allen at “Sharp as a Marble” recently pointed out, the anti-rights folks most consistent tactic of contesting laws is acting as if possibility equals probability while ignoring actual experience with the same laws elsewhere. They act as if every law exists in a vacuum and people in one state or locale are somehow fundamentally different from people in states and locales that have had the same laws for years with no documentable ill-effects.
Which is both contra-reason and puts any statements of egalitarian beliefs on their part in doubt.