Monday, July 11, 2016

Opponents of Guns on Texas Campuses Are Poorly Armed

The Dallas Morning News and TexasTribune (along with other publications) have provided fifteen minutes of fame to three University of Texas at Austin professors. They have brought suit against the university to halt Texas’ new campus carry gun law that returns the student’s right to defend themselves- albeit with state restrictions. The suit asks a federal judge to grant an injunction to block the law before becoming effective Aug. 1.

 I won’t name the three professors here (to save them embarrassment) but will list the faculty departments for The Three Hoplophobes: Two of them work in the Department of English and the third serves in the Department of Sociology. It’s a surprise to few that such a specious effort would emanate from disciplines offering discussions frequently driven by prescribed agendas rather than reason and facts.

The attorney’s lawsuit brief laughably refers to the law taking effect on the 50th anniversary of the day CharlesWhitman stood atop the school's tower and shot 16 people dead:

"In a cruel irony, the Texas Legislature has mandated that fifty years to the day after one of the worst gun-related massacres ever on a college campus ... UT-Austin must begin allowing the concealed carrying of handguns on campus and in classrooms."

Apparently, the plaintiffs don’t seem to realize what ended this murderous 1966 rampage was another individual with a gun. As it turns out, there were multiple individuals with rifles engaging the shooter before the police arrived and neutralized him (sound familiar?). I was unable to determine what Texas laws existed in 1966 disallowing guns on campus, but whatever restrictions existed obviously failed.

It must also be mentioned that the new law only allows handguns carried by licensed individuals, not rifles.

The suit lists a number of Constitutional Amendments The Three Hoplophobes claim are being violated. Let’s examine them in numerical order:

First Amendment

This is being violated because “the possibility of guns on campus could stifle class discussion.”

According to the lawsuit, "Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom"

The “possibility” of guns on campus already exists! Anyone can now carry a gun onto campus, despite what any “law” may declare. Apparently, the "possibility" of guns carried by licensed gun owners is believed more a danger than the present reality of illegal guns!

The “possibility” of knives or any other potentially deadly (but legal) tools on campus does not seem to threaten their “academic freedom.”

“Without limitation or restriction?” As mentioned earlier, for anyone to legally carry a handgun into a classroom, they must be concealed permit holders. How is that requirement not a “limitation” or “restriction?”

When The Three Hoplophobes are off campus in a public area, there are obviously (though not to them) individuals nearby packing concealed weapons. Do they feel threatened in that scenario? Is their academic freedom “chilled?”

Second Amendment

I don’t think I can remember this amendment being cited to defend an anti-gun legal complaint.

According to the plaintiffs:

"The Second Amendment is not a one-way street. It starts with the proposition that a 'well-regulated militia,' (emphasis added), is necessary to the security of a free state. The Supreme Court has explained that 'well-regulated' means 'imposition of proper discipline and training.'"

"If the state is to force them to admit guns into their classrooms, then the officials responsible for the compulsory policy must establish that there is a substantial reason for the policy and that their regulation of the concealed carrying of handguns on college campuses is 'well-regulated.' Current facts indicate that they cannot do so."

Using the above definition of “well regulated,” how can state certification not be proper “discipline and training?” Please examine the linked eligibility and training requirements for a Texas CHL. They are not exactly lenient or effortless.

A “substantial reason for the policy” has not been established?  How about the slaughter of college students over recent years whom had no way to defend themselves? Is that not a “legitimate” reason. Every single one of those shooters violated laws against gun possession on campus. Wouldn’t it just be common sense to allow properly “disciplined and trained,” CHL holding students to counteract any attack?

How do “current facts indicate that they cannot do so,” as it pertains to achieving the plaintiff’s standard of “well regulated?” The current facts indicate just the opposite!

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, between 1996 and 2011, the number of murder and manslaughter convictions for CHL holders totaled 30 over sixteen years. The percentage of CHL holders committing such crimes over that same time is .7 per 100,000. The rate of murder and manslaughter for the general population (many armed with “illegal” guns) is 6.0 per 100,000. Obviously, CHL holders have a much better safety record than the general public. It therefore seems these plaintiffs should have a far greater fear of the general public than the CHL holders attending their classrooms.

Presently, there are eight states that allow concealed carry on campus, totaling about 150 campuses. According to, “Not one of these campuses has seen a single resulting act of violence (including threats) or a single resulting suicide attempt.” The Three Hoplophobes appear unaware of these “current facts.”

Fourteenth Amendment

The plaintiffs seem to be referring to the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I was unable to locate the plaintiff’s reasoning to offer this amendment as a defense, so I’ll just examine the clause and attempt a guess. I see no reason how this campus carry law “abridges” any “privileges or immunities” of the aggrieved, nor see evidence of a lack of due process depriving them of their “life, liberty, or property.” This may refer to their claim that Texas' new campus carry law is forcing the school to impose what the plaintiffs describe as "overly-solicitous, dangerously-experimental gun policies."

Objecting to a law with which you disagree hardly deprives one of any state granted privileges, let alone their life. Only criminals committing active aggression against other individuals offer such a threat- not speculative concern one may have about the potential of such aggression.  And any anxiety over perceived “dangerously-experimental gun policies" has been proven unnecessary. The "experiment" has been proven a success, while previous, outdated policies (such as onerous restrictions and Gun Free Zones) have been proven deadly failures!

The only party that would seem to be denied “equal protection of the laws” are those Texas CHL holders who obeyed such laws in order to legally carry their concealed handgun.

"We are armed with reason. We are armed with data. We are armed with passion. We are armed with longevity," claims one of The Three Hoplophobes. They appear to lack the necessary ammunition (facts) to support any "reason" and their magazine is empty as regards any "data." I have no doubt that (typical of most leftists) "passion" exists in abundance, as leftism is an emotionally driven ideology.

Any “longevity” can be credited to their  future work performance and tenure from their employer. And, of course, the protection freely offered by well trained, armed students in their classrooms.

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters



No comments: