 "Photo: patdollard.com")
There are laws at A&M-Commerce regarding the possession of concealed weapons on campus. While these laws may be in place to ensure student safety, there are some people who object to those restrictions.
As stated in Section 46.03, Chapter 46, Title 10 of the Texas Penal Code, a person is allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus, but is prohibited from taking it into university-owned buildings.
“A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club or prohibited weapon on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution,” the law reads.
University Police Department Crime Information Officer Lt. Jason Bone said the university and UPD do not have separate rules students must adhere to in regards to concealed weapons.
“We just follow the law,” he said. “If you’re in violation of the law, then we’re going to get you.”
According to Bone, who was recently involved in an incident of a student being arrested with a set of brass knuckles, the presence of illegal weapons is not commonplace in Commerce.
“I’d say we only have about two or three incidents of illegal weapons in a year,” he said.
One A&M-Commerce student chooses to keep his firearms nearby – a Glock 26 pistol and a Smith & Wesson assault rifle – in case of an emergency.
“I keep my assault rifle in my car, and the Glock most of the time in my car,” the senior environmental science major said. “But sometimes I keep it [in my room] – hidden, but within easy reach.”
The student, who chose to remain anonymous, is in the U.S. Army Reserves and received his Concealed Handgun License (CHL) from the U.S. government. He feels that his legal inability to carry his pistol puts him at risk.
“It’s crap because if something were to happen, then I would be defenseless,” he said.
Other students, like senior chemistry major Nate Hanson, object to students not being able to carry weapons on campus, simply because he does not see the harm in it.
“Students and professors carrying concealed weapons on campus does not threaten me in any way, and I don’t feel strongly against it,” Hanson said.
According to Bone, there have never really been problems with people carrying concealed weapons.
“[Concealed handguns] have never been an issue before,” he said. “I was around when they passed that law [governing concealed weapons] and people talking about it probably going up after that. But it actually went down at that point.”
1 comments Log in to Comment
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.Defenseless victims murdered: 68
Defenseless victims injured: 69Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; murdered: 5
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 10Now, let’s see your proof where an armed intended victim “made things worse”.Now add to this the fact that THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; this means that if you want protection, for you and your loved ones, from violent crime; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it. Some will argue that the police MUST protect the cowardly sheep; but here's what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection) Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection) Now let’s look at this under the harsh light of reason and logic and not the pale light of cowardice: Why should a police officer risk his life to save something of such insignificant value (your life), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now