http://easternecho.com Students all over the state of Michigan may soon be able to carry concealed weapons on campus. Bill 5474, introduced by Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City, to the Michigan House of Representatives, would prohibit colleges from banning weapons on campus. en-us Gryphon 2.2.1-dsw (woodward)/Foundry5 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:07 -0500 webmaster@easternecho.com http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/226 If I recall correctly, after each school shooting, the police never arrived in time to save a single life. Although you may have “a great police department”, their purpose, as evidenced by past shootings, is to secure the ‘scene’, draw chalk lines around each student victim’s body and conduct ‘reassuring’ press conferences for the news media. Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:15:39 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/226 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/231 1. This will simply bring the universities into line with the rest of the state. 2. All the rest of state law would still apply. All the bad things that bad people can do with guns would still be illegal. 3. The police in the rest of the state have figured out how to deal with armed citizens over the past 10 years, fairly successfully. 4. The argument being made about young people and alcohol simply does not hold water when you consider that most of the drinking done by college students takes place OFF campus where the laws of Michigan, not the university, apply. And, there is no evidence that guns and alcohol lead to any higher incidence of tragedies among the age group off campus. 5. The MSU Board of Trustees recently voted to come into compliance with state law and no tragedies have resulted. Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:05:48 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/231 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/233 The precedent has been set. Police do not have to protect you. All of these anti-gun people, are they afraid of confrontation? of survival? You have a right to protect yourself and your life. Why are they so afraid of that? Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:57:44 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/233 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/241 Why is the author’s title “Concealed weapons bill would allow guns in trunks on campus” so clueless. Has the author even read the bill or understand that concealed carry means concealed carry on one’s person (not the trunk of your car). To carry a firearm in the trunk of one’s car, no concealed carry permit is even needed. Anyway, I support the legislation as it does indeed remove a conflict in state law. Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:37:53 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/241 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/242 I write this as an Alumni of EMU,a Police Officer and as a concerned parent and citizen. The notion that allowing students, who have gone through the neccesary steps to obtain a CPL, would be a liability on campus is ludicris at best. Gun free zones only keep law abiding citezens from carrying a weapon on campus. Criminals do not adhear to them. President Martin notes that one of her concerns was what happened on the VT campus. Well Mr Cho did NOT have the Virgina concealed weapons permit when he walked into Norris hall and killed 30people in just about 2 minutes. This was after he killed two people in the dorm across campus 2 hours prior. VT had a ban in place on weapons on campus at that time. Had there been someone with a legally possesed weapon in either the dorm or in Norris hall, could Cho have been stopped? Most certainly. Would there have been a lower body count (Which is what people like Cho, Dillion/Klibolt, etc are looking for, a high body count right?) most likley. Could a armed student, teacher, janitor etc have greatly affected the outcome at VT? Most assuredly and I defy anyone to prove me wrong. VT has a great campus police dept as does EMU. The first VT Police officer was on scene with in 30seconds of the first 911 call for Norris hall. He and the others ecountered barricaded entrances (Cho had chained the doors shut from the inside) and it took them 2 mins to get inside. When they were inside and moving in the direction of the shooting Cho killed himself when he realized that the police were coming. We all know what happened during the 2 minutes it took them to get to him, he killed 30 people. The outcome WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT if concealed weapons were allowed. Statisically speaking a VT type incident WILL happen again and it will be bigger (remember they strive to out do the last guy). Like I said EMU does have a great police departement (and remember I am a cop) but lets remember that when SECONDS count, the Police are only MINUTES away. Jay. Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:09:44 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/242 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/243 I do not believe that guns should be allowed on any school grounds. I have nothing against guns, just some of the people that choose to have them. Despite the fact that this is 2009, almost 2010, there are still a large number of racists and other white supremacist groups out there. If this bill passes, what will prevent the supremacists and neo nazis in this country from barging into Hillel houses across the state and holding the students in the Hillel house hostage, or just killing them? What’s to prevent something minor like say someone bumping into someone else from escalating into a shoot out. People are killed for stupid reasons in this country; example: I know of a person that had her brother killed because he accidentally cut someone off while driving on the high way; he’d had his license for three weeks. As a student in the minority as I’m a woman and Jewish, I would be very uncomfortable walking on a campus where concealed weapons were allowed. Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:02:07 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/243 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/244 Heather, what is in place to prevent the “racist, white supremacist and neo-nazis” from doing what you fear they will do anyway? Do you think that if they were so inclined to barge in and either kill or take hostage people at Hillel house they would abide by a gun free zone or a ban on concealed carry, while they are killing and maiming? But for arguement sake would you rather be killed by the neo-nazis who storm the Hillel house or would you rather have either A) the option to protect yourself or B) the ability of a fellow student who is there to protect you? Is Hillel house owned by the university (its not on campus)? If not there would be no restrictions and you could carry there right now if you so chose? Just curious. As for people bumping into each other and then cranking rounds off at each other, this has not been happening in “the general public” so I am not sure why you would think that it would happen on campus. The requiements to get a CPL and puchase a firearm would be exactly the same as some one out in the real world. Do some research and tell me (i already know the answer) if people with CPL’s are more or less likely to be involved in violence (with them as a suspect) or commit a crime. And lastly you say that you would be very uncomfortable with concealed weapons on campus. I can almost guantee that if you walk across campus on a daily basis you have walked past people carrying concealed weapons. Weather they are a person who is illegally carrying or a person with a CPL that has chosen to carry there despite the restrictions. One may save you the other may rob you. The whole point of CONCEALED is that no one else knows about it, so you better look at EVERYONE you pass from now on as having a gun on them, LOL Jay Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:22:58 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/244 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/245 Heather a few points: 1) There are over 200,000 MI residents over 21 years of age that have gone though training, background check and were screened by the county gun board that carry every day around you when you are not on campus. So do have the same worries when you go to the mall or walk down town? 2) I hope your not imply gun owner are racist. 3) “If this bill passes, what will prevent the supremacists and neo nazis in this country from barging into Hillel houses across the state and holding the students in the Hillel house hostage, or just killing them?” So what do think is stopping them right now? If you are going to break the law by killing someone then why get e permit. I don’t see the logic here. Right now the only people that have guns on campus are criminal and the police that can’t everywhere. There is no magic shield around campus keeping criminals and weapons off it. 4) Quick look on line it appears that Hillel house is not on EMU property or ran by EMU. So unless it also serves, as a synagogue then there is no federal, state or campus law stopping law abiding citizens with canceled pistol licenses from carry into this building. 5) If you feel threaten as a minority then I suggest you look into whatever forms of self-defense you feeling comfortable. If you want to learn how to use firearms in self-defense I would suggest contacting a local gun club. The police have no duty to protect and will not be there in time either. Saying I will call 911 is a poor plan at best. 6) Every one despite their race or gender has a basic human right to protect their life. Please don’t stop me from saving my own! Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:41:43 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/245 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/246 The things that Heather is saying sound exactly like what the 2nd Amendment hating media and the out of touch elites are saying. I think that if firearms were not demonized on a large scale like they are people would be more in touch with reality. Why is a person’s right to protect themselves and others looked down on so much? Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:24:21 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/246 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/247 I find it interesting that most of the comments here are from people who are pro-concealed weapons on campus. It’s almost as though you feel you need to defend yourself. I work in emergency management and the main goal of our job is to stop disasters, natural or man-made, from happening in the first place. The more guns that are around, the more risk there is. Anyone can clearly see that. I openly defend the right for someone to protect them self, but I am not comfortable with people taking the law into their own hands. A college campus is supposed to be a place of education and fun, where all can freely express them self’s. I don’t want to have to walk to class wondering if the person next to me has a gun or not, whether they have a permit or not. I say “NO” to this bill Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:13:35 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/247 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/248 Not once has a police officer been able to stop one of these rampage shootings at a school, church, or other no-carry zone before someone was killed. Recently, in a church in Colorado, a citizen was able to engage an active shooter. She was a licensed concealed carry permit holder. Officers and church-goers said the concealed permit holder saved lives because of her actions. She wasn’t taking the law into her hands, she was protecting herself and fellow parishioners. Recently in Plainfield, Conn, a dog was attacking an animal control officer. A citizen shot the dog. The Police Chief later thanked the citizen and said if the Citizen hadn’t taken action, the incident may have turned out much worse for the officer. http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x593060375/Plainfield-resident-shoots-dog-stops-attack-on-animal-control-officer In Nebraska at a Von Maur store, 8 people were killed in a no-gun zone shopping mall. Reports said at least one person in the mall at the time of the shooting saw the shooter and could do nothing since he left his gun in the car because the mall was a no-gun zone. Too bad the bad guy ignored the no-gun sign. It took police officers 6 minutes to respond in Nebraska. In that 6 minutes, the shooter shot 12 people killing 8 and then killed himself before the first officer showed up. Police officers can’t be everywhere. It took 5 minutes for officers to respond to the shooting in Virginia Tech. By the time police got into the building, just 5 minutes after the first 911 call, the shooter had already killed 30 people in the building and then killed himself. If you are waiting for an officer to come rescue you, the truth is you are likely going to be shot and killed before they get there. Face it, no bad guy is going to be finger printed, go through a firearms training class, and have a background check to carry a concealed firearm. The threat isn’t the law abiding citizen, it is the crook who for whatever reason wants to assault you and take your stuff. The fact is, the bad guy is going to break the law. A law abiding citizen with training and a background check just might make a positive difference. Yet no where has it EVER been shown that legal gun carry has increased violence. In fact study after study shows, where legal carry is permitted crime violence has gone down including here in Michigan. Remember, in Michigan, you must be 21 or older to conceal carry so the majority of students on campus can’t carry a firearm even under the new law. The tragedy at VT may have been prevented had concealed carry been allowed on Campus. We will never know, but 32 people lost their life that day. Scores more were wounded, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre One of the professors killed in VT was a Holocaust survivor. He died while using his body as a shield to block the door, giving students enough time to jump out the window. Before you say responsible gun ownership doesn’t save lives every day. Learn about the thousands of people every year that defend themselves and their family from violence with a gun. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/ or http://twitter.com/2ndright The whole point of concealed is it is concealed, you don’t have to know it is there or be threatened. You don’t have to carry a gun if you don’t want to, but you are much safer if someone around you is. A comment from Robb said. “The more guns that are around, the more risk there is. Anyone can clearly see that.” Sadly this is using common assertion as fact. As a university, the decision should be driven by data and research, not assumptions and characterizations. There is no data to support Robb’s assertion. The nightmare scenarios outlined by the President Martin and Chief O’Dell have never come true. But every day in America, someone’s life was saved because a law abiding citizen was carrying a gun. Don’t assume you are safer in a no-carry zone simply because a sign says no guns allowed. If a sign was all we needed to prevent violence, then how come we don’t have more signs? Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:08:09 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/248 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/249 Robb I’ll preface this by saying that there is likely nothing I will ever say to change your views and there is nothing that you will ever say to change mine, but that is what makes this country great, free speech and freedom of thought.That said I would like to ask you a couple of questions to get a feel for the kind of person you are. Being in Emergency Management, as you are, with the main goal, according to you to Prevent disasters both natural and man made how many Tornado’s, Hurricanes, Earth Quakes, toxic material escapes, etc etc etc have you been able to prevent? I’ll venture that the number is EXTREMELY close to zero, no offense. Thus you would have to agree that your line of work and law enforcement for that matter are predominately reactive not pro active, follow me so far? Please advised me how you would prevent an active shooter on campus? Well they dont happen very often so lets prevent a robbery or a rape? And by prevent I mean that they do not even come close to happening, not calling 911 after they have started (reactive, right?) Next please explain to me how 1) Defending yourself is “taking the law into your own hands” and 2) How in one breath you can say that you “openly defend the right of someone to protect themselves” but “that you are not comfortable with someone taking the law into their own hands.” Seems like you want your cake and want to eat it too. 3) Please address campus is “ Where all can freely express themselves” except if you they want to FREELY carry a concealed weapon for their own personal protection, which of course you “openly defend the right to do…” yeahhh see where there may be some conflicting messages in your post. Lastly I’m curious how YOU would react to someone bursting to Pray Harold with a gun and starting shooting people or since that is not a very common occurance, how do you react to someone trying to car jack you in a campus parking lot. Do you lay down and accept your fate (which could likley be a bullet in the back of the head) or do you defend yourself,because remember you “openly defend that right.” I have an idea of which way you will lean on all of this but please prove me wrong, LOL J- Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:58:46 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/249 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/250 The people who are afraid of open carry have been fed the same propaganda most of their lives. A long time ago tyrants and control freaks disguised as politicians realized that they would not be able to lie, cheat, and steal their way to special privileges and extreme wealth. So they started to demonize guns. The political elite who want to impose gun control ultimately want to disarm the public so they can claim even more power. This would be fascism and ya know, we’re pretty at that point these days. Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:05:19 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/250 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/275 “We have not seen, in Michigan, that people get out their guns and start blasting each other,” said Matt Davis, of the Michigan Attorney General’s Office. “It appears the new (concealed permit) law is working.” “I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” – John B. Holmes, District Attorney, Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston). Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:30:02 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/275 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/280 we might have a great police force but they cant be everywhere all the time. crime is still going to happen if we lived in a safe place than we wouldn’t get all of those “timely warnings to the community” like the newest one where 2 guys pulled a gun on the other ones and took a cell phone. I would bet that that gun was acquired illegally, and i know they didn’t have a right to carry it. but they would have thought twice if they knew more people were carrying concealed . Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:59:51 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/280 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/283 Open carry is currently allowed on campus’ in Michigan as long as you have a CPL (and you MUST open carry). Criminals are not going to abide by the law. If they want to commit a crime they will. They will also probably do it using a firearm the illegally obtained. CPL holders have to register their firearms, and they must take a class to make sure they know how to properly handle a firearm as well as conduct themselves when taking the responsibility to carry a firearm. Several states in the US have allowed students to carry on campus, and even the classrooms. There is NO evidence that firearm related violence has risen due to this. By allowing law abiding citizens to carry on campus you are also letting crriminals know that if they decide to commit a crime against someone on that campus, that the victim they choose could put up a fight with deadly consequences. Criminals don’t want to have to struggle with their victtim. They want an easy target. By not allowing law abiding citizens to carry, you are in turn creating a CEZ (Criminal Empowerment Zone). A place where a criminal knows that they can have their “pick of the litter”, or so to say. In the state of Michigan, you also do not need a license to carry a firearm. As long as you have a registered handgun in your nme you may choose to OPEN CARRY. If you want to learn more about open carry visit miopencarry.org Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:50:59 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/283 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/284 Just so you are aware, currently if you open carry on camous with a CPL it IS legal, but if you are a student then you face the possibility of expulsion from the school. Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:03:03 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/284 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/285 Vance, Just curious why you would need a CPL to open carry on campus when it is legal to carry open off campus with no CPL? Also wouldnt a gun free zone, as they are writtn currently, preclude you from carrying open or concealed regardless of permit on a campus? belive me I an very pro 2nd amendment (read my above posts) but something doesnt sound correct about what you are saying, legally speaking. J- Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:00:24 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/285 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/288 You are correct, open carry without a license is legal. On the back of a CPL license it reads “This license allows the licensee to carry a pistol on or about his person ANYWHERE IN THE STATE, except a licensee shall not carry a CONCEALED pistol at a school, on school property, day care, bar, stadium , etc, etc”. These areas are known as PFZ’s (Pistol Free Zones) Notice how it says “shall not carry concealed”. Since this license allows a CPL holder to carry ANYWHERE in the state, as long as the CPL holder carrys OPENLY, they are legally allowed to carry in these PFZ’s. This has been ruled by lawyers, members of the Michigan State Police, and several court cases have also proved that this is in fact legal. Check out miopencarry.org for more info. Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:06:43 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/288 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/289 http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php Argument: Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime. Answer: Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes. “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997); “An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:15:28 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/289 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/293 Vance I have to do some more reading on this and I’ll actually talk to our prosecutor but the AG’s brief on the subject that I found spoke predominately about uniformed auxillary police as being able to carry in the pistol free zones but was vague on private citizens. But i’ll do some more checking. J- Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:29:56 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/293 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/295 An AG opinion is NOT needed for this. Look at the way it is worded. On the back of a CPL license it reads “This license allows the licensee to carry a pistol on or about his person ANYWHERE IN THE STATE, except a licensee shall not carry a CONCEALED pistol at a school, on school property, day care, bar, stadium , etc, etc”. These areas are known as PFZ’s (Pistol Free Zones) Notice how it says “shall not carry concealed”. Since this license allows a CPL holder to carry ANYWHERE in the state, as long as the CPL holder carrys OPENLY, they are legally allowed to carry in these PFZ’s. The only places you couldn’t open carry, or conceal carry WITH a CPL would be a court room (or a building that has a court room), or any federal owned building. Check out miopencarry.org to learn more. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:49:40 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/295 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/296 Here is Michigan State Police Sgt. Thomas Deasy’s response to the question about open carry in PFZ’s (Pistol Free Zones) for CPL holders. MSP opinion: Your analysis is correct. Non-CPL pistol free zones do not apply to CPL holders. The CPL pistol free zones only apply to CPL holders carrying a concealed pistol. Therefore, a CPL holder may openly carry a pistol in Michigan’s pistol free zones. Sincerely, Sgt. Thomas Deasy, Michigan State Police Executive Resource Section, 714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 336-6441 Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:55:10 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/296 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/297 vance, As long as there is legal precendent looks like you are good for what you are saying. I have a qualifing exemption for all of this so it is a moot point for me just didnt want to see anyone else get in trouble over interpretation, but with precendence that can not happen. J- Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:39:13 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/297 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/302 Anyone who decides to carry, should research ALL of the laws before they decide to do so. For example, yes you can legally open carry into most businesses, but if you do not have a CPL you can’t open carry into Meijer, Walmart, or any business that sells alcohol. Also, businesses can ask that you leave if they don’t like the fact that you are carrying a firearm (or wearing a purple shirt), and if you refuse to leave you could be arrested for tresspassing. Most businesses do not take this approach, even if you open carry. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:07 -0500 http://easternecho.com/index.php/comment/view/302