By Louis K. Bonham
I recall one of my Constitutional Law professors (I believe it was the late, great Wallace Mendelson of UT) once observing that the First Amendment protects the right to make a fool of yourself. Professor Mendelson is probably smiling somewhere, as his epigram was dramatically proven correct on the first day of fall classes at the University of Texas, Austin.
As you’ve probably heard, a number of social justice warrior-types at UT decided that the best way to protest the new Texas law legalizing licensed concealed carry on college campuses is by publicly carrying sex toys around (under the slogan “Cocks not Glocks”). The ostensible logic behind this protest was that carrying sex toys on campus is purportedly illegal under Texas law, but carrying a handgun is not.
The result was, well, kinda scary.
In fairness, not all the sex toy protestors appeared to be relatives of renowned uber-SJW Trigglypuff.
Meet Cristina Ocampo, a third year Radio-Television-Film student. I asked her what she and her colleagues hoped to accomplish by their protest. She replied that they wanted to demonstrate the absurdity of legalizing campus carry through their own display of absurdity. OK, I replied, but what do you hope to accomplish? She appeared a bit confused by the question, so I explained.
The UT administration says their hands are tied by the law (she readily agreed). The courts have refused to block the law (again, she nodded in recognition), and so the only solution will be to change the law via the state legislature (more nodding).
Did she think that this kind of demonstration was going to persuade an GOP-dominated legislature that they were wrong in passing campus carry? She said she was optimistic that carrying dildos would bring more attention to the issue, noting that the protestors were working to register more voters. Of course, the UT campus and surrounding areas are already in districts that have been liberal Democrat strongholds for decades, so how more voters in such a constituency would change anything isn’t really clear. Ah, the naive optimism of youth.
Of course, such naivety was hardly confined to the young. At the accompanying rally by Gun Free UT, there were the expected array of speakers (professors, students, the local head of Moms Demand Action, various local Democrat politicians and candidates, etc.). All decried the horror that is campus carry and how evil those old white guy Christian Republicans were for passing it in the first place. While one or two speakers recognized the obvious — that the Texas legislature is overwhelmingly Republican and unlikely to reverse course — most were happy to simply bark at the moon and play to their own crowd.
Typical in this respect was TTAG favorite Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra.
His speech centered around his four-year-old seeing a “Molon Labe” sticker on a pickup, with the image of a Greek hoplite helmet, and asking him what it meant. Cañizares-Esguerra explained that it (and campus carry) was actually indicative of a Ku Klux Klan/white supremacist mentality that reflected a tyranny of demography against people of color, including Hispanics, on the other side of a border that shouldn’t be there in the first place. You get the idea.
He concluded by claiming that the actual translation of “Molon Labe” isn’t “come and take it” but actually “take it and come,” which of course went over well with the assembled sex toy-wavers. Hopefully, he’ll be making his reconquista arguments to the legislature next year where they will no doubt be very well received.
Next up was Mia Carter, one of the professors who have sued to block the implementation of campus carry. I was surprised to see her speak: as an attorney, the last thing I’d want is one of my clients in a pending federal lawsuit giving a public speech on that matter. Professor Carter gave a textbook demonstration as to why that’s a very bad idea.
Her stated position in the lawsuit is that with campus carry now legal, she’s so afraid that one of her students will go postal in her class that she has to change how and what she teaches. Therefore her “academic freedom” is being infringed. Speaking to a crowd of like-minded individuals, however, she said, “I’m not afraid of my students. I’m afraid for my students.” While that line drew cheers, I suspect her attorney will be reaching for the Maalox, as that statement guts her legal position (and should severely undermine her credibility with the court).
Lest everyone think all of UT has gone completely around the bend, I’d note that enrollment at the university is over 50,000, but the crowd at this much-publicized event was only a couple of hundred at most (and at times the media seemed to outnumber the protestors). I didn’t see any sex toys being carried anywhere but at the demonstration. And even among the crowd there were campus carry supporters.
One was a third-year chemical engineering student, Forrest Sullivan, an articulate young man in a classic Gonzales “Come and Take It” shirt who was interviewed by many of the assembled media (this despite occasional efforts from some of the more unhinged Trigglypuff wannabes to photobomb or shout him down).
He indicated that while he supported the rights of the sex toy-wavers to make their voices heard, their efforts seemed to be more name-calling than attempts at rational discussion. I asked him whether any of his professors had expressed any strong opinions on campus carry. He responded with a smile that “engineers are too boring,” and indicated that they had better things to do.
But perhaps the best message was from Students for Concealed Carry, who silently unfurled this banner above the rally:
Kinda says it all. You keep your dildos, we’ll keep our guns, and we’ll all get along just fine.
Funny how none of THEM were arrested for violating Texas law while anybody with a holstered pistol on display would have been jumped.
Yeah, seriously. Is is really illegal in TX to “open carry” a rubber penis? If so, where are the police, campus and otherwise? I saw some pretty hard (well rubbery) evidence in those pictures.
It really is illegal in Texas to open carry a flesh and blood penis.
The difference seems to have escaped the Cocks Not Glocks movement.
Thankfully concealed carry is still allowed!
JW, not for much longer if Hillary is elected.
So sometimes cock-blocking IS a good thing!
The good professor’s argument that legal carry would deprive her of her academic freedom is laughable. There is little or no academic freedom at UT thanks to liberal hags like the good professor who demand that their students accept and obey their liberal dogma.
Noted constitutional law professor Glenn Reynolds (a/k/a Instapundit) has characterized the professor’s free speech contention as “an embarrassingly stupid argument.” Judge Yeakel found no caselaw whatsoever to support it.
But hey, don’t confuse the UT professors with facts, precedent, or logic. Because feelz. And of course guns are icky . . . .
For all sorts of practical reasons, I doubt that Judge Yeakel will consider sanctions in the lawsuit. The Texas legislature, on the other hand, is perfectly free to dock UT’s next appropriation for the amounts the state had has to expend defending this goofy lawsuit (ideally, through targeted cuts against the departments employing these folks). Punch back twice as hard . . . .
My friend who was there asked a ckp and he said the Attorney General approved it
Considering that one of the many justifications (not including the protections of the Second Amendment “…shall not be infringed.” clause, is for the females on campus to be able to protect themselves from unwanted cocks (rape). And yet they somehow think that crying out “Cocks not Glocks” is an effective argument?
Well, this is the same kind of crowd that has thought over the years declaring “Rape Free Zones” would stop rapists (real ones)…At UNC-CH, they even sold t-shirts, as if the girl wearing such a shirt was rape-proof because of the shirt declaring her a “rape free zone.”
The lunacy of progressivism knows no bounds.
What really bothers me is the hypocrisy of these people. They wave coexist flags and preach tolerance, but they don’t practice what they preach. They have no problem discriminating against cultures they feel morally superior too.
The Coexist banners were from the campus carry group, proposing that dildos and pistols don’t have to live apart.
Live together, yes. Used together…
Not so much.
(If you must, *please* be careful.) 🙂
I need to freshen up my reading comprehension skills!
The pro-campus carry were the ones holding the coexist banners. Not the crazy liberals.
Look and read a little more closely. The Coexist flags WERE about tolerance and an opposing viewpoint to the protesters.
Sorry guys, didn’t mean to be redundant. I guess we were all typing and pressing send about the same time. 🙂
I’ve been wondering if Glock, the manufacturer of Glock brand Glocks, might have a trademark infringement case against these for using the “cocks not Glocks”…
Could get interesting if were to be.
Naw – they are getting free advertising.
Now, the average college student, upon turning 21 and making his or her first handgun purchase, will look at the many options. As they see the many options, they may be overwhelmed. And then, they see a Glock. They are reminded of the constant refrains they heard at school, decrying campus carry. And yet, he never saw or heard an ND, and frankly never even saw a single one of the concealed firearms. Glock, linked with effective concealed carry is now the only option.
Then come the caliber wars, which no force on heaven or earth can stop.
Why is it always about a phallus with these people?
Some people just have to be dicks…
It is a deep seated issue with them.
It’s always on their minds. Given their level of decency, I’m surprised they didn’t strip naked and home-run on the campus lawn all in the name… somehow… of gun control.
Hey, TTAG. Look, there’s a weekend coming up, could you lay off any more pics of that…
“Trigglypuff” thing?
Thanks!
The only thing this countries best young liberal minds can come up with to protest campus carry is strap ons and dildos. Kinda makes you proud to be an American doesn’t it. Knowing that these are our future leaders. God help us.
Nicely done, Mr. Bonham!
Bravo for the report.
I especially loved the attorney gutting her own credibility. Sounds like she perjured herself.
John
Hmmm. Just this morning Amy Goodman said there were “thousands” of dildo packing protesters. I can’t believe the host of “Democracy Now” would be untruthful about such a thing.
Beside the point, I remain amazed at what some people will jam up inside themselves.
Dildos are like guns. Some are actually useful, while others are just to hang above the mantle.
The libertarians do say ” you have the right to put anything into your body you choose.”
Most Americans have not spent much time thinking past putting a tasty meal into their body.
But there are some people who have a very large imagination as to what they would put into themselves.
It’s Students for CONCEALED Carry, not Students for CAMPUS Carry.
The organization predates the popularization of the term “campus carry.”
Text amended.
It’s closer. We actually spell “concealed” with an “a.” 😉
Louis what kind distance from the fake dick bearing activists did you have to maintain to avoid becoming grossed out and contaminated if one of them touched you with one of those nasty things?
You know damn well they weren’t all brand new and more than you want to know about are used for the intended purpose.
Think Tueller drill . . . .
C’mon TTAG! I get no credit for dropping the “Where is Trigglypuff?” comment on the first article on the UT protestors? You guys totally lifted that one from me. How about showing Mr. Woodcock some love?
I’m sure the protesters will get around to Mr. Woodcock as soon as they’re done with Mr. Rubbercock.
Those trigglypuffs will show you some love.
I think it is fortunate the people who think like these “Protestors” are such morons that they actually believe that we gun owners can be insulted, angered or shamed by their false accusation that we habitually conflate our penises with our firearms. It means that they are so intellectually incompetent that they grossly underestimate us, and that gives us an advantage over them. Moreover, it proves that insofar as the argument over Second Amendment Rights is concerned, they basically “got nuthin'”. Legal Campus carry in Texas is a big win for the Pro Second Amendment Movement and they are so flummoxed by it that they can only come up with a pseudo satirical protest based on a nonsense slogan featuring GLOCKS and Roosters and displaying images of “naughty bits”. Laughable!
If these people are the future of America, they will dip everyone in s**t because they are too ignorant and stupid to think of anything else. They will “transform” The First World Nation into a Medieval Cesspool. God will probably turn His back on them.
I don’t mind that these people want to express their opposition to Campus Carry at UT, but I have run out of patience with the methodologies being employed by the far left. It is going far out of reason and decency with many leftist groups and persons, which probably is a sign of desperation, but the bald-faced lies, utterly false accusations and vile character of this stuff is getting too much to tolerate. This “protest” is a paradigm example.
/ranting and raving
They’re not aiming at us, they’re aiming at the fence-sitters.
Yeah, they are aiming at the fence sitters…by castigating us via inference…
I always love the drive-in movie theater sized projection these anti-2A profs have.
They can’t think of anything else to do with a gun in a classroom other than shoot someone with a dissenting opinion, therefore everyone who carries in a classroom is out to do just that.
Bingo! Glad someone posted this. They are only capable of projecting their own overly emotional irrationality on others.
+1
+2. There’s nothing more upsetting to some who have risen to the glorious halls of academe (and thus know better for us and the world than any individual would know for themselves) than to have the plebes disagree with them.
In early 1991 I had the pleasure of disagreeing with a prof that Tipper Gore (who was working to get parental ratings for music sold in the US) was an enormous phony, a drunk, and possibly a closeted Klan member for her targeting of rap music lyrics. Mz. Perfesser, a big fan of Al Gore and a huge preacher of the wonders of a progressive society, became quite unhinged at the suggestion.
I’m pretty sure she’d have shot me given the chance.
I’m afraid my 91 year old grandma will see this filth on the local news in Austin where she lives..
I guess at her age she’s probably seen it all, but damn. These protestors are pigs
So larger glock smaller c**k?? Seems the same with my 20, 22, 19, or 27. Maybe I’m just carrying wrong.
So, Im getting that these UT Liberal progressive “Dildo Girl activists ” have quite a Penis fetish…? From the photos, some of them look reasonably attractive. But obviously brainless. Better not cry wolf about “sexual harassment ” while doing stuff like this…
Its about time we pay attention, and take back our government before it’s too late. The NWO-EU “Animal Farm” will be taking over if all else fails….
God, look at all those dildos…and the sex-toys are pretty offensive, also –wakka wakka!
I think the best response to this would be photos, lots and lots of photos, of individual protesters using a camera with a cardboard sign facing the objective that reads “your image will be mocked ruthlessly, distributed globally.” I mean come on, there’s literally a Trigglypuff wearing a rubber dick parading around in public –you don’t often see that for free.
Dildos were edgy twenty years ago. The hypersexualization of our culture has made silicon dicks boring and unfunny. Which is sad, because synthetic dicks should be funny.
Bolt one on a helmet and wear it and it becomes funny, again.
Impromptu sword fights are still funny too, especially if someone gets smacked in the face.
In the matter of rape on campus or otherwise, absurdity of carrying a holstered dildo instead of a handgun boggles the mind.
Is that dude in the first pick holding a picture of a penis with a Darth Vader helmet on it head?
Yes, but it’s not a dude. I guess her function is to make the blond in the red and black outfit look appealing.
There’s a penis and hairy testes under a Darth helmet with a red lightsaber next to it.
The text reads ‘Come to the dark side’. I think it’s a plea for lesbian sex.
“OK, I replied, but what do you hope to accomplish?”
In the interests of keeping us from falling into the same degree of bias as the other side, that same question could reasonably be asked of groups protesting draconian gun laws in NJ and CA.
And I’d ask them the same question if they chose to protest in this kind of fashion. If your chosen method of protest is more likely to repel the people in the middle who you need to change things, would it not be better to put your efforts into methods calculated to be more likely to persuade them?
E.g., consider 2A protests that affirmatively threaten/promise to disobey the law. Are such efforts likely to win over the votes necessary to effect change? Or do they play into the hands of those arguing that gun owners are somehow inherently dangerous/suspect.
Barking at the moon in an over-the-top fashion may feel good at the time and may get you attaboys from the already-converted, but does it contribute to moving the ball? And if it doesn’t, then why not do something else that might?
Seems to me that the ones wearing dildos are the ones most in need of them. Sparkly fairy dust rainbow unicorns abound here. Methinks that UT is creating idiots or are these few a fair representation of the student body? If this is the height of academic expression I’m glad I dropped out and got a real job. The precious princesses (of both genders, faculty included) are afwaid of a big bad gun! What do they think happens outside campus? Campus carry is so that real students can protect themselves against lone wolf attacks by deranged students, and rapists stalking the campus grounds. These nitwits don’t care about that, and would gladly have 100 or more killed rather than see any student properly protected.
Forgot to mention the Daily Show was there. Probably the best part. Some good points made here, but on some of them, I think the juries still out.
1) The framers The Bill of Rights never intended for the 2nd Amendment to be practiced on campuses. When James Madison and Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, they forbid firearms on campus.
https://www.thetrace.org/…/thomas-jefferson-founding-fathe…/
2) Students with 4-6 hours of License-to-Carry training, who are unlikely to have ever used a gun in a real life self-defense situation, are entirely unprepared to use their firearms on campus when highly trained New York City police have an overall accuracy rate of 34% and 43% when a target is between 0 and 6 feet away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
3) Guns are furthermore unnecessary on campuses. Campuses overall are historically safe environments. http://everytownresearch.org/fact-sheet-guns-on-campus/ Even if they weren’t, guns do not provide a clear advantage in self-defense situations https://www.thetrace.org/…/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-re…/ or serve as an an effective defense against sexual assault. https://www.thetrace.org/…/campus-carry-self-defense-accid…/
4) Campus Carry may, however, makes campuses less safe. The leading cause of gun homicides in the United States results from arguments – which in academic environments are frequent occurrences. https://ucr.fbi.gov/…/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murde… Sexual assaults are also more likely to become lethal. https://www.change.org/p/arizona-state-house-don-t-vote-to-… There’s also the issue of negligent discharges. One recently happened to a UT-Austin police officer.
5) It’s not only students, staff and faculty who think campus carry is a bad idea, but people in charge of campus safety. The majority of campus police chiefs, including the Texas Association of University Police Administrators are against campus carry and believe it makes their job far more difficult. http://woai.iheart.com/…/college-police-chiefs-say-no-to-1…/ Before the law passed, you may recall, UT System Chancellor, who is also a 4-Star Admiral and retired Navy Seal, publicly voiced similar very similar dissent to our state legislature.
6) Campus carry also compromises the cost and quality of our education – not just because some would claim campus carry may inhibit free speech in the classroom – but because it’s estimated to cost the state of Texas a total of $47 million dollars to implement over the next six years, not to mention the increased cost of campus insurance. By the way, if guns make campuses safer, why do insurance companies charge higher insurance premiums for schools with campus carry? http://www.houstonchronicle.com/…/Campus-carry-would-cost-T…
So much fail, here:
1. What UVa. campus policies were in 1819 have exactly squat to do with a Texas law. Campus carry was implemented not by an extension of the Second Amendment, but because the Texas legislature thought it was appropriate.
2. “Highly trained NYPD”? Wanna take a guess how much *actual* firearms training / proficiency the typical NYPD officer actually has? Plus add the NYPD requirement of a >10 lb. trigger on their Glocks (put in place because these “highly trained” officers were having too many accidental discharges), and it’s no wonder they can’t hit what they are shooting at. Any halfway decent IDPA competitor will out shoot your typical NYPD officer hands down, and will probably put hundreds of times as many rounds down range each year as they do. (Should concealed carriers get more training? Sure, it’s a good idea. But the idea that your average peace officer is somehow magically more proficient with a firearm or better trained than any CC’r could ever possibly be is fantasy.)
3. Even accepting the accuracy of your data, what’s the relevance? My neighborhood is dramatically safer than the local barrio. Does that mean I should have any less right to carry in my neighborhood?
4. Yeah, right. These are the same arguments that have been trotted out for years predicting mayhem and rivers of blood if concealed carry (or most recently open carry) are legalized. Mirable dictu, it never seems to actually occur. Same story here. It’s been legal to carry on the grounds (but not the buildings) of college campuses in Texas since 1995. That doesn’t seem to have affected the strong debate and arguments that occur, for example, every day on the West Mall at UT. And in all those years, how many firearms incidents involving licensed carriers have occurred on Texas campuses? The same number as have occurred in all the other states that have legalized campus carry — ZERO.
5. Again, these same kind of folks opposed licensed concealed carry and open carry laws, and their dire predictions never seem to occur. As far as “it would make their job harder,” if that’s the yardstick we are applying, I’m sure their jobs would be a lot easier if they could dispense with pesky things like search warrants, probable cause, individual rights, etc.
WRT Chancellor McRaven, of course he’s going to publicly back the faculty’s wishes here . . . not to do so would create friction he doesn’t need. Does he *really* oppose the law? Not according to lawmakers I’ve spoken to that have met with him privately.
6. Your link yields a 404 error so I can’t read the article, but I believe the premise is faulty. UT is, I believe, primarily self-insured, so there isn’t any increased cost for insurance.
Bottom line: if campus carry is so dangerous, why have there been ZERO incidents involving licensed carriers on college campuses in all the other states where it has been legal for years? The same thing will happen with campus carry as has happened with open carry in Texas — despite all the hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and predictions of doom, you are not going to see licensed carriers suddenly change into maniacs who shoot at the slightest provocation.
Thanks for taking the time to address these.
1. What UVa. campus policies were in 1819 have exactly squat to do with a Texas law. Campus carry was implemented not by an extension of the Second Amendment, but because the Texas legislature thought it was appropriate. >> Obviously, they’re within their perfect right to pass CC if they think it’s appropriate. The point is, there is an “originalist” argument that the Framers of The Bill of Rights did not intend for 2A to be practiced everywhere, similar to the majority opinion in Heller: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”
2. “Highly trained NYPD”? Wanna take a guess how much *actual* firearms training / proficiency the typical NYPD officer actually has? Plus add the NYPD requirement of a >10 lb. trigger on their Glocks (put in place because these “highly trained” officers were having too many accidental discharges), and it’s no wonder they can’t hit what they are shooting at. Any halfway decent IDPA competitor will out shoot your typical NYPD officer hands down, and will probably put hundreds of times as many rounds down range each year as they do. (Should concealed carriers get more training? Sure, it’s a good idea. But the idea that your average peace officer is somehow magically more proficient with a firearm or better trained than any CC’r could ever possibly be is fantasy.) >> Okay, but most CHLs are not IDPA competitors, and even if they were, IDPA “simulates” self-defense scenarios.
3. Even accepting the accuracy of your data, what’s the relevance? My neighborhood is dramatically safer than the local barrio. Does that mean I should have any less right to carry in my neighborhood? >> If you believe 2A should allow you to carry whatever firearm you want wherever you want to, you’re correct, it has no relevance. If you believe “Like most rights, 2A is not unlimited” (DC vs. Heller), then necessity is a perfectly reasonable argument.
4. Yeah, right. These are the same arguments that have been trotted out for years predicting mayhem and rivers of blood if concealed carry (or most recently open carry) are legalized. Mirable dictu, it never seems to actually occur. Same story here. It’s been legal to carry on the grounds (but not the buildings) of college campuses in Texas since 1995. That doesn’t seem to have affected the strong debate and arguments that occur, for example, every day on the West Mall at UT. And in all those years, how many firearms incidents involving licensed carriers have occurred on Texas campuses? The same number as have occurred in all the other states that have legalized campus carry — ZERO. >> This is a reasonable point. I’m not predicting doomsday. However, the fact that you can now carry them into buildings will surely increase the number of people who will carry on campus.
5. Again, these same kind of folks opposed licensed concealed carry and open carry laws, and their dire predictions never seem to occur. As far as “it would make their job harder,” if that’s the yardstick we are applying, I’m sure their jobs would be a lot easier if they could dispense with pesky things like search warrants, probable cause, individual rights, etc.
WRT Chancellor McRaven, of course he’s going to publicly back the faculty’s wishes here . . . not to do so would create friction he doesn’t need. Does he *really* oppose the law? Not according to lawmakers I’ve spoken to that have met with him privately. >> It probably won’t make their jobs much harder, UNLESS there’s an active shooter situation AND CCs decide to intervene. Active shooter situations on campuses, of course, are very rare, but I’m guessing that’s where most of that comes from. As for McRaven, I don’t think the info. you’ve received from these lawmakers is reliable. Faculty opposition didn’t start until Sept. 2015. McRaven had voiced dissent by sent an open letter to lawmakers urging them to not pass the bill back in January 2015 https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/mcraven-campus-carry-would-create-less-safe-enviro/ and spoke out against it in a number of interviews, long before anyone cared.
6. Your link yields a 404 error so I can’t read the article, but I believe the premise is faulty. UT is, I believe, primarily self-insured, so there isn’t any increased cost for insurance. >> UT-Austin is not entirely self insured. Wentworth claimed it would not raise insurance premiums. (He also claimed it wouldn’t cost the state anything.) Perhaps you’re right, but I’ve heard otherwise.
Bottom line: if campus carry is so dangerous, why have there been ZERO incidents involving licensed carriers on college campuses in all the other states where it has been legal for years? The same thing will happen with campus carry as has happened with open carry in Texas — despite all the hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and predictions of doom, you are not going to see licensed carriers suddenly change into maniacs who shoot at the slightest provocation.
>> Some anti-campus carry folks will bring up accidental discharges. I won’t. That’s because there aren’t that many, and, well, even though some of these accidents may be due to negligence, occasional accidents with guns can be expected, just as they are with most other machines, appliances, utilities or whatever.
I don’t think campus carry has been that dangerous or will likely turn out to be that dangerous. I just don’t think the Framers of the Bill of Rights intended for 2A to be practiced everywhere, that one of these places was university campuses, and that “longstanding prohibitions” against allowing guns in sensitive places such as classrooms voiced in the majority opinion of Heller vs DC is a reasonable argument against campus carry.
I’ll revise that last part a bit since the edit function doesn’t seem to be working. I agree campus carry hasn’t turned out to been that dangerous thus far in its years of infancy or is likely to cause Armageddon in the future. However, I don’t think guns belong in classrooms or on campuses and present unnecessary risks that we shouldn’t have to deal with in a university environment. Besides my personal opinion, I don’t think the Framers of the Bill of Rights intended for 2A to be practiced everywhere, that one of these places was university campuses, and that “longstanding prohibitions” against allowing guns in sensitive places such as schools voiced in the majority opinion of Heller vs DC is a reasonable argument against campus carry.
I appreciate the rational tone of your arguments, although I am not persuaded.
I think your “necessity” argument and your last paragraph sums it up our differences in opinion.
If something is a fundamental right (which Heller recognized 2A is), then I believe there should be no requirement of a showing of “necessity” before you can exercise it. Sure, just like speech, assembly, voting, etc., the state can impose certain limited restrictions on the exercise of the right — but only upon a showing of compelling state interest, narrow tailoring of the law, etc. But to condition the exercise of a right on the rightholder first demonstrating a “necessity” to exercise it — especially in the absence of compelling evidence of harm if the exercise of the right is not restricted — well, that essentially renders the “right” illusory, and reduces it to a privilege granted at the whim of a governmental official. See, e.g., NYC and NJ, where meaningful 2A rights can pretty much be exercised only by the politically-connected. I daresay you do not believe there should be such a “necessity” predicate for the exercise of the fundamental rights to speech, assembly, interstate travel, etc.
In the case at bar, however, the 2A issue is a moot point because the campus carry law here is simply the State of Texas deciding who can carry arms on its property and under what circumstances. (Private colleges, like private businesses, are free to reach a different decision on what they allow on their property.) Especially in the absence of evidence that allowing licensed carry will result in harm, the State’s decision in favor of allowing licensed carry is hardly irrational.
Thanks again for your perspective. Take care.
Thanks again for your perspective. Take care
Having watched the sexual liberated homosexuals disarm San Francisco I’m glad that they have come out of the closet in Texas. It is easier to fight these people when they are out in the sunlight.
This is what happened in SF. Now all the gun stores are closed. But you can buy a sex toy in hundreds of different SF locations.
The sexual liberated political leadership has never been pro civil rights.
BUT they are pro having great everyday satisfying dildo sex.
A year ago I observed how the ACLU sued the state of Alabama supporting the sex toy business but not gun rights. Things have not changed. They always supported dildo sex.
Comments are closed.