MikeyP

Thu, Nov 12, 2009 : 11:52 p.m.

Clearly allowing guns on campus is way, way too dangerous. Wait... there are over 40 schools with rifle teams... and over 80 schools with pistol clubs or teams. And what's this, Michigan is one of them?!? Other schools include MSU, EMU, WMU, Purdue, Ohio State, MIT, Boston University, Yale... clearly every last one of these schools is far too dangerous to allow our precious snowflakes to attend. Some of these schools even offer *gasp* scholarships for shooting sports on campus! Why, your tax dollars could be funding those scholarships! Clearly something has to be done! Quick, someone cancel the scholarships, kick out the teams and ban the clubs! Allowing guns on campus must be causing untold murders in all of these schools! The cover-ups must be massive! That, or perhaps college students can be responsible with guns as these several-dozen examples show day in and day out. Nah, that's crazy talk!

Sons Of Liberty

Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 2:02 p.m.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

Sons Of Liberty

Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 1:56 p.m.

@jlkddd According to US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311 Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. So if you are at least 17 yrs old and not older than 45, I have news for you... Welcome to the Militia! BTW, This is current as of Jan 2009.

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Nov 2, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.

Baker437, Yes, they have enforcement authority in these areas, for State and Federal laws. They are law enforcement agency and have been sworn in to enforce the laws. They must also follow all of the laws and there limits. The public streets and sidewalks are not the University's and are the City's. On these streets they can enforce State and Federal laws that apply, but it is clearly not on "Campus" as it is City property not University property.

MikeyP

Sun, Nov 1, 2009 : 2:05 p.m.

The Federal Constitution isn't exactly "above all" in the way you appear to mean it jlkddd. In fact, at the moment the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated so it doesn't even apply to the states (it likely will be soon after NRA vs. Chicago is decided next year.) However, even if it is incorporated the 2nd Amendment says who can't be disarmed by the government, not who can be armed. And as much as you may disagree it has indeed been deemed an individual right that is in no way dependent on militia service per the Supreme Court (which is the right interpretation IMHO given the language of the amendment and the history behind it.)

another2aguy

Sun, Nov 1, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.

As per The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language...and I quote: mi*li*tia, An organization of men enrolled and trained as military reserves for the defense of a nation in the time of emergency. U.S.-the organized militia of the individual states, or National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force,or Marine organized reserves; all able bodied men not already in the armed forces, legally liable to call for military duty". Whoever posted the quote from a dictionary either needs to quote the entire meaning or get a better dictionary. ALL ABLE BODIED MEN(for other reasonable amendments to the Bill of Rights)/ WOMEN NOT ALREADY IN THE ARMED FORCES,LEGALLY LIABLE FOR MILITARY DUTY.

liberal1

Sat, Oct 31, 2009 : 10:45 a.m.

Zones for guns here, not there are kind of like having a peeing area in a swimming pool

baker437

Sat, Oct 31, 2009 : 9:23 a.m.

This UM DPS video clearly state that adjoining streets and sidewalk are a part of their jurisdiction! http://police.umich.edu/media/dps_video.html

2AGuy

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 11:05 p.m.

Apparently some people would prefer to have an innocent person beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered than to have a criminal or lunatic shot or killed. It would be refreshing (for a change) to have some though out reasons brought forth as to why the anti's fear law-abiding, legally armed citizens, instead of the SOS. Hear's some news for those folks....we're almost everywhere you go. When you shop, we're there. When you eat in a restaurant, we're there. Gas stations, banks, coffee shops, super markets, etc. An estimated QUARTER MILLION of US. And that doesn't include out-of state CPL licensees, active off-duty law enforcement officers, ore retired law enforcement officers. So now that you know this, will you become paranoid? Stay at home, or move out of state? Wise up people. You have a much higher risk of being harmed or killed in an automobile accident, or by lightning than you have of being shot by a CPL licensee. You, the educated ones who fear us so much. Do the reasearch, don't just make ridiculous statements that have no factual data. If someday you find yourself hiding in a closet, under a desk, or even worse, looking down the barrel of of an insane shooters gun, don't give up hope. Help is just minutes away...if you can just survive until it arrives!

conservative liberal

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 9:02 p.m.

Why shouldn't students be permitted to carry a pistol on campus if they have received a permit and gone through the appropriate application and training under the law? As a CPL holder and young female, I carried a pistol while attending EMU to protect myself. Although I did not carry in the classroom, I felt it was necessary to carry when I was walking to and from the campus late at night. Under the current law I couldn't even have my pistol in my car when driving through campus. Believe me when I say that I was accosted or harassed many times by vagrants in the area, and my feeling was I would rather "break the law" by carrying, then be raped, robbed, or killed by a criminal.

Thick Candy Shell

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 6:38 p.m.

Mikey P. Checked with a friend at the City, the Sidewalks, though in front of U of M, are owned by the City and are not part of the Campus. The University like any other property owner in town is subject to City Ordinances that require maintenance. If the U wanted to do replacement or make changes to any of those sidewalks would be required to get a City permit and have an inspection by the City. The boundary of the R-O-W is available on the City's site and shows the limits of City ownership.

cowboy357

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 5:19 p.m.

Well the anti's always wish to make a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment what I'm pointing out is you don't have to go to Washington It's right here at home. Remember the Bloombergers call for States Rights when it came to reciprocity? How they wanted the individual states to decide not the Feds. Well the Michigan Constitutions states we have the right.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 11:46 a.m.

Gun free zones, ask the English how that's working out for them....considering the entire country is supposed to be one. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html?ITO=1490# If guns are banned only criminals will have guns applies to "NO GUNS" signs too.

jlkddd

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 : 8:38 a.m.

cowboy - the federal consitituation is above all.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:02 p.m.

Auburn University's Active Shoter response plan. http://www.auburn.edu/administration/rms/pdf/active-shooter_resp.pdf Please note slide #6: "Will continue to move throughout building/area until stopped by law enforcement, suicide, or other intervention" Guess what "other intervention" has meant in many cases? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuIbujpLWA

jjc155

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:29 p.m.

Not to mention that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone, so why do you not want to protect yourselves (but for the most part you call and they will come, but there is no obligation to protect). Policing in America is a reactive force not proactive. The Police come when you call 911 and not before. If the average response time to a major call is say 2 minutes in a small city like Ypsi alot of damage can be done in that amount of time. Cho was only shooting in Norris hall for just over 2 minutes before he killed himself and he killed 30 people in that time and he was not "skilled." Factor in something like a response from a SWAT team and you are looking at about 1 hour at the quickest (Michigan only has two dept that field full time on duty swat teams, if I remember correctly, and neither is closer than about 45minutes away). Not sure if I would want to wait 2 minutes or 60minutes for someone to come and save me when I should have the right to do it myself. Never know, I may beable to save you or your child too. Gun control has turned in to a think with your heart type of a fight, which is unfortunate. J-

cowboy357

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 6:52 p.m.

Anybody bother to look at the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION? I see that militia thing is no where to be found...and it was revised in 1963 so they were not talking flintlocks either. 6 Bearing of arms. Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, 5.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 6:32 p.m.

Google "Israeli armed teachers" for examples why carry on campus may not be such a bad idea. Go to keepandbeararms.com for daily stories of people defending themselves with the most efficient tool for the job. Lastly, exceptional response time from law enforcement is still not instant. I challenge you sheeple to let someone beat or choke you for 3-5 minutes (typical good response time in a city) while you try to call for help. I bet you like many crime victims would reconsider after that experience.

Twobirdsflying

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 4:27 p.m.

Larry Whitworth's comment "..."I don't see any purpose for concealed weapons on campus, whether you've got a permit or not, it's potentially dangerous," Whitworth said. "The notion that when you've got people with concealed weapons, if someone goes berserk there'll be people there to take them down - that doesn't make a lick of sense. We can't have people getting into gunfights on campus..." are typical of anachronistic logic. His presumption is that the campus police are there to protect you is completely flawed. Campus police will not respond until the incident has taken place, just ask the VTech student body. Individuals that are issued concealed carry permits are mature and well disciplined folks; not gun slingers. They will act as a deterrence and help avoid needless tragedies from maladjusted Internet-secret warriors. Larry, support the right to carry on campus because it's the right thing to do.

jjc155

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 4:01 p.m.

If this law passed with the provision that the collge can ban legally carried firearms in campus buildings but that the same legally carried firearm would be allowed in the "open" area's is the law going to also require the colleges to install ample secure locations outside of each building for students who are carrying a firearm legally to lock up their guns, so that both sides can comply with the law? I doubt it, as the revision seems to me just to be an endround around or loop pole for the campus' to get out of allowing legally armed citizens on campus. But just to play devils advocate and say they will indeed install secure lockboxes etc outside of EACH building then where will those funds come from? Just curious. Gun free zones and Gun control merely control people who follow the law. Did Cho have a CPL (or Virginia version) when he went into Norris hall? NOPE. Did any of the ramdon suspects who may pull an armed robbery on any of the area campuses have a CPL when they commited their robbery, Doubt it. Could an armed student(s), teacher(s) janitor(s) etc have effected the outcome of VT, Columbine (Teacher or other staff0, Case Western,Shepard University, University of Arizonia Nursing School or Applachina Law School shooting, etc (all since 2002, by the way those killed over 40 students and staff, not including the suspects) or any other active shooter situation past or future? Most assuredly and I defy anyone to "prove" me wrong. Do a google search on the subject and see if you are "surpised" at the number. J-

MikeyP

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 3:38 p.m.

Good news foreigner... regardless of whether or not this law passes it will still be 100% illegal to carry into a lecture hall unless you are an on-duty police officer. You wouldn't know that from the way some people go on about it, but it's right there in black and white.

MikeyP

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 3:29 p.m.

Trust me Candy Shell... those sidewalks ARE inside the jurisdiction of the campus police and are indeed "on campus." If you don't believe me, slip and fall on one then call AAPD for a report, you'll be forwarded to DPS. Now if you were walking down the middle of the street you'd be mostly correct, but even then it is concurrent jurisdiction. Who clears snow from those sidewalks, the city or UofM Grounds? The answer is UofM Grounds. They are "on campus" as much as the Diag is. The point still remains that if you are walking down one side of the street you're off campus and can carry legally, but cross the street and as it stands now you're breaking the law.

ziggy99

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 3:27 p.m.

There are already restrictions for those of us who have a CPL/CCW For more info refer to: www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654---,00.html And no, you cannot carry in the Big House (stadium, arena) Pistol Free Areas Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol on the following premises: Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency. Sports arena or stadium A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more A hospital A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university A Casino "Premises" does not include the parking areas of the places listed above in

We The Sheeple

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 3:01 p.m.

Just wait until the unemployment extensions run out for the majority of the unemployed. My guess is that things are going to get real desperate. Replying to "Alan Goldsmith" People are already carrying while at church in Detroit. It is perfectly legal to do so if you have your church authorities permission in writing. A Deacon of a church in Detroit has already had to use deadly force with his weapon to defend himself during a robbery at his church. Ms. Lee from Yale university might still be alive if she was allowed to carry at her Laboratory job on campus where she was murdered.

foreigner

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 2:59 p.m.

@CPL_Holder - what exactly does my handle say? I'm a US Citizen, who pays taxes and goes out to vote the first Tuesday in November just like everyone else. It doesn't help your argument if you start out your posts with silly assumptions. And since you said, "There are several documented cases where armed students have PREVENTED carnage such as what occured at VT.", may be you can point out about 10 cases from the last 2 years. That shouldn't be too difficult since SEVERAL has been DOCUMENTED...if its actually true. I'm all in favor of increased security on campus. Even an armed police officer inside every floor of every campus is OK with me. But I don't want to be in a lecture hall where there are a few hundred loaded guns.

Thick Candy Shell

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 2:26 p.m.

I don't think there would be a problem walking the whole length of South U, or State St. The streets are public streets owned by the City of Ann Arbor so as long as you stay on the sidewalk running parallel to the streets you are not on University Property. On the other hand if you were to go onto Medical Center Dr. or onto the North Campus streets you would be on private streets owned by the University and therefor you would be "on campus"

MikeyP

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 2:03 p.m.

It's amazing how people can read an article where it explicitely states that colleges will still be able to ban guns inside of buildings in general and the prohibitions will remain for classrooms, dormatories and stadiums yet they STILL insist on saying 'B-b-b-but there will be shootouts in classrooms/sporting events/etc.!" I mean, did you READ the article? Also, the cluelessness on gun laws is startling. Open carry is legal in Michigan, as has been pointed out. Per the current laws if you are driving across campus, walking down a street adjacent to campus or parking your car in a campus lot with a firearm you're breaking the law, which is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS! Is there some magical force on campus whereby a law-abiding individual can park their car across the street with a gun and be 100% a-ok but if they park in a campus lot with that gun they're a dire threat to everyone?!? If a concealed carry holder is walking down South University between Church and East University they're fine, but once they cross East University they're likely to snap and start shooting people randomly? The saddest part is that an educated person like Larry Whitworth can make the same utterly ignorant mistakes. Is it too hard to at least THINK about the situation before spouting off about it on the record no less?

Duane Collicott

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 1:47 p.m.

"I can carry a gun into the Big House but not bottled water?" You defend yourself with bottled water?

tracyann

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 1:01 p.m.

I keep reading comments like, "What if two students get into a fight, it escalates, and one is carrying? It's bound to turn out bad." Really? How do you know that there aren't people on campus now who are carrying? I've never had to walk through a metal detecter for any of my classes yet. Futhermore, anyone who has a CCW permit usually has one for safety reasons and aren't the type to go off half-cocked as some people suggest. All CCW applicants have to complete and pass a gun safety course, among other things, and even then approval isn't guarenteed. I just think it's very ignorant and insulting when people suggest that someone who is carrying legally will just whip out their gun if someone looks at them cross-eyed. The ones who do that are the ones who carry regardless of legality.

lugemachine

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 12:47 p.m.

This bill, as written, will NOT PREVENT A VIRGINIA TECH TYPE MASSACRE. It does nothing to allow the legal carrying of firearms under any circumstances inside of buildings. Every person shot at Virginia Tech (and at NIU) was inside of a building at the time of the shooting(s).

jlkddd

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 12:13 p.m.

But see the problem is that you are taking it literal by saying that every able bodied male is subject to the call of duty. Which, yes I am aware that at the time a man turns 18 they must fill out their "draft" card, which, doesn't really mean anything anymore because their is no draft, it is your option to be one of the able bodied males called to duty. So I mean if you're going to take that part of it so literal, then why stop there? Let's take everything in the consitution literal, I mean, if we did that women wouldn't really have any rights now would they? So if we were to go back to the day when the constitution was written you're right women wouldn't be able to carry a gun, and unless you were called to service, you wouldn't be able to either.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 12:01 p.m.

Oh in case you missed it: "Subject to the call" does not equal being in or of the militia.

Ricebrnr

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:57 a.m.

"I just want to let everyone know that according to the constitution it is not every citizens right to bear arms, it is the well formed militia's right to bear arms...just a note, go read it." Ummm.... Per your post: "'the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service'" The pertinent part being SUBJECT TO THE CALL TO MILITARY SERVICE which at the time the constitution was written was EVERY able bodied male. I suppose if we were to take this literally women couldn't have guns, is that what you're implying? In any case your OPINION and INTERPRETATION is moot since the Supreme Court ruled both as incorrect in the Heller Case, June of last year.

jlkddd

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:51 a.m.

"Main Entry: militia Pronunciation: \m-li-sh\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles Date: 1625 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service" Mirium-Webster Dictionary

Atlas Shrugged

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:35 a.m.

The president of WCC is either totally ignorant of the law or (far worse) intellectually dishonest. I'll also pose the possibility of being just plain stupid if he indeed wondered why anyone would want to carry a gun on campus. It's to PROTECT ourselves. Also, the comment that the "gun lobby wants everyone to have a gun" is simply untruthful. Quite the contrary, we DON'T want everyone to have one. We want the training, the state and federal background checks, to be an absolute requirement for carrying. One writer stated "IMAGINE" you're a professor. I don't need to imagine. I am one, for 30+ years here at Michigan. Trust me: over the years I've assigned failing grades to more than a handful of students, and if they know any math they know well before the term is over (i.e., while the class is still being taught" that passing is a mathematical impossibility. They also know that their failing grade in my course may be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back: their fail grade will wash them out of their entire academic program, and perhaps their chosen career. I've seen the angry faces, gotten messages that their failing is my fault, and experienced other things that lead me to believe reasonably that the student isn't a happy camper. And although I think the chance that a student will come into my class, or my office, with a gun is low, there is a finite possibility; and as the law stands now there's not a damned thing I can do to protect myself. But do I bring any weapon to work, even if my only purpose would be to protect myself, and even though I can take it just about anywhere else? Nope, cuz current laws/policies prohibit me from doing that, and like 99.99% of all concealed pistol permit holders, we don't break the law, even though we disagree with it.

Larry Kestenbaum

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:30 a.m.

I consider myself a supporter of gun control, and I don't think we should make policy over an extremely rare event like the Virginia Tech massacre. Still, I don't see any real problem with this bill. It's not that easy to get a concealed-carry license in Michigan -- an individual has to obtain training, get fingerprinted, pass background checks, pay substantial fees, etc. As many commenters have already stated, license holders as a group have proven to be responsible with their firearms. Overly restrictive rules about where they are allowed to carry are petty and pointless.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:27 a.m.

It's amazing how many people continue to be willfully ignorant of the facts and making their best effort to propagate misinformation. 1) Stop quoting the nonsense about how the 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard. Read the news. The Supreme Court of the US already ruled that this is a bunch of nonsense. 2) Give it up with the whole "blood in the streets" theory. It's been absolutely proven wrong by real hard statistics in this state and other states. Someone with a CPL is MUCH less likely to be a violent criminal than you are, and what's more... they have a document proving that they have no criminal record! Lets see you produce one of those, Mr. anti-CPL. 3) While causation can't be proven (remember that correlation is NOT causation), there is at least a correlation between shall-issue CPL laws and reduction in crime. 4) The idea that "gun free zone" signs physically prevent people from carrying a gun is called the Moralistic Fallacy. It's like saying that people are physically incapable of driving the wrong way down a one way street even though it happens constantly. It's also based on the bogus idea that the real problem is legal license gun holders who just get angry and decide to start shooting on impulse without a second thought. Again, this is totally disproven by real experience over many many years. Criminals simply do not have CPLs. Most of them don't even try to get one, and those that do generally get turned down due to some previous offense.

baker437

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.

Handguns were band at VT but that did not stop him. We are getting away from what this law does: 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. 6. Other state have similar or even more relax laws about CPL on campus with out a problem.

Otto Mobeal

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 11:18 a.m.

I agree with banning hand guns on college campuses, my total argument boils down to two words: Virgina Tech.

dading dont delete me bro

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:33 a.m.

foreigner, guns don't belong on college campus', i would agree w/that. however, criminals don't either. there's been plenty of incidents of assaults, robberies, etc lately on emu's campus. i'm a student and get these updates via public safety. the point where guns would be allowe in open spaces, but not buildings...is there going to be a gun check at the door? how stupid is that? personally, i'd carry mine SECURE on myself than leave it in a locked vehicle...the same locked vehicle that could be broken into and there's another gun on the streets. whitworth needs to get off his high horse and fully research the facts. he's clearly acting off of gun-control info. wcsd is minutes away, where wcc's public safety is already there...already there and no better off than a rent-a-cop...dading!

John Galt

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:25 a.m.

Live in student housing and lose your constitutional right to protect yourself. Guns are then banned from your home. Again, only law abiding people are effected by these bans. Criminals (by definition) could care less. The restrictions are simply a red-herring by those who oppose 2nd amendment rights. Other States have allowed concealed carry on campus. No problems have resulted. Many States have liberalized concealed carry laws. No "OK Corral" situations have arisen. Just because some/most people chose not to own or carry a gun, does not mean all others should be restricted. Rights are to be respected. Free speech by others disturbs me when I do not agree. But they have the right to free speech. Freedom of religion also results in faiths I do not agree with, but others have a right to their religion. If a lawful gun owner wishes to carry for personal protection, they have that right too. If you disagree---fine. But to prevent their right to protect themselves because you are "uncomfortable" is the road to tyranny.

We The Sheeple

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:23 a.m.

Larry Whitworth should consult with the victims and surviving family of the victims of violent crime that have been commited on and near campuses in A2 and Ypsi. I would like to know their response to him. 200,000+ CPL holders in MI, and not one has been convicted of a violent crime as a result of a CPL. Maybe the schools should do a background check for the nutbags and criminals like the MSP does for CPL holders. "That would be totally absurd" though.

lugemachine

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.

This bill would not protect "a lone female student on her way back home from the library" (nice scare tactic) because it would have been unlawful for her to have carried a firearm with her into the library in the first place. How will she get her hands on a gun for her walk home?

J. Haman

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.

The Supreme Court recently ruled,and rightly,that individuals have the right,as in "the people".The 2nd does not say the militia has the right,it say's "the people" have the right!

baker437

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.

Look up the word militia at the time the Bill of Right was writing. Any able body male was considered part of the militia, and under U.S. they still are consider part of the unorganized militia. Besides that look up transcripts and newspaper article of the time and it is clear that militia was not referring to the armed forces as we know it. This is what the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the Heller case last year.

J. Haman

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:50 a.m.

Whats potentialy dangerous is a Cho type massacreing defenseless students in their classroom.WCC president does not want to allow law abiding students to defend themselves according to the MI Constitution,Article 1Sec. 6 "Every person has the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(pistol)for the THE DEFENSE OF HIMSELF and the STATE(the citizens)".Citizens are responsible for their own lives and safety, as the police aren't required to protect any individual according to the Supreme Court.Would the WCC President protect his life and the lives of his family or doesn't he value their lives enough to defend them.He certainly doesn't value the lives of the law abiding students who desire to defend themselves if a massacre is imminent.Security's job is the same as the police,investigate the massacre after the defensless students are gone.I find those who are opposed to armed citizens protecting their lives are guttless cowards that fear guns like children who are afraid of monsters under the bed.The gun lobby does not and never has said that everyone should have a gun.That is a bald face lie!They say that everyone has the constitutional right to have a gun.There's a big difference between the two,but obviously some people think their lives are more important and valuable than the students who pay their salary.It's time for them to learn to trust the students(who are adults and law abiding)to protect themselves,as the police(who are also law abiding adults)do! In my eyes there is no difference between the two! GROW UP!

jlkddd

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:41 a.m.

"Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well people quote the second amendment, they often leave off the first part that states a well regulated militia, not an individual person.

jlkddd

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:20 a.m.

I just want to let everyone know that according to the constitution it is not every citizens right to bear arms, it is the well formed militia's right to bear arms...just a note, go read it.

aareader

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 9:10 a.m.

According to "western" movies and old pictures everyone carried guns, concealed and in holsters. If it was good then why not now? or maybe there were too many problems and gun laws were passed to help control them. Is this another push by a special interest group to deregulate? I would be worried if this follows the same path as financial and airlines deregulations over the last 30 years since they have proved to be so successful. :={

Sam

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:54 a.m.

Is Michigan Stadium an open space? Can you conceal a bazooka? If dove hunting were allowed along with the guns, wouldn't that take care of our pigeon problem? Would homecoming queens be allowed to carry guns too?

mdike

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:31 a.m.

As the law stands now, a legal gun owner, with a concealed carry permit, can be charged for driving on public roads if said highway travels through a campus. The only multiple shooting shootings taking place in public areas are in the so-called gun free zones. The same hysterical cries from illiberal liberals echoed during the concealed carry debate several years ago. Guess what, not a single point raised by the fear mongers of the left came true. The facts are self evident, allowing law abiding citizens to practice their inherent right to self defense makes every one safer. The statistics support this. Paranoid delusions do not make good public policy.

ziggy99

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:18 a.m.

The WCC president failed to mention that his public safety force Does Not carry weapons and they would have to call the WC Sheriff. There was once a certified police officer at the college who was in uniform and carried a weapon, but he decided it was a liability. I agree with cpl_holder, Julian Lizzio is obeying Michigan's open carry law.

CPL_Holder

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 8:07 a.m.

Bobinpinckney, Perhaps you should follow your own advise and research your facts before commenting. Open Carry as depicted by Mr. Lizzio is LEGAL in Michigan.................................................... Foreigner, your handle says it all. Guns dont belong at colleges - Well tell that to the nut that killed all of the people at Virginia Tech. The only people that obeyed the law there were the ones that were lambs to the slaughter. There are several documented cases where armed students have PREVENTED carnage such as what occured at VT. Bottom Line is Criminals dont obey laws. CPL/CHL holders are some of the most stable and law abiding citizens you will find. Police? Get real and research the facts, average response time for most LEO is 15 to 30 minutes so they show up in time to draw the chalk lines around the victims bodies and oh by the way per federal law, the Surpreme Court has upheld that Law Enforcment has NO OBLIGATION to protect you. Most Cops are not stupid and can easily discern between a lunatic and a CPL holder, because we are trained on how to act when LEO shows up. So it is up to you to protect yourself and your loved ones. If you ask most career/veteran cops they will tell you the same thing. I pray that you or your loved ones are never are in a situation where you are in immediate Life-threatening Danger, because if you ever are and survive it, you might think differently.

BenWoodruff

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:44 a.m.

If the pro-gun Reps and Senators think this is such a good idea, why is it still illegal to carry a weapon into the State Capitol?

commonsense

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:41 a.m.

"The regular security force or the police wouldn't know who's who and what their role would be to get it back under control." So they would have to deal with the exact same thing as real police do every day.

foreigner

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:32 a.m.

Larry Whitworth makes an excellent point. Guns don't belong at colleges. These people need to find something better to worry about than their right to carry a gun to school. Give me a break.

bobinpinckney

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:17 a.m.

Interesting picture of Julian Lizzio during a picnic with his sidearm - the gun is not concealed; not a good promo picture. One should not advocate changes in a law when they can't follow the current one.

Wolverine3660

Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 5:52 a.m.

Looks like WCC President is unaware of the facts. Seems he is basing his comments on "data" provided by gun-control groups.