Central Texas College: Only Carry Guns Without a Round in the Chamber, Profs Can Designate Offices Gun-Free Zones

Students for Concealed Carry writes [via ammoland.com]:

Central Texas College (Killeen) has adopted two highly dubious campus carry policies, including one that mirrors a proposal the University of Texas board of regents rejected after experts advised that implementing it would greatly increase the risk of an accidental or negligent discharge on campus.

CTC, one of dozens of two-year colleges where Texas’ campus carry law will take effect on Aug. 1, announced the policies at a Jan. 18 forum for students. Both policies track with recommendations of the campus carry policy working group at the University of Texas at Austin.

One policy would allow occupants of single-occupant offices to designate their offices as criminally enforceable “gun-free” zones.

The other would require that all handguns be carried without a chambered round of ammunition. Students for Concealed Carry has written extensively about the problems with gun-free-office and empty-chamber rules.

The problem with allowing faculty and staff to arbitrarily designate their offices as “gun-free” zones—a right not enjoyed by any other state employee, including legislators and the governor—is that it prohibits many if not most licensed faculty, staff, and graduate students from legally carrying concealed handguns on campus, because their jobs require them to occasionally enter private offices.

The problem with requiring that handguns be carried with empty chambers is that such a policy would force license to carry (LTC) holders, most of whom would otherwise never have reason to unholster and handle their handguns on campus, to unload and reload their guns in their private automobiles parked in campus parking lots, where colleges have no authority to prohibit such actions.

After numerous experts warned that such a policy would increase the risk of an accidental or negligent discharge on campus, the University of Texas System regents rejected UT-Austin’s proposed empty-chamber rule.

It’s worth noting that, whereas the proposed UT-Austin policy stated, “Semiautomatic handguns must be carried without a chambered round of ammunition [emphasis added],” the policy unveiled during the CTC forum states, “All concealed handguns brought on campus must be holstered without a chambered round and with the trigger safety mechanism engaged [emphasis added].”

At least UT-Austin’s working group—which admitted they “did not formally hear from outside experts” before proposing the empty-chamber policy—knew enough about firearms to understand that a revolver always has a loaded chamber as long as there is ammunition in the gun.

The only way to carry a revolver without a chambered round would be to carry a completely unloaded—and, therefore, completely useless—gun. It’s also worth noting that most modern handguns do not feature a manually engaged trigger safety mechanism.

Also, many of the handguns that do have a manual safety require the hammer to be cocked—which it normally wouldn’t be if the chamber is empty—before the safety can be engaged.

SCC Southwest Regional Director Brian Bensimon commented, “It’s almost as if the people who created CTC’s empty-chamber policy gained all of their firearm knowledge from old TV shows.”

SCC Texas Legislative Director Allison Peregory added, “The adoption of these policies is the clearest indicator thus far that the Texas Legislature will need to revisit campus carry during the current session.”

———–

Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.

comments

  1. Isn’t that sometimes called “Israeli carry?” They just need some posters with Farago’s favorite supermodel to get the message out on campus. 🙂

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      shoot, why only one? Make it a ad campain, 30-50 different stunners, holding pistols with the catch phrase “Remember, Israeli carry”

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Advocating Israeli carry would likely trigger (pun intended) those who freak out when the west bank is mentioned.

    2. avatar Al says:

      The thing with Israeli carry is that for it to become usable one needs to get highly proficient. If you are a security professional spending 4 hrs at the range drawing and racking – it works. If you are not – good luck with it. Totally ridiculous to demand it from the students.

  2. avatar george from fort worth says:

    well now. doan thet; knock yer hat in tha crick? ah thought thuh state already settld all that, already. if concealed carry on campus doan mean concealed carry on campus, whut’s it fer?

  3. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Okay… so how are they going to enforce it? Make all the concealed carriers put a scarlet ‘C’ on their foreheads and lift up their skirts on command for press checks? Not bloody likely. Keep on keepin on and ignore the tin gods.

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      I don’t think the Progressive Professors have thought about it that far… their safe space feelings and all…

  4. avatar dwb says:

    “Concealed” means, well, concealed. Don’t ask, don’t tell.

    This is the kind of rule that only gets enforced if you are dumb enough to get caught.

    And, evidently a Google search shows that Central Texas College has a lot of military and veteran students. Only the military should have firearms, except not even then.

  5. avatar Mark N. says:

    So then, no Glocks on campus? No Kahrs either?
    Also, what is the point of having the manual safety engaged if there is no round in the chamber?
    Although it is possible to load a revolver with one empty chamber, as they used to do with the Colt Peacemakers, I don’t recall seeing any revolvers with safeties.
    Sounds to me that these rules are a pretty effective gun ban, except for 1911s, as long as the fritzy professors understand that the only way the safety works is with the hammer back, whether there is a round int he chamber or not. Not that that will make any difference.
    But then again, AFAIK, the only allowance is for concealed carry on campus–so how is anyone going to know? Absent probable cause, you can’t search a student to find out if he or she is complying with the law.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “All concealed handguns brought on campus must be holstered without a chambered round and with the trigger safety mechanism engaged”

      Glocks have multiple safeties that are disengaged by pressing the lever on the trigger. Under a strict reading of this rule they’re good to go.

      Other guns that would fit the bill, off the top of my head, a few of the 92 series from Beretta, any Desert Eagle Pistol (except the big ones, I’ve never played with their safety) the USP series, the FN FiveseveN, and I think FNP models.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      The first gun I ever had was a revolver, and it had a safety — a button that clicked and locked the cylinder.

      Oh, wait — that was a cap gun, and I was four….

      Though maybe that’s all the experience these folks have had with guns.

  6. avatar Mike says:

    So… who’s gonna check chambers? Will there be a clearing barrel outside each class? That’s ridiculous.

  7. avatar JDC says:

    In many military situations, by regs, you carry a pistol with an empty chamber. Depends on your CO.

    1. avatar Gunner 442 says:

      USAF Standard for M9, Round in chamber, off safe.

      1. avatar Joe in San Antonio says:

        For what Afsc? Most I know carry empty chamber and safety engaged. Even down range they where on safe.

        1. avatar Jordan says:

          As far as I know, all of them. If the AF gives you a pistol, that is how it is carried. Aircrew included.

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Empty chamber and safety engaged? LOL

        3. avatar jsf001 says:

          I was trained round in the chamber use the safety to decock the hammer then turn the safety back off and holster. I was not in any sort of combat AFSC and never touched a firearm while deployed.

    2. avatar Wsuufg says:

      Doubtful. Navy and AF both carry condition 1, though Navy has safety on. Maybe the Army gives their soldiers empty guns? I dunno, but sounds stupid.

      1. avatar Surly Old MP says:

        “Stupid” and “Army” in the same sentence? Unpossible.

        The Army was still teaching “load 5 rounds, leave the chamber under the hammer empty” for MPs carrying revolvers when I went through USAMPS back in the 1980s. Only the better part of a century after the Colt SAA had been replaced by sidearms with safer designs.

  8. avatar Tim says:

    Protip: Skip college. It’s an expensive waste of time.

    1. avatar HP says:

      This guy knows. Wish I could get my money back. Worthless.

      Anyways, back to the subject carrying without one in the chamber. External safety? I prefer to carry my Glock 19, AIWB, with a +P+ round in the chamber, pointed directly at my genitals. It really makes you feel alive.

    2. avatar Jeff K says:

      College total waste of everything & you subject yourself to brainwashing by elite idiots.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Painting with way too broad a brush there.

        I will readily concede that whereas in the past, the career path forked between those with a college degree and those without, today the difference is between what your degree is in and where you went to school.

    3. avatar Joe in San Antonio says:

      Depends upon the degree. If it’s a STEM or medical degree go for it. If it’s a bs degree you don’t need it. Education is an investment, you need to know the projected rate of return on your money and the hiring rate in your field

    4. avatar YAR0892 says:

      Difficult to get a Commission without one.

      1. avatar Joe in San Antonio says:

        ^that too

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        So get a “STEM” degree will take you further. Anything else today is certainly a waste of time.

    5. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Speak for yourself. Of the people I know who I went to high school with, none of the ones that didn’t get a degree make as much money now as the ones that did. Given that was more than a couple decades ago, but the delta between the people who got a degree, much less an advanced degree, over the people that didn’t is huge. Sure, the people who didn’t started out making a good salary, sometimes 40 to 60K within just a couple years, all while most of the folks that went to college wracked up debt. But the ones that didn’t go to college stayed at that salary for the rest of their careers, those of us that got our degrees didn’t. It doesn’t take many 100 to 150k years to blow that little gain in the beginning away, and then you keep on gaining for decades.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        The income gap has been closing, but that is primarily due to the fact that the Bush-Clinton-Bush effort to get “everyone” to go to college has resulted in a glut of people with degrees that no employer needs. Obama somewhat corrected the error by extending a lot of the help for college to trade schools, but we’re still stuck with a glut of people with educations that don’t help them because there aren’t jobs needing those educations.

        For many employers, all that a college degree shows is that a person is willing to stick with something for several years; the content is often irrelevant.

  9. avatar My older brother Chet says:

    What is going on in the picture at the top of the article? Who is the ponytailed a-hole. Have they not yet covered the 4 rules? So much WTF happening.

    1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

      Ditto: where do they get the pictures?

      1. avatar Journey3 says:

        I believe that the ponytailed a-hole is Ted Nugent.

        1. avatar My older brother Chet says:

          Nugent wouldn’t violate rule 3.

        2. avatar kenneth says:

          Also, note how many other bald camo wearers are, apparently, being ‘trained’ by this ‘teacher’ to violate rule #3.
          One hopes this is either a joke or a class full of ROTC newbies being shown what NOT to do, but I, personally, find that rather, shall we say, doubtful…

    2. avatar TexanHawk says:

      Small Arms Maintenance course. Likely taught on post rather than on campus which is still only a short drive from post.

      But, CTC has wordwide campuses and on post all over.

      http://www.ctcd.edu/locations/europe/programs/military-training/sam-gallery/

    3. It definitely begs for a caption contest.
      My submission, although very clever, would be in such poor taste that I can’t share it. Unless you plead for it. But then the backlash is on you.

    4. avatar jwtaylor says:

      No safety violation is evident there at all. It’s a class. Notice how everyone else has their fingers on the trigger. Gun’s aren’t magical.

  10. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    How about no. If you have to ask why then you don’t qualify to be a professor.

    Win/win.

  11. avatar strych9 says:

    I’m just thinking about holsters and I can’t think of very many pistols where one could tell if someone had a round chambered while the pistol was holstered. In most cases I think the safety would be the same. In both cases I’m thinking of OC. Plus, you’re supposed to be CCing, not OCing which makes it even more difficult to tell if the gun does become uncovered.

    Personally I’d just ignore the policy and if some idiot professor asked me I’d state that I was in compliance and that attempting to forcibly disarm me to insure this is true will result in me using the necessary force to retain my firearm up to and including smoking your PhD ass if that becomes necessary.

    Worst case scenario “Well officer I was in compliance but this jackwagon attacked me and attempted to disarm me. At some point the ensuing struggle a round was chambered in the weapon due to the fact that said jackwagon was trying to remove it from my person. After that occurred I determined that this person was indeed a threat to myself and others due to his/her berserk behavior and irrational attempts to use violence to arm themselves with a loaded pistol for no apparent reason. Their behavior made no sense and I couldn’t allow the firearm to fall into the hands of someone so clearly violent and unbalanced because God knows what they might have done with it. I had no choice. I shot to stop the threat.”

  12. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Double action Revolvers are your friend, empty chamber no problem just pull the trigger.

    1. avatar george from fort worth says:

      he maht be onto sumpthin’. uh cylinder ain’t called uh chamber inna wheelgun. whut a dumbf mess.

  13. avatar kenneth says:

    Just one more reason why a “J” frame snubbie should be the CCW choice for most people. There are at least a dozen more.

  14. avatar CNS says:

    “It’s almost as if the people who created CTC’s empty-chamber policy gained all of their firearm knowledge from old TV shows.”

    Remove the words “It’s almost as if” from this sentence and it becomes correct.

  15. avatar Barbara Merlo says:

    Good afternoon,
    A clarification–the policy for Central Texas College is still in DRAFT form and has NOT been adopted, nor has it been finalized and presented to our board for a vote. We are holding forums and there are many areas that may be changed as a result. Thanks for allowing the clarification.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      This should be added to your discussion:

      The only way a “no guns” rule for a private office to be enforced is by an invasion of the privacy of students, to wit asking whether or not they are armed. If this question is asked once the student is in said office, it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, a question the student cannot be required to answer.

      Thus all staff or professors with private offices who wish them to be “gun free” should be required to meet with students outside those offices, at a location acceptable to the student, with no questions of whether the student is armed
      allowed. Any other approach insults the dignity of all students as human beings.

  16. avatar anon says:

    on another note, that headline picture is hilarious

  17. avatar LHW says:

    Kind of sounds like a redundant policy.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email