Previous Post
Next Post


Florida’s campus carry bill (SB 176) passed out of the state senate’s Republican-dominated Criminal Justice Committee yesterday, but not before an opponent said something stupid. “Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, argued that the proposal would allow ‘mini-militias’ to form on the state’s campuses’,” reports. OMG! Mini-militias! Of course that wasn’t the dumbest thing said by Sunshine Staters seeking to maintain higher education institutions as gun-free zones. College faculty members spoke out in opposition to the measure, too . . .

Marjorie Sanfilippo, a professor of psychology at Eckerd College, called the bill dangerous.

“It is mere speculation and ignorance of statistical probability to assert that armed students are the reason why shootings don’t happen on campuses,” Sanfilippo told the committee. “Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.”

Arming assailants? Is Professor Sanfillippo seriously suggesting that assailants aren’t arming themselves because of the college campus concealed carry ban? That its repeal would lead them to tool-up? As that commercial says, that’s not this works. That’s not how any of this works. Anyway . . .

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee on Monday also voted 4-1, with Gibson opposed, on a measure (SB 290) that would allow gun owners without concealed-weapons licenses to legally carry their guns when an emergency evacuation order is given.

Last year, a similar measure failed to pass after heavy floor debate on the second-to-last day of the legislative session. However, this time the proposal has the support of the Florida Sheriffs Association, which opposed the 2014 version.

The change in the sheriffs association’s position came as Sen. Jeff Brandes, a St. Petersburg Republican who is sponsoring the bill, added a timeline Monday to this year’s proposal. The timeline would set a 48-hour window for individuals to carry weapons while they get away from an evacuation zone once the order is given.

The governor could extend the order by an additional 48 hours, under the proposal.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight . . .

Under the bill, Floridians can exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without a license (but not openly) for 48 hours if they live in an evacuation zone and they’re being evacuated under a mandatory evacuation order. But only if they aren’t legally prohibited from possessing a firearm and only carrying a concealed handgun or guns and only for two days – unless the Governor gives citizens another two days’ (but not a minute more) grace.

So what if you can’t get back in your home within two (or maybe four) days? Or live outside an evacuation zone during a period of lawlessness? Evacuated citizens can carry in these non-evacuation zone “hot spots” without a permit but not residents? And what about the gun ban in emergency shelters? Or the fact that open carry is a HUGE deterrent when law enforcement breaks down, as is possible after an event like a hurricane?

This is what happens when you don’t have Constitutional Carry. Still. Who in their right mind wouldn’t tool-up during an emergency situation, regardless of the law? Laws. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Can you?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Seems a bit ridiculous to have a time limit on constitutional carry. Better than nothing though. Should give emergency responders the message that gun confiscation is a no-no (I’m looking at you Katrina).

    • They should alter the time limit to the duration of the emergency or 48 hours whichever is longer and anyone that unknowingly carries longer than the duration of the emergency shall be held guiltless and be immune to both civil and criminal charges.

      • Florida is pretty much a Red state right now, and while the police in my hometown aren’t the most keen on guns (for some unfathomable reason they insist that patrol officers wear Kevlar, but they issue them SINGLE-STACK 9mms. Seriously, wtf? Even the neighboring town, which literally borders us no space between, issued Glock 41s to their force last year. I know, I was the in the shop the week after SHOT Show 2014 and I met a bunch of officers picking up their new duty guns), most places are pretty good from what I understand.

        Florida is actually a pretty good hunting state, and we have more issued CCWs than any other state, with more reciprocity than anyone else, and we don’t care where you live either (I’m also pretty sure we’ve been Shall Issue the longest).
        We also don’t have many of the stupid restrictions: any caliber, any make and model, any kind of accessories, any number of rounds in your magazine, suppressors and other NFA stuff with BATF papers, kids 10&up can shoot with parent supervision, and so on. Biggest stupid thing left is the no-CCW waiting period, but with over a million permits in circulation (I think), that’s not a huge hurdle. I think they aren’t keen on full-auto, but it’s also not a huge hurdle, my uncle still has a number of them.

        So I think things will go pretty smoothly in the event of another major hurricane. I’m more worried about the AGW crowd after the next storm than I am about this.

        • “I think they aren’t keen on full-auto, but it’s also not a huge hurdle, my uncle still has a number of them.”

          Depends on your LE.

          Here in Polk County, Sheriff Grady (of “because they ran out of bullets” fame) Judd will sign off, provided you’re legally clean.

          You can bypass your local LE with a trust, tho…

        • @Geof PR’s response to you: Grady Judd was the ass-hole that caused the emergency bill to fail last year when he was president of the Florida Sheriff’s Association. I thought Marion Hammer was going to rip his testicles off at one point. It seems that the candy asses at the sheriff’s association have changed their tune this year due to the past year of getting reamed when a bunch of people stopped making donations and peeled decals off their vehicles. Judd is a cowboy and needs to keep his butt in Polk County.

        • “kids 10&up can shoot with parent supervision,”
          Please provide the State Statue regarding this tidbit……..

  2. Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.

    This mental giant needs to win some sort of award for such a statement.

    Let me point out the obvious to you, Professor Obvious: people willing to violate the law to rape a college co-ed aren’t going to bother themselves with trivial matters such as laws that prevent firearms on that same campus. If the assailant wants to be armed in the commission of that rape, he will be.

    The law only compels the law-abiding. Laws that prohibit firearms on college campuses only serve to disarm would-be victims.

    • Academic psychologists are interesting creatures. 90%+ of them are rabid leftists, even though just about every leftist position runs contrary to everything we know about human (and more, generally, animal) behavior. It would be like a physicist arguing to outlaw gravity.

      • That’s a juxtaposition I infrequently point out to the two socialist psychologists in my family. It’s bizarre that they completely ignore the concepts of enabling and projection when it comes to government.

        Fwiw, I wouldn’t want either of them packing heat. Too unstable in my unprofessional opinion.

      • Maybe if we changed the penalty for rape to a slap on the wrist, and authorized shooting rapists with no penalty at all, somebody would figure this out. You have to take care of yourself, the state will not and can not do it. Ladies, pick up that gun.

    • Appropriate that they are called “institutions”. But I wouldn’t call them “Of higher learning” Rather, they are places that the majority of the faculty should be “Institutionalized” as in a mental institution.

    • Professor doesn’t understand that a rapist with a gun loses advantage when his victim also has a gun.

      I can’t imagine, as Professor seems to think, that a rapist could believe he is immune to bullets just because he has a gun.

      • To underscore this point, a prospective rape is NO “Mexican standoff”. Don’t draw on a drawn gun applies to a case of simple armed robbery. If a 16-year-old punk demands my wallet odds are we will both understand the probable game-plan and as long as I follow his script all I’m out is the wallet.
        Just as soon as the probable game-plan looks like a kidnapping, rape or attempted murder, “his script” is NOT an acceptable outcome. I imagine that most rapes include an element of kidnapping; i.e., the perpetrator needs to complete the crime in a venue where he is less likely to be caught. The probability of a kidnapping turning into a murder is too high to gamble on.
        I imagine that the perpetrator will – in most cases – understand the probable game-plan and decide that her script is the safest for him.
        Suppose FFLs offered a co-ed package deal: a S&W paired with a body-cam. The perp gets to live to try another victim. She escapes without harm. The police have a pretty good description and photo-image of the suspect.

        • He will shoot you anyway once he gets your wallet. I see this as he is at a disadvantage if he is having me reach for my wallet.
          I am going to say “cool man its cool” and I will have my left hand up waving it like “don’t shoot” but the next thing he sees is going to be my muzzle flash. One fast step to my left as I draw and fire. Even if he gets off a shot, it will go where I am no longer standing.
          First rule of a gunfight, have a gun. Easily accessible with a chambered round.
          Second rule, don’t get shot. Move!
          Third rule, get your first shot on target. Get close aim for center mass of largest part of target.
          Fourth rule, keep firing into the target until it no longer can be a threat. He is down not moving and you can retreat for cover.
          Fifth rule of a gunfight, there are no rules. These are pretty much just guidelines.

        • I acknowledge your points; all well reasoned. Each assault is a more-or-less unique case involving a victim with his own assessment of his personal skills and training and a perception of the perpetrator. Under an identical assault you and I will likely size-up the situation differently. Who knows, I might draw and you might – in fact – choose to toss your wallet and then maneuver to reassess the danger.
          I was NOT writing about a NON-rape assault. The IMPORTANT aspects of my arguments are the unique aspects of a RAPE assault.
          The Antis advise the non-gun listener that it is “always” best to “just give-it-up”. It’s one thing to tell an OFWG like me (or a line-backer) to give-up HIS wallet. It’s quite a DIFFERENT thing to tell a woman to undergo a RAPE. How much difference is there between such Anti-advice vs. “just lie-back and enjoy it”? One is implicitly insulting, the other explicitly insulting. An armed robbery has a reasonable probability of ending without a kidnapping; a RAPE has a HIGH probability of following a KIDNAPPING. Without being kidnapped, a victim has a reasonable chance of surviving a knife or handgun wound; after being kidnapped, any victim has no chance of surviving the wounds s/he is likely to suffer. (For that matter, if a woman is shot first by a handgun and is able to return fire, she has a reasonable chance of survival. On a campus she is likely to receive prompt medical attention in time to save her life.)
          While I will acknowledge the validity of your points as they apply to the NON-rape scenario, I think we need to hone our arguments that our audience needs to understand. A RAPE-attempt victim really should DRAW-on-a-drawn-gun (or any other weapon for that matter.)


    There. Saved Moms Demanding Assassination of Gun Owners in America and CSGV supporters some time.

  4. Even here in California, is TSHTF due to natural disaster or something else, laws be damned. We can sort it out later…

  5. Arming assailants? Is Professor Sanfillippo seriously suggesting that assailants aren’t arming themselves because of the college campus concealed carry ban? That its repeal would lead them to tool-up?

    If they are willing to rape and kill people – they probably don’t care about a law that says no guns on campus.

      • Trust me, tenure protects us pro-gun pistol packing professors as well. Plus, Dr. Gary Kleck at FSU has presented the facts and data and talked in favor of campus carry in The House last week when their version of this bill was up before the committee. Even though Dr. Kleck is fairly liberal, he has a bunch of the liberal hoplophobs foaming at the mouth and resenting him being tenured. The House committee advanced the bill 4 – 1 and the Senate 3 – 2.

        • Tenure shouldn’t protect anybody. You defend tenure by saying there are some good professors? That aint no argument.
          Does tenure protect the coaching staff? Does tenure protect the landscaping company? Does tenure protect lawyers at a firm or Wall Street traders? No.
          If you are good at your job, you should be against tenure and if tenure didn’t exist then you should do a better job to keep it.

    • She’s a leftist. That isn’t how she thinks. To her, “assailant” means any male, especially if he happens to be white. We are all animals without any self control, and letting us carry guns will just enable us. All of us must be controlled to the greatest extent possible for both our own good and the good of “society.” And by “society,” she means herself and those who think like she does. Once you understand that, it all makes much more sense. Well, “makes sense” perhaps isn’t the correct phrase. How about “becomes easy to predict.”

      • I believe that is her thought (if you’re willing to call it that) process. All men are just wannabe rapists, we’re just too lazy to make the effort. Now with a firearm at hand to make the job easier, we’d all just be out of control.

      • I’m sorry….I’ve be giggling to myself.

        This gives me a mental image of what her mental image must be….

        Once the male population is allowed to carry guns, we’ll all be walking raping machines. Perpetually thrusting our loins while walking about on campus….ready to rape at a moments notice!

        It’s the guns silly!

  6. I would approve of and even help train mini militias on campuses. Imagine if half the universities in this country had a 50 person mini militia. That’s nearly 1500 (4 year colleges only) x 50 students = 75,000 educated warriors distributed throughout the country. Now imagine 500-1000 students from only half of the four year institutions. I am crying out of joy of the idea.
    We should propose a bill and name it after State Senator. The Gibson Freedom Resolution.

  7. Which is worse? Anarchy or tyranny? I used to think a stable tyranny was more bearable than chaos, but I think I have swung 100%. Not that there aren’t better alternatives, It’s just illustrative to see to which life raft people would rather cling to.

    Convenience? Or Freedom?

    • Don’t know what to major in and don’t want anything useful – psychology. New degree useless but daddy has $? then get the master/phd and teach. Full libtard indoctrination required.

      Now that you have a Phd = “scientist” can have a valuable opinion on global warmin/climate change.

    • Tyranny…look at Cuba or North Korea. Anarchy…look at Syria or Yemen.
      Anarchy leaves a vacuum where the strongest most united force for good or evil will come in. The ideology of anarchists relies on individual responsibility. I don’t see those individuals uniting to keep out the evil groups that would gladly impose tyranny.
      Our Founders knew this and instated a form of government to fill the void and serve the purpose of defending our Nation.
      Our problem is apathy. A Republic only sustains when the governed take an active role in governing. We can’t even get people to just vote.

  8. During hurricane Sandy along the NJ shore, I saw homeowners with rifles patrolling their neighborhoods on the evening news, because there were no police. Ordinary citizens… in NJ… openly carrying guns. And no mass murders, minimal looting, and life went on. AMAZING isn’t it?

  9. So we can all carry when the police won’t be able to respond, but when they can respond it’s too dangerous. Got it.

    Good grief.

  10. Sort of reminds me of the Fallout games, where to get into certain “secure” factions area’s they demand you hand over all your weapons, and the best response is, “Meh, no. I think I prefer the wasteland…” Then you come back after you learn to hide some weapons and once your inside you waste everyone….

    • That’s only the casinos, and only in New Vegas, as far as I know. None of the other areas do that in FNV or F3.
      And even then it isn’t for safety’s sake, its because they explicitly want their people to be the only armed people casinos, which would tend to be the biggest source of ready cash in a post-apocalyptic world (much as it is now).

      Seriously, can you imagine how much more Vegas would spend on security if THE CASINOS were the law on the Strip?

      But Mr. House, who actually owns the Strip, doesn’t mind armed people, since he’s got killer robots roaming the streets to stop trouble-makers.

      • Yeah I believe your right, its been awhile since I’ve played. But I sure do enjoy those games because it seems they play out in a relatively realistic way, for a game of course. Personally in some sort of disaster I’d rather roam around the affected area then go into one of the camps…

  11. There is a problem with the current law as it is written and that is what Brandes’ bill seeks to address. As the law is written now, and as a Floridian with my CCW, if I am ordered to evacuate my CCW is nullified and I can be arrested and charged with a felony. also, iirc, I cannot even bring my firearms with me. Leaving them open season for any looters. I would rather give everyone grace period of 48-96 then be disarmed by the stupid and moronic law placed on the books by Janet Reno.

  12. For those not familiar with Florida statutes, the bill was drafted to address having your guns in violation of the following:

    Title XLVI
    CRIMES Chapter 870

    870.044 Automatic emergency measures.–Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:

    (1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

    (2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

    (3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

    Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act.

    • Why hasn’t anyone filed suit to strike down this law? It clearly violates the Second Amendment under any level of judicial scrutiny and this case would be a slam dunk. Talk about easy money for the plaintiff’s attorneys.

      • The bill replaces that text. In essence it is repealing that law. It even extends conceal carry rights to those who do not have a license. Not perfect but a step in the right direction. Another thing to look at is A potential ruling with Norman v State of florida striking down the open carry ban (and would be precedent to strike down this law should Brandes’ bill not pass again)

        • Ah, didn’t see in the article that it replaces that section. Thanks, good to know.

          It *is* a step in the right direction from existing statute, I hope they keep it up.

  13. We heard the same crap here in Idaho before we passed campus carry – “drunken frat boys will be shooting the professors”.

    To date, the only campus shooting has been a state Univ. professor who shot himself in the leg while playing with his pistol concealed in a pocket. Reported as “the firearm accidentally discharged.” No mention of whether or not the prof was drunk, or had ever been a frat boy.

    Oh yeah, I was on the Army rifle team in college – was that a mini-militia?

  14. Speaking as a Florida resident with a CCW, this is MUCH BETTER THAN THINGS ARE NOW!

    Seriously. If there’s a hurricane next year, and things go well, this could be the boost we need to get Constitutional Carry. We already have a pending SCOF decision that could repeal the open carry ban.

    This isn’t perfect, but it is BETTER. And the perfect is the enemy of the good and the better.

    I’m happy to accept baby steps so long as things keep moving forward. Each time the law loosens and it DOESN’T lead to blood in the streets, but instead to a lower crime rate, it gets THAT MUCH EASIER to keep moving forward.

    Yeah, it sucks that we have to wait. But Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it wasn’t destroyed in a day either. We are REBUILDING Rome, here. So long as progress continues, I’m happy. Not SATISFIED, but happy. I need to remember to send thank you letters to the legislators for the emergency carry bill, already sent them to the committee that worked on the campus carry bill.

    • When you send those letters, remind your politicians that open carry is legal in something like 44 other states (and most states require no license or vetting whatsoever) and open carry has not led to any significant violent crime. Unless they have some secret knowledge that leads them to believe that Floridians are less “civilized” than those other 44 states, there is no reason for them to continue to criminalize open carry.

      • I will, but it may not matter; Norman v State of Florida may decide it for us. If he wins his case, open carry may be decriminalized as such.

        • Judging from the oral arguments in front of the 4th DCA, we may get a similar ruling to that of Illinois’ conceal carry ruling. Then it may go to the SCOF for final ruling (or the SCOTUS). But I don’t think the SCOF will overrule the 4 DCA if they throw out that ban.

  15. “Proponents will tell you that allowing conceal carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you’ll be arming the assailants, too.” — Professor Marjorie Sanfilippo

    Ms. Sanfilippo pointed out something obvisous alright: her ignorance. A violent criminal who is willing to commit the extremely serious crime of raping a woman is more than willing to commit the non-serious crime of violating a college campus ban on concealed carry.

    And that is why our side is winning.

  16. Every time we chip a brick or even a bit of mortar out of the wall separating us from our Constitutional rights we win a victory; however small it might be. We lost our rights brick-by-brick. Let’s get smart now. We get them back bit by bit. Every chip in that wall weakens the entire barrier. Ultimately, it will fall because the People recognize that it is a sieve. All the exceptions undermine whatever presence the barrier might have had to justify it.

  17. Well, look at it from their perspective; since it is a fact that ALL female college students will eventually be raped, beaten, denied opportunity and paid less money, giving them guns is begging for trouble. Just ask the disadvantaged youth in the inner cities; it’s a recipe for disaster. 2 or 3 years of this and liberal arts majors will be banging, and slangin ‘caine!

  18. Open carry should be allowed in FL, Rick Scott agrees with open carry and there is a case in the state challenging the unconstitutionality of the OC ban since the state claims CCW permits are a privileged thus there is no other legal avenue to exercise our 2A rights with obtaining the privilege of a permit. I can only see the Miami-Dade area being annoying as that’s the liberal ass end of Florida. But, they claimed blood in the streets back in ’88 when the ‘shall-Issue’ was put in place. Crime in that area has gone way down since then. How can anyone call FL the Gunshine state when it is one in seven that bans OC? How someone as butthurt as Janet Reno was able to convince FL legislature to slide the ban through is beyond me.

    • Can you OCer’s just give it a rest? Besides, the article isn’t about OC.
      “Crime in that area(Miami) has gone way down since then.” Yes, it’s way down without OC being a relevant factor. Hmm? Crime goes down….but with only CC permits available? Sounds like it’s working fine just the way it is.

      Criminals are cowards, and they know better than most law abiding citizens, what the gun laws are, or aren’t. It matters little to them whether it’s OC or CC, they just know that we’re armed, ready, willing, and able to fight back. It’s the one thing criminals fear most, more than they fear the police, because a) we’re right there where the crime scene is, and b) we don’t have the same ROE the police do. That, and the element of surprise keeps the BG’s thinking twice. If anyone is waging a war on women, it’s the liberal, anti-gun agitpropsters on the Left. I thought empowering women was their sole claim to righteous fame?

      • “Can you OCer’s just give it a rest? Besides, the article isn’t about OC. ‘Crime in that area(Miami) has gone way down since then.’ Yes, it’s way down without OC being a relevant factor. Hmm? Crime goes down….but with only CC permits available? Sounds like it’s working fine just the way it is.”
        That the article is NOT about OC is a valid point. Nevertheless, I’m not convinced that the OCers should “just give it a rest”. I come late to the OC side of the argument. I started out as a gradualist; don’t scare the horses, I mean the hoplophobes. Now, I’m beginning to think that OC isn’t about OC at all; it’s really about the PotG “coming-out” as it were.
        More than anything else, the Antis want to keep us in-the-closet. They will graciously allow the Fudds to hunt and the marksmen to go to the range. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind. It’s hard for them to get much traction on CC because – it’s concealed. So long as the public doesn’t see us we don’t exist. So, keep the kids from waring NRA T-shirts or playing cowboys-and-native-Americans and the Antis can win.
        Don’t-ask-Don’t-Tell. The colored folk use the side entrance and don’t get “uppity”. Everything should stay as it appears to be. They keep ratcheting down the degrees to which we can exercise our rights and eventually our rights atrophy.
        What if we don’t play their game? What if we don’t stay in our closet? Then the State-owned-media and the public have to pay attention to us. That might mean that they will listen to what we have to say. That is the LAST thing the Antis want.
        So, what can we do to get our moment in the sun? Fighting with our legislatures or Congress doesn’t do much for us. The public doesn’t care about the ATF or what it’s trying to do with green-tip ammo. The public doesn’t even care that the ATF is running guns to the Sinaloa cartel!
        Remember the media circus in which we compete for a sound-bite. ISIS beheads 21 Christians – Roll the tape. Our president heads for the GOLF range! Parading in kilts is pretty tame stuff. Whatever happened to: “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!”?
        I say we go to the Pink Pistols for some marketing advice; maybe ask if we can borrow a few rainbow-colored boas.

  19. Florida is a state that is in direct violation of the constitution when it comes to firearms. You can carry only if you pay a tax for a license. If you refuse to pay the tax then there is no way you can legally bear arms, period. While personally I think any state that requires a permit (tax) to carry concealed is in violation there are some that only require the tax if you want to carry concealed. Where that is the law its hard to claim a constitunial infringement as your still allowed to bear arms. Not so here. If I want to exercise my rights legally here I must pay for the privilege, thus denying my right. That is just wrong. For the government to come out and say they are thinking about granting me something I already have for a limited time under limited circumstance is laughable.

    • I agree – in principle – that taxing a right is offensive. Unfortunately, it’s probably a weak argument legally and politically.
      The US Constitution provides in Article I, Section 9, Clause 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Amendment 24 provides: “The right of citizens . . . to vote . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” Apart from these two, I don’t know of ANY prohibitions against taxing ANYTHING. (I’m probably missing some, but others can fill in.) Courts, legislators and the public presume that governments can tax anything they want because they tax just about everything already.
      In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. Yet, we can’t travel by planes, trains or automobiles without a driver’s license (or State ID) for which we must pay a fee/tax. What remains of this freedom of movement untaxed? Walk or get a horse?
      Plead all we like, I doubt any court will grant that it is an infringement on our 2A rights to pay a fee for an ID card. A court might grant that some State’s (municipality’s) rate is too high to be reasonable; but it won’t find against a fee that it deems modest. In the court of public opinion I don’t think I’d gain any sympathy for the $21 I paid in PA.
      When the State-owned-media rations the sound-bites we get we have to be tactical about which issues we complain about. Paying a fee is NOT high on my list.
      The way I’d play this one is to start with the States that charge the higher fees; e.g., $140 in Texas. Let’s NOT complain about paying the fees on our own account. Instead, let’s petition that the legislature waive the fee (or charge just $5) to low-income applicants. Let’s explain that a single mother might only be able to scrape up $300 for a handgun and a box of ammo. To make her pay almost half that amount again for a TX CCP is a tax on the poor for exercising a Constitutional right; much like the maligned poll tax that is now unConstitutional. In so doing we aren’t saying we are penny-pinchers; instead, we are championing the right of self-defense for our economically-disadvantaged fellow-citizens. This will play well with the public; and that’s what we need now.

  20. How dumb and or illogical can one be to deny a lawful person their Right to self defense? Again, the insinuation is if you have a firearm you are a criminal, as safe good law-abiding people would never carry a firearm and or consider engaging in self defense. That’s exactly their premise and conclusion. How is it these supposed educated people could take such a position?

  21. Amazing how rare common sense is among some folks with higher education degrees. Potential bad guys don’t care if anything is illegal. They don’t stop to see if something is legal if they plan to break the law anyway. Why is that so difficult to understand ? So, no, any change in the law would not be arming the assailants and that is not “obvious” as they would already be armed. Sheesh!

  22. Opponents of campus carry are in an indefensible position: Eight states now permit campus carry, some of them for years now, and there have been no, as in ZERO, problems in any of them.


    Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to sustain the prohibition.

    • Your response prompts an idea. Suppose one of our gun organizations put together a web site; a fact sheet on guns. (There re a lot of them already; and it’s tough work, but follow me for a moment).
      The Anti’s have a claim; let’s say, “CC on campus is bad”. So, that becomes a page. Under this page are citations where various Anti’s have articulated a claim along these lines. (We don’t need to find all of them; just an authoritative source who presents a specific statement supporting our generic statement “CC on campus is bad”.)
      If the Antis’ claim were true, there ought to be evidence to support it. What might that evidence be? There should be news reports on the internet (or Lexis/Nexis) to support the claim. How could those news reports be found? The owners of our web site could compose a number of Google queries reasonably designed to find such stories. These queries would be available under our page; i.e., anyone could look at our queries and run them for herself. The owners of our web site run the queries on, e.g., a quarterly schedule, and list the citations that are valid; e.g., URL, date, U-of-X Y-campus, Ms Smith shot by Mr. Jones; ex-boyfriend.
      Now, for context. U-of-X Y-campus was a carry/NO-carry zone at the time of the incident. The following campuses have-been carry-free on respective dates: A; B; C; . . .
      Do the query results tend to support the allegation? Some will, some won’t. Generally, the results will be a mixed bag, but the evidence to support the allegation will prove weak; or, so we believe.

      The home page would invite Antis – any and all – to draw to our attention any cases we have overlooked. Each such contribution should be listed with a ‘hat-tip’ to the contributor whomever she might be. A page should show all the contributions. I.e., each Anti organization and each individual Anti should be given full credit for supporting our effort. (Shouldn’t take up too much page-space I expect).

      We PotG have more than a little trouble with the way the Antis compile their statistics. E.g., conflating permit holders who commit suicide with those accused of or convicted of murder. So, if we list all the permit holders convicted, and then those accused, and compare to the number of permits outstanding in their respective States, the real picture emerges.

      Naturally, the Antis will submit cases asserted to be “murders”. If they get one we overlooked, we list it with a hat tip. If they submit one where the fact situation looks more like self-defense, we list it as disputed. Any reader can google for the reference keys (date, place, name) and read whatever articles there are. Within a couple years the case gets adjudicated and the Anti’s either get a win or a loss.

      Suppose the Anti’s don’t take the bait. They don’t submit any cases that they allege support a claim. Well, then, our published cases stand unrelated. There were only a few campus shootings by permit holders. Only a few murders by permit holders.

      The Antis also claim that we over-estimate the number of self-defense incidents. We have a page for that. We explain that self-defense cases where no shot is fired typically don’t get reported. Nevertheless, we publish what we find and categorize it. One list for suspects killed; another for suspects wounded; another with shots fired but no one hit; another where no shots were fired. Here, the listing of: URL, date, SomeTown TX, Ms Smith shot Mr. Jones; ex-boyfriend will point to the facts of each case.
      Here, the statistics matter less than the non-trivial number of stories and the text of the stories themselves. The reader can look into any story at random and empathize with the victim. Whether they number in the hundreds or thousands will matter less than the fact that they are a regular occurrence in the reader’s State of residence.

      There are a lot of sites on each side; but, they are mostly a point in time with not enough background to make for an irrefutable statement. If we had such a site as I describe then the Pro-gun and Anti-gun forces could list their cases that support their point. If the weight of the evidence is on our side then the Anti-gun citations will be listed with sufficient specificity that they are refutable; and the reader could study the articles posted on disputed cases and judge for themselves.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here