Press release fromMadison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC):
AUSTIN, TX – Retired Navy SEAL turned University of Texas Chancellor William H. McRaven may be an expert on the use of firearms in combat, but he has repeatedly demonstrated that Texas’s concealed carry laws fall outside that area of expertise. According to the UT-Texas student newspaper The Daily Texan, Admiral McRaven—speaking at a March 31 conference—criticized pending legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses, stating . . .
“I think what will happen over time [is] we will begin to have a little bit of a barricade mentality … because, frankly, we’ll have to make sure that students carrying those weapons — well you’re going to have to check your gun at certain areas where you’re not allowed to carry those.”
The suggestion that students would need to be screened for weapons or that concealed handgun license (CHL) holders would need to check their handguns demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how concealed carry laws are implemented throughout the rest of Texas but also of what those laws currently say . . .
Throughout Texas, there are shopping malls and retail centers where licensed concealed carry is allowed in most businesses but prohibited (either by statute or by choice) in a few. A bar where concealed carry is statutorily prohibited or a jewelry store where the owner has made the choice to prohibit concealed carry isn’t required to screen patrons for or provide safe storage for handguns.
As would be the case at prohibited locations on college campuses, those businesses are simply required to post signs informing patrons that licensed concealed carry is not allowed on the premises. As with most concealed carry laws, the burden of compliances is borne by the license holder.
If Admiral McRaven is so concerned about making sure students don’t carry guns into gun-free-zones, why does the entire University of Texas System currently operate on an honor-system-based gun-free policy? Given that licensed concealed carry is currently legal on most of UT-Austin’s forty acres—including in any parking lot, parking garage, walkway, sidewalk, street, or other publicly accessible outdoor area—shouldn’t the UT System already have weapons checks at the entrances to campus buildings? Because Texas colleges cannot prohibit licensed students from keeping handguns in their private vehicles parked on campus, doesn’t Admiral McRaven’s logic dictate that students should be searched as soon as they step out of their cars?
University buildings located outside the main campus are sometimes not readily identifiable as being owned or operated by an institution of higher education, yet Admiral McRaven and the state’s other university administrators apparently believe that CHL holders follow the law at those locations. Therefore, doesn’t it stand to reason that CHL holders would follow the law at the handful of on-campus locations that, under the proposed law, would be easily identified by the required signage?
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented, “Why does Admiral McRaven feel that an honor-system-based gun-free policy is sufficient if it covers all campus buildings but insufficient if it covers just a few well-marked locations such as hospitals, K-12 schools, and sporting events?”
Admiral McRaven’s comment about a “barricade mentality” isn’t the first time he has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of licensed concealed carry. During a February 5 event hosted by the Texas Tribune, Admiral McRaven asked, “If you’re in a heated debate with somebody in the middle of a classroom, and you don’t know whether or not that individual is carrying, how does that inhibit the interaction between students and faculty?”
This ignores the fact that, in the absence of metal detectors at every entrance to every campus building, students and faculty already don’t know if someone is carrying a gun. All they know for sure is that the people concerned with obeying the law aren’t carrying guns. And according to statistics, the people concerned with obeying the law aren’t the ones students and faculty need to worry about.
Madison Welch noted, “When you consider that Texas concealed handgun license holders are convicted of violent crimes at approximately 20% the rate of the general population; that licensed concealed carry is already allowed in Texas churches, Texas office buildings, and even the Texas Capitol; and that any person unconcerned with following the rules can just as easily walk into a college classroom carrying a backpack full of guns as carrying a backpack full of books, the suggestion that classroom debates are sufficient reason to prohibit licensed concealed carry on Texas college campuses is patently absurd.
I respect Admiral McRaven’s service to his country, and I respect that he is trying to back the men and women under his command, but his arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.”
McRaven is a Globalist Elitist and part of the establishment…he would prefer everyone be disarmed because it’s much easier to rule over a disarmed populace.
deleting your story instead of owning up to them or saying “i did a stupid thing” is also pretty ignorant
He’s a Top Secret Navy Seal. He needs to keep to balancing a red ball on his nose and making buffalo meat snowmen.
Like the former seal from Mass. featured here a while back I’m sure he could teach you to change the clip in an AR in 5 minutes.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between a statist and a militarist.
Not really. An officer paygrade O-4 and above is basically a guarantee that they are statist. The chances of being able to stay in that long without being sniffed out as a Constitutionalist are nearly zero. The good admiral here, Seal or not, has played the game and drunk the coolaid. The training involved in getting that high basically involves drilling in the fact that your people can’t be trusted.
There is a lot of truth in this statement.
However, I’d counter that field grade officers who are prior enlisted can more often shake off the reeducation.
Oh really? You might want to actually talk to some field grades before lumping us all into the statist camp. You might be surprised how many of us actually believe in the constitution.
Speaking as an O4 who is a Constitutionalist and who went to great lengths to instil a similar appreciation of the constitution when I was training future officers let me just offer this insight, you are quite incorrect.
I have met Statists at every level of rank. I have met Constitutionalists at ever rank. You may not have seen it but perhaps it was because you were to busy looking down your nose at those useless dumb officers. Personally, I preferred getting to know my people to understand where they stood rather than painting in broad strokes.
As I am sure you will say though I don’t know you so maybe I am wrong.
Oh really?
I am a current O-type, with over a decade as a prior senior NCO as well, and I have met far more Constitutionalist officers than those who were Statists.
Let’s not try to cover everyone under the same blanket. You would not be any better than those anti-2A folks…
They’re always the same thing. The military exists to kill any who disobey the state.
The military serves the state. War is the domain of the state.
A militarist is a statist by definition.
Boy, are you wrong. Theory sometimes lets you down, try joining up for 10 years or so, then tell me that. The US military is forbidden from taking action against US citizens, they work overseas. And if ordered to start offensive action against the enemies of Osama, they would be likely to do something his majesty would not like, much, instead. I was tip of the USAF spear for 20 years, and an officer, and I would sure have never obeyed an order to attack Americans, although the IRS has no such problem.
Ah. I see our difference! You have coined a term, “militarist”, as if it means something, I am speaking of the military. I suspect that if there were such a thing as a definition of a “militarist”, it would not include serving in a military.
Right, tell that to the Delta soldiers pulling triggers at Waco. It’s funny how you believe the members of an organization that revolves entirely around mindless obedience of superior orders will suddenly develop a conscience and refuse orders, even as the government itself has spent the last decade playing legal gymnastics with the term “unlawful combatant” to erase all geographical limits.
LOL @ coining “militarist”, as if the term hasn’t been around for decades. Use a dictionary. You are arguing against a term which you do not even know the meaning. 🙂
@Sexual T-rex, Reynolds Wrap much?
your conspiracy theories are lame. I wonder if you are a troll trying to drive sane people with brains away from TTAG, because they don’t want to keep getting bombarded with paranoid delusions.
Go watch “Rules of Engagement”, it’s on youtube.
The great thing about slinging “conspiracy theory” around is that we live in an environment of total government secrecy, and yet people are defending government crimes by asking for critics to produce irrefutable proof from the government itself. Note that mass surveillance was considered a conspiracy theory until the Snowden leaks.
RF, please…UT is nothing more than University of Berkley East. To expect anything more of Austin’s School for Clowns is sad.
Hey now, McCombs (our business school) is still mostly fighting the good fight, while Cockerell (engineering) and Natural Science aren’t so bad either.
Not surprisingly, these are all subjects that require critical analysis of facts to deliver solutions that will then be scrutinized by peers, with a minimal amount of ideology involved.
One would think an Admiral, much less a SEAL would have a damn clue about the Bill of Rights etc.
They’re trained to kill, not respect rights.
The swore an Oath to uphold The Constitution of the U.S.A. That is why they are trained to kill. Screw this asshat Admiral in the ear-hole.
SEALs follow orders and Admirals are politicians. That combination of deplorable traits makes for an enemy of liberty.
They (SEALS, Admirals, every member of the military) are sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Some forget that oath, some were never real clear on what the Constitution says in the first place…but many current and former military personnel still follow that oath.
Then explain why the military brass, to a man it would seem, are against off-duty personnel having possession of guns or ammunition? Are his comments any different that the rules disarming military personnel on military bases, other than those acting in a security capacity or actually in the middle of a war zone? I think not.
That’s adorable Zod. The words of their oath are meaningless, what they’re really swearing is blind obedience to politicians. If soldiers gave a damn about their oath, they’d have dragged almost every politician for over 100 years from office and tossed them in a cell. Instead, they eagerly do the bidding of those corrupt politicians.
You missed the other part of the oath where they swore to obey orders.
Tyranasaur, those orders have legal parameters.
Yes, the parameters defined in the UCMJ, a most ironic use of the word “justice” if there ever was one. Observe the establishment reaction of the My Lai massacre: a cover-up and defense of the war criminals until overwhelming public opinion tossed them under the bus.
You know who else swore to uphold and defend the Constitution? The last two traitors in the White House (or more accurately, the Whore House).
“Then explain why the military brass, to a man it would seem, are against off-duty personnel having possession of guns or ammunition?”
Who told you that? What makes you think so? I was in the military for 20 years, and I never once had any senior officer (or anyone else) discuss the increasing quantity of guns I owned with me at all, unless we were going shooting together. The subject was never even discussed. I say again, WTF makes you think so? You sound like a fool who has been fed bullshit and liked it. Your statement is completely false.
And Tranny, the enlistment oath I recall did not include any pledge to follow orders, could you quote for us the oath you took which did? Or did you forget a solemn oath?
>>the enlistment oath I recall did not include any pledge to follow orders
How easy you forget. 🙂
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=US+military+enlistment+oath
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
You’d think so, but this guy’s undergraduate major was journalism. No way they let him anywhere near a copy of the Constitution.
All those big words!
Big words like “militarist”?
Unfortunately those who rise to the top of the military are really just big government people. They often are the “special” ones who have been anointed to defend themselves and use firearms. Mnay police officers and lots of chiefs begin thinking guns are just for them. Fortunately officers who have been on the street a while realize they can not be every where and that concealed carry can help keep us safe. McRaven got this one wrong.
So much stupidity coming from such an accomplished man. Goes to show that just because you’re expert in one field doesn’t mean you know squat about other fields.
I had to go to his main campus a couple of years ago for an event in a university building, which required me to leave my gun in a my car in a dark deserted parking garage and walk alone a couple of blocks in the dark back to my car. There was no security anywhere in sight, of course. See, it’s not just about students. It’s about ALL CHL holders who have to give up their rights at the door to a campus building, even though we can carry almost everywhere else.
He’s used to commanding young, fit, heavily armed men and has no idea what it’s like to be a woman walking around unarmed and alone on dark streets. He’s had bodyguards for years too.
In contrast, his counterpart at A&M (my alma mater) had a sensible statement. “The real question is this: ‘Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home?’ Of course I do!”
Sharp gets it. McRaven is ignorant on this issue and even appears to lack common sense.
Yeah, we can carry right into the Capitol, but not on campus? Does that make sense?
“This ignores the fact that, in the absence of metal detectors at every entrance to every campus building, students and faculty already don’t know if someone is carrying a gun”
I believe what we need are MENTAL detectors, not metal detectors, right?
“I believe what we need are MENTAL detectors”
It would be pretty funny to have this guy locked out of his own office…
You mean to tell me that a high-ranking former Navy pencil-pusher is anti-gun? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
So is his JSOC predecessor General McChrystal. Dumbasses, both of them, when it comes to the civilian world.
@juliesa,
Solid!
This is an effective takedown by Ms. Welch. She held her temper much better than I can. I have had it up to here with these halfwit academics. It’s way past time we had campus carry in Texas.
See the documentary “Dirty Wars” if you want to understand why McRaven doesn’t want anyone near him to be armed. Serious skeletons in his closet.
I think Chancellor McRaven needs to take a beginner class in ConLaw. He is making himself and UT look stupid.
@foodog, UT is stupid.
Why would anyone announce to the world that they were a former Navy Seal, that they are normally unarmed, where they work, and that the place they work does not allow conceal carry? Is it me, but doesn’t it sound suicidal and/or ignorant of current events?
You’re assuming that he is unarmed as well…
My impression is that he’s likely to promote the “do as I say, not as I do” method of gun-free zones.
McRaven probably feels he doesn’t have to present a logical argument. He is a former military commander who dictated to his troops. I am a retired Air Force member who worked in the defense industry for 30 years after retiring. During that time I worked with many retired officers who, by their demeanor, thought they were still in the military and could simply issue orders without a logical basis.
The Admiral is just proving the old military adage, “Shit always flows downhill.” He doesn’t care because he is at the apex.
Since excrement flows down hill and it has to have an origin which one would assume is at the apex of the hill and McRaven is at the apex of said hill does that make him the gaping sphincter at the apex of the hill?
Two years ago, a six year old boy wrote a letter to McRaven, asking him who’s more quiet, a Navy SEAL or a ninja? McRaven actually wrote back to the boy, responding that “Ninjas are probably quieter than SEALS, but we are better swimmers and also better with guns and blowing things up.” Well.
Having read the quality of his comments on the topic of campus carry, I’m convinced that the Admiral could, and indeed, should, learn a thing or two from ninjas.
you guys don’t seem to understand…..law and regulations do not apply in situations like this. and never, ever try to introduce logic or reason into the discussion. these tinpot dictators are all alike. only enforcement of law by armed US marshals or texas rangers will make any difference. people like this mushhead take the stance, “i am going to do what is right, regardless….so sue me !”. articles like this one are important to inform the POG, but unworthy of remark.
btw, i cannot honor/respect his service. he was charged with defending the entire constitution. he obviously had a secret caveat, which turns his service into a fraud.
If this report is true, he has violated his oath.
I have a $100 bill says this hypocritical jackass is walking around UT *EVERY FREAKING DAY* carrying a concealed handgun. Don’t do as I do, do as I say!
McRaven doesn’t undestand civil rights. Having been an officer in the Army for 21 years, and having dealt with many flag officers, my opinion is that many if not all of them have absolutely no concept of civil rights in the civilian world. They were developed in an authoritarian heirarchy in which officers were expected to be “benevolent dictators”.
when I was a lieutenant, my company commander had to inspect my “POV” before every long weekend, and I had to inspect all of my troops POVs. Same thing when I was a company commander. So we treated all Soldiers like brainless dolts just because a few Soldiers were – that sums up the approach to civil rights.
You are pulling my chain. Inspect your POV for *what*? In the USAF, we never had anything like that, I think there would have been riots. Hell, we almost had a mutiny when one commander insisted on beginning Commander’s Call with a chaplain giving a Christian prayer. We had a Jew, an atheist, and a Hindu stand and complain on the spot, with the chaplain still in the room, and several others were voicing support when the boss told us to shut up. Didn’t happen again, though. Maybe the difference is due to the fact that in the USAF, it’s the officers who are doing the actual job, ie flying the airplanes or sitting in the missile silos, as opposed to just telling others to do such things.
Not pulling your leg. Inspection was for bald tires, ensuring headlights, brake lights, and turn signals worked.
Let me add to my note above: lots of tough hazing and swim training does not make someone competent at concealed carry, or the legal isses about it. In fact, some SEALs aren’t even good marksman unless they went to additional training aftrr SEAL School (that used to be true, and I suspect it still is). One of the worst marksmen I have known is a former special ops guy who admits he can’t shoot pistols even though he was in one of the relatively elite units in his youth for several years; I guess his skill was carrying a heavy load with no sleep and in bad conditions. So McRaven’s military experience is not at all relevant to the issue of concealed carry.
He’s an Admiral. That means he’s career military- meaning no one gets a weapon unless the Command authorizes it. Concealed Carry- sure, only if you’re a SEAL on a mission. Or a member of the security team he had…..
I’m a former Army officer and the Admiral’s attitude is understandable if you’re in uniform….no one in the military is going to have a weapon unless they are trained on how to use it and have authorization to use it. Which is great in the military, and not so great as a civilian…. in this country the 2d Amendment guarantee’s the right of the armed citizen to be armed. End of Story.
A former professional killer for the establishment political class dislikes armed peasants? Absolutely shocking.
He was never a professional killer for the establishment political class. He was a boss and commander of professional killers for the establishment political class.
SEALS are clearly, compared to Rangers or Army SF….direct action mission guys, so the prof. killer part sticks.
How we ever ended up with three- and four-star generals and admirals from the specialties of small unit tactics is beyond my comprehension.
You’re right. All of the 3 and 4 star SOF Commands should be run by conventional officers.
That is a good idea. According to a Pentagon report, lying and deceitful behavior is rife in the officer class and the higher you go, the worse it gets.
But then again, being in charge of a horde of professional killers mandates a total lack of integrity.
well why don’t you post a link to this “pentagon” report?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1250
But… but… muh honor 🙂
This is a great example why the Oath Keepers was formed. They were founded by prior military who actually believe in the entire US Constitution.
General Wesley Clark followed the orders of President Clinton and bombed Serbia. He killed thousands of people who did nothing to the United States. There are thousands of Americans alive today and their children and grandchildren all born and living because the Serbs are allies saved hundreds air crews shot down in the Yugoslavia theater in World War 2. Army specialist Michael New refused orders during the illegal democrat war and paid the price. The fake anti war crowd did not give him a parade.
Socialist all hope the republican war would have soldiers quitting. But when the democrat war was raging in the 1990s they just want you to “just follow orders”. And now another democrat war rages. Does anyone here think socialist democrats are calling for soldiers to quit?
During invoking of marshal law this is the type of ex-military person who would order citizens to death rather than fight with the citizens for the liberty of their Country.
I imagine there are students at that university in Kenya who would disagree with the Admiral on the ability of even armed security to protect them in their dorms. Unfortunately many of them are dead. Lest we forget, the crazy shooter Cho went through the classrooms at Virginia Tech easier than the terrorists went through the dorms in Kenya.
I will contend POV inspections were less “we don’t trust the Soldiers” and more “I need these inspections sheets to cover my ass in the event of an accident”.
how convenient for you to leave out the part about defending the Constitution, and bearing true faith and allegience to the same.
He was an officer. Many of them have a mentality of going overboard with “safety”. When they are commanders of any unit, they have make reports on any “incident” that occurs on their watch. Anything even slightly negative might keep them from getting promoted. So they clamp down on anything and everything to keep their record as spotless as possible so they can get that promotion. He still has that mentality and probably always will.