National News Utah students hide guns, head to class

[wordsmythe]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (CNN) -- The senior at the University of Utah gets dressed and then decides which gun is easiest to conceal under his clothes.

If he's wearing a T-shirt, he'll take a smaller, low-profile gun to class. If he's wearing a coat, he may carry a different weapon, he said.

He started carrying a gun to class after the massacre at Virginia Tech, but the student says he's not part of the problem of campus shootings and could instead be part of a solution.

Nick, who asked not to be fully identified so his fellow students wouldn't know he carried a gun, he says he has had a concealed weapons permit for more than three years. But it was Seung-Hui Cho's murderous campus rampage that made him take a gun to class.

"Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought 'I'm not going to be a victim,' " Nick said.

"My first thought was 'how tragic.' But then I couldn't help but think it could've been different if they'd allowed the students the right to protect themselves."

Days after another campus shooting -- in which five students and the gunman died at Northern Illinois University -- students at colleges in Utah, the only state to allow weapons at all public universities, are attending classes.

Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.

His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.

"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.

"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."
The University of Utah had no comment and referred inquiries to the state Board of Regents. Amanda Covington, Utah State Board of Regents spokeswoman, also would not comment on the current gun laws on school campuses.

However, she said the regents are opposing a legislative proposal to allow people with concealed weapons permits to have the weapons visible in public.

"We are worried that it may affect their [students' and teachers'] willingness or desire to go to or teach a class on campus," she said.
The University of Utah, based in Salt Lake City, had prohibited firearms on its campus until that ban was struck down by the state's Supreme Court in late 2006. The institution, backed by all other universities in the state, is still fighting through federal courts to reinstate the ban.

But state legislators could be moving in the opposite direction, considering a bill to modify current law to allow people in Utah -- including students -- to carry loaded weapons openly.

Utah State Representative Curtis Oda said the bill, which he is sponsoring, is merely to clarify that people with weapons permits may carry a gun openly or -- with a concealed permit -- they may hide it for the sake of surprise.

He stressed that people with permits have gone through rigorous checks.
"When you see someone with a gun, you are looking at some of the most law-abiding people in the state," he said.

The issue goes beyond campus. Last year, a few miles from the University of Utah, a man walked into Trolley Square, a Salt Lake City shopping mall, and opened fire. Police were there in only three minutes, but the shooter had already killed five people and wounded four others.

"And not just shootings, but [serial killer] Ted Bundy did some of his crimes at the University of Utah campus," said David Seelly, a recent University of Utah graduate who says he carried a concealed gun on campus.
"If one of those ladies was a concealed-weapon holder, she could've stopped him before he did as much as he did."
To get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, people in Utah must, among other things:

<LI _extended="true">Be 21 years old

<LI _extended="true">Have no criminal record of violent, immoral or substance-related crime

<LI _extended="true">Be mentally competent.
Student Kevin Rechtenbach of the University of Utah said he was open to carrying a gun, but not certain that would solve problems.
"If acts of terrorism continue on campus, then I will have no choice but to carry a concealed weapon," he said.
"But you see, that is where the problem lies: Everybody will end up carrying concealed weapons, and everyday problems will be solved with guns rather than words or even fists."

The only places on campus that have restrictions are the dormitories. Students can request a roommate who doesn't carry a gun.
Private colleges in Utah, like the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University in Provo, do have more power to ban weapons on campus, but that, too, causes disagreement among students.
"I own some guns, and I wish I was allowed to have them at school," said Collin Barker, a BYU student. "I would just keep [them] in my car for target shooting."

Casey Matheny, from Plano, Texas, now studying at BYU, appeared indifferent to the debate over students carrying guns.
"I don't mind if they have one, I just don't want to know about it," he said.

Rob Morrison, a BYU student from Ontario, Canada, doesn't think that having guns on campus would necessarily stop a potential killer.
"The people that do it want to commit suicide anyway," Morrison said. "But it would give students a chance to defend themselves, and at Virginia Tech, it could have ended sooner than it did."

[Army_of_One]

That's good stuff...of course if Bo is elected president he might have to give it up...

California Firearm Law Obama's Standard
Thursday, 21 February 2008

In the Huffington Post, we finally get clarity from Obama himself. Taking on The Lobby makes it clear that Obama thinks California gun law should be taken national.

Quoting:
After the horror that was Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon, Barack Obama announced Friday morning that, as a constitutional attorney, he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, thinks it doesn't only apply to the militia, and that he also plans to use California gun control legislation as a paradigm for a national policy to contain the spread of gun violence.

But, is it really possible to have it both ways? Can one support the right to bear arms, as well as implement the kind of national gun control legislation that will stem the flood of shootings on our nation's campuses, streets, and homes? Essentially, the question is, should Senator Obama become President Obama would he be prepared to take on the most powerful, and influential, congressional lobby outside of the tobacco industry, the gun lobby?

After the spate of campus killings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now at Northern Illinois, there is little doubt that the former president, and his attorney general brother, Robert F. Kennedy, would be hard at work on gun control legislation now.
Obama is fond of this quote from President John F. Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," but is he any more ready for hand to hand combat with those who put their rifles next to Gideon's Bible in Motel 6's from Idaho to Alaska, those who are the most obstinant opponents of restrictions on the possession, manufacture, and sale of firearms? He suggests that he would support legislation on the order of gun laws implemented, in California, during Gray Davis' tenure as governor.

So, what does that mean? As a start, how about:

1. Handgun registration.
2. Approved firearm lists determined by politicians.
3. Assault weapons registrations and bans.
4. A fifty caliber ban.
5. Discretionary concealed carry.

And the list is expanding. California has passed an ammunition encoding requirement recently to go into effect January 1, 2010. So expect registration of ammunition purchases.

If this is Obama's concept of "supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms", I would hate to see what would happen to any right he does not believe in.

For a more complete view of California gun law, I suggest Calgunlaws as a start.

[Army_of_One]

He has also stated that he agrees with the 2nd Amendment but would leave it up to the cities for a Wash DC type ban? HUH? Leave it up to the cities to trample on the 2nd Amendment....

[Highwayman]

What part of “shall not be infringed” does he not understand?

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

What part of “shall not be infringed” does he not understand?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

When there's a problem with interpretation on something, like the Second Amendment, I agree that it's best to let the states make those decisions rather than have one sweeping law for the entire country.

Many people interpret the "well regulated militia” part of the Amendment to mean that the state have the right to have their own military aka National Guard.

Since that distinction can’t be agreed upon I’d much rather that the citizens in the state make those decisions. If the states decide to preempt a city ordinance then that is the state’s responsibility.

The Federal government stays out of it and the majority makes the decision on what they want in their state.

Seems like a good position for Candidate Obama to take.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

When there's a problem with interpretation on something, like the Second Amendment, I agree that it's best to let the states make those decisions rather than have one sweeping law for the entire country.

Many people interpret the "well regulated militia” part of the Amendment to mean that the state have the right to have their own military aka National Guard.

Since that distinction can’t be agreed upon I’d much rather that the citizens in the state make those decisions. If the states decide to preempt a city ordinance then that is the state’s responsibility.

The Federal government stays out of it and the majority makes the decision on what they want in their state.

Seems like a good position for Candidate Obama to take.

Not states...Cities. You don't think there should be a uniform interpretation of the law? The 2nd amend is ...well the 2nd Amend. It shouldn't apply in some states and not in others. You can't outlaw guns in San Fran and have conceal carry in KS.

[Highwayman]

The Second Amendment

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.

The term “the right of the people” also appears in the First and Forth Amendments. Freedom of speech and protection from unreasonable searches has always been found by courts to be an individual right of persons.

So how is it that the same wording in the Second Amendment somehow means something else? This is absurd. It can mean nothing but an individual right.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Not states...Cities. You don't think there should be a uniform interpretation of the law? The 2nd amend is ...well the 2nd Amend. It shouldn't apply in some states and not in others. You can't outlaw guns in San Fran and have conceal carry in KS.

Yes actually you can and DO.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Not states...Cities. You don't think there should be a uniform interpretation of the law? The 2nd amend is ...well the 2nd Amend. It shouldn't apply in some states and not in others. You can't outlaw guns in San Fran and have conceal carry in KS.

There is no gun ban in San Francisco, it was overturned in a court of appeals.

NRA-ILA :: News Releases