1. Only Licensed, Legally-Armed Citizens Would Carry.

Students for Concealed Carry does not advocate “arming students.” Our proposals do not change who can carry, but where. We believe that professors, ROTC cadets, ex-Marines, evening students or anyone who already carries a concealed weapon under existing law is no different on campus than they are off-campus. After all, under current law, armed citizens can carry a concealed weapon into literally thousands of places throughout their state, including movie theaters, restaurants, banks, shopping malls, churches and grocery stores, and have done so responsibly for years.

State laws generally require a comprehensive FBI criminal background check, fingerprints, classroom instruction and live-fire certification. Consequently, legally-armed citizens already have training and experience with firearms, and have demonstrated responsibility. Whether or not you support concealed carry, it’s already an existing right in most states. In view of this, prohibiting these same responsible concealed carry on a college campus doesn’t make sense.

2. “Gun-Free Zones” Don’t Work

History is clear, stickers on campus doors saying “no guns allowed” don’t stop criminal offenders. In fact, no law will ever affect criminal behavior because criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. What these signs actually do is create (and advertise!) a defense-free zone, removing legal guns and forcibly disarming victims. This is exactly what makes colleges most attractive to killers who seek easy targets.

Killers don’t take time to register their firearms or obtain permits for their murder weapons. Virginia Tech and a host of other college shootings demonstrate that. The net effect of our proposals is allowing legal weapons on campus…the very ones that could help someone make a difference in a hostile situation.

3. The Net Effect is Positive

Many students state they would not feel safe if concealed carry were allowed. However, concealed carry at Virginia Tech was blocked with the specific goal of “feeling safe.” On April 16, 2007, it became clear that feeling safe isn’t the same as being safe.

In reality, 26 colleges currently allow concealed carry on campus, including all public universities in Utah and multiple college campuses in Colorado, totaling over 70 campuses. According to crime statistics and inquiries to campus officials, there hasn’t been a single reported instance of shootouts, accidents or heated confrontations resulting from concealed carry on campus. In fact, Colorado State University’s crime rate has declined steadily since allowing concealed carry. While no one can irrefutably claim this is due to concealed carry, we can at least state with certainty that allowing concealed carry does not increase risks to a campus population and may even help.

4. Everyone deserves protection

As our opponents frequently point out, colleges are safer than cities and urban environments. However, crime rates on college campuses have risen in recent years, and statistics show that, nationwide, there are nine sexual assaults reported on college campuses each day. Furthermore, the low probability of becoming a victim doesn’t help the 47 victims at Virginia Tech, or the 27 victims at Northern Illinois University, or any of the other countless victims of crimes on campuses. Current policies give such victims the option of playing dead or huddling under desks.

5. Colleges can’t protect students

Campus officials have introduced multiple responses to the problem of campus crime — all of which are reactionary. Campus police, text message alerts and cameras are all good ideas that demonstrate an awareness of the problem. But awareness is not the same as readiness; text messages are ineffective, police are often thinly-spread across vast campus grounds and cameras will do nothing more than capture footage for the nightly news. The fact remains that colleges are open environments with invisible boundaries and little to no secure prevention measures. They cannot guarantee protection to students or prevention of armed assaults. In all honesty, it’s not fair to expect them to. It’s completely impractical to expect colleges to provide airport-grade security with a secure perimeter, metal detectors, armed guards, bag inspections and pat-downs. Even if they could, few people want the nature of a college campus changed so radically.

Therefore, any institution which cannot provide for protection for its visitors must not deprive those visitors of the ability to protect themselves.

ABOUT US:
Students for Concealed Carry is a national grassroots organization consisting of over 40,000 college students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens who support the right to self-defense on campus. SCC is non-partisan and not affiliated with any political party or organization. Click here to follow our daily updates on Facebook!

Click here to read additional responses to common objections.

To donate, click here or click the PayPal link on the right side of the page.

Please feel free to e-mail us to get involved.

For media inquiries, please contact SCC’s Director of Public Relations, David Burnett.

The Virginia Supreme Court has upheld a state administrative prohibition on firearms at George Mason University.

The ruling comes in response to an appeal after Fairfax Circuit Judge Michael McWeeny ruled the regulation does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

George Mason University (GMU) has a policy which states:

Possession or carrying of any weapon by any person, except a police officer, is prohibited on university property in academic buildings, administrative office buildings, student residence buildings, dining facilities, or while attending sporting, entertainment or educational events. Entry upon the aforementioned university property in violation of this prohibition is expressly forbidden.

The court concentrated especially on the language of the previous Supreme Court Heller case regarding “sensitive” locations such as schools or government buildings. The court found that, schools being considered “sensitive,” the ban was constitutional and held that “GMU is a sensitive place and that 8 VAC § 35-60-20 is constitutional and does not violate Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of Virginia or the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution.”

However, the ruling is not an absolute ban on weapons. As stated in the ruling, “the regulation is tailored, restricting weapons only in those places where people congregate and are most vulnerable – inside campus buildings and at campus events. Individuals may still carry or possess weapons on the open grounds of GMU, and in other places on campus not enumerated in the regulation.”

“Students and faculty cannot carry inside academic buildings, or inside large gatherings like stadiums, but it doesn’t appear to impact general members of the public,” stated Kurt Mueller, an attorney with Students for Concealed Carry. “They can carry on campus grounds or, for example in their cars. The regulation isn’t part of the statute, so there’s no criminal penalties attached to carrying at all.”

Mueller also notes that an opinion issued from the Attorney-General in 2006 also deals with campus carry.

“It is my opinion that the governing boards of Virginia’s public colleges and universities may not impose a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals,” the opinion states. “Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, it is my opinion that colleges and universities may regulate the conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus.”

Mueller said today’s ruling won’t be appealed to the Supreme Court because there’s no issue of national significance to be ruled on.

“The ruling is still an affront to student rights,” said David Burnett, president of Students for Concealed Carry. “The court specifically acknowledges that the rules center around people who are most vulnerable, and ignores the right of the people to protect and defend themselves in times of vulnerability!

“Virginia Tech officials blocked a concealed carry law shortly in 2006, saying it would help students feel safe. We know how that worked out for them. Feeling safe isn’t the same as being safe, and disarming professors, ex-military and other responsible citizens only emboldens criminals.”

CONTACT:
David Burnett
Director of Public Relations
Students for Concealed Carry

TUSCON, January 11 – Gun control critics are once again exploiting the dead to trumpet their own political agenda.

Hours after the Tuscon shooting spree that left 6 dead, 13 wounded and a US Congresswoman fighting for her life, local officials in Arizona are callously twisting a national tragedy to their own ends, making emotional arguments against state legislation which actually enhances the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves

Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers used a CNN interview on Saturday to slam a bill allowing lawful concealed carry on campus, calling such an idea “crazy” in light of the shooting. In a press conference on Sunday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called the bill “ridiculous.” Then Brady Campaign spokesman Paul Helmke took to the airwaves to decry the ease of obtaining firearms in the US.

Now Students for Concealed Carry, the leading voice for self defense rights on college campuses, is firing back.

“What these guys are saying doesn’t even match the facts of the case,” said David Burnett, president and spokesman for the group. “Our bill has nothing to do with college drop-outs who can’t even pass an army drug test. It’s about allowing professors, ROTC cadets or anyone that has a concealed carry permit to be armed for their own protection.”

Records indicate that the Tuscon shooting suspect attended college in 2010, engaging in outbursts and rants that unnerved other classmates.

According to the Washington Post, one classmate wrote “Needless to say, I sit by the door. … [The suspect] is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon.” The suspect eventually dropped out of school.

Reports also indicate the suspect cleared the FBI criminal check required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prior to a firearm purchase. Failing the check requires a person to have been declared mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

“This is exactly what we need to protect against,” said Burnett. “The suspect showed warning signs, but no one followed up on them, and there’s no law against being creepy. If anything needs changing, it’s the laws about mental illness, not guns.

“Until we have a way of finding and stopping every deranged killer, we can’t forbid citizens from protecting themselves.”

CONTACT:
David Burnett
Director of Public Relations
Students for Concealed Carry

Once again, Colorado is the scene for one of the next steps in the fight to restore the right to self-defense on campus, as once again one of their flagship universities turns to the courts to validate its defiance of state law.

The University of Colorado (CU) is being sued by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) for its refusal to comply with the state law passed in 2002 which restricts entities that can prohibit concealed carry.

The university board of regents still asserts their right to enact campus-wide bans on concealed carry, despite its absence on the list of approved self-defense regulators.

In December 2008, SCCC in conjunction with the Mountain States Legal Foundation sued CU for violating Colorado law. The court dismissed the lawsuit, but an appeal quickly brought victory. The CU Board of Regents voted to appeal.

On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to grant a writ of certiorari to CU in their appeal.

At issue, states the court, is:

Whether the General Assembly intended the Concealed Carry Act to divest the Board of Regents of its constitutional and statutory authority to enact safety and welfare measures for the University of Colorado’s campuses.

Whether a constitutional challenge to a statute or ordinance regulating the right to bear arms is governed by the deferential “rational basis” standard of review or a more stringent “reasonable exercise” standard of review.

Gun control advocate Paul Helmke issued a statement, saying “We urge the Court to allow the University of Colorado to continue to protect student safety by prohibiting armed students and visitors.”

Oddly enough, safety appears to be the last thing on the minds of Paul Helmke or the CU board of regents; crime at CU has risen 35 percent in the past four years under CU’s gun ban, while crime at nearby Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame. (CSU has allowed concealed carry by licensed individuals since 2003 without incident.)

“Gun control advocates stubbornly stick to their theory that paper and ink on the doors will prevent crime,” stated SCCC President David Burnett. “While they desperately pursue validation from higher courts, 14 other colleges have recognized that the fear of encountering armed resistance repels criminals far better than stickers. At best, the anti-defense advocates will be taking one step forward and 14 steps back.”

SCCC advocates only those citizens already possessing the credentials be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to carry on campus for self-protection.

For media inquiries, please contact David Burnett or in Colorado, contact Jim Manley.

The University of Texas was shut down on Tuesday after shots were fired inside the university library. Witnesses report as many as ten shots being fired, and possibly more than one suspect, although police confirmed that at least one gunman was dead of a self-inflicted gunshot. Classes were canceled and the school was put on lockdown. Police are searching for a possible second perpetrator. No other injuries were reported.

In 1966, 44 years ago, a gunman opened fire on students at the University of Texas. At the time, civilians with hunting rifles were able to return fire and confine the shooter until police could respond.

Today’s shooting is ironic in light of the fact that noted researcher Dr. John Lott was scheduled to present a talk at the university regarding the positive effects of concealed carry on campus.

Once again, the state of utter vulnerability, and futility of unenforced gun bans is showcased by a shooting situation. Fortunately in this case, no other victims were reported. Let’s hope the next shooting is just as “safe” as this one.

For media inquiries, please contact David Burnett or Daniel Crocker.

Late-night studying sessions? Pre-date coffee shop sittings? A quiet nook to do some writing? Nothing like a little Starbucks coffee to fit the bill, and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is going to help you pay for that bill. All next week, when you subscriber to the newsletter for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, you’ll be eligible to win a $25 gift card from Starbucks® coffee!*

But that’s just the first prize. One lucky winner gets the grand prize…a free membership to the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network! An $85 value, the ACLDN is an insurance company of sorts for armed citizens. They provide information, training, consultation and a newsletter for armed citizens. In the event you are involved in a self-defense situation, they provide $5,000 for legal assistance, as well as access to additional grants and networking with attorneys and legal experts across the United States.

Not only are subscribers eligible, but as you return to school, this will be an excellent tool for recruiting other students! Grab a sign and an e-mail sign-up sheet and hit the sidewalks to gather more supporters to the cause!

Click here to download a copy of the contest rules.

*Legal disclaimer: This contest is open to legal US residents age 18 and older, and is void where prohibited. Starbucks® is a registered trademark of Starbucks U.S. Brand LLC. Starbucks Corporation and its related affiliates and subsidiaries are in no way related to or associated with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.