Letter to the editor: An argument for campus carry
Comments
Print This
Email This
Tweet This
Delicious
I would like to bring to light another side of the Michigan House Bill 5474 that would allow students to lawfully carry guns on campus in order to protect themselves.
As this discussion heats up you will hear many myths and tall tales from anti-gun lobbyists. I want to set the record straight in regards to some of these myths.
Myth: “That’s what the police are for, you can’t allow students to carry guns. Think about the children!”
Fact: Police are minutes away when seconds count! Police seldom prevent crime; they merely react to it. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens. This responsibility falls on the individual.
Myth: Drinking on campus will create an environment for gun violence.
Fact: Concealed Pistol License holders are among the most law abiding segments of society and take their rights seriously. There is no evidence to support “drunken gun fights” on campus.
Myth: Crime will increase as a result of the guns.
Fact: 15 states currently allow carry on campus and there have been no statistics to support this myth. In fact none of these schools have had any reports of gun violence including threat or suicide. Studies show that CPL holders are five times less likely to commit a crime than non-CPL holders.
There is an option currently available to students giving them the ability to protect themselves at school. Open carry of a handgun is legal for those possessing a concealed pistol license in Michigan’s pistol free zones, or as I like to call them, criminal empowerment zones. The law clearly states that a person can not carry a concealed weapon in Michigan’s pistol free zones, but the law does not prohibit from openly carrying.
All of the arguments for gun control are born of fear and conjecture not based in facts.
We preach to our youth and to our students that they are the future, “the best and brightest,” but we take away their fundamental right as an American citizen and as a Michigan resident to keep and bear arms. The only message that we are sending is, “we don’t trust you and we will pick and choose what is best for you.”
Fundamentally isn’t that the same thing that our government does to us, making us all furious that they are slowly taking away our rights?
I urge the Senate to support this bill. When faced with the facts there is no data to support the claim that lawful gun owners create more violence. Perhaps tragedies like Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois could have been avoided, or at the very least the casualties could have been severely limited if there was a law allowing students or staff members to carry a gun for self defense.
The facts are that pistol free zones are commonly referred to as criminal empowerment zones for a reason. They take away the ability for citizens to protect themselves. While it is crucial for everyone to have this fundamental right, I worry most about those taking night classes walking to their cars or to the class room. We hear of more incidents of muggings and assaults on college campuses, most recently at Oakland Community College.
Again I urge you to support and embrace all legislation that supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Base your decision in facts and not the fear and conjecture of anti gun supporters.
Thank you
John Roshek
President, Michigan Open Carry, Inc
Editor’s note: Above is a letter that Roshek had planned to present to the Oakland University Senate in January, but was unable to because he is not a member of the OU community in the sense that he is not a student, member of the faculty or staff. Roshek instead addressed the board of trustees on March 3. In speaking with editors at The Oakland Post, Roshek said he wanted to make sure the OU community had another viewpoint on the bill other than that of the official stand of OU. The Post is not suggesting students should openly carry weapons on campus. It is not allowed on this campus and there could be legal or other disciplinary actions.
The last line in the article stating “It is not allowed on this campus and there could be legal or other disciplinary actions.” is not entirely accurate. The law states that no local unit of government may impose or enforce stricter gun laws than the state. The OU police department is a local unit of government therefore they are bound by state laws in this matter. The school is a public university and open carry can not be prohibited on public grounds. There are some restrictions that apply to open carry. You can visit http://www.miopencarry.org to learn more. I am not a lawyer and not offering legal advice.
john
March 3, 2010 @ 8:32 am
Good article. Nice to see a lot of the myths addressed and debunked. Funny how these myths are just recycled and slightly altered from the same old tired ones trotted out when state-wide concealed carry rights were discussed and passed.
The best indicator of how those in authority view you is how they view your right to exercise preparedness for self-defense. If they view you as children not to be trusted, do they deserve your money spent at their campus or your vote for them at the ballot box?
Dan M
March 3, 2010 @ 9:50 am
I am a current CPL holder and I also attend a local college. I feel very uncomfortable when I have to go to school and leave my firearm at home because of this riduclous law. I have to worry that if someone decides to shoot up the school, we are merely sitting ducks. I also have to worry when I am walking to my car late at night after class that I might be assaulted. I know my school has problems with that on a regular basis.
Many people think that allowing CPL holders to carry on college campus’ is going to be a bad thing because they believe it will lead to more violence. Some people think that the only people that attend college are 18-21 year olds with partying on their minds, and that they are going to be the one’s carrying to school if this Bill passes. That is not the case. I’m sure most of those students (18-21 partiers) would rather spend the $200-$1000 it cost to get a CPL, ammo, gun, and holster on other things at that time of their life. The people that would be carrying (lawfully) on campus’ would probably be between the ages of 25+, much more mature, and take the responsibility carrying a firearm seriously.
The fact is if you look at incidents like VA Tech and other school shootings, they don’t allow firearms on their property yet these criminals still bring them onto campus’ and cause mayhem.
If students with CPL’s were allowed to carry on campus’ criminals would be less likely to commit such horrible acts. One of the reasons people choose places like malls, schools, businesses, army bases, and churches for mass shootings is because they know that other people will not be carrying guns. Look how long the shooter at VA Tech was able to go around armed killing people. Had they allowed CPL holders to carry on campus this (a)might not have even happened, or (b) less people might have died that day had a CPL been able to stop the shooter.
I commend this man for speaking on behalf gun owners, and gun owners that go school and are just trying to better their life. We have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, and by passing this Bill all you are doing is leveling the playing field and giving the law abiding citizens of this state a chance to live a happy, and productive life by not allowing them to victimized by criminals that are going to ignore the law and carry on campus’ anyway.
Terrance
March 3, 2010 @ 10:27 am
It is high time that all of these criminal empowerment zones are removed. The only people that obey these restrictions are the law abiding citizens… criminal by their very definition don’t follow laws so these feel good emotion based laws have no positive affect on crime prevention.
However having law abiding citizens armed acts as a deterrent because it makes criminals stop and wonder before they try to rape rob or murder… most criminals do not want to get hurt themselves.
Ryan Ransom
March 3, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Mr. Roshek,
The point in that last line in the editor’s note is to warn students that despite what the letter of the law might be, there is no guarantee that the university will not choose to expel somebody for violating a policy. We were intending to warn students and other visitors on campus of this likely possibility.
Colleen Miller
March 4, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
Ms. Miller,
Thank you for correcting the editor’s note. As it stood, the editor’s use of “legal or other disciplinary actions” is misleading in that it suggested legal sanctions in addition to disciplinary sanctions.
As you correctly clarify, the only possible sanction is with regard to students, and that is limited to disciplinary sanctions (e.g., expulsion) but NOT legal sanctions.
Mr. Roshek, along with every law-abiding gun owner and carrier, is simply concerned with ensuring that there is clarity and precision when folks discuss important fundamental rights, such as the right to self-defense, and laws and rules which merely regulate or outright ban them. Too often, those who oppose the fundamental right to self-defense use imprecise information from a variety of sources to further their agenda. We do not want to see your editor’s note abused in such a way.
Thanks again for your attention, and your publication’s coverage of the issue.
Dan M
March 5, 2010 @ 11:19 am