As students (or parents/family/friends of students) get ready for another semester of classes, studying, and tests–you should also be aware and protect against violent crimes. Of course, most schools won’t let you adequately prepare with a firearm, but there are other things you can do to prepare and also help with (such as promoting organizations like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus).

Read more here: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/09/13/gun-free-zones-an-open-invitation-for-psychotic-killers/

This was posted on our Facebook page–but I wanted to share it here as well.  It was written by

a Marine who shares his feelings on why he carries a gun.  It’s been around for a while, but it’s definitely worth the read (even a second or third time).

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for “automatic rule” by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a forced monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won, by the physically superior participants. The result is overwhelming injury inflicted on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.  It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

The following article was written by Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 in the wake of the Virginia Tech school shootings. The article is being printed with his permission.

Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management, economics, and law; and a member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. He is a former trial lawyer, and now a business attorney and management consultant, specializing in strategic-planning, productivity, and business turnarounds.

The issue at hand is still relevant today and is being debated at schools across the country as they continue to argue whether guns have a place on campuses. Incidents at Colorado State University, in Texas and Arizona, Utah, and elsewhere show that people are still searching for the best solution to protecting the students, faculty, and others on campus. Unfortunately, most of them get it wrong.

“Gun-Free” School Zone Again a Failure

“We’re all ignorant, just on different subjects.” Will Rogers

“Without data, we’re just another schmuck with an opinion.” D. Chris Anderson, Ph.D.

All of us should feel a little sick, and great sympathy for the victims and their families, as a result of the tragic series of shootings by a deranged killer in Blacksburg, Virginia.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the killing-spree at Virginia Tech is precisely what the anti-self-defense forces have been hoping for:

(1) Predictable, the followers of Sarah Brady – and perhaps many of the Democratic candidates for President – will exploit this needless tragedy to call for more gun control among the law-abiding.

(2) Second Amendment advocates, with knowledge of the scientific data, will observe that, in that terrible nightmare-situation in Blacksburg, if just one civilian with a firearms concealed-carry permit had been among the shooter’s intended-victims, he or she could have stopped the killing and saved many lives – long before the police arrived.  This is exactly what happened on January 16, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, where three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns, stopped a disgruntled former student who was trying to kill everyone.

But self-defense was impossible at Virginia Tech.  In an incredible act of “feel-good” ignorance, “Policy 5616 – Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy” prohibited all firearms for self-defense from the Virginia campus.  Lawful gun-owners – who had submitted applications, paid all fees, submitted fingerprint-cards for national police-checks, and confirmed knowledge of the law and proficiency with their firearm – were told by Virginia Tech they do not have the right to defend their life, even though the State of Virginia has said they can.  Their uninformed desire to “feel safe” prompted this foolish university policy, which actually made people less safe.  Virginia Tech’s Policy-5616 enabled the needless carnage on their campus.  The cost this day – some 33 killed, plus more wounded and possibly dying in a premeditated murder-spree.

It could have been avoided.  All credible scientific data confirms in the United States roughly 2.5-million crimes are stopped or deterred by armed civilians every year – most with no shots fired, and fewer than one in a thousand resulting in any death.  2.5-million crimes!  There have been scores of credible, independent, criminological-studies which confirm guns in the hands of the law-abiding save lives.  You might start by reading economist John Lott’s MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, and his later, MEDIA BIASES AGAINST GUNS.  There are hundreds of such publications – many by well-known, liberal Constitutional scholars – on the Constitution, history, and current criminological data.  There is no – repeat, NO – valid data that indicates so-called “gun control” laws prevent violence, or keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  The data indicates just the reverse – where the law-abiding are deprived of their right of self-defense, violent crime increases.

So-called “gun control” laws harm innocent people.  My friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, lost her parents in the Luby’s massacre in Killeen, Texas.  Dr. Hupp, who kept her gun locked up that day in compliance with the law at the time, said “I blame the deaths of my parents on the legislators who deny me the right to defend myself.” Just 2-months later, in an eerily-similar incident in a restaurant armed-robbery in Anniston, Alabama, all innocent lives were saved by a lone customer who happen to have a legally-concealed pistol in his possession.  The national press – which had such an anti-gun feeding-frenzy over the Killeen incident – never bothered to mention the 21-lives saved by the lone gunman in Anniston.

There is an old legal maxim, “Hard cases make bad laws.”  As I am writing this, all major TV networks – following their

ethic “if it bleeds, it leads” – are rehashing every past school-shooting incident in their TV libraries.  I have no doubt they will dig up Sarah Brady, Bill Clinton, or some other politician to once again call for their discredited and dangerous laws.  What every TV-report has failed to mention is every one of those schools were by law, “gun free” – meaning the killers knew their victims were defenseless.  In Israel, attacks on schools were abruptly stopped when teachers and (where appropriate) adult-students were permitted guns for self-defense.

What position will the media take?  A rational policy based on the data?  Or still more hysterical calls for useless anti-gun laws, which are ultimately more dangerous to our values and public safety?

MSNBC wrote about the history of concealed carry today–one of the big points of the article was the debate between pro-gun and anti-gun folks regarding crime statistics in relation to concealed carry permits.  Bottom line–there is no credible source that says more concealed carry increases violent crime-none (unless you count the factless opinions of the Brady’s and VPC). A lot of studies says that there is no correlation and some say crime drops with concealed carry. This is after almost 25 years of concealed carry. If after 2 decades of people trying to find stats that show concealed carry is dangerous and no one can provide any credible proof that crime goes up then why do people care?

I personally believe that concealed carry does reduce crime (the overall crime rate for the country has dropped significantly over the last 25 years as concealed carry has significantly risen–a lot of factors need to be taken into account, but it’s a strong correlation in the right direction). Regardless, if they can’t come up with anything in 25 years showing that concealed carry can lead to an increase in crime then drop the issue. Let us live our lives by the constitution (even if they don’t want to) and have the ability to protect ourselves and our families.

A recent experience at a Utah school–Utah Valley University–where a student, Nick Moyes,  was stopped for carrying a firearm has been getting some recent media exposure.  In Utah the issue wasn’t the fact that he had a firearm with him on campus but the fact that he was openly carrying that firearm. Nick was aware enough of his situation to pull out his iPhone fairly early in the encounter and posted his videos on YouTube here and here.

Utah is one of the very few places where citizens may carry a firearm on a school campus (Elementary through College) with a concealed firearm permit. And in Utah, where there is no law that prohibits openly carrying a firearm (as long as you have a permit) then it is not illegal to do so. And if it is not illegal, then it IS legal. It seems like a very black and white issue and Nick knew the laws of the state better than the law enforcement officers did (how can you uphold the law if you don’t know what the law is).  Well the school doesn’t seem to be concerned with what the law is (even though in Utah public schools are not allowed to trump state firearm laws).  One of the two officers who detained Nick even seemed to agree that the law was on Nick’s side–but he said that it was simply easier to conceal his firearm.  His logic? If you exercise your rights, then it will bring more attention to them–which could lead lawmakers to take that right away from you–so don’t bother exercising your rights because then you’ll lose it. I’m not making this stuff up–it’s all in the video. So if you can’t exercise a legal right when it is legal then do you really have a right? It might as well be illegal if you can’t do it when it is legal.

Through all of this, what has really stood out to me as I’ve followed the incident is the question of how far I would be willing to go in order to fight for something I believe in.  Nick Moyes has had that decision thrust upon him by some people who happen to have an opinion different than state law–and then enforced his opinion (and that of his superiors) as though it were law.  Nick initially complied with the requests of officers to conceal his firearm (after a lengthy debate until he realized that the officers would not reason with him or the law) and then he has started to push the incident step by step to try and regain his ability to exercise his legal right to open carry on campus again. But the school hasn’t budged. The incident is still ongoing, but it’s caused me to think about what I would do in a similar situation.

The aftermath of the initial incident resulted in the gun community in Utah to suggest ideas about how we can bring UVU and other public universities in Utah into compliance with the law rather than their opinion. The ideas ranged from contacting state legislators, the attorney general, the school itself and soliciting legal opinion–to wearing shirts with an arrow pointed to a concealed firearm saying “I’m Armed”–to using news/media outlets to increase awareness of the issue–to staging open carry events on campus to force the issue (some intentionally talking about doing so to get arrested and then to force the issue through the courts).

It’s more important now to fight for your rights. But just how far would you go to defend your rights.  Would you take the time and energy to constantly write/call/email your state reps and others who can help make changes? Would you spend the time and money needed to fight for changes? Would you willingly get yourself arrested and fight in courts? Would you give your life to fight for freedom?  This country was founded because people were willing to fight and die for freedoms. But where do we stand today? What’s the best way to truly change this country (for the better–unlike some other changes that are ruining our country)? I don’t have all the answers–but I wanted to thank Nick for giving me a close to home real life situation to help me contemplate where I personally stand.

If you want to learn more about Nick and his experience you can follow it here. And if you are interested in getting involved here is a good place to start:

UVU Chief Brewer’s email: brewerjc@uvu.edu

UVU Office of President Holland: REYESKY@UVU.EDU

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff: uag@utah.gov

Very few schools allow concealed weapons on campus. Colorado State University was one of the few that did–but recently they voted to ban concealed weapons on campus. The student association had previously voted to continue to allow concealed weapons by a vote of 21-3 but the school board didn’t seem to listen or care.  So the students wanted it, but the faculty board voted unanimously (7-0) to ban guns.

Just a state away, the state of Utah prohibits state owned schools from banning concealed weapons, which means that all Utah public colleges, in addition to all public elementary, middle, and high schools, allow concealed weapons. Other than suicide, I can not find any deaths caused by guns on a school campus in the state of Utah. Ever.  The Utah Supreme Court struck down the University of Utah’s attempt to ban guns in 2006. Since then there have been no problems that I know of.

There was a shooting at a mall in Salt Lake at Trolley Square in 2007. It was a posted gun-free zone and the shooter was pinned down after killing 5 people by an off-duty police officer who was carrying a firearm until emergency response showed up.  Nothing like this has ever happened at schools in Utah.

I personally have experience with carrying firearms into elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities in the state. If nothing more than a convenience it isn’t worth banning them when they do not cause any problems. More than once, I’ve unexpectedly found myself on school property with my concealed firearm, and was glad that I didn’t have to turn around or break the law. I’ve never gone crazy and started shooting just because I am on school property. And when you add the benefits of reduced crime and the ability to protect yourself, I feel that every school in the county should allow concealed firearms. We’ve written about this before (specifically regarding teachers, not students) when a school district in Texas passed a law allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons and we haven’t had problems there. We see it over and over again–concealed carry does not lead to wild wild west shootouts and random gun fights.

Now–back to CSU. More compelling reasons to allow concealed weapons.  Here are some graphs for various crime trends (original source here)–note that in 2003 CSU changed their policy to allow concealed weapons.

Across the board CSU crime trends peaked in 2003, then decreased–usually dramatically–until 2009. I’m not sure what else you want to see, but this is convincing enough evidence for me. Guns do have a place at school.

In the state of Utah you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in most places you go. One of the areas that sometimes causes some confusion is venues. I emphasize that this is JUST IN UTAH (and as always, you should verify all local laws for yourself–we are not lawyers).  Utah law allows you to carry concealed weapons into public and private venues. On private property the property owner/manager may kick you out or refuse your entry for any reason. They might not like that you are wearing blue socks, or they might not want you to carry a weapon. If they ask you to leave and you do not leave then you are trespassing. However, this isn’t an issue about guns–it’s about being on private property when you’ve been asked to leave. So even if they post that weapons are not allowed legally you can carry there–but if they ask you to leave then you must. So if you decide to carry where the property owner doesn’t want you to, then make sure you conceal your gun.

A couple tips should you decide to carry at venues–most of the time they do not search you, or if they do they typically just check your bags and maybe your pockets. If they have metal detectors (very rare) then obviously they are controlling everything that goes in and you should not try to carry your gun into the venue. They also have taken your safety much more seriously than most places and you can feel pretty confident that they can protect you. Before you go, you should try and find someone who has attended the venue to get an idea of how they screen attendants. You can usually find local firearm forums. In Utah, the Utah Concealed Carry forum is a great resource. You can also check the venue website for rules and regulations to see if they specifically ban firearms. A lot do not. Most of the time they’ll have someone inspect purses and bags, but don’t go any further than that. I know of weapons being carried at Energy Solutions Arena, Rice Eccles Stadium, Lavell Edwards Stadium, Sandy Amphitheater, Marriott Center, Scera Shell, Brent Brown Ballpark, the E Center, and David O. McKay Events center–all without any problems. You might want to deep carry–and also be careful of what activities you will be doing. If you are dancing or jumping around you might not want to carry, or carry in a manner that will fit your activities.

While I respect the wishes of private property owners, I also respect my right to self defense. When the property owner can not guarantee my safety–and possibly increase the risk by discouraging lawful citizens from bringing weapons (thus encouraging criminals to bring weapons where there are large unarmed crowds) I take the responsibility for my own protection upon myself.  I am willing to leave any event where I bring a firearm if I am asked to leave. If I would be devastated if I have to leave the venue then I wouldn’t carry my firearm there. But I value my life (and my family’s lives) more than any event that I am attending. This is a decision you need to make for yourself, but if you understand the law then it will help you make an educated decision about your safety. Be safe and make good decisions.

When I made the decision to carry a weapon I didn’t realize that it was a decision to change my life. Many different aspects were changed that I never expected. From the clothes I wear, to the hobbies I enjoy, to my interest in politics–I was a changed person. My attitude was different. I was more aware of what was going on around me. Whenever possible I stayed away from places and people that I didn’t feel were safe. Watching movies was different (I started counting how many shots were fired in movies before the character had to reload or put myself in the characters positions to see how I would react). I changed other aspects of my safety. From locking doors to food storage to 72 hour kits to controlling my road rage as I drive. Carrying a gun is a life decision. It is not something to be taken lightly. You will be taking control of the safety of yourself, your family, and others who you may not even know. You will be responsible for your actions, whether good or bad. It’s a decision to take charge. In my case, it was a decision to be prepared for whatever may come as best I can. To protect my family from any threat and have the best tools available to work with.  It was a decision to be in charge–to be prepared–to be ready. It is a quest to take on life. And now it is a quest to help others to be ready for that decision and to begin their own quest. It is a decision that I am glad I made, but hope I never have to utilize. Something I want to be ready for, but never have to face. Like a seat belt, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, house alarm, bear spray, insurance, or emergency exit on a plane–I hope to have these things but never need them. I made the decision to be ready. To be prepared. To be armed.

There is a lot of debate about whether concealed or open carry is better. I’ll talk about some of the pros and cons of each but first let me state my opinion on the subject. There is no way to know what type of situation you will be in when you will need your firearm–so there is no way to know which type of carrying would be better suited to the situation you are going to be in.  You should either be proficient at wearing and drawing from both, or choose the one that fits your situation better–and be trained to draw your firearm from that position.

Concealed Carry: This is usually the preferred method mainly becuase people don’t like other people to know that they have a firearm on their person. It draws a lot of attention (both good and bad). A lot of people don’t want to deal with that kind of attention as it may lead you to getting banned from stores, homes, or shunned by people. I personally have a family member that doesn’t like to be in the same house as me when I have a firearm. And since I always have my firearm that makes for some awkward situations.

Open Carry: The open carry person enjoys the attention. They like to use it for educating the public and helping them better understand the laws. This type of person knows the law very well and is usually prepared to discuss the laws with police officers or citizens who may not be as familiar with the applicable law.

Concealed Carry: From a tactical standpoint concealed carry has the benefit of surprise. A criminal that is not aware of your firearm will not pay any special attention to you. That may give you an opportunity to get into a good position to use your firearm to stop a crime.

Open Carry: Open carry has a couple advantages–first is that your firearm may be a deterrent. A criminal that sees your firearm may not be prepared to fight you–and may choose another location that isn’t so difficult. But the opposite may also be true–they may see your firearm and attack you first with the intention of eliminating the biggest threats. Another advantage of open carry is that you can draw your weapon much quicker (that time gap obviously decreases as you train). With your weapon not being covered with clothes you can access it more quickly.

The choice is up to you and the laws of the state that you live in. There are benefits with either, but you have to be able to deal with both sides. You never know what type of situation you will be in when you need your firearm, so make sure that you can draw and use your weapon quickly and accurately from whatever you choose.

As of July 1st, the state of Nevada no longer recognizes the Utah or Florida CFP. They have reviewed the application/issuance policies and have determined that the standards are lower than Nevada’s, thus causing them to withdraw reciprocity for both Utah and Florida. This is a huge blow for UT CFP holders because of the close proximity of Nevada to Utah. Many travel there frequently and now can no longer have the protection of their firearm. Keep in mind that Nevada does have open carry laws, so that still is an option. Please contact the Nevada AG and let them know that you disapprove. Here is the contact information. The state made the changes on the website today.