By Kate Sims
Legislation to allow the public display of over 1.5 million currently concealed handguns by licensed Floridians passed in the House of Representatives with almost no resistance, reported the Tampa Bay Times on Feb 4. It has been predicted that the Senate will be more reluctant, considering politics is a figurative blood bath. Politicians can flash their cute charts and statistics around the debate floor all they want, but each of those statistics was once a human being whose life was lost to gun violence. Personally, I see this bill as a waste of time and resources.
For instance, in my home state of Texas, there is an uproar over the new restrictions set on long-time carriers in the form of legal signs. These signs act as a directive against open carry on private property and other sanctioned facilities.
It’s apparently backfiring, which doesn’t surprise me for two reasons. First, I still firmly stand by the idea that additive legislation is only effective on those who already cooperate with the law. If this is supposed to decrease the amount of legal violations of “good ole boys” carrying their firearms, and save on tax money, boy do I feel safe. The ones who operate outside the law are the cause of the gun hate. I would also like to say I am not an anti-gun person–my father raised me to see them as tools for self defense, not as toys or accessories for the world to see. But very few carriers are raised to respect weapons, and that scares me.
Secondly, I find myself wondering if this legislation is intended to fuel the public into being so anti-gun that they are taken away for good. Moving away from theory to practice, as students of a private institution, we have an upper hand.
In the University of Tampa’s Code of Conduct, in Article 12, all weapons are banned from campus, including concealed in a vehicle. The only exceptions include chemical protection specialized for defense only (mace), police officials, Campus Security, and ROTC can have weapons on the private property. I don’t really see the on campus bill changing that since it hasn’t really affected the 45 states that have already approved it.
My concern is the public spaces: Ybor, HCC, USF, Franklin Street, the malls, Curtis Hixon Park. I will reiterate I don’t see the responsible concealed handgun license holder being irresponsible, but for those who didn’t get a license, I worry. Think of that rally that was supposed to occur Saturday Feb. 6 for the “pro-rape” protest. If any of us, particularly ladies defending themselves, were shot out of protest, it would have been perfectly legal for the weapon to be out and about for the discord.
The last point I’d like to address is back to the safety of students, physically and mentally. I personally know people with severe anxiety over school shootings, in a time where campus shootings occur even when there should be no guns on campus.
As a private institution, our policy will remain the same, but placing the possibility on our public sister campuses, like USF where the student body is about five times the size of ours, is dangerous. Can you imagine the anxious community it may create? I don’t dislike the idea of people carrying protection. I carry protection when I travel between bus stops, as a UT commuting student. But I do advocate the idea of out of sight out of mind, for the comfort and tranquility of not knowing there are loaded tools in the hands of people I can’t gauge the mental stability of around me.
So go ahead with the legislation that more than likely with increase the famous American hysteria rather than create a secure blanket for whatever your public agenda may be, Mr. Government. I promise that if I am carrying protection beyond that of my sharp object, I will keep it concealed for the security of my fellow citizens out of respect and care.
The bad guy goes into Walmart and sees a couple of people with firearms on their side what do you think he’s going to do pull out his gun you idiot
You are a an idiot. Why should an unfounded fear of firearms be considered when worrying government legislation. Liberty over fear. Always.
The writer of this article is a uber liberal who has been on MSNBC, Al Jazeera etc. As for her home state of Texas here’s whats happening.
Over a month after the new Texas open carry law took effect, there have been no major issues reported by law enforcement across the state. This despite confusion over what the law allowed, and warnings by critics that it would lead to a flood of 911 calls by people concerned about those open carrying. Some groups even encouraged people to make such calls and complaints in a move referred to as “swatting.” Nonetheless, the Tarrant County sheriff told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram this week they’ve had “no issues, no concerns and no problems” with the law.
Read more: http://www.ktrh.com/articles/houston-news-121300/so-far-so-good-for-open-14366014#ixzz3zxwWkzYd
Moral of the story writer Kate Sims is pushing a false narrative.
In D.C. v. Heller, the Court ruled that while keeping and bearing arms for self-defense was a fundamental right, concealing those arms is a privilege, thereby upholding permit requirements imposed by the states.
The right to keep and bear arms BEGINS with open carry. Since concealed carry has been deemed a privilege that can be restricted by the states, the core of the issue is that prohibiting open carry is a facial violation of the constitutional guarantee.
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
“As a private institution, our policy will remain the same, but placing the possibility on our public sister campuses, like USF where the student body is about five times the size of ours, is dangerous.”
Is it? If that’s the case, you should have no trouble regaling us with the numerous examples from those states where legal licensed open carry has gotten someone injured or killed. Other than anecdotal incidents, open carry is a NONISSUE.
Your comments are based on your fears. Fears are generated by one’s imagination. Since what one’s mind can conceive is limitless, there are no bounds to the parade of horribles one might imagine. But if you cannot demonstrate where these horribles occur with any statistical significance, they are unsubstantiated personal fears, nothing more.
Here’s a fact you can chew on – in 2006, the FBI published the results of a 5-year study on violent criminal behavior. Among the findings – criminals neither use holsters nor openly carry. It’s all about maximum reward for minimum risk. Displaying a weapon openly increases the risk to a criminal that he will be scrutinized more readily by police and others. They will conceal until the time to strike affords itself. As to holsters, that’s one more piece of evidence an criminal will have to find a way to discard in order for it not to be used in evidence against him.
Please do a little research on the subject that doesn’t originate from a gun control group.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/open-carry-in-oklahoma-is-nonissue/article_e800f380-b870-5393-a81d-49d902af29ad.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/08/open-carry-in-texas-much-ado-about-nothing-despite-doomsayers-predictions.html
So Kate thinks that Florida citizens are less apt, less intelligent, less moral, less ethical, and less law abiding than the over 40 other state citizens that already have such a provision in place? Well, she knows her neighbors better than we do, I suppose.