University of Idaho Students Speak up about carrying guns on campus

[WCSLdglas]

Hi, I wrote the song that goes with this video. I am opposed to guns and the use of violence, but I support the Constitution.

[MrLoverThe]

I'm not against this per se, but I am concerned about the implications. I just don't have faith that a lot of young people that happen to be armed, will in a difficult situation make the right decision.

[SkiNut33]

@MrLoverThe the youngest anyone who is armed who will be on campus will be anyone who is 21 or older. That is the age when you can apply for your permit. It's not the freshmen frat boy jocks fresh out of high school, it's juniors and the like who had that first year away from mom and dad. Even then it's not a guarantee that they will be armed, let alone be looking at purchasing a $500 security investment after paying on average $500 per semester alone on text books.

[MrLoverThe]

Alright then, so we arm everyone and then what? How exactly does this make everyone safer?

[SkiNut33]

@MrLoverThe We are not "arming everyone.' That's a gross exaggeration. Anyone 21 and older who can pass an FBI background check, pay the fee, and get fingerprints on file can carry concealed. Statistically the mere increase in the probability that a victim will be armed is enough to make criminals think twice about committing to whatever it is they intend to do. We don't need to arm everybody to make it safe, just increase the likelihood that someone will be armed.

[andonoguin]

@MrLoverThe - It works in Switzerland. Allowing the rational non-criminally violent prone to possess guns will introduce the random unknown defender factor. Rational criminals will calculate and be less likely to commit violence where there are those that might be armed. The irrational are crazy, they'll do what ever anyway. Either way, the "criminal" don't pay attention to policy. This is about fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[xm154609]

@MrLoverThe the fact that when a crazy phsical goes on a shooting rampage,their will be outher students to take him down.while the cops are on the way. in that time spand waiting for the police,lots of people will be shot dead.

[andonoguin]

The song is by Douglas Stambler, it's the Idaho Song.



[SkiNut33]

I am not a UI student, but my sister is. I am a Washington CWP holder and I carry when I can. I would feel much better if I knew that the option alone were made available, especially in a town like Moscow, when the safety of my family is concerned.

[clarke7703]

This bill will pass, and the governor better GOD DAMNED SIGN IT!

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 I don't think we need to worry about the governor. It's the Senate that poses the bigger threat. I'd almost rather the Constitutional Carry bill went through if I had to pick between that or HB 222.

[clarke7703]

@SkiNut33 I take it you haven't read the state constitution then. I'd like to refer you to article 1 section 11 of the Idaho state constitution which states "No law shall impose licensure... on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition." This means that the laws we have which require licensing of concealed carry are actually unconstitutional already. HB222 is more important.

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 That pertains to licensing the ownership and possession thereof, not the bearing of arms. Basically, no law shall prohibit or infringe on the citizens ability to own a firearm, or possess it, but a license requirement for the concealing of a firearm is not prohibited as per said State constitution. Openly carrying a firearm is also permissible within the city limits in the state of Idaho with exception to "sensitive areas."

[clarke7703]

@SkiNut33 Okay, I don't know what country you're from, but around here we speak english, and in english to "possess" and to "bear" are synonyms in this context.

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 Me = Washington State resident and resident permit holder. I do my best to understand the laws pertaining to my bearing arms, which is the carrying and utilizing, not the mere possession of, which is defined by law, not common vernacular (which is why we have lawyers). To bear arms would be to use them to oppose tyranny and ill intent upon your life and livelihood. The courts have and will support this view. While I think along the same lines that you do

[SkiNut33]

that a permit should not be necessary, the law as it stands says that "to possess" and "to bear" are two different terms and is very specific as such. In order to "bear" arms you must first "possess." "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms." "To keep," or possess, is separate from "bear" in the Second Amendment itself, as they are two different and very important concepts. Without one you cannot have the other.

[clarke7703]

@SkiNut33 What law is it your are referring to that says to possess and to bear are different terms? I have read every law about firearms in MY state and there is no such law.

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 It's in my last reply. Every word is important. The law you quote specifically states "ownership" as well as "possession" as they have two separate meanings, legally. Likewise the COTUS specifically separates "bearing" and "keeping." In the legal sense, bearing is to carry arms. Possession is to have within access, and own would be to purchase and keep in any location, not necessarily in your vicinity. The term "keep" is more of the last two in combination. Your quoted law

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 only mentions the infringement on the ownership of arms in the home, not the carryig in public (At least the part you cut/pasted). Self defense law is in another section, I'm not sure if Idaho is a stand your ground or castle doctrine state. Yet another section will outline openly carrying of arms, such as rifles, shotguns, and pistols, in a visible manner. Lastly is the concealed carry laws which at the moment require a permit and do not infringe on ownership/possession.

[clarke7703]

@SkiNut33 I want you to know that I get where you're going with this. It is a fine line to distinguish between bearing arms and possessing arms. However, if the two were different in common use, possession of marijuana would not be called possession, it would be called bearing marijuana. That not being the case, the obvious conclusion is that bearing and possessing are similar enough in meaning as to mean the same thing in circumstances concerning the law to the common man.

[SkiNut33]

@clarke7703 The understanding of that fine line can determine the extent of an infraction and the worth of a lawyer. Words in law are not common vernacular. More recent laws (like marijuana drug laws) have a tendency to follow more common words in use versus something written a couple centuries ago. There are literally legal definitions of what words mean when used in law and how they are to be used. Possession means you simply have access/are holding. Bearing is to use (like tools).

[slabuda1970]

Everyone should be able to protect themselves anyplace!

[longdayjake]

I too am a student at the University of Idaho and I support HB 222. I am also an Idaho POST graduate that swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of Idaho. I am a concealed weapon permit holder. I passed several background checks as I applied and renewed my permit. Why does the university fear me so much that it illegally denies me the rights I'm granted by the constitution?

[MrLoverThe]

So is there any specific reason for carrying guns on campus or do you just want to?

[SkiNut33]

@MrLoverThe College Campuses are notorious for being easy targets, not just by random theft and assault/rape but as "gun free zones" where crazies ignore any law or school rule against firearms and will bring one anyway, regardless of whether it was legal or not for them to possess a firearm in the first place.

[MrLoverThe]

@SkiNut33 So by allowing them then it's OK for crazies to have weapons on campus just as long as everyone else has the opportunity?

[andonoguin]

@MrLoverThe - Crazies already have them. That's the point. Unless you use metal detectors at every entrance and maybe thermal scanners on the forests that surround campus constantly, drones, armed brigades... etc. How do you suppose we keep the crazies from having guns? How? The criminally irrationally violent prone will not pay attention to a simple policy nor to campus boundaries, except maybe to know where they are less likely to be confronted because criminals look for weakness.

[SkiNut33]

@andonoguin Metal detectors may not work. We have magnetic scanners at the Lewis Clark State College library. Smart phones and laptops set those off. You would need a full blown TSA type security checkpoint and a 15' fence if you wanted the best security without going into militaristic/prison style.

[longdayjake]

@SkiNut33 what about that is not military/prison type security

[SkiNut33]

@longdayjake How is it different? You can freely enter and leave without getting advanced authorization. It would be a checkpoint "show-your-student-ID" and have your bag x-rayed at the choke point. It would make going to school a huge hassle and I highly doubt it would be implemented from the cost alone, making no mention of the sense of restriction it will have on the students. It's not a healthy environment for learning.

[SkiNut33]

@MrLoverThe We are not "allowing" crazy people anything, we are giving the average student the ability to survive.

[longdayjake]

@MrLoverThe Crazies never have the right to own a gun. Yet somehow they do, and sometimes they break the law and use the gun against other people. In fact, one might argue that only a crazy person would do such a thing. I am sure that the University of Idaho doesn't fear law-abiding people. They fear crazy criminals that might commit murder with a gun on campus. So, the purpose of the policy is to keep crazy people from killing on campus even though such a person will do it anyway.

[longdayjake]

@MrLoverThe

Is there any reason for breathing? Is there any reason for speaking? Well, how about the fact that doing so is a right? Good enough for you?

[khattamshud]

What's the song?

[pock8size]

What the deuce! No one asked me if I support HB 222 (Which I whole heartily DO). Thanks for the video by the way!

[andonoguin]

Some people just get nervous in front of a camera. We got this many people in a matter of minutes. This is real, raw and no actors were used.

[andonoguin]

This is the first video. Do you want to be in one? We're making more!

[janiecg]

@andonoguin Pretty good, you need to make sure that you get people that sound really sure of themselves. Some of the students sound like they are just saying this for the sake of saying it.

[janiecg]

@andonoguin I'll think about it. We'll chat in the carrels.

[mrktanarchist]

A bit disappointed I ain't in it but great stuff

[UtahLegalHeatcom]

forward in freedom Idaho!! way to stand up for your rights!!!!