Dear Editor

I agree with John C., the dissenting writer whose words you published in the latest edition of The Signal.

As a CHL holder and a veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard with 5 years of law-enforcement experience I am not concerned with what this new legislation will bring to campus…actually, I am concerned with people’s emotional reactions in response to your poor portrayal of the facts. Time should be taken to educate people on what might be allowed under an extention of the current law: what types of weapons can be carried, what people can LEGALLY do with those weapons, who and at what age people are legally allowed to carry a concealed hand gun etc. Articles like yours, with pictures that depict a gross over exaggeration of the facts only worry parents and concern fellow students. Instead, your efforts should focus on learning about the facts, reporting them and educating people about what to expect. You know, un-biased reporting! (It’s what real journalists do naturally.)

I understand this is a concerning topic for many people, my family included. My wife and children have the right to expect that I be allowed to take reasonable measures to ensure I return from work/school/shopping safely. The proposed house bill does that, it extends the law where it was previously lacking.

I have heard time and time again the concern that under the proposed house bill extention, police will not know who the real ‘bad-guy’ is in the event of a school shooting. Truthfully, this concerns me too. This is why I urge the school police department set up a half-day instructional, available to any CHL holder, instructing them on actions to take to protect lives in the class room in the event of a school shooting. Ideally, it would form a plan for CHL holders to stay in place, take measures to protect their classroom, not get further involved. A proactive plan should enable campus police to quickly contain the issue and avoid unnecessary additonal casualties.

Ian Horne

My name is John and I recently came across your article about the bill currently proposed in the Texas Legislature concerning Concealed Handgun License holders being able to conceal on campus. I had a few concerns about it.

1). The image portrayed shows a tactical shotgun in the main compartment of the backpack. This bill doesn’t have anything to do with shotguns at all. It is referring to the legal concealment of HANDGUNS. Therefore, your image gives a false impression of the issue at hand.

2) Those who legally conceal would avoid using their backpacks to do so. Mainly because of the fact that they access it throughout the day and can be prosecuted if someone was able to see their firearm. Search Google “deep concealment holsters” for more appropriate images to portray how a CHL holder would chose to conceal.

3) When visiting your webpage I clicked the story link on your News tab to view the article online. The link lead me to a similar article from 2 years ago. It was basically plagiarized from a previous writer.

After the main article being 2 years old, how would I know if the Editorials on the subject aren’t either?
Thanks,
John Cavuoti, II

Editor’s Note:

The 2009 article Mr. Cavuoti references was written by former Signal reporter Mark Guillory about House Bill 1893. Given the similarities of the gun bills, it’s not surprising that some of the same issues were readdressed. The article that ran in the Feb. 21 issue was an original piece written by Mark Bownds.

Mark Bownds

The Signal

On a hot day in August back in 1966, Charles Whitman, an engineering student at the University of Texas and a former Marine, climbed to the observation deck of the university’s tower and opened fire upon the students below.

Before getting shot and killed by an Austin police officer, Whitman killed a total of 14 people and wounded 32.

It was just last year at the University of Texas when a student, armed with an AK-47, fired shots in the air while on campus. This time the only one killed was the gunman after he ran into the school’s main library and committed suicide.

It is incidents such as these, including the Virginia Tech massacre April 16, 2007, that has Texas legislators pushing for a law that would allow college students, faculty and staff to arm themselves for protection. Currently there are three bills pending that, if passed, would allow individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. They are House Bill 86, House Bill 750, and Senate Bill 354.

These upcoming bills have become a concern primarily dividing the two major parties. Many Republicans argue that properly trained citizens on a college campus should have the right to defend themselves and protect others at the same time, while the majority of the Texas Democratic Party call for “weapons-free institutions of higher learning.”

Texas State Representative Chuck Hopson (R-Jacksonville) said that although the gun bills are controversial, they are something that need to be put into law.

“I think it’s a good thing,” Hopson said. “The downside is that if there’s a big shootout and a lot of people are involved with it, law enforcement people could have the difficulty of determining who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The good side of it is that you have people that are mature; they have passed their concealed weapon license, and they’re there. So if something bad happens on campus, they’ll be there with a weapon, and they don’t have to wait until the law enforcement people get there.”

Gun-Free Kids is one of the many organizations campaigning against the carrying of concealed weapons on campus. President Andy Pelosi says legislators are not solving the problem, instead they are creating others.

“It’s a bad idea because we think for the most part that the campuses are safe enough environments,” Pelosi said. “We’re just asking for trouble by allowing guns on campus. Think about having guns in dormitories, or at parties, and where does the gun get stored? They’re going to get stolen, that’s what’s going to happen. What kind of safety are you really going to have? I just think that it’s increasing the risk of domestic violence, suicides and things along those lines.”

Hopson said that not everyone would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

“These people carrying are people that have passed all the things required to have a concealed handgun license,” he said. “These are people that are over 21 years of age, so they’re considered an older student. You can’t go to college at 17 and be able to carry a gun; it just allows people that are there with training and have a gun to be able to respond a lot faster than the police can.”

Pelosi said his organization does not put much stock into the criteria of a concealed handgun license holder (CHL).

“I think that the level of training for a CHL holder is pretty low,” he said. “Even trained police officers only hit their target 25 percent of the time, and they are taking active training, so we’re not convinced that CHL holders are going to be able to prevent another Virginia Tech?”

In fact, it was announced in December that Virginia Tech shooting survivor, Colin Goddard, who is now Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs for the Brady Campaign, is actively protesting the gun bills in Texas.

“Introducing guns is just going to create unsafe environments for the students and faculty,” Pelosi said. “If students bring guns into the classrooms, will professors start thinking twice about how they grade and how they teach? We need to look at ways to improve campus security first, as opposed to the mindset that arming everybody is the best protection?”

UHCL Chief of Police Paul Willingham said regardless of the outcome, he will continue to uphold safety on the campus.

“I am sworn by oath to enforce the laws of the land,” Willingham said. “If one of the concealed carry bills currently up for consideration by the 82nd Texas Legislature passes and signed into law, I will enforce and/or protect the rights of person’s in accordance with that law.”

Cartoon created by Grant Chesshir.

Grant Chesshir

The Signal

There is no question that legalization of marijuana is and will be the center of controversy until its prohibition ends.

It began with “Reefer Madness,” a propaganda tool fueled by racism and lies in the 1930s that spouted erroneous claims such as smoking pot turns the smokers into a crazed killers with no control over their actions.

This spawned a prejudice against marijuana so strong that doctors and patients fight to this day to prescribe and use it for medicinal purposes.

Fast forward to the present and we see our nation with over-crowded prisons and the highest incarcerated population on the planet. This fact is due largely to our current drug laws and the failed war on drugs.

In 2009 alone, 758,593 Americans were arrested for marijuana possession and 99,815 were arrested for trafficking/sales of marijuana, with an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount being African American and Hispanic.

These arrests cost American taxpayers more than a billion dollars annually; meanwhile, funding for public universities continues to decline. Something does not add up here.

Speaking of college, students seeking financial aid should pay close attention to this next bit of information. The Higher Education Act states a one-time possession conviction will disqualify the student for financial aid for a year.

Goodbye dreams and fare thee well hopes. Yet, a person with a driving under the influence charge, a charge in which lives were put at risk or possibly lost, is not disqualified as an applicant. Sad, but true.

While the topic of alcohol is still fresh, let us review the death toll for alcohol last year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 75,766 deaths last year from alcohol and alcohol related illnesses. Yet, any person of legal drinking age, and many under the age, can obtain and consume alcohol, the No. three killer in our nation and America’s real “most dangerous” drug.

What’s that you ask? What are the other two top killers? Well, the second is poor diet and physical inactivity, and the number-one killer of our nation is tobacco.

Tobacco is a heavy-hitting killer, collecting 443,000 deaths from direct users and 49,400 deaths from second-hand smoke.

The only fair way to end this commentary is to also mention the number of deaths associated with marijuana. There has never been even a single death attributed to marijuana use. In fact, marijuana has healing properties and is bringing relief to patients residing in those states in which it is legal.

Fifteen states and the District Columbia have legalized the use of medicinal marijuana. This movement is being backed more and more by a growing population of the scientific community with the main obstacle being government interference. If they can’t tax and regulate, they ban.

The Signal Staff

At Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007, a gunman went on a killing spree leaving 32 students and faculty members dead. The gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, also a student at Virginia Tech, killed himself afterward.

Less than a year later, Steven Kazmierczak opened fire on a geology class at Northern Illinois University killing five students. Kazmierczak, like Cho, was a student at the university where he gunned down his fellow students; he also committed suicide after his tirade.

These two tragedies sent shock waves throughout the country and people began to question what could be done to keep college campuses safe.

In the wake of the shooting, a particular bill has picked  up steam in Texas House Bill 1893. The bill will allow a concealed handgun license holder to “carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder’s person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state.”

An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The bill, sponsored by State Representative Joe Driver (R), received five ayes and three nays in a vote held by the Public Safety Committee. The bill will be scheduled to go before the whole house next.

Driver feels that House Bill 1893 can make school campuses safer without added danger.

“‘Gun-free zones’ merely serve to disarm honest victims,” Driver said. “Criminals who are intent on committing violent acts will ignore any campus policy restricting firearms or any state law banning them from university grounds.  This bill levels the playing field for those who have demonstrated that they are law-abiding, responsible citizens.  Allowing concealed handguns to be carried almost everywhere else in the state of Texas has not resulted in an increase in violent crime — in fact, studies have shown the opposite.  That will not change if we simply remove a geographical boundary that is currently off-limits to Texas concealed handgun liscenses.”

The state representative also feels that armed students who are CHL carriers would be a good defense against armed attackers such as Cho and Kazmierczak.

“I believe that a lawfully owned firearm in the hands of any law-abiding citizen is both a strong deterrent and often the only defense against a violent attacker,” Driver said. “As good a job as they do, first responders are often just that: responders to a crime or crime scene that has already taken place.”

The issue of accidental gun discharges is a circumstance that Driver dismisses as unlikely to occur.

“We’ve had concealed carry in Texas for 13 years now and I’m not aware of incidents involving accidental shootings among the 300,000-plus licensees we have in this state,” Driver said. “The bill has immunity for the schools built into it, although that was done at the request of the schools and not because I thought it was necessary for the bill.”

Many critics feel that House Bill 1893 is an overreaction stemming from the Virginia Tech shooting After the Virginia Tech shooting, many people questioned gun laws that allowed a mentally ill person to purchase guns. Cho, despite having a record of psychological problems, was able to buy his guns legally. Driver, however, does not see it that way.

“The shootings at Virginia Tech and other institutions across the country may have served to spark the debate and media frenzy on the issue of concealed carry on campus,” Driver said.  “But I’m carrying this bill because I believe that licensed, law-abiding adult students, professors or employees shouldn’t be denied the right to protect themselves from any random criminal act just because they study, work or live on a college or university campus.”

House Bill 1893 has recently sparked debate among colleges in Texas. Students from the University of Texas walked out of class April 16 to protest outside the capital. The protest was held on the two-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Patrick Cardenas, president of the UHCL Student Government Association, believes each university should be responsible for campus security.

“Each public university has the capabilities to ensure campus safety by issuing policies of their own without such a policy as allowing a concealed handgun,” Cardenas said.

Anthony Jenkins, dean of students, believes that House Bill 1893 stemmed from the Virginia Tech Shootings but does not agree with Driver about allowing concealed handguns in the classroom.

“All of this is a kneejerk reaction to my alma mater, Virginia Tech, and that tragedy has spawned a lot of people to have conversations about weapons on campus,” Jenkins said.

Jenkins considers the bill to be what he calls a “feel good bill” aimed at making people feel good. However he believes that this bill would take away from what a college institution is intended to be.
“It disrupts the fundamental purpose of higher education, we should be in the business of helping young men and women become scholars and critical thinkers,” Jenkins said. “Move them to a point to where they add to an educated citizenry and not resort to violence, intimidation and threats.”

Unlike Driver, Jenkins doesn’t believe that armed CHL carriers will bring about more peace on college campus. He thinks colleges should use more preventive approaches.

“What we need to do is focus on more prevention, tighter admissions policies, looking at backgrounds of students, creating more of a safety net rather than simply carrying more guns,” Jenkins said.
Jenkins, an army veteran, feels that the training required to receive a CHL may not be enough for an individual to perform in an intense situation.

“With an M-16 assault rifle I’m considered an expert; I can hit 40 out of 40 targets out to 400 yards OK,” Jenkins said. “I was trained to do that, and the repetition made me better. To take an individual who may have to certify with a hand gun once a year and now throw them in a crisis situation where their adrenaline is pumping, they’re nervous, there is chaos and confusion and you want an individual be it 18, be it 35, to compose themselves and take out someone who is firing at them. That’s not easy, and I think that is what will open us up to more serious injuries, fatal injuries and liabilities, and that is not where we should be moving in higher education.”

Police Chief Paul Willingham, like Jenkins, also questions the training of those who are CHL carriers. He believes some CHL carriers could help, but some may make dangerous situations worse.
“Some who have advanced military and law enforcement training; I would not have a problem with,” Willingham said. “Those without this type of training and experience would be useless in a fire fight and would likely be severely injured or killed themselves.”

Willingham acknowledges that deciding who is allowed to carry a handgun into the classroom is out of law enforcement hands.

“I’m not opposed to every student carrying a firearm, but there are no checks and balances,” Willingham said. “The inability know what you’re getting causes a lot of anxiety.  I hate to leave it to a ten hour class.”

Even with the VT and NIU shootings,Willingham insists that college campuses are still safe.

“Campuses are far safer than the cities around them,” Willingham said. “Look at the comparison of crimes on the campus, the fraction is so low.”

Colleges have had less shooting deaths than schools K-12. Jenkins wonders if the next step is to start arming people on this level of education who are over 18 years old.

Students who have questions about House Bill 1893 can find contact information on Joe Driver and all the other State Representatives at www.house.state.tx.us.

Dear Editor:

We would like to address The Signal and the student body at large concerning the issue of concealed handguns on campus.  This important piece of Texas legislation is currently pending before the public safety committee in the House. The Senate also has the bill appropriated in committee.  While a majority of state representatives have expressed an opinion in favor of this bill, it has not yet come to a vote on the floor of either body.

This bill has been discussed by both the University of Houston–Clear Lake Student Government Association and the Texas Student Association. The SGA general council is currently divided on this issue with no clear majority of opinion.  The TSA has also tabled issuing an opinion on this matter. It is the feeling of the TSA that all institutions of higher education discuss this bill independently as there are diverse needs throughout the state.

Students wishing to contact their state and local representatives to express their opinions regarding this, or any other matter, can locate their current state representatives contact information on the TSA Web site: www.TXStudent.org.  When addressing this issue be sure to include the House Bill Number (HB1893) or the Senate Bill Number (SB1164) as appropriate. Additionally, if you are a student wanting your voice to be heard on this issue, please contact your SGA at sga@uhcl.edu. We look forward to hearing from you!

Best Regards,

The SGA Executive Council

The Signal Staff

You gather your things for any normal school day. You grab your bag, your books, your laptop and…your gun? Well – say you don’t bring your gun, but your classmate does. Sitting in class, you happen to look over at a fellow student pulling out a notebook and spot a glimpse of the little leather case in the bag. It is concealed, but you know exactly what it is. Had you not looked over at that exact moment, would you have felt as comfortable as if you hadn’t?  If the House Bill 1893 passes, this hypothetical scenario could become a reality.

The Texas legislator who introduced the bill claims that lifting the ban on concealed handguns in university classrooms would enable students to protect themselves in life-threatening situations like the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. While that’s acceptable in theory, in practice, lifting the ban does not ensure safety on college campuses.

The shooter at Virginia Tech managed to obtain a concealed handgun license, and the two semi-automatic pistols he used were purchased legally and legitimately, even though Virginia courts prior to the handgun purchase deemed him “mentally unsound.” The fact is, determined individuals like the VT shooter will always fall through the cracks, no matter how thorough the background checks and screenings, in order to accomplish what he or she sets out to do. But does that mean everyone else needs to be armed in the off chance that they will encounter such an individual on a college campus?

Let’s say for argument sake, the bill passes and guns are allowed in classrooms. What are the implications of that?

If there were an incident at UHCL like the Virginia Tech shooting, anyone on campus with a gun could theoretically take out the shooter. In that situation, innocent bystanders could be shot by friendly fire, and first responders would have no guaranteed way to differentiate between the good guy and the bad guy.

Furthermore, accidents involving guns are not uncommon. On a college campus, where students toss their backpacks around carelessly, and rush from class to class leaving belongings unattended, the likelihood of an accidental shooting is much more likely than a shooter on campus.

Accidents involving guns are even more common when drinking is involved. Traditionally, most college students are 18-22 years old and live in on-campus housing, where drinking – and underage drinking – is popular. UHCL may soon become one of these campuses through downward expansion. Do we really want to find out how guns would fit into that equation as well?

As it is now, however, UHCL is not a traditional university. The median student age is 35 and very few students live on campus. But many students, faculty and staff bring their children to campus with them. Elementary school children participate in special programs and Clear Lake High School students park their cars in the lots on our campus. The parents of these children feel safe allowing their children on our campus now, but can we expect that to continue if House Bill 1893 passes?

With the allowance of handguns inside classrooms, the feeling of safety that we take for granted would be shattered. University police as well as students, faculty and staff would have to assume that everyone is carrying a gun. Who can tell what kind of lasting affect that would have on our university? Universities have long been held as places where freedom of thought reigns supreme. Is this something we are willing to lose?

Licensed handgun carriers already have the right to have a gun in their car in campus parking lots. But, individuals also have the right to feel safe where they go to school, work and live. Whose rights are more important?

The school should not have to succumb to an ultimatum regarding handguns on college campuses. There are other options available to universities to protect students from incidents like the VT shooting, such as metal detectors, alarm systems and the P.I.E.R. system (which UHCL has in place).

We have too much to lose to not consider other options before responding with a kneejerk reaction that will endanger rather than protect us.

Contact your state legislators to voice your opinion about guns on campus at www.texas.gov.

The Signal Staff

Texas legislation may soon pass a bill that would allow licensed, concealed handgun carriers to bring their guns onto college and university campuses.

Some people may see this as a mistake that would allow guns to overrun campus grounds, that just about everyone would be ‘trigger happy.’ That is simply not true. Currently, the state allows students to carry a concealed weapon in their vehicle, but are prohibited from carrying it onto school grounds. If passed, the new bill would change the state law  to allow licensed holders to carry concealed weapons from their vehicle onto campus.

Students who are licensed already carry their concealed handguns to the grocery store, movies, parks and other public places that have no restrictions on concealed weapons. This piece of legislation is coming about in light of the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. In both cases, armed men walked into a classroom of unsuspecting, unarmed students and began shooting at will. More than 30 students/faculty were killed at Virginia Tech and six were killed at NIU. This bill is written to prevent similar situations from happening at Texas colleges and universities by allowing students the right to bring their handguns to class.

Many worry that if this bill passes all students will be carrying handguns to class, and this is not true. Texas has strict regulations on who can and cannot carry concealed weapons. First, before a person can apply, they have to be 21 years old. That means that most freshmen, sophomore and junior level students cannot apply. Teachers, staff and senior level students would be able to apply for the license. Then the individual must pass a complete background check, which means no criminal record, and no history of mental illness. A person who has defaulted on student or government loans is also ineligible to apply.

If the person passes all the requirements to apply, then they have to attend a class in which both a written and shooting test must be passed, be finger printed, and pay a fee. The normal wait time is 60-180 days depending on if there are any problems but with an increase in the number of people applying for a license it could be even longer.

There are some who will argue that these requirements are not enough, and they may be right. But look at the students and staff that you see on campus everyday. They are here because they want to learn and better their chances in the real world. They have the dedication to educate themselves.

The same applies to licensed concealed handgun owners. They are aware of what is right and wrong, they know gun safety for themselves and others around them and have an understanding of what would happen if they become negligent in their responsibilities as licensed holders. They also understand that if an armed man was to walk into class and start picking off students one-by-one, they have the chance not only to save themselves but their classmates.

On April 14, at the University of Houston, a male student was walking to his car when he was kidnapped, forced to drive to multiple ATMs to make withdrawals and then was released. What if he had a gun? Would the same thing have happened?

There are those who will never own a gun, those who believe this law would bring more violence on campus and those who think that anyone who applies will automatically get a license to carry a concealed handgun. The truth is not everyone will apply and not everyone will be approved.

Imagine you are sitting in your classroom listening to a lecture taking notes and then in walks what appears to be a student. He casually closes the door behind him and the pulls out a gun. He blocks the only exit, and there is no safe place to hide. What option do you want to have – to lie defenselessly on the ground and hope you are not shot or would you want to fight back and not become another school shooting statistic.

Contact your state legislators to voice your opinion about guns on campus at www.texas.gov.