Colleges can’t ban guns, rules Florida court in major 2nd Amendment victory

The Florida appeals court ruling that the University of North Florida was violating state law when it prohibited a woman from storing a gun in her vehicle while she attended class will spill over to cities and counties statewide, an attorney said Wednesday.

And it’s one of many nationwide where anti-gun activists are trying to do at the local level what they can’t do in the statehouse – restrict Second Amendment rights.


From University of North Florida student Alexandria Lainez’s Facebook page.

“This is a growing movement in a number of cases,” said Jacksonville attorney Eric Friday, who represents Florida Carry Inc. and UNF student Alexandria Lainez in the court fight.

Friday, who called the Lainez decision the biggest of its kind in Florida in 20 years, said the case “reaffirmed that the power to regulate firearms rests solely with the Legislature and not anywhere else.”

Florida Carry Inc. and  Alexandria Lainez vs. the University of North Florida centered around Lainez’s ability to store a gun in her vehicle while attending classes at UNF so she would have available for self-defense while traveling to and from campus.

Lainez is a young mother, Friday said, “and she takes seriously her responsibility to protect herself and her child.”

Lainez, who’s 24 and has had a concealed weapons permit for three years, said she takes firearms safety and training pretty seriously, too. A Jacksonville resident with a half-hour one-way commute to school, she said she’s working to get students at other schools interested in gun training, too.

“I think it’s pretty important to be able to protect myself and my son, especially with that long commute to and from school.”

And making that commute armed means storing the gun on UNF property.

UNF regulations prohibit weapons on campus. According to the student handbook printed in 2011 when the case was filed, expressly threatened that violators could be arrested.

“No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation, Friday said.

Lainez, a member of Florida Carry, sued UNF to change the regulation, but lost at trial to UNF’s argument that it could ban weapons because state law allowed school districts to do so. UNF argued that since it’s a school, it should be considered like a public school district.

In Tuesday’s decision, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled otherwise.

“From the beginning, the argument was an absurdity in my mind,” Friday said.

But the broader issue, Friday said, involved the powers of local governments – such as counties and cities – to violate gun rights through control ordinances that in effect in one part of the state but not another, putting gun owners at risk of arrest depending on the jurisdiction.

It’s a gun rights battle being fought in other states – where officials in places like libraries and bus companies try to make petty authority grounds for violating constitutional rights.

In Michigan in November, the state Supreme Court  refused to hear an appeal by a library district in Lansing that claimed it had a right to ban guns in a battle with Michigan Open Carry Inc. National Review’s headline called it a “victory for open carry advocates.”

In Wisconsin, the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry is suing the Madison Metro Transit Authority for trying to ban guns on city buses. That would make for stricter gun law than the ones passed by the state Legislature – which meets in Madison.

In Florida, a state law in 1987 prohibited local governments from passing local gun control ordinances stricter than those passed in Tallahassee, but included no way of enforcing it, Friday said.

That led to local governments – particularly in South Florida – “thumbing their noses at the Legislature,” Friday said.

In 2011, the Legislature passed another law containing a series of threatening local jurisdictions or agencies with fines against the agency heads, removal from office for elected officials and allowing for personal damages up to $100,000 for violations, Friday sad.

When that law passed, most local governments changed their laws to comply before it came into effect Oct 1, Friday said. UNF and some other agencies didn’t.

In an emailed statement Wednesday, UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris wrote that the university is still reviewing its options on whether to appeal the case. Until it makes that decision, she wrote, the university’s policy prohibiting weapons on campus will remain in effect.

Friday said that means the university intends to continue breaking the law.

“In other words, despite the express, well-reasoned opinion of this court, they intend to continue violating students’ rights until they have to comply,” he said.

Why this kind of obstinacy by officials at the local level when they can’t get their anti-Second Amendment way in state capitals?

“In some cases, it’s just a personal belief, or bias against firearms or the right of self-defense,” Friday said. “People in power don’t like it when their power is challenged.”

Joe Saunders

Joe Saunders, a 25-year newspaper veteran, is a staff writer and editor for BizPac Review who lives in Tallahassee and covers capital and Florida politics. Email Joe at


  • Lucktoday

    The UNF Director or who ever is the enforcers of this law should be removed from their position and fined. That’s the real law. I’m sick and tired of colleges and schools having their own laws and police forces. They are just another business subject to laws.

    • Sencho

      We’re five years into a Presidency that ignores laws that they don’t like. This “laws are for the little people” mindset is a core theological belief of the Left, and that needs to be noted and addressed.

      The director won’t be sanctioned because those with oversight hold the same religion. As do their supervisors. This ideological war we’re in is very asymmetrical and will continue to mortally wound humanity until the right realizes that, as the good guys, we need to fight back.

      • PreacherMan12

        Oh give me a break. The whole, “laws are for little people” goes far beyond a core theological belief of the left. I’m no lefty, but for crying out loud, don’t dismiss the blatant and often disregard for common laws by ALL politicians, not just those from the left.

        You can’t mass murder a school with a bat, a screwdriver, or a knife. You can put down 10 in less than 10 seconds with a gun. Don’t forget it. It sickens me that this country has an amendment specific for the RIGHT to own a killing machine. I’m not proud of it. Too many other things to be proud of in America, this isn’t one for me. If you don’t like that sentiment, then deal with it.

        • justme

          Get a clue dude…..

        • teqjack

          Only a few months back, a knife-armed nut killed a dozen pre-teen schoolchildren and a couple of teachers in the Far East, so it can certainly be done.

          Heck, it could be done with a rock at the end of a handle. Or a tire-iron.

          Faster with a firearm? Perhaps, though some crossbows can duplicate the fire rate of bolt-action rifles such as the M! Garand, It is a question of available technology. For example, the Republic of the City of Rome outlawed the carrying of knives, because they were easily transportable and concealable by criminals (as well as “common” citizens) – so the Senators who killed Julius Caesar were by definition criminals even before they drew their weapons.

          • Mark McIntyre

            I work overseas and was in China for 3 months this year. While I was there, there were 2 incidents of someone going on a shooting rampage there, and killing 7 people in one incident and 12 in the other. So much for gun control.

          • RummRunner

            Gun control is hitting what you’re aiming at.

          • Colby Butler

            It could be done with a fist even

        • Dallas Townsend


        • ChuckFinley

          So your argument is that despite what laws the legislature passes and despite how the courts rule, only laws that you like should be enforced? Sound’s like you have the same mind set as the “laws are for the little people” folks.

          It would be interesting to see how you would behave if you had a little bit of power. Your comment suggests that you would not believe yourself to be constrained by law.

          • RummRunner

            A true Democrat.

        • Sencho

          Yet you seem to be in favor of laws that forbid teachers from defending students. Its folks like you who revel in children dying because laws make schools prime targets in this country. And that’s not even considering school massacres involving knives and other weapons (see the kids killed in Scotland with a knife in the 1990s).

          And yes, you are very much a Lefty – as the “everybody does it” obfuscation is very common by them. Especially using that and then trying to hide behind dead children – children your preferred policies killed.

          • Colby Butler

            Yes schools are prime targets and this is why we should provide teachers an option of defense. the best offense is defense and it works everytime.

        • Mark McIntyre

          At preacherman, why don’t you move?

        • RummRunner

          It’s not the tool moron it’s the user. Our “RIGHT” isn’t to own a “killing machine” it’s the right to defend and protect ourselves. How many bullets were used at the Murray building in Oklahoma city? Idiot!

          • Colby Butler

            I own several “killing machines” funny how they’ve never killed anyone.

        • Ron Simpson

          For you to say you are no lefty and then spit out that argument against our Constitutional rights is to put lie to the statement.
          Get this point through your head. A weapon is a tool. A tool can be used properly or improperly, depending on the person. You can commit mass murder with a knife, it just takes a bit more time and effort. And if you do it in a place where guns are outlawed, there is no defense against the perpetrator.
          Speaking as someone who has had to use a handgun in self defense against a group of four people who intended to see me harm, I am GLAD I have a gun and know how to use it. I managed to use it to defend myself without firing a shot. I legally could have. I could have shot all four of the people who moved to attack me after they followed me home. The fact that I did not shows that more often than not, just the knowledge their target can and will kill them prevents a criminal act.

          • Colby Butler

            Anything is a weapon true. maybe we should band pencils in schools too because of the possibility of someone stabbing someone. preacherman12 is ridiculous

          • jayray78

            Didn’t you know that is the reason schools are switching to tablets instead of books, paper and pencils?

        • Richard Adams

          I was willing to read your debate as to who actually are the type of people who believe in the whole, “laws are for the little people” mantra.
          However, you changed gears and began talking gibberish. You obviously have no knowledge of our history and the reasons why our unalienable right to “keep and bear arms” was so important that our founding father included it as our second amendment in the bill of rights.
          Our liberty and freedom rely on us upholding ALL the amendments and our freedom couldn’t have been achieved without firearms. It’s what allowed us to fight oppression when all other peaceful means failed.
          Moving on to the “mass murder” hysteria you burped-up, let me just say you’re full of fecal matter!
          Name one mass shooting incident in this country where 10 people were killed in 10 seconds? The RIGHT that our second amendment provides is one of Protection from tyrants and criminals. The murderer is a criminal. Not the gun. The criminal is breaking the law. Not the gun. We put the criminal on trail and imprison the guilty. Not the gun. It is the individual that makes a choice to kill. Not the gun.
          Under your logic I wonder if you would wish to ban the automobile? Nearly 40,000 people are killed on our streets and highways EVERY year. Most involve some sort of violation of law from speeding or texting to impairment of the mind through intoxicants or drugs. Somewhere someone decided they didn’t need to obey the law and the consequences are roughly 40,000 fatalities per YEAR.
          How many deaths were a result of mass murder with a gun in this country over the last decade?
          You’ve allowed the liberal narrative to become imbedded in your thought. Go to the source and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Read the history of our founding fathers wrote about, such as the Federalist Papers, especially James Madison. Don’t allow yourself to have the language of the left become a belching point for you!

    • menofletters2005

      It’s the ridiculously liberal higher education system. Part of it is they are afraid of people Alexandria because she promotes gun ownership. No matter what the old farts in classes try to teach, that age group listens to their peers far closer. The same thing happened with me when I was an undergraduate. I got my CCW, and it triggered numerous other students to do the same, which angered the administration.

      • Colby Butler

        People with power live in fear of those who possess power

  • neverfooled

    The college openly thumbing their nose at a judicial ruling? Cue multiple more lawsuits now with the court ruling. How much is this college willing to pay to keep violating the law? Sounds like payday for those savvy enough to stand up for themselves against what now becomes a criminal stance by the college.

  • Hargraves Ian

    Sue the college director for the max $100.000 and get him fired.

  • vonnise

    If I were a student at UNF, I would now carry my approved weapon. The law is now on MY side!!!

    • Rich7553

      Carry? No. Store securely in your vehicle while on campus? Yes.

      • vonnise

        Yes, you said it better.

        • tionico

          no, Rich missed it entirely.

      • Two Cents Inbound

        Right, because someone with murder in their heart and a gun on their person is going to get to the edge of campus property and be magically repelled. Students (and faculty) should not be prohibited from carrying to and from the classes themselves.

      • tionico

        Carry? ABSOLUTELY. THAT is state law. This court ruling finds that the school cannot preempt state law by making their own conflicting law. It is a very short hop from storing in the trunk to storing it on one’s hip, as legal elsewhere in the state. This woman SHOULD have sued to retain her RIGHT to carry ON CAMPUS, in the classroom, student union, library, lecture halls, cafeteria…… just as she can elsewhere in the state. What measures has the school put in place to ASSURE no people of evil intent will not simply walk onto the campus, as did Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech, or the Texas Tower shooter, or the _____, and begin killing? And how many law abiding permitted concealed carry permittees nationwide have ever done so? (none). Yes, CARRY. ON CAMPUS. EVERYWHERE. ALL THE TIME. That woman raped fifty feet from the cop shop at the campus in Reno was permitted to carry in Nevada… but denied that right on her campus. SHE was raped, no defense. Two others were raped shortly after, the second one killed… by the same perp. Yet they persist in disarming the innocents. Sick.

      • Colby Butler

        Store while you are not in visual sight of side item is not secure. people know you have they may want to steal it. remember we don’t live in a perfect world. also storage in a vehicle serves no purpose when you won’t be able to get to your car to take out said key to unlock said safe spot and then load said item. you’d be long died by then.

        • Rich7553

          Colby, “securely encased” is used in the context of statute. It means one’s firearm is in a closed container, nothing more. But consider, one’s vehicle can be stolen, in which case everything in it is lost as well. A mini-vault is a locked steel container with a steel cable attached to the vehicle secures the firearm, but it’s use is to deter theft, not prevent it.

          As to getting to the car and loading the firearm, first, the firearm can be left loaded. Second, the purpose is so that a student can be armed during their commute to and from campus and have a place to legally leave the firearm while in class. It isn’t for a student to go running back to the car and retrieve the gun should there be an on-campus incident.

        • Rich7553

          A criminal can steal your entire vehicle. “Securely encased” means in a container with a lid, according to statute. It has nothing to do with rendering the firearm safe from theft.

          The purpose is not to have a firearm at the ready for an on-campus incident, but that a student has a place to legally store the firearm so that he/she isn’t forced to make the commute to/from campus unarmed.

  • ProudlyUnaffiliated

    UNF can say anything they want and make all the silly regulations they want but they do not have the force of law. No crime will be committed. Things will get interesting when a student/employee is found with a gun, all legal but in violation of the regulations. What will UNF do? Will they be stupid enough to retaliate? We’ll see….

    • Rich7553

      Actually by law, UNF cannot make all the silly regulations they want. That, in itself, is a violation of statute.

      • tionico

        yet they have done precisely that by banning guns on campus contrary to state law… and with NO conesquences. Yet.

        • Elvis Levoy

          Place pistol in trunk. Notify admin. That it is there. See if campus police are ordered to search. Refuse voluntary search consent and make them search illegally or obtain a false search warrant . If gun is seized contact FDLE and file theft report . Sue officer ,campus police chief and department and North Florida. Attend university of choice on their dime! CCW holder retired LEO.

    • hutch1200

      Will they be stupid enough to retaliate?
      That is my fear. This poor young patriot will fail gym class because of some lefty Prof!

  • Carolkitfox

    Another case of collage showing just how stupid they really are and how they need to be put out of business or ones in charge fired and fined. Stupid is as stupid does and UNF is showing just how stupid they are. Liberal idiots.

    • brilea

      Someone who can’t even spell ‘college’ calling other people idiots. How adorable.

      • jmark80

        Is it not within the realm of possibility that it was a simple typo, and you are being an unrepentant twat? Did his spelling error detract from his post? Do you have anything to add to the conversation besides a pissy attitude and petulance?

        Oh look, a pissy little girl-child with an attitude…how adorable.

        • seazen

          I will bet she is really scared now! That is the way to demonstrate your superior insight and knowledge into this issue.

          • jmark80

            Because my objective was to “scare” her?

            I was pointing out that her comment was nothing but childishness. Apparently you see no issue with it. I guess if you disagree with someones thought process it is acceptable to point out a typo as a lack of intelligence.

            Do you read before you post?

          • seazen

            Yeah, I did read it. What I saw were the enlightened contributions: “unrepentant twat” and “pissy little girl-child with an attitude.” Somehow missed the intelligence in all of that. Besides, maybe it wasn’t a typo after all.

          • mondolibre

            He responded to her idiocy with mockery. Get it now?

        • Doug

          No problem here you spelled “twat” perfectly.

      • mondolibre

        *unrepentant twat*

        That was beautiful , man.

      • tionico

        simple typo, why not address the CONTENT. Straw man argument, fail.

        • brilea

          Not a strawman, but nice try anyways.


            You are not serious, troll. You say nothing, nothing at all.

  • cringle

    There is no merit to breaking the campus policy if it doesn’t comply w/ state law, therefore no infraction had taken place. The burden of proof falls on the school to find an individual guilty. Innocent till proven guilty. If it can’t find you guilty of breaking the law then they can argue upon deaf ears!

    • tionico

      To find one guilty of breaking their illegal law, they will first have to mount the burden of proof that their law is legiimate, thus enforceable. State law already says it is NOT valid law, thus no real crime can be committed against it. Now, if their rule said “no guns on campus with intent to commit harm on the innocent”, they’d be fine. Anyone bringing a gun on campus, a la Cho at Virginia Tech, would have yet one more law broken to perpetrate their mass murder…. already the most gross felony on the books. SO, what good does it do to ban guns from campus? In reality, none… the law abiding will remain law abiding, the lawbreakers will not hesitate to violate the no guns law to bring one on campus to kill.. a far more serious crime. The DIFFERENCE, and this is critical, is that the law abiding will now not only have a defense readily available to them SHOULD a Cho arrive, malice intended, but also be able, and no doubt willing, to serve as a First Responder when a Cho does make his appearance and intent evident. So, pray tell, WHAT is the compelling, or even perrmissible, corporate interest in the school’s gun prohibition in defiance of settled state law? None…. and they’d be fools to persist in it.

    • fishaddict

      The issue with that mentality is that concealed carry is just that, concealed. Also we could make a rule that to post stupidity allows us to create a kangaroo court whereby one would have to defend oneself against our charge of wasting O2. The issue is that to mount a defense cost money and time(money) which is something many college students have little of. There is also the issue of exposure which defeats the concealed part and makes one a target. Finally, there is the whole “hey when did you stop beating your wife argument where one must ask at the end of it all “now that I have been found innocent of all charges, who do I talk to about getting my reputation/life back?”.

  • Robert Hutson

    “In 2011, the Legislature passed another law containing a series of threatening local jurisdictions or agencies with fines against the agency heads, removal from office for elected officials and allowing for personal damages up to $100,000 for violations, Friday said.”

    Sounds like this case would be an excellent test case to bring lwsuits against the school for $100,000 of school officials violating this young woman’s 2nd amendment rights. This will get the attention of the UNF officials and show that they can’t systematically violate the law!!!

  • David William Reid

    Screw liberal scumbags! I will carry my gun where I like. Other then federal buildings they can kiss my ass!

    • seazen

      It is the love, caring, and humanity of such statements that those who seek alternatives to violence just can’t seem to embrace. They forget that it is all about you.

      • Howard Roark

        Being prepared to oppose a criminal who is hurting innocent people is a VERY humanitarian act. Guns are used more than 250,000 times a year to stop a crime.

        Self-defense is a human right

        • tionico

          more like one and a halaf to two MILLION times per year.. according to the FBI.

          • Doug

            My sources say 17 million.

        • Carl Stevenson

          2.5 million, not 250k

          • Howard Roark

            I think your number is closer to the truth.

            Since I was speaking to a skeptic I used a very cautious number

      • JDanaH

        Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is, it’s the only answer. A sociopathic thug threating you and your family is not going to be swayed by pleas for “alternatives to violence”. A few rounds from a .45 on the other hand…

        • tionico

          far more efective that peeing or barfing on the perp, as recommended by certain hoplophobic legislators.

      • ChurchSox

        And you know how important it is that people regard me as loving, caring and humane. My actual physical safety pales in importance.

      • BlackBettysBlog

        Oh, boo-hoo. Carrying a gun is an alternative to violence.

      • JohnSkookum

        We suffer from too little violence of the right kind, not too much. Sane, law-abiding adults should go armed at all times and in all places. Rewards should be paid to those who shoot career criminals dead. And all three-time felons should face a mandatory death penalty. We should be executing about fifty times as many people as we do now.

        Soft hearted fools like you are responsible for much human suffering. Those who are kind to the cruel are cruel to the kind.

        • tionico

          Agreed.. except that many offenses labelled “felony” are not severe enough to warrant death, no matter how often perpetrated. In my county, it is a felony for anyone to shoot a nuisance feral cat on his own property in a legal shooting zone. If I deal with three of them that way, should I be executed? No, felonies need to be reserved for serious crimes against persons. Speed in excess of 20 mph above the arbitrary number on a sign at the side of the road is NOT a true felony. Other than that mislabelling matter, you are correct, though. No deterrent of note begs for more of the same behaviour.

          • MPH

            You have a point. Do an online search of the phrase “felony movie sneak” for another example (short story: two people snuck into a movie, which would have cost them $14 to attend legally,and they were charged with a felony).

          • JohnSkookum

            Yes, I can’t argue with that. If it wasn’t a felony at the time of the Revolution, there is no reason for it to be so now.

        • Dallas Townsend


      • tionico

        in reality, it is all about those round about me…. if I can carry a defensive weapon, then I am the First Responder at the scene when needed, not fifteen minutes later to draw the chalk lines, measure how far away the perp was from his victim when he fired, and collect spent shell casings for lab analysis. Those who would deny me that right are the self-serving ones. We who carry are the unheralded public servants, desiring no more “pay” than to be left alone by government bent upon self-aggrandisement. Sort of like wearing my seatbelt. and I selfish i that? I have never REALLY used that device, and I hope I never do. Same with my sidearm. But both are ready to serve me, and those around me, in the event tragedy attempts to take me/us out. SO, in a way, yes, it IS all about me.. so I can be here for the benefit of others, not filling a tin box xis feet under because some perp was REALLY all about himself. Your perspective needs broadened.

        • seazen

          So I guess this means that every person in this society should walk around thinking they are going to pull out their weapons to protect themselves and others if they think there is a threat or a perp. I imagine you believe that “all those around you” are sane, stable, and skilled in the use of this instrument of death and no innocents will be harmed.
          It all might be arguable if we simply treated gun ownership and operation like we do cars. Testing, registration, licensing, age restrictions, and insurance are not too much to ask, are they? Just so all those “others” and “perps” are easier to identify.
          By the way, Jesus was here for the benefit of others. I don’t remember him slaying anyone – not even a perp.

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            So, Seazen, once we get our state issued ‘gun carry permits’ you are OK with us going armed everywhere we go? Malls? Schools? Hospitals? Churches? Airplanes? Government Buildings? If I can drive a car everywhere I am allowed to go I should also be able to carry a weapon everywhere I am allowed to go.

          • RD457FF22H

            Malls – Private property
            Schools – Yes
            Hospitals – Normally private property, yes in cases where they aren’t
            Churches – Private property
            Airplanes – Private property
            Government buildings – Yes

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            And if the ‘Private property’ is a ‘public convenience’? You cannot legally exclude someone from your privately owned shop because of the color of his skin. So why should you be able to legally exclude someone because he is/isn’t carrying?

          • seazen

            No you are not free to drive your car wherever you choose because it is too dangerous. You can take your gun to the shooting range or hunting or your bedroom. You really don’t need it in church or the hospital or on planes do you?

          • BillClintonsShorts17

            I don’t see why I wouldn’t need it on my person in every place I am allowed to go.

          • seazen

            Maybe if you “need” to have a gun everywhere you are allowed to go, you shouldn’t be allowed out of the house.

          • jmark80

            Tell that to every single person who was made the victim of violence who did not have their firearm with them. The sheer amount of dedication to avoiding logical consistency in order to pursue your ideological agenda is admirable, even if it is foolish.

            Your position quite literally makes no sense. You claim that someone who desires personal accountability for their safety is somehow mentally lacking or unstable, all in the face of a dearth of evidence of the efficacy of firearms for self defense.

            What is it about folks like you who seem to think it is acceptable to disarm women despite the quite literally thousands of rapes prevented by them daily?

          • seazen

            So you have some special data that “literally thousands” of rapes are prevented by women with guns?

          • jmark80

            Its been linked from a couple different sources, but I don’t expect you to dig around, so here you go:



            I don’t know if it is “special”, but it is “data”.

          • jmark80

            Question. When you are so heavily invested in an argument, and you are presented with data such as I have provided, do you take it in with an open mind? Do you allow yourself to allow that you may have not been correct? Or do you simply stop posting and forget that you read the information, to carry on the argument on some other board?

            In other words, are you interested in the truth, or only in being ‘right’?

          • seazen

            You have provided not one shred of data, my friend. If there is any about the “literally thousands” you declare are preventing their rape because they are armed, point me to the source so I can correct myself.

          • jmark80

            If it has not gone through I apologize. I have linked it a few times and it is showing on the feed. I will resubmit.




            I have provided links with statistical analysis in most of my posts. I form my opinions based upon relevant data instead of emotion. However, just like the link I gave you showing you how much more likely you are to be accidentally shot by a police officer than a civilian, I do not expect you to correct yourself on anything. You are far too entrenched in your agenda to acknowledge data that does not conform to your bias.

          • seazen

            Your links did not come all the way through so I did some searching myself. The real data on rape in this country indicates about 1000/day. What is interesting is that 67% were committed by someone known to the victim and 38% by a friend or acquaintance. I doubt that there were thousands more friends and acquaintances that were somehow deterred because their intended victim was armed.
            Now, one of your references seemed to point to a panel discussion that included a couple of women who had guns and wished they were armed when they were attacked. That is understandable but it just anecdotal. In addition, Cato, Front Page and Pat Dollard seem to be loaded with anecdotes rather than actual data.

          • jmark80

            That’s about what I expected. Simply dismissing the information as anecdotal or false. The National Crime Victimization Poll is a legitimate source of crime statistics, used by the FBI and other federal entities to track crime and its related statistics. According to them:

            “The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.”

            So lets just say that you don’t agree with this number. What do you agree with? Half? A quarter? An eighth? So lets go with just an eighth of the NCVP’s number to better approach a number that would be more in line with your agenda.

            That is 450 rapes per day, or a little over 160,000 annually, that is avoided due to the threat of a firearm.

            In your world, these women would be forced, at a minimum, to try to fend off rape by another means. How you can settle this ethically in your mind is quite simply beyond me. Also keep in mind that the majority of rapes are not committed using firearms. In fact, only 11% of rapes are committed using any sort of weapon, only 3% of which is a gun.


            So you are quite literally calling for the disarming of the rape victim, which would (assuming that the perpetrator could not access firearms as well) not affect the rapist in the slightest. How can this possibly make sense to you? Disarm the victim to make you feel more secure? Why is your irrational fear of inanimate objects more important than the very real fear of women who do not want to be raped?

            There is no logic here.

          • Rich7553

            Are you seriously asserting that violent attacks never occur in those places?

          • seazen

            No. They also occur in the home – among family members. Should we all carry at home?

          • Rich7553

            That would be your choice, just as it my choice to carry wherever it is lawful to do so. Should you choose instead to await a police response, I suggest you try an experiment. Since both fire and police response times are fairly equivalent, try setting your hair on fire and calling the fire department. Don’t do anything to put out the fire, that’s their job since they are the professionals. Just sit there and wait. Let me know how that works for you.

          • jmark80

            Considering that factually, you are 5 times more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than by a civilian, despite the massive number of defensive firearm uses annually, your argument holds no logical consistency.


            According to your logic, we should not let police carry weapons either. Maybe polite discussion will help defuse an active shooter?

          • seazen

            How many policemen have shot kids in school, or their spouses, or someone knocking on their door, or themselves?

          • jmark80

            Is that rhetorical? The answer is many. Perhaps not directly in relation to a school, but in many various instances. Did you not even read my previous post? It is a fact that police are many times more likely to accidentally shoot someone than a civilian, when either is involved in a shooting.

            Your logic states that without what you consider to be proper training, that civilians cannot be trusted to carry firearms or to react properly in the event of needing to use their firearm. The facts are not on your side considering the disparity between police accidental shootings and civilian accidental shootings.

          • Rich7553

            If we treated guns like cars, it would cease to be a right and become a privilege.

    • Doug

      Why stop at federal buildings? Your gun is your admission ticket.

      • Shootist

        Give us time. Even speech may be curtailed, when justified. There are no justifiable reason to forbid the simple Bearing of Arms, given time we will prevail.

        • Doug

          Lock and load.

      • BlackBettysBlog

        That’s just stupid.

        • tionico

          then our Founders were stupid… don’t you know your history? It was the military raid to disarm the Colonials that was the match that lit our War for Independence. READ your history, and know it. Ignorance is curable., Stupidity is, on most cases, not.

          • BlackBettysBlog

            Don’t lecture me on history, boy. If you are referring to the Boston Massacre, let’s remember that John Adams successfully defended the British soldiers at their trial.

            If you are referring to Lexington, you are correct.

            There is an important distinction between Doug’s comment (use a weapon to gain entry) and Lexington Bridge (“Don’t fire unless fired upon”).

          • BlackBettysBlog

            If you are referring to Lexington Green, then you are referring to a defensive action, as Capt Parker commanded: “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it start here.”

            Moreover, the patriots on Lexington Green were militiamen. Are you sure the Founders were there?

            In any case, your comment supported what sounds like an offensive action; i.e., using firearms to gain entry to a federal building.

            I renew my objection: Your initial comment is just stupid. Your second is merely misinformed.

  • smogdew

    I hope this sets an example for other states in the country where gun rights are under question.

Related Posts