Finally! Someone Stands Up To The “Academia”

[Glocktogo]

Sure wish we had some sheriff's in Oklahoma who would stand up to David Boren, Burns Hargis and their chronies!

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/state-94668-gun-ban.html

(Currently the poll is running 93% in favor of the sheriff!)

OUR VIEW: Sheriff says he'll undermine gun ban (vote in poll)

Anti-gun theorists impose dangerous policy
February 23, 2010 6:10 PM
The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.

Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.

CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.

“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”

Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.

Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.

“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.

Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.

At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers.

“This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”

Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.

“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.

(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)

The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.

“God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.

Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff's to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.

“If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said.

In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.

“They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.

That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

 

[Shadowrider]

Oh Hell Yes! I see re-election in his future.

 

[jeffsoward]

Man! Why can't there be more lawmen like him and fewer politicians with badges?

 

[Glocktogo]

Oh Hell Yes! I see re-election in his future.

Sadly, that's not going to happen. I emailed him in support of his stance and he actually emailed back!

I may have already responded to some of you so if this is redundant, please forgive me. I have been overwhelmed with e-mails regarding my position on the CSU rule prohibiting students, faculty or staff from carrying anything on campus that may be used in self-defense; i.e. concealed handgun, mace, or stun gun. This is incredibly irresponsible.

I have received 170 e-mails from all corners and coasts of the United States supporting my position. I haven't had such a response since my Third Annual Politically Incorrect Christmas tree Decorating Party or the Balloon Boy incident. For those of you who haven't made the connection, yes, I'm the overweight bald Sheriff who was at the center of the Balloon Boy Hoax. I tried responding individually to your e-mails to express my appreciation for your kind words, but it soon became evident that I wasn't going to be able to. I do have a few other things on my plate. To each of you, please accept my humble appreciation for your support and encouragement.

By the way, I did get one negative e-mail. 170 to 1, and it wasn't from Dr. Frank, the CSU President.

Many of you have suggested that I run for higher office. I have said it before, but I don't think there is any higher office than that of Sheriff. It is an office that gives me the most direct contact with the people and the best opportunity to act rather autonomously to do the right thing. I only have to answer to the public, not the politicians. In any event, I'm about to wrap up a 38 year career and my 12th as Sheriff. I would love to hang around but Colorado enacted term limits several years ago to ensure that the most qualified and competent people can't remain in office too long.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write but my position really wasn't a difficult or courageous decision to make as some of you have implied. It was simply the right thing to do and in keeping with my sworn oath.

Jim Alderden
Larimer County Sheriff

If you wish to send him an email in support: http://www.co.larimer.co.us/common/m...fm?to=alderdja

I also sent an email to the CSU Board of Governors:

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my thoughts on your recent decision to institute a ban on legal carry of a concealed firearm at your campuses. For many years it has been my observation that academia overwhelmingly disapprove of concealed carry, despite convincing evidence that it is a safe and effective way to defend against and even lower the number of violent crimes.

I've always believed this position is based on academia's sense of how things should be in a civilized society, rather than how it may be in reality. You see, not everyone in this world gets to live in nice homes, in nice neighborhoods, with nice places to work and shop and send their kids to school. Sadly, some people can't afford those luxuries. Some people barely have the means to live in squalid little run down neighborhoods. Neighborhoods where poverty, despair and sometimes anger drive people to commit crimes. As poor as some of these people are, they can usually afford a run down old car.

In that car, they can go wherever the $20 they robbed from their last victim will take them. That may mean a nice neighborhood or place of business. And while only a tiny fraction of the good people there will ever meet these poor, despondent and sometimes angry people, it usually isn't a positive experience when they do. Which leads me to your faculty and students.

When they leave your beautiful campuses that are staffed by friendly, helpful campus police officers, they go to homes and stores and restaurants. And this is where they may run into one of society's less bestowed upon citizens. Now here's where you come into the picture.

You see, you may feel very good about your decision to protect your campuses and it's inhabitants from all the lawlessness and danger that firearms create in this world. However, statistics show that concealed firearms in the hands of properly licensed citizens is a very safe endeavor. What you've unintentionally done (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) is to take a choice that the Great State of Colorado has sagely granted your citizenry from their hands, and are instead making that choice for them. A choice that the majority of these United States have realized is a sound way to let the citizenry partake in their Constitutionally recognized freedoms, as well as their own safety and security.

As you are well aware, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago ruled that no government is responsible for the safety and security of any one individual. By denying Colorado citizens the Constitutionally recognized right to bear arms, you appear to be saying that the Colorado State University System is willing to voluntarily accept that responsibility. At least it appears to me that such a case could be made by inference. I'm assuming that instances of violent crime on CSU campuses is so low that it would be a statistical anomaly to actually be a victim of a violent crime there? Surely that's the reason you'd be willing to voluntarily accept the great responsibility to protect the safety and security of every man, woman and child who enters your fair campuses?

Alas, you may be able to protect them on campus. You appear to be willing to make them whole if they suffer a violent attack there. However, are you willing to extend the same courtesy to them for any attacks they may suffer while travelling to and from your campuses? Along with anywhere they may stop in between? If not, you may want to ponder the wisdom of your gracious offer to voluntarily be held responsible for the people who enter your grounds. Instead, you may want to consider the advice given by Sheriff James Alderen.

Are you familiar with Sheriff Alderen? The sheriff of Larimer County? He apparently has considerable experience with violent crime. Thirty eight years worth to be exact. You might even say that he's risen to the level of a PhD in violent crime. He also appears to be a Constitutional scholar. At least he's sworn an Oath to uphold and defend the same, and apparently takes it quite seriously. Have you done this as well? Regardless, he has offered your learned board members some sage advice of his own. Perhaps you should extend him the courtesy of expounding on it further? You know, in an effort to promote wisdom and knowledge in policy decisions?

Well I've taken quite enough of your time already. I just wanted to thank you for your implied offer to voluntarily accept responsibility for the safety and security of everyone on your campuses. It is a very gracious offer indeed. I wish you well and hope that you never need to cover this offer with funds that would be better spent providing higher education. At least if you do, all those double digit tuition increases averaged over the last few years should more than cover it, right?

Regards,

Jerry D. Biggs

If you wish to send them an email denouncing their decision: [email protected]

It never hurts to acknowege both sides of the fight!

 

[jbarnett]

Hopefully he will change his mind and run for another office.

Let us know if the university responds.

 

[Shadowrider]

Here is the one I sent them. It's a little shorter and less PC.

To whom it may concern,

I am saddened to hear about you recent decision to ban the possession of about every effective tool for self defense by your students and faculty. I understand your right to run your facilities as you think best. But it saddens me that you deny them the ability to fight back in defense of their own wellbeing if attacked on your grounds, or while commuting to or from them. I can only assume that you are willing to guarantee their safety while there and while commuting back and forth?

I would urge you to reconsider the opinion of Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, he has a lot of experience in this area. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that those hell bent on killing, such as the two at Columbine don't really care about breaking the rules, and will ignore this policy. That leaves your students and faculty sitting ducks and you should be quite concerned about litigation if anything does happen. Because personally, I'd own your university before I finished with you in court should something happen to one of my kids with a numbskull policy like this in place.

Rest assured that my children and grandchildren will not be attending your university or any other ran by such short sighted people. If I am paying for their education I require just a bit more logical reasoning ability from those who teach them. I guess I'll just have to send them to one of your competitors.



Regards,


Shadowrider

 

[okie98]

They need this guy!

 

[jdgabbard]

VeI've stopped sending emails to companies, colleges, and polititions that support bans on firearms. I've come to the opinion that they care less what you or anyone else thinks. And are he'll bent on getting their way no matter what evidense you throw in their way.

 

[mons meg]

Seems that Colorado law is similar to ours, and one of the points I raised with Rep. Muprhey originally. namely, that an unelected college President has the arbitrary power to determine legal carry status on a particular campus. Never a good idea...violates my notion of "equal protection under the law".

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Simple, start holding the places that prohibit CC legally and financially responsible for any violent crime committed on their property, as they do not allow a law abiding citizen to protect themselves. Also if I were the Sheriff, all those deputy commission cards he issued to the university police would be revoked.