Posted in Rights Watch | 5 Comments

EXCLUSIVE: Academia Nuts

By David Codrea.

“Quincy College’s governing board will consider a policy that would ban everyone other than police officers from carrying a gun on campus, regardless of whether they have a permit,” The Patriot Ledger reports.

According to College President Peter Tsaffaras, they’ve “received anecdotal evidence sometimes that we have students who are coming to school armed.”

And while he admits “they’re not hostile or threatening,” he says Quincy needs a policy “to deal with it.” But it will be a policy without teeth, as campus security guards don’t carry guns.

Having everyone but predators unarmed is how these “educators” define “safety”?

Here’s the thing: Quincy is a junior college, meaning most of its student body is presumably under 21, that is, below the legal age to qualify for a permit in Massachusetts anyway. And to legally obtain a firearm?

NRA describes the process as “complex,” explaining “Depending on the class, a firearm identification card (FID or ‘card’), class A license or class B license is required to possess, purchase, or carry a firearm… One’s home or place of business is not exempt from the FID or class A or B license requirements.”

As for carrying concealed, USA Carry gives details on its website to apply for the “may issue” license (meaning authorities may decide not to). Among the requirements:

A NICS (background) check; 40 days to process; a $100 fee; an approved training course; a completed (and exhaustively intrusive) application (signed under penalty of perjury); copies of driver license or ID card and birth certificate or passport; two passport photos; two fingerprint cards; proof of residency; an official report listing your arrest record…
Do President Tsaffaras and his governing board really think anyone inclined to bring a gun on their campus for evil purposes will have gone through any of these steps?

And hold on, we’re not done—along with all this comes the subjective part: “You will be required to justify your request in writing. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible. Valid reasons for requesting a concealed handgun include personal threats, being in a high-risk profession or routinely carrying large amounts of cash.”

And “invalid reasons”? Let’s just say quoting “shall not be infringed” probably won’t get you very far—despite the Commonwealth’s Firearms Record Bureau form sporting the Massachusetts Coat of Arms “adopted by the revolutionary provincial congress of Massachusetts in 1775,” per Flags of the World, replete with a bow and arrow-armed Squanto, an arm holding a sword, and the motto “Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem” (“By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty”).

Also irrelevant for concealed carry justification because it does not articulate a “personal” threat: The dangerous level of violent crime in the surrounding Quincy area, where those disarmed by college policy must traverse on their way to and from campus. NeighborhoodScout.com rates Quincy “31” on a scale of 100 for safety, and projects the “chances of becoming a victim” at “1 in 260.”

The birthplace of John Adams and John Hancock sure has changed.

Share |
  1. The magic age of 21… as if nobody under that age is ever in any danger of attack. Sort of like all those other folks without a “valid reason.”

    But then, Massachusetts is probably the last place on earth I’d want to live in any case – well, right after Chicago anyway.

  2. Chris Mallory says:

    “Quincy is a junior college, meaning most of its student body is presumably under 21,”

    I can’t speak about Quincy, but today the 2 year colleges are seeing an explosion of laid off middle aged adults going back to school to try and become qualified for some kind of work.

  3. JR Bailey says:

    There’s a REASON why I’d NEVER want to live East of the Mississippi and North of the Mason-Dixon Line: being stripped of my liberties and submitting to living as a slave of the State.

    The current state of affairs in the mindsets of Quincy college administrators and for that matter those in the Mass State Legislature, prove why Mitt Romney is not any better choice than Obama: at least with Obama a REAL resolution to the issue of Tyranny will come to head sooner rather than later.

  4. Mark Matis says:

    This is why I thank God every time he sends another “Law Enforcement” officer to rot where they belong for dishonoring their oath of office to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…” The number of “Law Enforcement” officers who actually honor that oath are pathetically few and far between.

  5. Woody W Woodward says:

    Here’s a tidbit I found recently. … [I]n 1936 the National Education Association (NEA) stated a position from which it has never retreated. It said: “We stand for socializing the individual . . . The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”

    Note: The NEA said NOTHING about EDUCATION or concern with the students’ personal wellbeing. An overwhelming number of school administrators at all levels seem to be riding the same horse. When a student dies as a result of some dangerous policy making on the part of an administrator, the proper “condolences” are expressed and the conditioning goes on. After all, parents can always make more babies to fill the slack.

    [W3]

Leave a Reply

(Spamcheck Enabled)