Liberty University to consider concealed weapons on campus
File Photo by Jill Nance/The News & Advance
Two Liberty University students sit on the steps of DeMoss Hall last month. LU officials say they will consider whether concealed weapons permit holders will be allowed to carry guns on campus.
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Christa Desrets
Published: October 9, 2008
Liberty University will consider whether to allow concealed weapon permit holders to carry guns on campus at its next board of trustees meeting, Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said Thursday.
If it adopted the policy change, Liberty would become one nearly a dozen colleges nationally to allow concealed weapons on campus, according to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
Falwell said he decided to bring the matter before the board for discussion after members of Liberty’s chapter of SCCC requested it.
“We just have a group on campus that’s been promoting that idea, and I really don’t have a good feel for whether our community would support it or not,” Falwell said. “So I just decided to take it to the board.”
Currently the university does not allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun on campus, he said.
The board of trustees has 38 members, including Falwell and his brother Jonathan. The next meeting is in early March.
The body may not make a decision on the issue, Falwell said, but will at least consider it.
“I want to make sure that we look at it long and hard before we make a decision,” he said.
“Between now and the board meeting, we’ll have RAs (resident advisers) talking to students and see what they think about it.”
Falwell also has not formed an opinion on the issue, he said.
Liberty senior Ben Neiman, leader of Liberty’s chapter of SCCC, said the group has more than 300 members, mostly students, staff and faculty.
Nationally, the organization has more than 30,000 members at hundreds of schools.
“These are people who already have their concealed carry permits, and you mingle with them in movie theaters and shopping malls around town anyways,” Neiman said. “We’re just all about our own safety. We realize that campuses are generally safe, but in the off chance that we are threatened, we want to be able to defend ourselves.”
Utah is the only state that does not allow any of its nine public universities to restrict people from carrying concealed weapons on campus.
According to the SCCC, Colorado State University and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave, Va., are the only other schools that allow concealed carry on campus.
In Virginia, where one must be at least 21 years old to apply for a concealed handgun permit, each college can decide whether to allow guns on campus.
Leading up to the meeting in March, Falwell said board members have much to consider, such as how difficult the process is to get a permit to carry.
He also hopes to ask students and faculty for their opinions, and learn more about the arguments from both sides of the issue.
“I understand all the concern about security, and that’s why I’m even going to mention it to the board,” Falwell said.
“If the board thinks that would enhance security, then it might be something they would be in favor of.”
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on October 15, 2008 at 10:21 am
After seeing Freedom and his problems, and hearing the hatred spewed by some of the left-wing-nuts on here, I am more scared of the lefty-loonies than the right-wingers. I believe they are not required to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights when they attend LU? When that left-wing loony at VT was walking down the hallway at Tech and you had been there, Wouldn’t you want someone near you to be packing? Unless we are willing to walk around with a cop holding our hand down the street, people in this country should be allowed to defend themselves. It is natural to every living animal and human and it is our constitutional right.
“In Virginia, where one must be at least 21 years old to apply for a concealed handgun permit, each college can decide whether to allow guns on campus.“
I am much more concerned with ACORN rigging an election with felons than I am with law-abiding citizens packing heat.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( asforme ) on October 15, 2008 at 10:21 am
KReamey,
“look what happened at VA Tech”
VA Tech does NOT allow weapons on campus. Obviously that thug did not care. By having a rule like this the only people who are affected are the people who could save your life from someone who could care less about the rules.
You would be nervous about attending sports at LU, are you currently nervous going grocery shopping, going to movies, or walking the public streets of Lynchburg? The students being discussed are those who already have concealed handgun permits and are already carrying their weapons off campus. These students aren’t “being stupid” elsewhere, in fact concealed carry permit holders are 3x less likely to commit a crime than a police officer. Criminals don’t obey the law, much less a weak university rule. It’s time to allow those who do obey the law a chance to defend themselves instead of having no choice but to be victims like the 31 students at VT.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( KReamey ) on October 15, 2008 at 10:14 am
I like to attend sports events on LU campus, if they agree to start allowing students to carry handguns I will not attend anymore. These students have no need to carry weapons. These kids go crazy all at once and look what happened at VA Tech, because some kid had guns on campus. IT’S A BAD IDEA - JERRY JR. & JONATHAN OR WHOEVER MAKES THIS DECISON. JUST SAY NO!!!!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Cosmo Wafflefoot ) on October 14, 2008 at 12:32 pm
(Redstone) claims of me… “you seem to dump all who believe and have faith in something different in the same group.“...
Of course I do! They are “The Dissociated”. They are those who can not function without assuring themselves that the world is what and how they “wish” it to be. That’s belief!
[You post]...“Ignorance is ignorance.“
But that isn’t what we are talking about AT ALL. Ignorance has nothing to do with “choosing” to filter out any and all information, no matter how overpowering, that contradicts a learned belief system. Is a hypnotized person ignorant? Of course not.
[you post]...“My point is this, prove evolution.“...
What the heck for? It’s a theory. A theory is just a tool to help you unlock doors. It allows you to predict things with amazing accuracy. If just ONCE you find a door that it doesn’t fit… it’s over. You need a new one or to rethink the one you have. That’s why evolution is so respected. It unlocks an unbelievable amount of doors and, since no one has seen or produced any testable evidence to the contrary… it rules the day. I could just as easilly say to you that “Nobody has proven that the universe doesn’t sit on the back of The Great Cosmic Turtle”. Make up any kind of crap you please… I don’t care. Just don’t expect respect for your “balderdash” from me. You go in the big box with the 2+2=8 crowd.
[You go on to boldly post]...“In the end we must take it on faith, or declare that nothing can be known.“
Nothing can be known? NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN! What’s the matter with you? (I am dumbfounded)... An Amazing amount of information can and is known. No thanks, of course, to religious nut cases who insist Bronze Age mythology is fact or history. “Loonies” who are in the business of suppressing any and all knowledge that contradicts their chosen balderdash. There are thousands of religions. ALL are different and ALL claim to be the ONLY true faith. Can’t you do math?
What’s so terrifying about saying… “Gosh, I don’t know, but, wouldn’t it be great to find out. Lets work on it!“...(?)
Do me just one favor. Don’t drag in the “Old Morality” argument. You, (religious loonies) have no case. Morality enforced by threat or reward is NO morality at all for a thinking organism. It’s dog training! I happen to think mankind “can” be far better than that. If it ever grows up.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( redstone ) on October 14, 2008 at 10:34 am
(cosmo) Man this is fun, thanks for keeping it professional.
Anyway, I can completely agree with you. Ignorance is ignorance. However, you seem to dump all who believe and have faith in something different in the same group. My point is this, prove evolution. You cant. I cant PROVE my side either. BTW the earth was here prior to creation but it was “void and without form” no one seems to know what this means, so I will not debate the geologic record. Both have pros and cons. In the end we must take it on faith, or declare that nothing can be known.
Sorry, guys I know this is off topic, I wish we could continue this discussion elsewhere but I dont know where. . .
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Cosmo Wafflefoot ) on October 14, 2008 at 10:01 am
(Redstone) asks… “Would it be safe to say you think all believers ‘loonies’? Ya got me (Redstone). The answer is, absolutely. But I don’t discriminate! Somebody tells me 2+2=8 because they read it in a book or that’s “what their people always believed”... we have ourselves a loonie. Somebody tells me the Earth is 6000 years old and then gives me details of what happens when you are dead…. Loonie!
It’s not hard at all. If you don’t know an answer…you admit it. If you make up a bunch of balderdash, rather than admitting you don’t know (and certainly CAN’T prove) the answer. You suffer from what’s known as a dissociative pathology. You exclude, unconsciously, facts and information that contradict your said… “bunch of balderdash”. By making it, the “bunch of balderdash, ever more elaborate and grandiouse you attempt to strengthen both it’s power and appeal.
It simply doesn’t work on people who know 2+2 ain’t 8. We have really no choice. The key, I feel, is NEVER to discriminate or choose one group of loonies over another. A loonie is a loonie… so to speak.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( redstone ) on October 14, 2008 at 9:21 am
(Cosmo) Now I can appreciate good wit when I see it.
“Yea, though I walk through the valley of death I will fear no evil, thy Smith and thy Wesson shall comfort me”… “ not bad.
anyway, for the morning sarcasm softball. So only mega church loonies carry concealed weapons permits? or people from Utah? IM a Virginian, and none of these categories fit me. What about my wife? Or the Small business owner? Are they loonies now? What about the staff member who has a late appointment and has to walk a fair piece to get to her car in the dark? Are they all loonies because they want to simply excercise the right to personal protection given them by the law of Virginia?
Off topic, why if someone goes to a ‘big’ church are they considered a ‘loonie’? Would it be safe to say you think all believers ‘loonies’?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( shalott25 ) on October 14, 2008 at 9:14 am
Damalama, Obviously you are ignorant to LU’s values. They have never taught hate in the 15 years I have had a connection with the school. Do they say certain acts are wrong—yes! That is not the same as hate. If you know anything about the institution and church, you would know how much they do for the community—-everyone not just the people like them as you might say. Everything from giving food to providing free health care to teaching skills and hobbies. They have a huge ministry to help those with drug addiction, abuse, depression, grief, and of course, teens who get pregnant. It is hardly a place of hate! Before you run your month, you should be informed.
As far as secular colleges not needing armed weapons—how do you know? Have you checked out all those schools to see what their policies are? What about their mission to brainwash the world with their secular humanism? At least LU is upfront on their value system, unlike most schools that just hide it under “tolerance.“ It is always tolerance, except when we have different views. I know. I have been in secular schools. They are haters of anyone who has a value system not like them! I experienced a lot more hate at those “superior” institutions than I have ever experienced or seen at LU or its counterparts.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Cosmo Wafflefoot ) on October 14, 2008 at 5:14 am
(damalama)... Yes, but soft-core.
I find the whole thing so bizzare. I expect to see Father Flanagan in a Kung-Fu movie next. Our Lady of Fatima will turn out to be an expert in knife throwing. So much for the meek inheriting the Earth. A case, I suppose, could be made for Jesus choosing “The Mount” for his sermon because it was a good defensive possition.
Obama was right. It’s not the little girls at Sweet Briar or the kids at any other college or university in Virginia. It’s the Liberty kids clinging to guns & the bible. In Utah it’s the “magic underpants” Mormon nuts at BYU. In Colorado it’s the Mega-Church loonies.
There is a clear pattern here. Any and all crime statistics aside… it’s not Harvard, NYU, Notre Dame, Stanford or Cornell students that NEED to be armed. It’s the so called “religious” students. Fascinating, but expected.
After rewriting history, could the bible be far behind.
...“Yea, though I walk through the valley of death I will fear no evil, thy Smith and thy Wesson shall comfort me”...
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Bill-o'Rights ) on October 13, 2008 at 9:39 pm
What does being or not being a Christian have anything to do with one wanting to be able to self defend?
First, obviously if one does not approve of LU’s overtly Christian views, than they will probably never attend the University, so what does it matter if the students attending LU want to carry a conceal pistol to you?
Second, the right to self defense should never be denied to anyone. That means everyone, equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, creed, age, sex, or nationality.
If one is terrified by that notion, then they are either an uneducated bigot or an extreme danger within this society that cannot play well with others. Thus they should be airlifted to a less tolerant country where they would fit in.
This would be a great discussion, if people could not boil down the topic to being related to a specific political agenda (i.e. Bush) or to bash religious views.
Report Inappropriate Comment