Va. Tech Board of Visitors bans concealed weapons

By Tonia Moxley


The Virginia Tech Board of Visitors took action today to solidify a ban of concealed weapons from campus buildings and from major events.

The board, according to a ruling from the state Attorney General's office, was required to adopt a state regulation in order to ban legal conceal carry weapons. A simple existing university policy was not sufficient, according the attorney general's opinion.

The board today unanimously passed the resolution establishing the regulation - which pertains to all weapons.

Posted to: Education News Virginia Tech Virginia

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

Gun Control

Over 10,000 innocent Americans are gunned down every year because of laws promoted by gun owners and the NRA that permit anyone to own a gun.
The NRA fights for the gun rights of convicted violent felons as well as the mentally insane like Cho and Jared Loughner to own guns.
If John Hinckley were set free the NRA would support his right to own any gun he wished to.
Now the Gov. Mc Donnell and Cuccille have cleared the ways for killers to buy an unlimited amounts of guns. Will they apologize after the next massacre?


There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens.

That's a lot more good than bad. Until you can un-invent the gun they're here to stay. The best way to deal with thugs is on even ground. Unarmed waiting on the police for help doesn't always work. Just because you're willing to be a victim doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Remember if only 1 person that was killed or there had had a gun the rest would be alive.


"approximately two million defensive gun uses"

That statistic is completely unverifiable. Whatever amount of defensive gun uses took place, you can bet your life most of them were not defending themselves from a felon armed with a gun.

As far as an armed student being able to stop Cho, how many extremely well trained and armed Secret Service agents were able to pull out their weapons in the 1.6 seconds it took Hinckley to hit three people and have a bullet ricochet and hit Reagan? The answer is ZERO!

I'll never understand

I'll never understand why someone who does not desire to carry a firearm wants to interfere with my constitutionally protected right to do so. I have no desire to engage in a gunfight with anyone, and should I be in a room with an individual who is using a firearm to commit a crime I'll be on the floor with everyone else ready to give up my wallet. That is until said criminal directs his firearm at me, or my loved ones then he/she is getting 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. The above regulation is absurd as many have pointed out. Criminals do not obey the law to begin with, hence they are criminals.

notfiveo: Another bogus anti-gun claim about self-defense...

...your claim that "you can bet your life most of them were not defending themselves from a felon armed with a gun" is really funny in the face of your attempt to discredit the other poster's numbers. It's demonstrably false, as evidenced in three incidents in this article from the Charlotte Observer, one in which an armed citizen even was able to save himself while being pistol-whipped. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/02/2106212/subway-worker-who-killed-robbery.html#

So we went from 2 million

So we went from 2 million unverifiable incidents to 3, obviously you made a point.

notfiveo: Your game of statistics tag doesn't matter...

...it's the law that matters. Anti-gun groups still hate their losses in the Heller and McDonald rulings that affirmed the 2nd amendment is an individual Right. Law-abiding citizens have the Right to keep AND bear arms. That's the law and FBI crime statistics prove people are safer for it. Like the store workers who saved their lives and possibly others' lives as they lawfully defended themselves against armed criminals, which you wrongly claimed can't happen. Your Secret Service/Reagan analogy is false. Their first job is to protect the high-value person, even with their body, not draw and shoot. They did that with Reagan, which is why agent McCarthy was wounded and police officer Delahanty was wounded.

Just as many stories can be

Just as many stories can be cited that didn't involve the victim pulling a gun, like the MMA fighter that took an armed robber down at a restaurant....without a gun, or the one who took another armed robber down when the idiot asked him to step out of his car, or maybe the 2 unarmed guys who took down an armed felon in the lobby of a hotel. The FBI has never said we are safer because there are more guns on the street, that is like saying we should encourage everyone to talk and text on their cell phones while driving, after all traffic fatalities are down so it must be related to cell phone use, instead of taking into account the numerous other factors.

So the agents didn't draw

So the agents didn't draw right away because all 20 of them jumped in front of the President? They had 1.6 seconds to determine what was happening and in that time it was too late to do anything. One agent even had a Uzi pulled out of a briefcase. That is fact, not your fantasy scenario.

I'd say they stopped him

I'd say they stopped him before he had the chance to kill 32.

I'd say they stopped him before he had the chance to kill 32

Too funny, he wasn't trying to kill anyone except Reagan, the others were collateral damage.

boblakeman: Completely False. Criminals gun people down...

and those who despise Second Amendment Rights, twice upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as an Individual Right, constantly try to use criminal behavior to disarm law-abiding citizens. It will not work.

Your pants are on fire

"The NRA fights for the gun rights of convicted violent felons".

That is a blatant lie.

Only those who are law

Only those who are law abiding citizens will adhere to VA Techs ban. Those who could care less will do what they want to do. Gun free zones accomplish nothing. It didn't mean anything during the assault on VA Tech on April 16, 2007 and it won't mean anything now.

A Straw Man's Guess

You do not know how many drunk kids would have killed their fellow students if firearms were allowed on campuses. Likely more than 32.

Firearms are carried by many citizens in Virginia, but that doesn't stop the 800 gun deaths every year in Virginia.

You guess, but know not.

Oncealocal: You're the one who's guessing...

...and you've guessed wrong. Decades of statistics from concealed carry States disprove that oft-repeated bogus claim from the anti self-defense groups that it would turn States into the "wild West." In addition to that NOT happening, those States actually became safer places to live as homicide and other violent crimes plummeted according to FBI statistics.


Do your statistics account for Florida, with a three-fold increase in "justifiable homicides" after the stand your ground legislation?

VBMot: You've defeated your own argument with the truth...

...the term "justifiable." If criminals attack law-abiding citizens, those citizens have a Right to self-defense, despite the efforts of many to ensure only criminals have guns. The "statistics" you mention may just as easily have been a murdered innocent person, a woman, mother protecting her child or an elderly person without their Right to protect themselves from criminals.

Wild West, no. More stolen

Wild West, no. More stolen guns on the streets for felons, yes.

Virginia Tech has an

Virginia Tech has an enrollment of about 30,000 students. The on-campus housing capacity is 8,970. In other words, 70% of Virginia Tech students live off campus. Since you must be 21 to buy a handgun and the majority of students living on-campus are underclassmen, the percentage of legal handgun owners that live off campus is even higher.

If all of these students were going to get drunk and shoot each other, it would already be happening, in all of the places they live off campus.

A straw mans guess??????

Drunk kids would have likely killed more than 32 of their fellow students if firearms were allowed on campus????? Oh please. Spare me this rubbish. If there had been a lawfully armed teacher or student, it is also "likely" that Cho would have been stopped immediately and no one but the perpetrator would have been killed.
You guess, but know not.

Gun Control?

Seriously? The NRA is responsible for all of the gun violence in this country? Guns aren't going to go away and will never be banned. Proper enforcement of the laws that are already on the books is what is needed and maybe more extensive background checks. There were warning signs that were missed in this case and that is tragic.


What a shame that this was not in effect on April 16, 2007. Seung-Hui Cho would have obeyed the rule and nothing would have happened.

Where do people get the idea

Where do people get the idea that any new gun regulation at a school is supposed to relate to a past incident? Have you stopped to think that action today may prevent some different future incident, even if can't prevent an incident similar to that of Cho?

You're Right!

Gosh, if we had only just asked people not to bring guns on campus!

If you want to carry a gun

If you want to carry a gun on campus what is there to prevent you from carrying one that is not concealed?

Supreme Court and Gun Rights

Yes the Supreme Court has voted to uphold individual rights to own and carry guns everywhere, but that is not what the Second Amendment means by a well regulated militia. Cho and Jared Loughner are not a well regulated militia.
In the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taney ruled that people with the same skin comor as President Obama had no rights that needed to be considered under our Constitution. The Supreme Court was wrong then and more wrong now. With President Obama re-elected in 2012 and Hilary in 2016 we can get a fair Supreme Court.

boblakeman: Your militia claim is completely false...

.. .as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in both Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL Right to keep AND bear arms, not the collective Right of a militia. Even The Washington Post admitted it when it said: "the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html


I agree. The USSC did reverse previous views and held that it is an individual right. However, the same decision held that there were areas where restrictions were permissible, specifically mentioning schools. A Virginia Tech is a school, this decision appears to be in alignment with the Heller decision. You can't focus on one part of the ruling, while ignoring others.

VBMOT: Wrong. You're focusing on one part only...

...that some restrictions may apply. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald do not mandate such restrictions. Second Amendment opponents falsely continue to claim there is no individual Right to keep AND bear arms despite these rulings, as we see in the comments on this story today and regularly on Pilotonline.com.


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Seems pretty clear to me.

Regardless of the fact that

Regardless of the fact that back then there were very few handguns and some of our forefathers thought it was OK that they owned slaves.

There were very few handguns

There were also no typewriters, television, telephones, radios or the Internet, yet somehow the First Amendment's enumeration of the rights of freedoms of speech and the press remain in tact.

Technology does not invalidate a principle or void a constitutional right.

To Anonymous on Mon

Your interpretation of the Dred Scott Decision is equivalent to Geo Orwell's definition of "New Speak" in his classic novel "1984". I suggest you read it when you get the chance.

If obama is re-elected in

If obama is re-elected in 2012 there won't be a need for a Supreme Court in 2016 because the US won't exist as a country anymore.

And if Obama is re-elected

And if Obama is re-elected in 2012 everybody better hide their guns.

Let's Make Both Sides Happy

We can make all people with opinions on the issue happy. No laws at all about guns, just laws about ammo. We make it so that gun enthusiasts can only get ammo through a well-regulated process, basically at their local shooting range or from a regional game warden for hunting clubs. That should take care of about 98% of the problem. For the 2% that think they need to have a loaded weapon at the ready for self-defense they could obtain a justifiable amount of ammo thru their nearest law enforcement agency, and then get refills after using what they had in a case of self-defense.

To GaryCline911

The Constitution and the Supreme Court ruled, and I paraphrase, that people have the Right to bare arms and Congress shall make no law preventing that Right. Bullets are Arms to regulate sales of munitions is making a law restricting the Right to Bare Arms. What part of Congress Shall make no Laws ... don't you understand?

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Please Say that Again, My Hearing is Not Good

So, you're saying that you have Legal Right to own and possess an automatic weapon, let's say, a Secret Service Uzi with a Silencer attached .... I don't think so ... First Amendment withstanding, What part of "You don't have a Right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater" don't you understand?

I guess your motto is, "Guns

I guess your motto is, "Guns don't kill people....bullets do."

VA Tech

Do you think that passing a law stopping concealed carry is going to stop some crazy person from shooting people. It sure will stop someone with a CC permit from stopping the crazy one.

I'd like to see them...

try to stop an off duty or retired law enforcement officer from carrying concealed. This is just another way for them to make sure no one can protect themselves. As long as they can sit in the Ivory Tower, they'll be the only ones safe.

Gun laws could very well

Gun laws could very well restrict gun usage by criminals, but they will never fully prevent it. There will always be weapons that people will illegally bring into the country and sell to anyone who can afford it. These people don't care what their customers intentions are. Worse, there are people who want others to be hurt or killed, so they will specifically sell weapons to anyone willing to do bad things. Someone made a comment earlier saying the NRA promotes laws that allow anyone to own a gun, when there are age and background restrictions for obtaining one. So if someone can't obtain one legally, they will seek illegal alternatives. Gun restriction laws leave us vulnerable, while affecting criminals little or not at all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business