“[T]the Texas State Legislature went one gun too far when it passed the so called “campus carry” legislation this year, which will allow individuals to carry concealed firearms on public university campuses in 2016,” University of Texas at El Paso Communications Senior Lecturer David Smith-Soto writes on Borderzine. “That means that any person with any motive or in any state of mind can carry a gun on campus unchallenged by law enforcement or any authority. And I don’t want those guns in my classroom.”
What Smith-Soto, who has therefore appointed himself as sole “authority,” is prepared to do about it should a predator not care what he “wants,” is left unaddressed.
It’s curious that “Costa Rican-born” Smith-Soto presumes to impose a foreign-style “monopoly of violence” in the land of the Second Amendment. When you look at what the entire Borderzine effort is about, it’s a pretty good indicator of the effects unchecked immigration with a “pathway to citizenship” will have on the electorate, and on future legislators and court appointees. Bear in mind that Heller and McDonald prevailed by one vote.
It’s also curious that Smith-Soto picked an ideological battlefield where he’s not likely to encounter many challenges, if his “Rate My Professor” reviews are any indicators. It looks like his job consists of indoctrinating kids looking for easy grades in piece of cake liberal arts classes, as opposed to the 21 and older crowd that qualifies for a Texas concealed carry license.
What’s not been determined (yet) is if Smith-Soto is also free to disregard UTEP’s “Speech, Expression and Assembly Policy.” It’s tough to argue the sign doesn’t violate the proscription that “No person shall make, distribute, or display on the campus any statements directed to … violations of law.” Presuming authority to subvert duly enacted law – and doing so in a public facility – is inherently lawless. Just imagine the “progressive” uproar if, say, a county clerk somewhere tried to impose her beliefs on the public, and posted a “No Same Sex Marriages” sign by her office door.
One could also argue Smith-Soto is creating a discriminatory and hostile environment against those who choose to exercise a right he does not agree with, willfully disregarding UTEP’s “harassment” policy. That makes it fair to ask if a student who refuses to comply, and who makes known his objections and intent, might suffer resultant discrimination and retaliation, and if that might cause a chilling effect on the free exercise of rights. This also appears to violate the “General Rules on Signs” and “Designated Locations” policies. And if Smith-Soto can put signs up where he sees fit, regardless of the rules, why shouldn’t that “privilege” be extended to all – including to concealed carry advocates?
Perhaps UTEP President Diana Natalicio needs to be reminded that rules which the favored elites are free to ignore may be the way things are run in places like, say, Costa Rica, but here in the United States, along with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we also insist on egalitarian concepts like equal protection under the law. If Smith-Soto doesn’t like that, he’s free to go back to the land of his birth, where things are evidently done more to his liking.
- Anti-gun Academics Presume to be Above Law, Not Liable for Consequences
- Opposition to Campus Carry Relies on Defenselessness & Offensive Stereotypes