The Board of Governors at Colorado State University voted 7 to 0 to ban guns from its campuses in Fort Collins and Pueblo, a decision that pitted faculty members against students demanding to exercise their right to carry guns. Guns had been banned at the University of Colorado, but Colorado State had followed a state law that allows a person to carry a concealed weapon as long he or she has a permit. Neighboring Utah allows concealed weapons on state property, and a court has ruled that colleges are not excepted. A Colorado faculty group said the ban would make the campuses safer, but a student, Brady Allen, 25, told the board that fear of an accidental discharge from a concealed weapon was not a good reason to ban guns. “You might as well ban everything that has a potential risk — cars, alcohol and sports,” said Mr. Allen, a history student and a former Marine. Gun rights advocates say campus bans make students vulnerable to attacks. In 2007, a gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people and wounded 23 before killing himself. The university board’s vote instructs the presidents of both campuses to submit a weapons plan by February.

From NYtimes

Concealed Carry permit holders living in Utah will no longer be able to carry their concealed weapon in the state of Nevada.

Nevada has created new requirements for those seeking a Concealed Carry permit in their state. You must fire and qualify with the weapon you are going to carry in Nevada, but this is not true in Utah, so reciprocity between the states is no longer valid.

Many permit holders are angry at the inconvenience this will cause them when traveling through Nevada, which neighbors their state to the west, because they will have to remove their weapons and leave them in the car if they travel across the border.

Utah residents with a permit may only receive reciprocity in the following states now: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Alaska and Vermont do not require a permit, so anyone that can legally carry a firearm can carry concealed in those states.

The sponsor of a bill that would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons without a permit says she is holding the bill until next year.

The bill also would have allowed people who do have permits to carry a concealed weapon to a school while dropping off or picking up a child.State Sen. Sylvia Allen said on Tuesday that she wanted more time to work out concerns from other lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer’s office.

From KPHO

The National Rifle Association did the heavy political lifting on a bill approved by a Senate committee Monday that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring their handguns into a restaurant that serves alcohol and probably into some bars that have kitchens as well.

Restaurant owners would have to post a sign barring guns if they didn’t want them, but if no sign was posted the gun owner would be within the law to take the gun inside.

And a person carrying a weapon into a restaurant would not be allowed to drink alcohol.

From Arizona Guardian

One of the most frequently requested changes to Ohio law by concealed handgun licensees is to remove the ban on self-defense while dining in a nice restaurant. Under current Ohio law, concealed handgun license (CHL) holders are prohibited from carrying their handgun into any restaurant which has a class D liquor permit and serves liquor regardless of whether or not that person is consuming alcohol. This means virtually all restaurants other than fast food places or diners are off limits. Ohio is one of the few states with such severe restrictions, as thirty-nine states, including every state surrounding Ohio, have a provision for self defense while dining and several more are considering an exception as well.

House Bill 203, sponsored by Danny Bupb and Jarrod Martin, was submitted today and will soon be assigned to a committee. This important fix would add restaurants to the current exemption that covers class D retail stores provided the licensee is not consuming alcohol.

This point was clearly illustrated in Tennessee in early April when Benjamin Felix Goeser was gunned down as he and his wife were leaving a sports bar. Nicole Goeser had a concealed handgun license, but her gun was locked in her car because, like Ohio, Tennessee prohibits licensees from carrying in a restaurant that serves alcohol even if you’re not drinking.

From Examiner

Part of the permit application process is the electronic scanning of applicant’s fingerprints, which is performed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office for a fee of $42.25. In 2008, 5,199 people were fingerprinted for concealed weapons permits, and from January-April of 2009, 2,462 people have been fingerprinted. Sheriff John Rutherford wasn’t alarmed by the numbers and respects the rights of lawful gun owners.

“People who go about applying for a permit aren’t the ones we normally have problems with,” said Rutherford. “I’m glad to see good, law-abiding people carrying guns. Look at the times those people are able to stop a violent crime and save themselves.”

That bump may be too much for the Division of Licensing for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to handle. It recently fended off an attempt by the Florida Legislature to pull $6 million from the Division of Licensing Trust Fund to help balance the State Budget. The fund includes fees from concealed weapons permits, which are bogging down the division due to the background checks required for each application.

The Division is required by law to issue a decision on a permit within 90 days of the receipt of a completed application, but applicants are waiting beyond that time frame.

From JaxDailyRecord

From USA Today

President Barack Obama signed the gun law without comment Friday as part of a measure creating new rules for the credit card industry.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said that because the credit card law won’t take effect until nine months after it is signed, the gun measure also will be delayed.

Spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the Interior Department will follow Congress’s directive and put the new firearms law into effect in late February 2010.

Until then, rules adopted under the Reagan administration will remain in place. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that guns be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

“As Interior prepares to implement the new law, the department will work to understand and interpret its implications for our national parks and wildlife refuges, with public safety and the safety of our employees as our foremost consideration,” Barkoff said. “For the time being, the current Reagan administration regulations governing possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges remain in place.”

The Interior Department’s decision drew immediate criticism from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the chief sponsor of the gun measure.

Spokesman John Hart said Coburn will offer the gun amendment to other bills in order to implement the decision as quickly as possible.

From Associated Press

At first glance, this question may seem like a no-brainer. After all, aren’t guns made to kill, while pepper
spray (so-called “bear spray,” when it comes in big cans) does not? Unlike an attack by a human assailant,
who may be able to use your own weapon against you, that safety/survival argument for using pepper spray doesn’t apply to a human-bear encounter… or does it?

When it comes to self defense against grizzly bears, the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. In fact,
experienced hunters are surprised to find that despite the use of firearms against a charging bear, they were attacked and badly hurt. Evidence of human-bear encounters even suggests that shooting a bear can escalate the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury or death of the human or the bear. While firearms can kill a bear, can a bullet kill quickly enough — and can the shooter be accurate enough — to prevent a dangerous, even fatal, attack?

The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality –
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research — a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.

From FWS