Why Campus Carry

1. Why should a trained, licensed, carefully screened adult (age 21 or above) be allowed to carry a concealed handgun at a movie theater
on Friday, at a shopping mall on Saturday, and in a church on Sunday but be prohibited from doing so in a college classroom on
Monday?
2. Why should that same license holder be allowed to carry a concealed handgun at a municipal library but not a college library, at a health
club but not a campus recreation center, and at a restaurant but not a university dining hall?
3. Does licensed concealed carry inhibit free expression in Texas churches or prevent heated debates in the Texas Capitol—two places
where concealed carry is currently allowed?
4. Given that college campuses are open environments with uncontrolled points of entry (no metal detectors or bag checks) and that a
person could just as easily walk into a classroom carrying a backpack full of guns as carrying a backpack full of books, why should a
professor be more concerned about issuing a bad grade to someone who might secretly be a trained, tested, carefully vetted license
holder carrying a gun LEGALLY than to someone who might secretly be an untrained, untested, unvetted criminal carrying a gun
ILLEGALLY?
5. Given that the debate is about changing WHERE concealed handgun license (CHL) holders can carry guns and would not change WHO
can carry a gun, why do opponents keep talking about the relative immaturity of college students?
6. Given that 90% of suicides occur in the victim's home, that most students over the age of 21 live off-campus, that the pending legislation
would allow universities to regulate the storage of firearms in on-campus housing, and that CHL holders are already allowed to keep
handguns in locked vehicles parked on campus, what is the factual basis for claiming that campus carry would lead to an increase in
student suicides?
7. Given that the legalization of campus carry would not change the laws at fraternity houses, off-campus parties, tailgating events, or
bars—the places where students (particularly those old enough to obtain a CHL) are most likely to drink—why do opponents spend so
much time talking about the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol?
8. How could three to ten SECONDS of exchanged gunfire (the average length of a gunfight, according to most experts) possibly result in
greater loss of life than a three- to ten-MINUTE uncontested, execution-style massacre?
9. If most shootouts are over in three to ten seconds, what are the odds of police encountering an ongoing shootout and being unable to
distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
10. Given that CHL holders are taught to move away from danger and would be required to keep their guns concealed unless facing an
IMMEDIATE threat, how significant is the risk of police mistaking a good guy for a bad guy?
11. Given that Texas CHL holders are convicted of violent crimes at approximately 1/5 the rate of the general population and that a Texan is
significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than to be murdered or negligently killed by a Texas CHL holder, why should anyone
assume that these vetted, licensed adults who aren't causing trouble elsewhere in Texas will cause trouble on college campuses?
12. Given that more than 150 U.S. college campuses currently allow licensed concealed carry and have done so for an average of five
years, without a single resulting assault, suicide attempt, or accidental death, why should anyone expect different results in Texas?
13. What is the benefit of a state law or school policy that stacks the odds in favor of any criminal or psychopath willing to ignore state law
and school policy?

Madison D. Welch
Southwest Regional Director
Students for Concealed Carry

madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
www.ConcealedCampus.org

The truth about campus carry
http://tribtalk.org/2015/05/22/the-truth-about-campus-carry/

By Madison Welch, May 22, 2015
Opponents of legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses
have a problem.
Try as they might, they have no factual basis for their claim that campus carry, as it’s known, would make
Texas colleges less safe.
Seventeen years of Texas Department of Public Safety statistics show that Texas’ concealed handgun license
(CHL) holders are convicted of violent crimes at about one-fifth the rate of the general population. Outside
of Texas, more than 150 U.S. college campuses currently allow licensed concealed carry and have done so
for an average of five years, without a single resulting assault, suicide, homicide or accidental death. Unable
to prove that campus carry is too dangerous, opponents adopted a new tactic this year — claiming that
campus carry is too expensive.
The University of Texas System says campus carry legislation would cost the system $39 million over six
years, the Houston Chronicle reported earlier this year. Curiously, the system estimates needing $22 million
in security upgrades for the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston — a teaching hospital that serves
fewer than 6,500 trainees, offers no on-campus residences and, under the proposed law, would retain the
right to prohibit guns in any facility operating as part of a licensed hospital.

The University of Houston System claims it would need $9 million over that same six-year period to build
and staff secured facilities to store handguns belonging to the estimated handful of UH dorm residents who,
according to Students for Concealed Carry research, are CHL holders. The UH System insists that these
expenses are necessary, even though the bill in question wouldn’t mandate safe-storage facilities and would
allow cheaper options such as requiring dorm residents to store firearms at the campus police station or keep
their firearms locked in their cars, as state law currently allows.
It's no coincidence that both M.D. Anderson and the University of Houston are in the district of state Sen.
Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. During the 2011 legislative session, Ellis helped derail similar legislation by
saying on the Senate floor that the bill would cost each of the colleges in his district up to a million dollars
per year in additional insurance premiums. Our group later showed this claim to be dubious, but not before it
succeeded in costing the bill one of the 21 votes it needed, under the Senate's old "two-thirds" rule, to receive
a floor vote. It's no surprise that Ellis has once again played the "unfunded mandate" card.
Aside from safe-storage facilities, most of the requested security upgrades are reported to be things like key
card readers and "judgment" training for staff and security personnel — general security measures that are
optional. Locations such as shopping malls, movie theaters and churches manage to allow licensed concealed
carry without such security features. Texas' college campuses have also so far managed to allow licensed
concealed carry in their parking lots, outdoor walkways, grassy quads and other outdoor areas without major
security upgrades or additional police training, so why would allowing concealed carry in campus buildings
suddenly require such expenditures?
A few university officials have tried to generate concern about volatile chemicals stored in campus labs. If
carrying a handgun in close proximity to these chemicals poses such a safety risk, why have the state's
universities so far been content with only the security offered by honor-system-based “gun-free” policies?
Why are administrators more concerned about the danger from lawfully carried handguns than about the
danger from illegally carried handguns? Aren’t a bunch of ready-made bombs scattered around a densely
populated campus an invitation to terrorists and psychopaths?
The estimates offered by these universities are not only baseless but also wildly inconsistent — small
campuses claim to need millions of dollars while larger campuses, including UT-Austin, have estimated no
additional cost. The bottom line is that the multimillion-dollar price tags claimed by the UT and UH systems
aren't about safety; they're about politics. University officials, aided by like-minded legislators, have honed
the anti-campus-carry argument to appeal to the fiscally conservative majority in the Texas Capitol. It's an
ends-justifies-the-means approach that practitioners hope will kill campus carry legislation or, at the very
least, pad university coffers.

Madison Welch
Regional director of Students for Concealed Carry
@madisondwelch

Dear Members of the 84th Texas Legislature:
As you consider legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses, I hope you’ll
take a moment to watch these three video clips from the 2014 and 2011 Students for Concealed Carry national
conferences.
In this seven-minute clip from the 2014 conference, Holly Adams recounts the pain of losing her daughter Leslie in the
2007 Virginia Tech massacre and explains, “If you were in my shoes, you would probably eagerly sacrifice your own life if
only, on that horrible day, someone on campus—in the dorm or in the classroom—could have carried a weapon and
stopped the killer in his tracks before he claimed thirty-two precious lives": http://youtu.be/fHHUUqhZ7U0
Of course, mass shootings such as the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre are not the only reason students, faculty, staff, and
visitors should be allowed the means to protect themselves on college campuses. In this eight-minute clip from the 2011
conference, Amanda Collins bravely recounts how she was sexually assaulted in a parking garage at the University of
Nevada, Reno: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4505990/amanda-collins-speaks-2011-scc-national-conference
In her address to the conference, Amanda argued that she could have stopped her assailant if only the university and
the Nevada Legislature had allowed her the same measure of personal protection on campus that she, as a concealed
handgun license holder, was allowed virtually everywhere else in the state. Her assailant was later arrested and
convicted for the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of nineteen-year-old Brianna Denison
(http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/brianna-denisons-life-ends-in-brutal-rape-and-murder). Amanda believes that if
she had been allowed the means to protect herself in that university parking garage, Brianna—who was abducted and
murdered three months later—might still be alive.
In this nine-minute video from the 2014 conference, Dartmouth student Taylor Woolrich tells the story of how she was
relentlessly stalked by a sixty-three-year-old man who—after meeting her at the coffee shop where she worked—
followed her, harassed her, assaulted her boyfriend, repeatedly violated a restraining order against him, and was
ultimately arrested outside her parents’ home, carrying what police described as a “rape kit”:
http://youtu.be/b5I6uBBW9i0
When Taylor asked university officials to grant her permission to carry a concealed handgun for protection against this
stalker, the request was flatly denied with no option for appeal. Taylor explained, “The operator at Safety and Security at
Dartmouth College told me that I could call for a security escort if I felt unsafe. I've done this, and I got responses such
as, ‘You can't keep calling us all the time,’ or ‘You can only call after 9 PM.’ I'd like to say that my stalker doesn't really
care what time of day it is. He doesn't care if it's light or dark or if I'm on the East Coast or the West Coast or out of the
country. I have an out-of-control situation, and I'm asking for my control back.”
The push to legalize campus carry is not a ploy by “gun nuts” looking for an excuse to play cop or hero; it is about real
people looking for the means to defend themselves against the types of horrors experienced by Leslie Adams, Amanda
Collins, and Taylor Woolrich. SCC is not asking to lower the CHL age limit or to otherwise redefine who can carry a gun.
We're not asking to change the concealed carry laws at bars, off-campus parties, fraternity houses, tailgating events, or
any other location where college students are likely to consume alcohol. We are simply asking that trained, licensed,
carefully screened adults (age 21 and above) be afforded the same right in college classrooms, lecture halls, libraries,
and cafeterias that they’re already afforded in churches, movie theaters, shopping malls, grocery stores, restaurants,
banks, and even the Texas Capitol.
Thank you for considering this important issue.
Sincerely,
Madison D. Welch
Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry

Madison.Welch@ConcealedCampus.org

www.ConcealedCampus.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 12/09/2014
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org

TEXAS A&M STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT SIGNS CAMPUS CARRY RESOLUTION
COLLEGE STATION, TX - On Monday, December 8, 2014, Texas A&M Student Body President Kyle Kelly signed a
Student Senate resolution calling on school officials and state legislators to allow licensed concealed carry (of handguns)
in university buildings.
The Personal Protection Act, which the A&M Student Senate passed on December 3, by a vote of 39 to 12, calls for the
adoption of a state law or school policy ensuring that concealed handgun license holders are allowed the same measure
of personal protection on A&M's College Station campus—including in campus buildings—as they currently enjoy in most
other locations (e.g., movie theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, grocery stores, banks, churches, and even the Texas
Capitol).
In his official signing statement, Kelly wrote, “It is imperative that dialogue on this difficult issue be founded in facts
and not feelings.” Speaking with A&M’s student newspaper The Battalion, he said, “I have gone from being against
the issue and of the position of vetoing the bill to now signing it and being in favor of concealed carry on
campus. Part of that is because [of] what I have learned, through the process, that I didn’t know.”
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented:
It’s reassuring to see student leaders looking past the myth that campus carry is about giving
everybody the right to have any gun anywhere, at any time. The A&M student government
understands that concealed handgun license holders are trained, licensed, carefully screened
adults whose general trustworthiness is borne out in statistics from the Texas Department of
Public Safety and on the approximately 150 U.S. college campuses that currently allow concealed
carry. Why should a license holder be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in a movie theater on
Friday, in a shopping mall on Saturday, and in a church on Sunday but be prohibited from doing
so in a lecture hall on Monday? What is the logic behind allowing concealed carry at municipal
libraries but not at campus libraries, at health clubs but not at student recreation centers, and at
restaurants but not at campus dining halls?
With a total enrollment of 62,185 students, Texas A&M is the largest university in the state of Texas and the fourth largest
university in the United States. The Personal Protection Act now represents the official position of A&M’s undergraduate
student body (47,567 students).
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 02/23/2015 (REVISED 03/21/2015)
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) - madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org
TEXAS UNIVERSITIES USE FABRICATED COSTS TO CAST DOUBT ON CAMPUS CARRY
During the 2011 Texas Legislative Session, Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) announced on the Senate floor that, according to
the administrators of colleges in his district, then-pending legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas
college campuses would cost those institutions millions of dollars in increased insurance premiums. That claim was quickly refuted
(http://is.gd/t3CvDt) but not before the fabricated specter of an "unfunded mandate" succeeded in derailing the bill in question. In
light of this history, it's no surprise that college administrators, again aided by Senator Ellis, are once again warning of expenses that
exist only in their imaginations.
According to an article (http://is.gd/YWO9wX) published in the Sunday, February 22, edition of the Houston Chronicle, the UT
and UH systems believe that Senate Bill 11—the "campus carry" bill—would cost them an aggregate of $47 million over six years. Not
surprisingly, most of that purported cost would be borne by campuses in Senator Ellis's own district. Reportedly, $22 million
(approximately 47%) would be needed by the on-campus police department at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center,
for "the installation of gun safes and lockers, additional administrative personnel and to fund 'de-escalation' and 'judgment' training
for staff and on-campus security." That's $6.5 million per year, over the initial six years, for an institution (http://is.gd/hFPTly) that
serves fewer than 6,500 trainees (mostly graduate students and post-doctoral residents and researchers), that offers no on-campus
housing, and that would (under SB 11) retain the right to prohibit guns in any facility functioning as part of a licensed hospital.
The University of Houston System, which operates primarily in Senator Ellis's district, claims it would spend $3 million the first
year and $1.2 million each year thereafter, to "create, maintain, and staff secured weapons storage facilities in nine dormitories."
According to a 2013 article (http://is.gd/Wj4ygx) in the Houston Chronicle, the main UH campus has a dorm capacity of 8,008 students
(the second-largest dorm capacity of any Texas university, behind only Texas A&M). According to the website (http://is.gd/lanSTS) for
UH-Victoria, the UH-Victoria campus has a dorm capacity of just over 600. No other UH campus offers on-campus housing. This means
that—based on the low rate (http://is.gd/Kgqgnx) of concealed handgun licensure among persons of typical undergraduate age (1823) and the low rate (http://is.gd/8WtGpC) at which persons over the age of 21 live in on-campus dorms—the UH System is concerned
about securing fewer than a half-dozen handguns per year. Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed
Carry, commented, "If the University of Houston System can't figure out a way to secure handguns for less than $200,000 per
handgun per year, they have much bigger problems than campus carry."
Nothing in Senate Bill 11 (http://is.gd/1DnM1m) would require universities to create or staff "secured weapons storage
facilities." The bill simply states that institutions of higher education would be allowed to "establish rules, regulations, or other
provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by
the institution and located on the campus of the institution." Based on the wording of that provision, universities could presumably
require the handful of dorm residents who possess a valid concealed handgun license (CHL) to check their firearms at the campus
police station before turning in for the night. Or UH could do what the University of Colorado System does (http://is.gd/9rWw1b) and
offer only one gun-friendly residence hall per campus (the UH System appears to have only two campuses with dormitories).
Alternatively, UH could simply continue its current policy (per state law) of allowing CHL holders living in on-campus housing to store
their guns in their cars. As for the need to provide additional training for staff and on-campus security, Madison Welch noted:
For more than nineteen years, it has been legal for a CHL holder to park her car in a campus parking garage, take a leisurely
stroll through campus, and stop to read a book under one of the trees in the middle of the campus quad, all while carrying
a concealed handgun. Yet we're expected to believe that letting that same license holder carry her concealed handgun into
a campus building would necessitate millions of dollars in additional training for the same security officers who didn't need
any additional training to protect the parking garage, the sidewalk, or the quad. Either universities are fishing for funding
for security improvements they should have implemented decades ago, or they and their friend Senator Ellis are once again
relying on fuzzy math and fuzzy ethics to derail good legislation.
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization
comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses
should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere
else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or
Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-aas | http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-dmn | http://tinyurl.com/txscc-why-campus-carry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 02/26/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org
IF CAMPUS CARRY WOULD COST UT SYSTEM TENS OF MILLIONS, WHY DOES UT-AUSTIN ESTIMATE ITS COST AT ZERO?
If the University of Texas System honestly believes that Texas Senate Bill 11, the "campus carry" bill authored by
Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), would cost (http://is.gd/YzFo7U) the system $39 million over six years, why did the
system's flagship university—UT-Austin, which serves more than 51,000 students—submit a fiscal note claiming that it
expects to incur zero cost associated with the bill? An article (http://is.gd/m2JdQe) in the February 26, 2015, edition of
the UT-Austin student newspaper The Daily Texan, states, "According to UT-Austin’s fiscal note, which estimates
expenses associated with campus carry, the policy would not cost the University any additional funds."
The article quotes UT-Austin spokesman Garry Susswein as saying that dorm residents in need of secured
firearms storage would be expected to bear those costs themselves. This begs the question: If UT-Austin, the largest
university in the system and the second largest university in the state, would not incur any notable costs as a result of
Senate Bill 11, where would the purported $6.5 million annual cost be incurred? The article explains:
Most significantly, the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center estimated it would require $22 million dollars to
increase staff size and training for its police department and to install security systems, such as card readers,
UT System spokeswoman Jenny LaCoste-Caputo said. “It’s clear that there are inherent safety risks in a
medical setting that present specific challenges, such as medical equipment, the presence of chemicals held
under high pressure, safety concerns for patients and providing necessary storage for handguns that doesn’t
currently exist,” LaCoste-Caputo said in an email. UT-Dallas, UT-El Paso and UT-Rio Grande Valley have also
requested additional funds to accommodate campus carry if the bill were to pass. Combined, the institutions
requested about $630,000 for security measures.
Given that on-campus housing is the only location where Senate Bill 11 would allow universities to regulate the
storage of handguns but that the bill would allow universities to continue to prohibit handguns in any facility operating
as part of a licensed hospital, why would MD Anderson—which offers no on-campus student housing and comprises
primarily hospital facilities—spend money to install handgun storage facilities? Furthermore, why would allowing
licensed concealed carry in non-hospital teaching and administrative buildings necessitate the installation of card
readers or the hiring of additional police?
If carrying a handgun in close proximity to "chemicals held under high pressure" poses such a safety risk, why
has MD Anderson thus far been content with only the security offered by an honor-system-based "gun-free" policy?
Now that they've announced to the world's terrorists that their facilities are rife with ready-made IEDs, won't they need
to implement these security measures regardless of the final disposition of Senate Bill 11? SCC Southwest Regional
Director Madison Welch commented, "When an institution that has taken no steps to mitigate the dangers posed by
the illegal possession of firearms claims to need tens of millions of dollars to mitigate dangers posed by the lawful
possession of a firearms, that tells me that the administrators are less concerned with security than with pushing their
own political agenda or padding their institution's coffers."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots
organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued
concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that
current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For
more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-aas | http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-dmn | http://tinyurl.com/txscc-whycampus-carry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 03/18/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) - madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
OPPONENTS OF CAMPUS CARRY ASSUME VOTERS HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS
AUSTIN, TX - The legislators and gun-control activists who incessantly parrot the claim that Senator Brian Birdwell (RGranbury) is pandering to Baylor University (the largest employer in his district) by exempting private colleges from his "campus
carry" legislation (SB 11) are clearly hoping voters won't remember that the language exempting private colleges originated in
campus carry legislation by former Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), whose district encompassed the state's fifth-largest
public university but no large private universities.
During the Wednesday, March 18, floor debate on Senate Bill 11, Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), remarked to Senator
Birdwell, “It is interesting that you would put this in public universities—in other people’s districts—but not private, when the
largest employer in your district is a private university.”
This is a favorite talking point among opponents of the bill, but it ignores the fact that the opt-out language for private
universities originated in Senator Wentworth's committee substitute to his 2009 campus carry bill (SB 1164). Senator Wentworth
included the same language in his 2011 campus carry bill (SB 354), and Senator Birdwell repeated it in his 2013 bill (SB 182). Because
Senator Wentworth's district encompassed the town of San Marcos—home to Texas State University—but did not include any large
private universities, there is no evidence that the language is intended to create a carve-out for Baylor or any other individual
institution.
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented:
Opponents hope to derail this bill by pushing the false narrative of a "double standard," but the reality is that the ability
of private colleges to operate free of many of the restrictions placed on public colleges is fundamental to the existence of
private colleges. When you consider that private colleges have wide latitude to require church attendance, enforce
morality codes, and place restrictions on students' freedom of speech, it makes sense that those same institutions would
be allowed to restrict the rights of concealed handgun license holders on campus. If that is a double standard, it's the
same double standard that always exists between private property and public property. There is nothing unethical or
unusual about allowing private property owners to set their own policies but requiring state-funded colleges to honor
state-issued licenses.
The double-standard narrative is one of two popular talking points among opponents of campus carry. The other is that
campus carry would place a heavy financial burden on Texas colleges. For example, the University of Houston recently claimed it
would need $3 million for the first year and $1.2 million for each subsequent year, to build and staff secured storage facilities to
house the guns of concealed handgun license (CHL) holders living in on-campus dorms.
Ignoring the fact that Senate Bill 11 does not mandate secured storage facilities and would allow UH to continue its current
policy of requiring CHL holders living in dorms to store their handguns in their locked vehicles parked on campus, the university's
cost estimate is beyond absurd. The number of UH dorm residents with concealed handgun licenses can be estimated using statistics
from the University of Texas.
According to Austin NBC news affiliate KXAN, only 2.5% of the students living on campus at UT-Austin are 21 or older.
According to the UT-Austin website, the university has an on-campus housing capacity of 6,956. If we take 2.5% of 6,956, that’s 174
on-campus residents who are 21 or older. Because 9.5% of UT-Austin students are foreign nationals, we’re looking at about 157 who
are eligible for a Texas CHL. If we use the rate (1.3%) at which Texans age 21-23 are licensed to carry a concealed handgun, to
estimate how many of those 157 students are CHL holders, we can calculate that there are approximately two CHL holders living in
on-campus housing at UT-Austin.
According to a 2013 article in the Houston Chronicle, UH has a dorm capacity of 8,008 students, which is just 15% greater
than that of UT-Austin. Assuming that the demographic makeup of UH is comparable to that of UT, we can estimate that UH has
between two and three CHL holders living in on-campus dorms (2.4 using the exact percentages from UT; 2.6 if we don't discount for
foreign nationals). This means the University of Houston claims to need $1.5 million to $400,000 per year per handgun. Welch
quipped, "The university could save at least fifty percent by buying each of the CHL holders a house to live in."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising
college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the
same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the
NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-aas | http://tinyurl.com/scc-oped-dmn | http://tinyurl.com/txscc-why-campus-carry

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 04/01/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) - madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org
ADMIRAL BILL MCRAVEN MAY UNDERSTAND GUNS, BUT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND CONCEALED CARRY IN TEXAS
AUSTIN, TX - Retired Navy SEAL turned University of Texas Chancellor William H. McRaven may be an expert on the use of firearms
in combat, but he has repeatedly demonstrated that Texas's concealed carry laws fall outside that area of expertise.
According to the UT-Texas student newspaper The Daily Texan, Admiral McRaven—speaking at a March 31 conference—criticized
pending legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses, stating, "I think what will happen over
time [is] we will begin to have a little bit of a barricade mentality … because, frankly, we’ll have to make sure that students carrying those
weapons — well you’re going to have to check your gun at certain areas where you’re not allowed to carry those."
The suggestion that students would need to be screened for weapons or that concealed handgun license (CHL) holders would need
to check their handguns demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how concealed carry laws are implemented throughout
the rest of Texas but also of what those laws currently say. Throughout Texas, there are shopping malls and retail centers where licensed
concealed carry is allowed in most businesses but prohibited (either by statute or by choice) in a few. A bar where concealed carry is
statutorily prohibited or a jewelry store where the owner has made the choice to prohibit concealed carry isn't required to screen patrons for
or provide safe storage for handguns. As would be the case at prohibited locations on college campuses, those businesses are simply required
to post signs informing patrons that licensed concealed carry is not allowed on the premises. As with most concealed carry laws, the burden
of compliances is borne by the license holder.
If Admiral McRaven is so concerned about making sure students don't carry guns into gun-free-zones, why does the entire University
of Texas System currently operate on an honor-system-based gun-free policy? Given that licensed concealed carry is currently legal on most
of UT-Austin's forty acres—including in any parking lot, parking garage, walkway, sidewalk, street, or other publicly accessible outdoor area—
shouldn't the UT System already have weapons checks at the entrances to campus buildings? Because Texas colleges cannot prohibit licensed
students from keeping handguns in their private vehicles parked on campus, doesn't Admiral McRaven's logic dictate that students should be
searched as soon as they step out of their cars?
University buildings located outside the main campus are sometimes not readily identifiable as being owned or operated by an
institution of higher education, yet Admiral McRaven and the state's other university administrators apparently believe that CHL holders
follow the law at those locations. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that CHL holders would follow the law at the handful of on-campus
locations that, under the proposed law, would be easily identified by the required signage?
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented, "Why does Admiral McRaven feel that
an honor-system-based gun-free policy is sufficient if it covers all campus buildings but insufficient if it covers just a few well-marked
locations such as hospitals, K-12 schools, and sporting events?"
Admiral McRaven's comment about a "barricade mentality" isn't the first time he has demonstrated a fundamental
misunderstanding of licensed concealed carry. During a February 5 event hosted by the Texas Tribune, Admiral McRaven asked, "If you’re in a
heated debate with somebody in the middle of a classroom, and you don’t know whether or not that individual is carrying, how does that
inhibit the interaction between students and faculty?" This ignores the fact that, in the absence of metal detectors at every entrance to every
campus building, students and faculty already don't know if someone is carrying a gun. All they know for sure is that the people concerned
with obeying the law aren't carrying guns. And according to statistics, the people concerned with obeying the law aren't the ones students
and faculty need to worry about.
Madison Welch noted:
When you consider that Texas concealed handgun license holders are convicted of violent crimes at approximately 20% the rate of
the general population; that licensed concealed carry is already allowed in Texas churches, Texas office buildings, and even the
Texas Capitol; and that any person unconcerned with following the rules can just as easily walk into a college classroom carrying
a backpack full of guns as carrying a backpack full of books, the suggestion that classroom debates are sufficient reason to
prohibit licensed concealed carry on Texas college campuses is patently absurd. I respect Admiral McRaven's service to his
country, and I respect that he is trying to back the men and women under his command, but his arguments don't stand up to
scrutiny.
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization
comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses
should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else.
SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or
Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED:
http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 04/20/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org

STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY RELEASES TV AD IN TEXAS
AUSTIN, TX - Students for Concealed Carry today unveiled a television ad and website (www.WhyCampusCarry.com)
aimed at rebutting the misinformation and false claims spread by opponents of pending legislation to legalize the licensed
concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses. The ad, which will begin airing in Texas later this week, directly
targets an earlier ad released by the gun-control organizations Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for
Gun Sense in America.
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, explained, "SCC's primary focus is on
educating legislators and the public about the facts of campus carry. When we saw that our opponents were using
television ads to make false claims about where guns would be allowed under the proposed law, we knew we needed to
set the record straight."
The ad from Students for Concealed Carry also points out that the only impartial poll on the subject found more Texans in
support of campus carry than opposed to it. The earlier ad from Everytown and Moms Demand Action cites the findings of
an internal poll that, according to The Dallas Morning News, included questions "clearly designed to push [respondents] in
a certain direction."
Welch added, "Although we trust our lawmakers to research this issue and see through our opponents’ lies, we
understand that the average Texan doesn’t have time to read all six thousand bills pending before the Texas Legislature.
Our hope is that people who care about this issue will see our ad and visit the accompanying website to get the full story."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 04/22/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org

TEXAS GUN-CONTROL GROUP CITES SAME POLL IT SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT
AUSTIN, TX - Although the gun-control organization Everytown for Gun Safety and its offshoot Moms Demand Action for
Gun Sense in America have spent a small fortune trying (http://is.gd/wjUeyU) to discredit a Texas Tribune/University of
Texas poll that found more Texans in support of campus carry than opposed to it, they continue to cite that same poll's
finding on open carry.
The Michael-Bloomberg-funded gun-control conglomerate Everytown for Gun Safety can't afford to let the public believe
that a plurality of Texas voters support campus carry, so Everytown created a follow-up poll designed to sway
respondents in the opposite direction. Everytown might have justified its follow-up poll by claiming that the original Texas
Tribune/University of Texas poll was flawed in some way, if not for the fact that Everytown’s subsidiary group Moms
Demand Action for Gun Sense in America continues to cite the original poll's finding that 68% of Texans oppose open
carry.

This April 21, 2015 (6:58 AM CDT) Facebook post from Moms Demand Action cites the same
Texas Tribune/University of Texas poll that found more Texans in support of campus carry than opposed to it.

Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), noted, "It's quite telling that
Everytown and Moms Demand Action would simultaneously attack and tout different findings of the same poll,
depending on how those findings reflect on their agenda. Apparently, they think they can have their cake and eat
it too."
This week, SCC launched a website (WhyCampusCarry.com) and a television advertising campaign aimed at unveiling
this type of deception from the gun-control activists working in Texas. Welch concluded, "These carpetbagging
fearmongers aren't giving Texans enough credit. But they'll learn."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 04/28/2015 – 2:00 PM CDT
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org

GUNS ALLOWED AT UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RALLY TO "OPPOSE GUNS ON CAMPUS"
AUSTIN, TX - As if to illustrate the disconnect between opponents of campus carry and the current laws governing
licensed concealed carry in Texas, the group UT Students Against Guns on Campus plans to hold an anti-campus carry
rally in an area of the UT-Austin campus where the licensed concealed carry of handguns is already legal.
The "Oppose Guns on Campus" rally—advertised on a Facebook event page emblazoned with the slogan "KEEP GUNS
OFF THE UT CAMPUS!"—is scheduled to take place at 5 PM Tuesday, April 28, in the west mall rally space on the UTAustin campus. Because current Texas gun laws do not classify the publicly accessible outdoor areas of a college
campus (e.g., UT-Austin's west mall rally space) as part of the "premises" of the college, and because this event is not
sponsored by UT, nothing in the Texas Penal Code would prohibit a concealed handgun license (CHL) holder from
carrying a concealed handgun at the rally.
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), quipped, "In case it wasn't
already clear how little these anti-campus carry activists understand about the issue they're protesting, they've
chosen an area of campus where concealed carry is already allowed, to give speeches about how dangerous
campus would be if concealed carry were allowed."
If the campus carry legislation pending before the Texas Legislature were to become law, the firearm restrictions in
campus buildings would still be much more stringent than are the current firearm restrictions in UT-Austin's west mall rally
space. Under the proposed campus carry law, only trained, licensed, carefully screened adults (age 21 or above) would
be allowed to carry concealed handguns in campus buildings. Under the current law, any non-felon over the age of 18
may lawfully possess a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in the publicly accessible outdoor areas of campus. Welch noted, "One
of the rally goers could choose to hang her protest sign from the barrel of an AK-47, and she wouldn't be in
violation of the law."
Despite the irony of the location chosen for this anti-campus carry rally, SCC has no plans to encourage members to carry
concealed handguns at the rally. Furthermore, SCC leaders chose to withhold this press release until just three hours
before the rally, so as to avoid inspiring a counter-protest by radical factions of the state's (unrelated) open carry
movement, some of whom have a history of carrying long guns to events sponsored by gun-control organizations. Welch
explained, "SCC's mission is to educate, not intimidate, those who oppose us. There is no need for any type of
counter-protest—the very existence of this rally belies the argument that licensed concealed carry threatens free
speech on college campuses."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more
information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations
Nothing in this press release should be construed as legal advice.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 04/29/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org
Michael Cargill, Owner, Central Texas Gun Works
customerservice@centraltexasgunworks.com

FEWER THAN 50 TURN OUT FOR ANTI-CAMPUS CARRY RALLY AT UT-AUSTIN
AUSTIN, TX - With more than 75,000 students, faculty, and staff, the University of Texas at Austin is by far the largest
university to see its administration and student government take a stance against the legalization of licensed concealed
carry on Texas college campuses; however, fewer than 50 people—including speakers and photographers—turned out
Tuesday for a well-publicized rally to oppose the two campus carry bills currently pending before the Texas Legislature.
The rally was meant to demonstrate overwhelming opposition to the pending legislation, but news photographs
(http://is.gd/oiM7X1) show only about 45 people gathered in the west mall rally area of the UT-Austin campus.
Conversely, a 2011 concealed handgun licensing class (http://is.gd/iQzFnJ) hosted on the UT-Austin campus by
Students for Concealed Carry attracted more than 60 UT-Austin students, faculty, and staff, plus several SCC members
from other schools.
Texas concealed handgun licensing instructor Michael Cargill, who taught the class, noted, "We had roughly 70
students show up on campus at 8 AM on a Saturday, to spend all day taking a class for which they got no credit.
In my mind, that takes a lot more commitment than showing up on a Tuesday afternoon, to spend forty-five
minutes listening to speeches."
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, added, "Opponents of campus carry
desperately want the Texas public and the Texas Legislature to believe that academics are fiercely against this
legislation, yet their big rally against the bill didn’t attract one tenth of one percent of the UT-Austin population. If
this rally says anything at all about the bill's opponents, it's that they're uninformed and unmotivated."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more
information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 04/30/2015
CONTACT:
Madison D. Welch, Southwest Regional Director, Students for Concealed Carry (SCC)
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
SCC Board of Directors: organizers@concealedcampus.org

WHEN FACTS FAIL YOU, PLAY BEER PONG IN LEGISLATORS' OFFICES
AUSTIN, TX - Still refusing to acknowledge the legal distinction between a college campus and an off-campus party,
members of the Texas chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America spent
Wednesday toting a portable "beer pong" game around the Texas Capitol.
Late Wednesday afternoon, the group posted pictures (http://is.gd/ZfuPGb) to its Facebook page, showing members
posing with ping pong balls and red plastic cups—staples of the infamous drinking game—in various locations throughout
the Texas Capitol. This latest bit of theatrics is part of the group's ongoing efforts to mislead the public and the legislature
into believing that pending legislation to legalize the licensed concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses
would impact off-campus parties.
In a television commercial (http://is.gd/wjUeyU) released by Moms Demand Action earlier this month, images of a beer
pong game are accompanied by a voiceover claiming—falsely—that the legislation in question would "force colleges to
allow guns" at "frat parties." In reality, fraternity houses are privately owned or leased by the overseeing fraternal
organization and aren't covered by the current statutory prohibition (http://is.gd/qvvJ5v) against the possession of a
firearm on the physical premises of an educational institution. Under the pending campus carry legislation, these fraternal
organizations would retain the right to establish their own firearm policies at their fraternity houses.
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented, "I've spent the past five years
on Texas college campuses, and I've never seen a beer pong game at any location that would be impacted by campus
carry. It's been my experience that universities tend to frown on wild parties in lecture halls and libraries."
Neither Texas Senate Bill 11 nor Texas House Bill 937 would change the laws at fraternity houses, bars, tailgating events,
or off-campus parties—locations not covered by the current campus gun ban. A separate statutory prohibition against
concealed carry in bars would remain in effect, as would a statutory prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun
while intoxicated (http://is.gd/HKc92u).
Welch noted, "Every day, Texas college students attend parties where licensed concealed carry is allowed under current
law. In fact, most college parties take place in locations where licensed concealed carry is allowed under current law. To
point to those parties, where concealed carry is already legal, as a reason to continue to prohibit concealed carry in
locations such as classrooms, libraries, and cafeterias is the most twisted kind of logic."
###
ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY — Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan,
grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of
state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college
campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other
organization. For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus. For more
information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations

January 1, 2015, Texas Concealed Handgun Licensure Among Persons Age 18-23
Licenses Issued Minus Licenses Revoked

Age
18*
19*
20*
21
22
23
SUBTOTAL

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

18
78
140
3271
2520
2453
8480

16
61
108
2810
2508

11
39
73
2085

15
42
72

13
40

5503

2208

129

53

TOTAL
16373

License issuance and revocation numbers courtesy of Texas Department of
Public Safety:
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm
NOTE: A first-time license issued in 2009 expired before the end of 2014.
Texas Population Estimates by Age
18
19
20
21
22
23

396586
396835
400420
403126
397679 (approx.)
397679 (approx.)
2392325
Population estimates courtesy of the Texas Department of State Health Services:
https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/Popdat/Dtl/DTL2014p/
*A person age 18-20 can only obtain a Texas CHL if he or she is a member or
veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. As of January 1, 2015, there were a maximum
of 324 active Texas CHLs held by military personnel and veterans age 18-20.
Among Texans in that age range, that's approximately 0.027%, or one person out
of every 3,685.
As of January 1, 2015, the rate of concealed handgun licensure among Texans age
21-23 is approximately 1.3%, or one person out of every 75.
As of January 1, 2015, the rate of concealed handgun licensure among Texans age
18-23 is approximately 0.68%, or one person out of every 146.
(This is up from roughly 0.5%, or one person out of every 198, on January 1, 2013.)

Convictions of Texas CHL Holders for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Total Convictions Aggravated Assault
w/Deadly Weapon
2,292
2,852
2,765
3,079
2,603
2,600
2,513
2,701
2,632
2,901
2,626
2,408
1,767
1,912
1,629
1,468
1,458
1,269

Population CHL Holders % CHL Holders
2013 26,640, 165
708,048
2.6578%
2012 26,130,047
584,850
2.2382%

2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996

25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044,141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19, 128,261

518,625
461,724
402,9 14
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224,172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:

2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.0351%
1.0 171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0.5941%
1.3157%

CHl Convictions - Aggravated

Assault w/Deadly Weapon

% CHL Convictions

10
6

0.4363%
0 .2104%
0. 1085%
0.0974%
0. 1537%
0.0000%
0 .2786%
0.3332%
0.1900%
0. 1724%
0.1142%
0. 1246%
0. 1132%
0.2615%
0.2455%
0.2725%
0.4801%
0 .1576%
0.2083%

4

o
7

9

5

4

4

A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/6 as likely to be convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Convictions of Texas CHL Holders for Murder, Negligent Homicide, or Manslaughter

2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996

Population CHL Holders
26,640,165
708,048

26,130,047
25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044, 141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19, 128,261

584,850
518,625
461,724
402,914
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224,172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:

Total Convictions - Murder.

CHl Convictions - Murder.

Negligent Homicide.
Manslaughter

Negligent Homicide.
M anslaughter
4

% CHL Holders
2.6578%
2.2382%
2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.035 1%
1.0171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0 .5941%
1.3157%

585
660
722
740
649
617
586
543
560
52 1
449
389
256
145
124
82
99
74

3
7

8

o
o
o

o
o
o
AVERAGE:

% CHL Convictions
0.6838%
0.4545%
0.9695%
1.0811%
0.1541%
0 .4862%
1.1945%
0.3683%
0.5357%
0.0000%
0.2227%
0.514 1%
0.0000%
0.6897%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.4086%

A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/3 as likely to be convicted of murder, negligen t homicide, or manslaughter.

Convictions of Texas CHL Holders for Aggravated Sexual Assault

Population CHL Holders
2013 26,640,165
708,048

2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996

26,130,047
25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044, 141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19,128,261

584,850
518,625
461,724
402,914
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224, 172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:

% CHL Holders
2.6578%
2.2382%
2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.035 1%
1.0171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0.5941%
1.3157%

Total Convictions-

CHL Convictions - Aggravated

Aggravated Sexual Assault

Sexual Assault

% CHL Convictions

117
157
162
255
202
204
204
173
207
22 1
301
245
178
192
157
191
225
186

1
2

0.8547%
1.2739%
0.0000%
0.7843%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.9050%
0 .0000%
0 .0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.6369%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.2475%

A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/5 as likely to be convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

Populat ion estimates cou rtesy of t he Texas Department of Stat e Health Services:
https:!/www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/Popdat/Dtl/DTL2014p/
Convict ion numbers courtesy of t he Texas Depart ment of Publ ic Sa fety:
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

o
o
o
o

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

o
AVERAGE :