February, 17 2011, 02:43pm EDT
Young Leaders Display Courage, Dedication Despite Tremendous Odds in Fight to Keep College Campuses Safe From Gun Violence
Both touched by Virginia Tech tragedy, Colin Goddard and John Woods mobilize effort to defeat bills that would force Texas colleges and universities to allow dangerous loaded guns on campuses
AUSTIN, Texas
Today, the power of youth action that has driven some of the most important social changes in U.S. history is on display in Texas as two young men mobilize an effort by students and other advocates to keep dangerous loaded guns off college campuses.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence announced today that Colin Goddard, Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs at the Brady Campaign, and John Woods, Director of Students for Gun-Free Schools in Texas, will lead a coalition of students, parents, college representatives, law enforcement and other activists from across the state of Texas in a day of lobbying at the Texas State Legislature.
Their goal is to convince lawmakers to reject a series of bills that would force Texas colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on college campuses. This isn't the first time Goddard and Woods have worked to prevent gun violence in Texas. Both safety advocates lobbied successfully to defeat a previous attempt to allow loaded guns on college and university grounds.
However, the effort is seemingly never-ending as some Texas lawmakers continue to push this radical and dangerous idea. Currently, the Texas Legislature is considering three bills (SB 354, HB 86 and HB 750) that would allow guns to be carried into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings on campus.
Sponsors of these bills, like SB 354 author state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, have argued that allowing loaded guns on campuses could help avert a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech, but as survivors of that massacre, Goddard and Woods know that having an armed student body would only add to the threat.
Speaking on the steps of the State Capitol today, Goddard said many colleges on Texas match or exceed the 30,000-member student body on Virginia Tech, with UT-Austin boasting a total enrollment of around 50,000 students. By allowing students to carry weapons loaded guns on such a large campus, Goddard said the risk and potential casualties of another mass shooting would be all the greater.
"In 1963, a lone shooter armed with a 6.5 mm caliber rifle made Texas the site of one of the most notorious acts of gun violence in U.S. history," said Goddard. "But by allowing students to carry loaded guns on campus, this state is only setting the stage for more acts of reckless hate that could rival the shootings at Virginia Tech and Dallas. Our colleges should be safe havens, students should not have to feel their lives are at risk to receive an education."
Like the insurmountable odds facing the drivers of the Civil Rights Movement, today's movement to reduce gun violence in our country also faces a seemingly invincible foe: the gun lobby and its influence on elected officials who are either too willing to expand access to guns or too afraid to oppose the spread of dangerous weapons. That's what makes the involvement of young leaders like Goddard and Woods so crucial.
Both young men are passionate advocates for gun violence prevention having both been personally affected by the worst school shooting in our nation's history: the Virginia Tech massacre. On April 16, 2007, a dangerously mentally ill student, Seung-Hui Cho, armed with two semiautomatic weapons handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition moved from classroom to classroom on a killing spree. By the time it ended 32 students and teachers were dead and 17 others were injured.
Since that tragedy, Goddard and Woods have worked tirelessly to support reasonable gun restrictions designed to protect communities from this kind of senseless violence. Goddard was attending French class when he and his classmates heard gunfire erupt in the building. As the horrifying noise drew closer, Goddard called 911 but as he was making the call, the shooter burst into the classroom and ruthlessly fired upon the people inside. The gunman shot Goddard's left knee, right shoulder and both hips.
Finishing the 911 call Goddard had started, another student managed to give police enough information to get to the scene. However, by the time police broke through the barricades Cho had erected, he had taken his own life. Told that he might never walk again, Goddard endured surgeries to remove bullet fragments from his body as well as grueling physical therapy to regain his full mobility.
After returning to Virginia Tech to finish his degree, Goddard decided to devote his energies to fighting for common sense restrictions to keep weapons out of the hands of felons, the dangerously mentally ill and others who shouldn't have guns. Goddard's remarkable story is detailed in the acclaimed documentary "Living for 32." The 40-minute film highlights Goddard's work for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, including his videotaped hidden-camera investigation of the unregulated sale of dangerous weapons at gun shows.
"It is nearly impossible to comprehend the horror and the agony that Colin endured nearly four years ago. It is just as difficult to imagine having the strength to move on from that experience without being consumed by fear, anger, or depression," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This poised young man's dedication and enthusiasm inspire me."
John Woods was also a student attending Virginia Tech that terrible day in April 2007. After losing two friends in the tragedy, he launched his own remarkable effort to reduce gun violence. Woods, currently a graduate student at the University of Texas-Austin, is Director of Students for Gun Free Schools.
Dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, Students for Gun Free Schools opposes efforts by states to force colleges and universities to allow loaded guns on college and university campuses. After completing his degree at Virginia Tech and enrolling in graduate school in Austin, Texas, Woods thought he was leaving the 2007 tragedy behind him. However, he was alarmed to find that Texas lawmakers were considering measures to allow teachers and students to carry concealed weapons guns on campus. Woods jumped into action leading a coalition of fellow students and other activists to defeat those bills.
"People think of colleges as just being classrooms, but there's a lot more going on here," Woods said. "We have hospitals on campus. In some cases there are preschools, sensitive labs where there are hazardous materials. Adding to the mix an unknown number of guns will not enhance a campus's safety, it will only erode it."
In 2009, The Austin Chronicle recognized Woods among its "Critic's Choice - Best of Austin" on behalf of his successful mobilization and lobbying campaign in the face of incredible odds. Combined effort In the case of Texas' efforts to expand the presence of guns, Goddard and Woods have fought this battle before. However this time they are fighting together. Facing an even tougher legislative challenge, they hope that their combined lobbying efforts will encourage Texas lawmakers to reduce rather than increase the potential for gun tragedies on college campuses across the state.
Goddard and Woods will devote the day to lobbying at the Texas Statehouse alongside students, teachers, police and others fighting to keep college campuses gun-free. They were joined at today's press conference by state Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (HD-51); Scott Parks, student body president of UT-Austin; and Deborah Brown, chief of police at Southwestern University. Their coordinated effort is in collaboration with the Texas Brady Campaign Chapters, Students for Gun-Free Schools, the College Democrats at Texas State and UT-Austin's University Democrats.
Brady United formerly known as The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its legislative and grassroots affiliate, the Brady Campaign and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence. We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
LATEST NEWS
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Act of Retaliation': EPA Suspends 140+ Employees for Signing 'Declaration of Dissent'
The employees were put on leave after they signed a letter saying the Trump EPA's actions "endanger public health and erode scientific progress."
Jul 04, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration's "harmful" policies.
EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch accused the employees of "undermining, sabotaging, and undercutting the administration's agenda." But the union that represents these employees is calling it an act of illegal "retaliation."
The "declaration of dissent", published by Stand Up for Science Monday, had been signed by 620 people as of Thursday. Addressed to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the letter accused the administration of "recklessly undermining" the agency's mission under his watch. It accused the administration of "ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters."
"This administration's actions directly contradict EPA's own scientific assessments on human health risks, most notably regarding asbestos, mercury, and greenhouse gases," the letter said.
Since Trump retook office, the administration has eviscerated policies meant to contain pollution, slashing funding for green energy production and electric vehicles while championing increased fossil fuel drilling and consumption. It has also rolled back the enforcement of limits on cancer-causing "forever chemicals" in water.
The signatories also pointed to the Trump EPA's "undermining of public trust" by using official channels to trumpet "misinformation and overtly partisan rhetoric."
They called out EPA press releases, which have referred to climate science as a "religion," EPA grants as "green slush funds," and "clean coal" as "beautiful." The letter also suggested the EPA had violated the Hatch Act by promoting political initiatives like Trump's tariffs and the Republican budget reconciliation bill.
"Make no mistake: your actions endanger public health and erode scientific progress—not only in America—but around the world," the letter said.
The employees also accused the administration of "promoting a culture of fear." They cited comments by top Trump officials, such as Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, who has said he wanted to put EPA employees "in trauma" and make them unable "to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."
While some signatories signed their names, many others chose to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. That retaliation came Thursday, when—according to The New York Times—144 employees received an email putting them on leave for the next two weeks "pending an administrative investigation."
The decision was widely criticized as a violation of the employees' First Amendment rights.
Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has previously represented EPA and other employees, said federal employees are allowed to publicly criticize the administration they work for.
"The letter of dissent did really nothing to undermine or sabotage the agenda of the administration," Whitehouse told The Washington Post. "We believe strongly that the EPA should protect the First Amendment rights of their employees."
Bill Wolfe, a former environmental policy professional with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said that the letter "was a classic form of whistleblowing that is protected by federal whistleblower laws and the 1st Amendment, as upheld by federal courts."
Justin Chen, the union representative for EPA employees under the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Times that the agency's actions were "clearly an act of retaliation" and said the union would "protect our members to the full extent of the law."
Despite the punishment, one of the signatories anonymously told The Post that they had no regrets.
"I took the risk knowing what was up," the employee wrote. "I'll say it before, and now it rings even more true … if this is the EPA they want me to work for, then I don't want to work for the EPA."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular