PA Bill Number: HB335
Title: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons.
Description: In inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons. ...
Last Action: Removed from table
Last Action Date: May 1, 2024
Gun-free zones don't protect anybody :: 03/28/2016
This past October, in the rural, logging town of Roseburg, Oregon, a lone gunman unleashed carnage at Umpqua Community College, leaving 10 dead and nine injured in the deadliest college shooting since Virginia Tech in 2007.
Speaking to reporters late that evening, UCC President Rita Calvin called the attack a “tragedy and an anomaly.” The campus employed at least one security officer, and while several of the faculty were former law enforcement officers, none were allowed to be armed. “We have a no-guns-on-campus policy,” Calvin said.
To the rational observer, the absurdity of that statement is profound; to the victims and their loved ones, it is devastating. Obviously, the policy did not deter the shooter from bringing a gun.
But the absurdity is even more pronounced in light of the fact that a 2009 Oregon Court of Appeals ruling invalidated the Oregon university system’s ban on guns. The decision was made in light of the state’s 1989 concealed weapons law, which left the authority to regulate the possession of firearms to be vested solely in the legislature.
However, Umpqua’s Student Code of Conduct considered the possession or use of firearms on campus — without written authorization — student misconduct and subject to disciplinary action. Weeks after the shooting, UCC’s administration backtracked on the president’s statement and, although not reflected in the student policy, claimed the firearms ban would not apply to students with valid concealed weapons permits. While in theory, the law would be on the side of a student with a valid concealed weapons permit to carry on campus, I doubt many students would jeopardize their academic career to find out. Those who choose to conceal and carry have proven to be very conscientious and follow the rules.
Regardless of how it might be applied, UCC’s policy had the effect of disarming UCC students, which was, after all, the intent.
UCC’s policy, like all gun-free zone policies (the University of Alaska’s included), operate on the flawed premise that guns will somehow not be present if there is a rule against them, only creating the illusion of safety. Gun-free zones are nothing more than soft targets for violent actors and have never afforded their occupants any protection from violence. What’s worse, these policies deny law-abiding citizens the option to exercise their constitutionally protected right to self-defense with a firearm.
Article I, Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution explicitly guarantees that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Still, since 1995, the University of Alaska Board of Regents has enforced a weapons policy that prohibits the carrying of firearms on campus under threat of disciplinary action. As the entity seeking to deny a right, the burden of proof (a very high one for an explicit constitutional right) falls to the Board of Regents to demonstrate:
• That they have the legitimate governing authority, as an entity of the state, to deny citizens their rights under Article I, Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution;
• That their policy is effective in achieving the objectives for which it was enacted;
• That their policy is the least restrictive means of achieving that end in accordance with the high standard of scrutiny for which fundamental rights are examined.
Since 1950, all but two public mass shootings have occurred in places where the general population has not been allowed to carry a firearm. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,” may be frequently borrowed from the politicians’ library of cliché phrases, but it is no less true. Whether by law enforcement or by the armed intervention of an ordinary citizen, violent actors are only stopped by armed opposition.
Deciding to carry a firearm for personal protection is a heavy responsibility, and those who choose to carry are overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens who do so without incident. Recognizing this, more than 150 college campuses have enacted policies that allow campus carry and eight states now have laws requiring public universities to allow concealed carry on campus. These places saw no resulting increases in suicides or violence.
While I agree that, ideally, classrooms are not places for guns, gun-ban policies do not stop criminals from meditated murder. I am not suggesting that students or faculty become amateur, one-man SWAT teams. But allowing murderers to proceed uncontested until law enforcement arrives to clean up the mess is unacceptable and an inexcusable failure of policy.
It’s time to acknowledge the unassailable truth that gun-free zones do not work, and for the members of the legislature to ensure the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is afforded to University of Alaska students and faculty.
Sen. Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks, represents District A in the Alaska Senate. He is the sponsor of Senate Bill 174, which would allow the carrying of concealed weapons on University of Alaska campuses.
