As many of you are probably already aware, today the US Supreme Court ruled that laws banning the ownership of handguns and possessing a handgun in a private home are constitutional rights under the 2nd and 14th amendments. This continues a trend by the current court towards limiting government restrictions on handgun ownership and affirming the right to bear arms. This is a large national issue, the kind we usually avoid here, but if you will indulge me for just a minute I would like to show you how these large national issues can impact a university near you.
Along these same lines, two years ago the state of Utah passed a law making it illegal for state universities to ban those holding concealed weapons permits from carrying their weapons on campus. In Colorado most major universities including the University of Colorado (CU), Colorado State University, and the Colorado School of Mines have had campus regulations forbidding anyone, including concealed weapons permit holders, from bringing firearms on to campus. However in the wake the the Supreme Court's 2008 decision striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, a student at CU with a concealed weapons permit filed a lawsuit claiming the the university's ban violated his 2nd amendment rights. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial judge but in April of this year a state appellate court ruled that the trial judge had erred in his ruling and his rationale for doing so, remanding the case for trial. Last week the CU Board of Regents narrowly voted in favor of fighting the to keep the ban.This has caused some controversy on CU's campus and various faculty and students groups have passed resolutions for or against the ban. One such group was the United Government of Graduate Students, to which I am my department's representative. Most of the time the hottest topic UGGS deals with is the fall picnic for grad students, so I felt a little over my head.
In my mind there are two questions here, both of which I believe have to be answered to properly address this question:
- Should the university have the right to ban concealed weapons on its campus?
- Should the university ban concealed weapons on its campus?
Here at UNC they have gone a little farther than a concealed weapons ban. Right now UNC has a ban on ALL firearms on campus. Technically there is a little more than that banned here:
ReplyDelete"It is a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment, to possess or carry, openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind, or any dynamite cartridge, bomb, grenade, mine, or powerful explosive on any University campus, in any University-owned or operated facility, or at a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by the University. Such conduct also may constitute a violation of the Honor Code."
So not only will you be finned and go to jail, but they may even refer you to the honor code office, where your case will quickly be put on the fast track for indefinite review, because the honor code office is busy and has other things to do, like run campaigns, protest the Supreme Court and the State Legislature, attend Gay Pride parades and other important things like that.
While I can understand banning things like bombs, grenades and land mines (watch your step!), I am not opposed to people bringing licensed weapons on to campus. If the state is a right to carry state, then I have no objection to people having weapons on campus. If the person is a student living on campus, then they should have their weapon registered with the university (the same holds true for fraternity and sorority houses that are affiliated, even loosely, with the university). If the student lives off campus then obviously they cannot regulate what they have in their own residence.
But as for the being able to carry a concealed weapon on campus, again if they are a student and wish to carry on campus then they should notify the university (meaning the university police, and administration) of their intent.
My philosophy is, people who want to register their guns will not be criminals. And those who do register and carry their guns have a duty to protect others.
An important topic to be sure. I will try to respond:
ReplyDelete1. No, the university should not have the right to ban firearms of any kind on campus. Since the university is a public one, funded in part by the state, they must uphold the constitution. On the other hand, BYU DOES have the right to ban all firearms on its campus. This is one of many reasons why I would prefer to have a private school system rather than a public one (a discussion for another day).
2. This question is less straightforward and my bias will come out. I love guns. My family has had guns and has used them for frequent target shooting for a long long time. It's part of who we are as a family. However, I have also done a fair amount of research into the topic of gun control. I think the consequences of current gun control techniques exacerbate the problem they are trying to solve, create new ones, and penalize law abiding citizens. I also don't think the laws are effective at preventing unwarranted shootings (I don't see that the evidence supports this).
On the other hand, I think there is considerable evidence that looser gun control laws actually help the situation. In Vermont, for example, concealed carry is allowed without a permit. They have much lower than average violent crime statistics (which may be correlation not causation). Switzerland also has loose gun control and is frequently recognized as one of the safest countries on earth.
I think in our country we have a strong tendency to solve our problems through legislation. We have placed guns on the public enemy list and tried to legislate against the guns. But guns don't kill people - people kill people - and if they want to they will do it (often with a gun no less) whether we have legislated against it or not. People who responsibly carry concealed weapons (necessitating a permit in most places) are well trained to know when, where, and in what situations they ought to be used. They also act as a deterrent (as opposed to a threat as is commonly thought).
Here are my thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Universities, public or private, should have the right to create whatever environment they feel best educates their students. If they feel that banning concealed carry, they should have the right to do so, the same way a national park should have the right to ban jet skis or a state capital building should have the right to ban remove people disrupting committee hearings.
2. Universities should not ban permit holders from carrying weapons on campus. As QuantumLeap42 said "people who want to register their guns will not be criminals". Crazies aren't going to be stopped by campus bans or even legislation, so why assure that only the crazies have weapons?
Very, interesting. Here at UC Irvine a student recently shot and killed someone on campus so it is very touchy. (Actually the perpetrator was a physics student from my office!)
ReplyDeleteIf the data really shows a loosening of restrictions actually helps I would be interested.
I think that for the persons who have the level to create a weapon, at least great researchers (so this is this one's strength rather than this one's muscles), it should be allowed to have a gun, or it should be forbidden to learn to fight (boxing…) for civilians.
ReplyDeleteWhile jmb275 points to data that supports lower violent crime for places where there is loose gun control, I think there is a lot more to it. I currently live in Norway, where gun control laws are pretty tight. They have extremely low violent crime levels. So I think that other factors are influencing these outcomes more than gun control.
ReplyDeleteJoe and Carl,
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely in favor of gun control measures. I think it is far too easy to buy a gun in the US and I think it is absurd that one can buy military-style assault weapons. In fact I would favor requiring gun owners to have a gun license the way we require car owners to register their vehicles. In short, I would be okay with requiring gun owners to get a concealed weapons permit. Those people are registered, have their backgrounds checked thoroughly, and in Colorado receive at least 10 hours of firearms safety training. Additionally in Colorado they must have the ability to pass a basic marksmanship test (can you hit what you shoot at?). These permits aren't something you can pick up at the corner store - they take some time and effort. The concealed carry permit holders are much more qualified to have guns and are on average much safer with them then your average person. These people are the good guys and I'm okay with good guys having guns.
OK, consider this:
ReplyDeleteYou visit my place (residence, business, or even my property) with a concealed weapon. Do I have a right to shoot you to defend myself from your likely intent to harm me? Why would you carry a concealed weapon if you are a visitor?
Concurrent question is what about my rights to ask you to not bring concealed weapons if you plan to visit or stay at my place, that happens to be an university?
A simple question for the Supreme Court Justices: do I have a right to carry a concealed weapon to the Supreme Court session? Why not on a plane?
Great post Nick. I have a couple of thoughts, but no real answers.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm not sure this is the type of discussion that we should completely shy away from. (Admittedly, no one wants to see this turn into a political blog rather than a science-type blog, but still.) As much as we try to think of science as this "ivory tower", it is still a very human endeavor and science and scientists have to deal with this type of stuff all the time. (In fact, one could argue that contributions made in this forum will make, in the long run, a bigger difference than what we do in the laboratory, but I digress.) Scientists and universities have to deal with the gun control debate, how and on which side to deal with LGBT issues, what to do about immigration issues, economics, freedom of speech, personality issues and politics, etc.
In physics, we often try to describe how a baseball "would" act if there were no air resistance, or how a cart "would" slide if there were no friction. Although this may be useful in the classroom, we cannot so easily separate science from reality in practice. (As much as I would love to imagine how my research "would" be if I didn't have to worry about funding or broken equipment, it doesn't usually work that way.) This is a great topic for the Eternal Universe.
(Sorry, no direct thoughts specific to gun control right now. I'll need to think about it more and maybe reply again later.)
Some great points. I'd like to respond to a few.
ReplyDeleteRe Nick
"Universities, public or private, should have the right to create whatever environment they feel best educates their students."
I agree, but as a result, I think schooling should be privatized. If the university is public I don't see any way around adhering to the U.S. Constitution. What you're saying is that you don't care if an institution is public it shouldn't have to obey the constitution.
Re Joseph
I think we need to separate the issues a bit. The right to gun ownership is in the U.S. Constitution. This right was guaranteed by the Founding Fathers, IMHO, so that the citizens could protect themselves from their gov't as well as other countries. I think the Founding Fathers had a Swiss style citizen militia in mind. As a result, if we seek to limit that right we ought to provide evidence demonstrating that it indeed solves problems created by owning guns while not creating other problems (like leaving us helpless against criminals and our own possibly tyrannical gov't). I don't see that evidence. However, I do agree with Carl that there is much more to violent crimes than merely gun control. I should clarify that I don't believe that loosening gun control laws will necessarily lower crime rates. But neither do gun control law.
Re Nick (again)
I actually think the license idea is a pretty good one and I would go for that. The one thing I think you may be overlooking is that most guns used in violent crimes are not legally bought - they are stolen. As a result, a culture is created where incentives exist to create a black market which will always be there no matter how hard it is to buy a gun. This is similar to the drug legalization debate.
Re Anonymous
"You visit my place (residence, business, or even my property) with a concealed weapon. Do I have a right to shoot you to defend myself from your likely intent to harm me?"
Yes you do, but it would be foolish as it is likely not justified unless I was actually threatening you. Merely carrying a weapon is not a threat to kill you any more than driving a car, or carrying a leatherman.
"Concurrent question is what about my rights to ask you to not bring concealed weapons if you plan to visit or stay at my place, that happens to be an university?"
You absolutely have that right if you yourself own that property. But that's just the problem with a public university - it isn't private property it's public property. As public property it is subject to the laws of the land and not the discretion of the management of the land.
"do I have a right to carry a concealed weapon to the Supreme Court session? Why not on a plane?"
A supreme court session is in a publicly owned place, hence you should be able to take a gun (not sure on this, if not it's very sad). A plane is privately owned (at least in the U.S.) and hence the owners of the plane can make whatever rules they want.
Great discussion, let me close with the following: I'm not in favor of everyone owning a gun willy nilly and packing it around everywhere. I don't think most gun rights activists are. But I am interested in preserving a very strong right to own a gun (and thereby be responsible for its use and safety). If you don't think it reasonable that we need protection from our own gov't then you haven't been paying attention to the numerous totalitarian regimes that have dominated the last century. I think this right is worth protecting. Nor do I think gun control has demonstrably shown it has the power to reduce violent crime. Rather it weakens citizenry against the threat of violence.
Re Carl
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Norway has a very large percentage of gun owners since hunting and sport shooting is so popular there. Yet gun control laws are tight. This could be taken many ways but as you say it is not really much evidence for or against gun control. It might be that your low crime rate is due to the high number of gun owning individuals, or perhaps the large number of people who know how to wield a gun. I'd be interested in a strong study of this.
Re Carl (again)
ReplyDeleteThis is from Wikipedia:
"Gun ownership is a non-controversial subject in Norwegian politics. This is because most illegally used guns are stolen from larger, often military, storage facilities. Break-ins in private homes seldom lead to the theft of weapons, unless the owner has not followed the regulations. Thus, private ownership is not under scrutiny. By far, the most crimes are committed with stolen weapons, not legally obtained ones."
Though it does not have a citation to back it up.
Bill,
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure this is the type of discussion that we should completely shy away from"
I think there are many debates that need to be had elsewhere, I simply want to avoid this becoming a space to rant about politics. Generally in discussions about politics there is far too little exchange of information and far too much yelling.
jmb275,
ReplyDelete"If the university is public I don't see any way around adhering to the U.S. Constitution." That would require a pretty absolute reading of the Bill of Rights, which would require one to allow firearms into prisons, airports, etc. since they are public places.
"If you don't think it reasonable that we need protection from our own gov't then you haven't been paying attention to the numerous totalitarian regimes that have dominated the last century." Unless you're advocating allowing individuals to buy tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear missile subs, there is no way citizens can effectively protect themselves from the federal government. Maybe in 1789 it was possible for a citizen to be armed in such a way as to be effective against the armed forces, but not in 2010.
"most guns used in violent crimes are not legally bought - they are stolen" I'm going to bet that they were legally bought at some point. Currently it is much harder to sell a stolen car than to sell a stolen gun because we register cars.
Anyway I have not any gun currently, and I am inflating my muscles in order to please women :) .
ReplyDeleteRe:jmb275 on carrying a gun to Supreme Court:
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, no weapons are allowed at Supreme Court. Nor can you carry weapons to Congress, White House, or most Govt. places.
By concealing a weapon, you declare intent to strike... Actually, one can self-defend even in public places...
Visible, clearly differntiable arms - like five foot long musket - is what was intended in the constitution, not concealed weapons. If you want to bare arms, do so visibly.
Supreme Court is wrong in allowing concealed weapons.
Re Nick
ReplyDelete"That would require a pretty absolute reading of the Bill of Rights, which would require one to allow firearms into prisons, airports, etc. since they are public places."
Yes, you're right which is why I would prefer a privatization of such assets. That way guns could be restricted as per the wishes of the owner. This way we don't have to "bend" the conversation and this discussion would be moot.
"Unless you're advocating allowing individuals to buy tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear missile subs, there is no way citizens can effectively protect themselves from the federal government."
I think that's a good point. I would be in favor of allowing individuals to buy tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear missile subs. Why should the gov't be able to buy things that a citizen can't buy? Because we implicitly trust our gov't? The ability to buy arms to protect oneself against the gov't is a fundamental check on the power of that gov't. The idea that a few privileged can control the masses is the root of a totalitarian regime. To be clear, owning the actual artillery is not the important part, but the right to own the artillery. Same goes for guns. I'm not advocating everyone own a gun, just that the right be protected.
"I'm going to bet that they were legally bought at some point. Currently it is much harder to sell a stolen car than to sell a stolen gun because we register cars."
'Tis true. I think I would be in favor of registering guns. But realize too that many of the "stolen" guns or guns on the black market are smuggled over borders making registration rather difficult.
Re Anonymous
"By concealing a weapon, you declare intent to strike... Actually, one can self-defend even in public places..."
Well, I don't understand that logic at all. The idea of presuming another's intentions solely based on a single accessory seems ridiculous to me. In fact, I would say this kind of reasoning is a recipe for disaster. If I don't like what you wear or have on your person I just declare you intended to kill me? And that justifies my "self-defense." Somehow I think this would never hold up in a courtroom. The sole purpose of a gun is NOT to kill another person. Again, I claim that concealing a weapon is no more an intent to strike than carrying a pocket knife.
BTW, re the discussion over appropriateness on this blog. As a new author I likely have little say, but I tend to be with Nick. I would rather keep the discussion to science. However, the occasional diversion to things political/religious doesn't bother me. I enjoy conversing with intelligent individuals regardless of the topic. And although I am in favor of gun rights, I tremendously respect opinions on the other side. I also don't consider my way to be the right way - just the way I see it.
Dang, typo. I mean to say
ReplyDelete"This way we don't have to "bend" the constitution and this discussion would be moot."
Nick, funny thing you should mention private citizens owning things like tanks, and fighter jets, because technically in the US private citizens CAN own tanks and fighter jets (I don't know about nuclear subs, but private citizens do own subs).
ReplyDeleteAs one political science professor at BYU put it, "Isn't this a great country where people can buy a tank with a licensed cannon?"
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteOne does not wear a concealed gun. It is not an accesary. A concealed knife is a weapon. Look at the cops, they carry their weapons without any concealment.
Why does one have to conceal a weapon, if there is no intent to harm?
jmb275,
ReplyDeleteConsider this scenario: You reach for a new fangled gizmo (like cell phone) and your hand motion appears as if you are reaching for a concealed weapon. The cop who has stopped you, feels threatened and takes you out. In self-defense, of course.
Right to bare arms, and right to czrry concealed guns are two different matters. The Supreme Court - being political at best - has erred gravely.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletePlain-clothes police officers often carry concealed weapons, as do air marshals, FBI agents, and other government officials.
Your scenario is a bit over-dramatic. If a police officer felt threatened by some motion you made, he would first instruct you to stop, then draw his weapon, then fire, giving you plenty of time to stop pulling out your cell phone. Police officers do not just start shooting anytime someone reaches into a pocket. Additionally how would making concealed carry illegal change anything about this scenario? Many people illegally carry concealed weapons right now and somehow cops don't regularly take out cell phone users.
Re Anonymous
ReplyDeleteIn addition to what Nick has said, we need to pull apart the issues as you've said. I'm not sure why we're even talking about concealed vs. open carry since neither the post nor the court ruling had anything to do with that specifically.
In any case, the purpose of concealed carry is so that people who think that carrying a gun is an intent to kill are unaware that one is carrying. If you think that my carrying a gun is an intent to kill, and you use force against me (which is ABSOLUTELY unjustified), you have given me a strong incentive to hide my gun from you. Ideally, we would all recognize that carrying a gun is not an intent to kill and we would just allow open carry everywhere (except in a few limited scenarios) and forget concealed carry altogether. Imagine how powerless a would-be shooter would feel if they walked into a classroom, 30 people of which visibly had guns on their person.
The problem with your analogy is that you're not allowing for situational awareness. According to the logic you've put forth, I assume you think every object you cannot readily see is a threat to you? Surely that is not the case. Why would a gun be any different? It is the situation that should inform our judgment as to what one's intent is. If you have been stopped by a cop, it would be unwise to reach for anything. But that's because of the situation. In a concealed carry training course, the first thing you learn is that when stopped by an officer you inform the officer that you are armed and that you have a concealed carry permit. This informs the officer of the situation so he/she is aware and can act accordingly.
The only place the supreme court has erred is that once again the federal gov't is dictating to the states what they can and can't do. I'm a big proponent of states' rights so I disagree with their decision from that perspective, despite that I am in favor of gun rights.
@Nick
One question for Nick. What is your opinion of companies like Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. selling nuclear missiles, fighter jets, etc. to other countries? If we are trying to keep weapons out of the hands of potential enemies, why do we allow them to sell weapons to others (yes I know it is more nuanced than this depending on the type of weapon, which country, etc. but these are arbitrary rules)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNick & jmb,
ReplyDeleteI have personally seen a police officer after stopping a car on a major throughfare pulling out a shotgun pointing to the driver and screaming to the driver to keep his hands up. This is in a major, well to do subburb of our capital. I do not know why the young man was suddenly stopped, and why the cop pulled out a big stuff. All I know is that he meant business and young man had the sense to keep his hands up.
JMB< You are parsing my statement in error. What I said was that "If I were to think you are arrying a CONCEALED weapon, I have a right to think that you have an intent to kill." You dropped the concealed part. If you show me that you are carrying a weapon visibly, I can easily avoid all interacticons with you. Guns don't kill, people with intent kill.
Re Anonymous
ReplyDelete"You are parsing my statement in error."
Fair enough. My mistake.