Dear Governor Brewer:
As an educator with over 30 years of experience I cannot remain silent about SB 1467, a bill already approved by the legislature that awaits your signature. I sincerely hope you won’t sign it.
Having read the bill in its entirety, there is one particular section that I find objectionable. It reads:
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHALL NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE ANY POLICY OR RULE THAT PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED WEAPON BY A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A VALID PERMIT RECOGNIZED OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-3112 OR THE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF A FIREARM PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-781.
Let’s begin with what I assume is our common ground. You and I both are citizens of these United States of America and as such we agree that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are our secular equivalent of sacred documents. Further, the Second Amendment to the Constitution (the version ratified by the States) reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That, too, we can agree on.
Since the ratification there have been many debates over the meaning of that language, but two recent Supreme Court decisions have clearly defined how those words are to be interpreted in law. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, with no requirement for service in a militia, and that such an individual may use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government, which means that certain restrictions on the sale, display, or use of those weapons—where they are deemed appropriate and prudent to maintain public safety—may be upheld by the courts. I think you and I can agree to those findings as well, if we may differ in how we interpret them.
Now let me share my view of what is wrong with SB 1467. I don’t know whether you will agree with me, but please listen. I’ve never before been moved to write a letter to a state official.
A college campus historically represents a protected cultural space for the free expression and open debate of ideas. It is a place defined by diverse interests and people, and it is an environment where, as tragic events at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville have recently demonstrated, deadly solutions based on perceived inequities and real grievances have resulted in unnecessary death to faculty and students alike. None of those campuses allowed weapons, by the way, which only provides evidence that even without permission to carry concealed weapons, some people will break the law. That is a fact. It is also a fact borne out by research studies that in none of those cases would have armed faculty or students changed the outcome. If anything, more people would have been killed or injured. Why? Because more guns means more chances that something will go wrong.
Take, for example, the tragedy in Tucson just three months ago. Jared Lee Loughner was a college student, a deeply troubled one, who chose to unleash mass murder and mayhem in a public place against an elected public official who meant him no harm. It was not armed citizens who finally brought Loughner to the ground. It was the action of unarmed heroes who made the critical difference. In fact, according to news reports there was an armed citizen who witnessed the shootings, but as he explained to the press, it’s a good thing he didn’t draw his gun because he would have shot the wrong people. That same sentiment applies equally well to a college campus. After all, Governor Brewer, timing and perspective are high-level skills taught to law enforcement officials. They are not skills that are handed over the counter with a gun sale.
Guns will not promote public safety on college campuses. If anything, they increase the likelihood that someone, for whatever reason, will use a gun not to defend oneself or one’s home, but to right some imagined wrong, or just to get even or payback an insult or even a bad grade on a paper or exam. Campuses are also home to organizations that have parties, serve alcohol or admit people who have been served alcohol somewhere, and are the scene weekly of threats, fights, and occasional violence. Having guns available to add to the already heated, alcohol-fueled mix cannot be a good thing.
How do I know these things to be true? Because those are the reasons given in our city almost daily for the use of a gun against a neighbor, a colleague, or just someone who stared too long at someone else at a bar or restaurant or nightclub. These are not the lawful acts of people defending a home; these are the crazed acts of individuals who are angry, jealous, envious, fed-up, drunk, drugged, or put out to such an extreme as to cause them to attempt—and to often to succeed—in murdering someone else.
So what is the solution? How should we think about and contribute to improved public safety? Should we, as proud citizens of Arizona, ask the legislature for a finance package that would arm each and every one of us? Would arming all of us be a reasonable solution to these crimes of passion, perception of wrong, and madness? Would it be a solution endorsed by the police? I doubt it.
If anything, the idea that public safety depends on an armed citizenry is nonsensical. Add to it the notion that the weapons should be concealed and all we accomplish is to increase the level of paranoia and fear in public places. I don’t think that is what the citizens want, nor is it what you want.
So why encourage colleges to think that the best answer to promoting public safety on campus is a concealed weapon in every purse, or pocket, or mounted in a holster worn on the belt or under an arm? That solution, too, seems nonsensical.
A college campus should be a place of peaceful learning, free from the fear of being shot for your ideas. As it is we enjoy—even encourage—vigorous and often heated debates over ideas and proposed courses of action. Political divisions are carried into classes and find their way—as they should—into those debates. Emotions sometimes get the better of reason. I cannot imagine that ready access to a gun improves the situation.
I implore you not to sign SB 1467. No good can or will come of it. This issue is not about upholding the Second Amendment, nor is it about improving public safety. It is about political extremism being forced onto campuses throughout out state. It is about making educational institutions less safe, less secure, and more prone to violence. I say again: No good can come of it.
I know that is not the end you seek. I pray that you decide against it.
Best regards,
H.L. Goodall, Jr.
Chandler, AZ
Updated by Dr Bud at Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 07:17 PM MST
Good news! Governor Brewer vetoed the bill!!! Hurrah!