Although an unexpected veto from Jan Brewer killed this idea in 2011, this year it's back, and has now passed through its committee vote in the AZ state Senate: requiring guns to be allowed onto colleges and universities in the state.
This bill, along with last year's veto, raises a few questions for me. In the end, though, I'll just count myself lucky that I do not expect to be on a local college campus anytime soon.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday passed Senate Bill 1474, which requires public universities and community colleges to allow anyone age 21 or older with a concealed-carry permit to carry a gun on campus. The schools can keep the guns out of buildings, stadiums and classrooms if they provide secure gun lockers.
The bill permitting guns on university and college grounds, along with a second bill to permit guns in public buildings, now move to the full Senate, then to the House, and on to Governor Brewer's desk, possibly.
Interesting that while the Republican-controlled Senate committee allows for the idea of banning guns if there are gun lockers provided for anyone carrying a gun to school, this provision offers no funding to do so. And it's clear the state legislature won't bother, after the budget cuts last year, with hundreds of millions of dollars taken from state universities and community colleges. So, unfunded mandates: it's all good for Republicans, unless a Democrat is involved.
The article on azcentral also mentions that, if this legislation passes, Arizona will become just the fifth state to take this decision out of the hands of the colleges and require them to allow guns on campus, while 22 states prohibit it, and the rest allow the schools to decide.
While faculty, students, student body leaders, and campus police chiefs all spoke out against the bill before it was voted on in committee, their concerns were naturally brushed aside, sometimes in interesting ways. Take for example Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert.
Biggs brushed aside that opposition, saying student body leaders at the three universities were elected based on low voter turnout and may not represent the views of the majority of those taking classes.
I wonder what effect that voter apathy argument would make on, say, state legislators. Or on Congress, for that matter. What of presidential mandates and landslides when millions of voters don't bother to exercise their right? But again, standard operating procedure for Republicans: claim the mandate of the masses when it favors them; dismiss it with contempt when it does not.
So the committee vote on this bill was 5-3, with one Republican amongst the three. One of the five, Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, decided to support the bill in spite of his misgivings.
"I'm being asked which is more likely: That a CCW permit holder will be able to be a hero against a deranged individual who means harm on a campus, or whether that same hero is more likely to miss his target and injure someone," Driggs said. "And I don't think I'm in a position where I could make that determination."
Republican proponents also withstood argument from actual victims of the sort of random gunfire that may result from their legislation. They heard from Jennifer Longdon, a trained and armed gun owner who was hit (along with her fiance) by such random fire in 2004, and has since been paralyzed by the injury. She testified to the danger of the legislation being proposed.
"This isn't a theoretical discussion for me," Longdon said. "In that moment when bullets start flying and adrenaline and fear are pumping, to expect an untrained person to act with clarity and precision is hubris."
Untrained folks like the ones Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, cited before voting in opposition with the few Democrats on the Senate committee. The lone Republican, ouch. Must have had some Maverick Wheaties that morning, instead of scorpions. I imagine he'll be hearing from the GOP establishment.
"I have some grave concerns about the CCW training requirement, which has been gravely diminished" since lawmakers first authorized concealed-carry permits in 1994. Yarbrough said that although he has supported those efforts, he cannot now say there is enough oversight to make him comfortable about letting these people bring their guns into classrooms.
Better to have it, need it, and not get a chance to use it in some random hail of gunfire, than to need it and not have it in the first place, I guess. So the Republicans didn't listen to Longdon or Yarbrough. There was someone they did listen to, though. Brent Gardner, NRA lobbyist, was there to speak in favor and to dismiss the concerns of a paralyzed victim of random gun violence as overblown.
Since this year's bill was a response to last year's veto, I suppose they've taken steps to address the concerns Jan Brewer cited in her surprise veto. So the question occurred to me -- just what was that about, again?
The measure, sponsored by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, would have required community colleges and universities to allow both concealed and openly carried weapons in their public rights of way, which would likely include public roads and adjacent sidewalks.
But it didn't clearly define "right of way," which Brewer cited as an example of the bill's lack of clarity.
The governor also questioned the use of "educational institution" throughout the bill, which she said could be construed to mean applying to K-12, which would conflict with existing state and federal statutes that prohibit weapons on those school grounds.
So I've heard about all manner of folks who claim safe use of guns from childhood on up. And it makes me wonder, why would anyone care if some loose wording like "educational institution" might allow guns in elementary and high schools? A right's a right...right? Shall not be infringed? Now why would any enthusiasts of gun rights sit back and allow this sort of infringement to stand, much less cite it as a reasonable argument?
That Jan Brewer, bit of a wild card, I suppose. And yet, all Ron Gould could say about it at the time was that it was a bit of a stretch. It's not as if he denounced this infringement. Perhaps this is like the questionable mandate of the masses; let's talk about infringed-upon gun rights when it seems politically opportunistic, and otherwise, let's not.
Well, I guess hypocrisy from Republicans is to be expected.