Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would let guns in AZ colleges
Arizona Daily Star - Capitol Media Services ^ | Howard Fischer

Posted on 01/08/2010 5:46:26 PM PST by SandRat

PHOENIX — Saying it would protect students and staffers, a veteran state lawmaker wants to let some faculty members carry their weapons onto university and community college campuses.

Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said existing restrictions in state law keep everyone but police from legally having a gun on campuses. The problem, he said, is those who want to harm someone else are not going to be deterred by that restriction.

"It's a long-time goal of mine to make sure there are no defense-free zones where criminals know they can go into an establishment and there'll be no law-abiding citizens there that can legally protect themselves," Harper said. Harper has had some success in that regard. Most recently, he ushered a measure through the Legislature last year to allow guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages.

The Senate gave a similar proposal preliminary approval last year, though the final version never made it out of the House.

Harper said that if he had his way, anyone would be able to carry a gun pretty much anywhere.

Prior legislative efforts to move guns into schools also included public schools, but the proposals got little political traction.

This bill is limited to colleges and would apply only to holders of a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. The permit requires a background check and some training in the law regarding when deadly force can be used, as well as showing the ability to handle the gun.

Harper's proposal also would apply only to faculty members. Existing restrictions would remain for everyone else, from administrators — including the university or college president — right through to the clerical and support staff.

He said the reason for the narrow exemption is political.

"It's important to start with a bill that you think you can get passed and signed into law, and negotiate it from there," Harper said. He said starting with broader legislation might please some gun-rights groups, but it could be "stigmatized early on."

Harper said that is precisely what happened when Karen Johnson, then a state senator from Mesa, tried broader legislation that included K-12 school campuses. The idea is getting a chilly reception from affected schools, which last year had to accept another change in state laws allowing anyone to drive onto a campus and leave a weapon in a locked vehicle, as long as it is out of sight.

Northern Arizona University spokeswoman Lisa Nelson said, "NAU continues to believe that a weapons-free campus constitutes a living and learning environment for a university."

Pima Community College Chancellor Roy Flores said he doubts that an armed faculty would make the campus safer.

"It seems to me that the likelihood of having a deranged person walk into a specific classroom and pull out a gun and aim it at a faculty member or other people is quite low," he said, "although it gets a lot of coverage and, of course, generates a lot of passion."

Paul Allvin, a University of Arizona spokesman, said that even if a faculty member is carrying a weapon in a "concealed" manner, it's likely to become known that person has a gun under a jacket or in a fanny pack. He questioned what would happen if someone bent on violence were to try to get that weapon.

And Nelson said the proposal would create greater problems for police who respond to a call.

"The more people that have guns on campus, the harder it is to determine who the shooter is," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: armed; az2010; banglist; colleges; guns

1 posted on 01/08/2010 5:46:27 PM PST by SandRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

NRA PING


2 posted on 01/08/2010 5:46:58 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Sounds good to me, just so a business owner can say no guns.


3 posted on 01/08/2010 5:49:50 PM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
From the article:

Paul Allvin, a University of Arizona spokesman, said that even if a faculty member is carrying a weapon in a "concealed" manner, it's likely to become known that person has a gun under a jacket or in a fanny pack. He questioned what would happen if someone bent on violence were to try to get that weapon.

And Nelson said the proposal would create greater problems for police who respond to a call.

"The more people that have guns on campus, the harder it is to determine who the shooter is," she said.

Well, I suppose that's true. It IS much easier to tell who the shooter is when they're standing in the middle of a bunch of bodies that never had a chance at survival because nobody else was allowed to carry adequate defensive tools.

Holy S__t!! I can't believe that I trusted my education to people from this looney bin!

4 posted on 01/08/2010 6:06:47 PM PST by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Sounds good to me, just so a business owner can say no guns.

I encourage any business to clearly post their position on the carry of weapons . Carrying or not , that would make it real easy for my family to go someplace else .

5 posted on 01/08/2010 6:18:24 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
The last time this was suggested in AZ, the mediots trotted out the tenured, intelligent, distinguished U of A college professor, and all he could come up with was the same old mindless, lame, unthinking cliches, "This isn't the Wild West any more, we don't need gunfights at the O.K. Corral", blah, blah, blah.

Of course the "reporter" couldn't ask him where was his statistical evidence, that loosening gun restrictions on trained, background-checked, law-abiding citizens, has ever caused anything but a deterrent to crime.

We have people teaching us, and reporters reporting to us, who can't think. They are supposed to be thinking, curious, honest, investigative people.

But they can't do it.

6 posted on 01/08/2010 6:35:08 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

What other rights should a business owner be permitted to ignore?


7 posted on 01/08/2010 6:36:08 PM PST by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet
Like I say...


8 posted on 01/08/2010 6:37:51 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
"It seems to me that the likelihood of having a deranged person walk into a specific classroom and pull out a gun and aim it at a faculty member or other people is quite low," he said, "although it gets a lot of coverage and, of course, generates a lot of passion."

So his "reasoning" is "There's little danger of someone shooting up the place, so consequently we want to abridge people's rights by not letting them carry." How can he justify limiting people's rights to prevent a danger that doesn't even exist?

9 posted on 01/08/2010 6:48:24 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

See Reply #8


10 posted on 01/08/2010 6:57:29 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

In the good old days, colleges and universities taught people how to think, not how to avoid it.


11 posted on 01/08/2010 6:58:38 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

See Reply #8


12 posted on 01/08/2010 6:59:18 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Should a business owner not be allowed to ban the carry and possession of weapons on their premises? I thought we had the right to property in America.


13 posted on 01/08/2010 8:20:17 PM PST by wastedyears (If I'm going out, I'm going out like Major Kong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

What other rights should a business owner be permitted to ignore?


I am all for rights given to us by God, including the ones wrote down in the bill of rights, but business owners are people also and they have rights too.

It is not your right to bring a gun into some one else,s business.

The people can not infringe on your rights when making laws in goverment, but this has nothing to do with goverment.


14 posted on 01/09/2010 7:05:03 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

I agree.
It should be the same as smoking, before the goverment crapped on the private business owners constitutional rights and made it a law not to smoke in cafe.s and bars and etc,

It was easy to find a place to have coffee or to eat where they did allow smoking, and most did allow it because it was good business sense, unless they wanted to go broke.

I live in a town where there were 3 cafe,s with attached bars that has been in business since the 1960s to my knowledge, now they have all closed, since the goverment got up the no smoking laws in colorado, now we have one place to eat, its a drive in.

Business owners uses good sense, goverment is made up of the selfrighteous people with out any sense who will pay any amount of money to get into goverment so they can make laws for other people to live by.

But its the goverment who are trying to take our rights away,
not private business owners.


15 posted on 01/09/2010 7:35:22 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

Of course the “reporter” couldn’t ask him where was his statistical evidence, that loosening gun restrictions on trained, background-checked, law-abiding citizens, has ever caused anything but a deterrent to crime.


What part of the first amendment is, trained, background check, law abiding found? those words have to have come from the people who will do anything to infringe on the rights of the first amendment, along with permits, liences, etc.

It seems to me you are using the very words of the anti gun activists, i understand you have common sense in mind, but if we use thier reasoning we simply can not win, because they will determine who has a right to keep and bare arms.

If anyone has to belong to a gun club and have training to have the right to keep and bare arms, it is no right what so ever

Its the same as if you would have to be a member of a church to call yourself a christian.


16 posted on 01/09/2010 7:57:20 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

Right you are . We could celebrate the freedom of a business owner being able to decide to attract a smoking or non smoking clientele . The day it was decided the commerce clause allowed government to micro manage your shop with out compensation was the day fascism was read into the Constitution .


17 posted on 01/09/2010 9:21:51 AM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

No, I’m stating was is required for a permit in AZ. Doesn’t mean I like it. I like Vermont’s idea.


18 posted on 01/09/2010 11:58:04 AM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

As a business owner should you be allowed to discriminate against any other peaceful,law-abiding citizens?
Do you believe a business supposedly open to the public should be able to refuse service or sales to women,blacks,Hispanics,whites,Jews,Catholics,homosexuals,Democrats,Republicans,libertarians,those who won’t pay in real gold or silver?

There is a world of difference in current law between what you can do regarding visitors to your home versus your business.


19 posted on 01/09/2010 11:43:55 PM PST by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears; hoosierham
To repeat the question:

What other civil rights should a business owner be allowed to violate?

20 posted on 01/09/2010 11:53:09 PM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Like other FReepers do on here, you could choose to not give that place any of your business.


21 posted on 01/10/2010 6:57:06 AM PST by wastedyears (If I'm going out, I'm going out like Major Kong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

No, I’m stating was is required for a permit in AZ. Doesn’t mean I like it. I like Vermont’s idea.


Ok, i see what you mean.


22 posted on 01/10/2010 7:26:11 AM PST by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson