Universities should be able to regulate guns
(Last updated: 10/25/09 7:07pm)Many MSU students were upset with the MSU Board of Trustees when it voted to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry a firearm on campus in June. But a new bill proposed in the Michigan Legislature might anger students even more.
The bill, if it passes, would take away the privilege of MSU and other college campuses in Michigan have to regulate their own concealed weapons policies.
State law currently prohibits all city and local governments from creating their own regulations on concealed weapons. However, legal loopholes allow several universities and colleges to regulate weapons on their campuses.
State Rep. Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City, proposed the bill, which is part of a larger package that seeks to eliminate inconsistencies in firearm regulation across the state. His intent was to clear up any confusion about where a person could or could not carry weapons.
We see how this bill could be useful, if, for instance, it prevented someone unfamiliar with the specific rules of a campus from mistakenly bringing their weapon somewhere unlawfully. The bill would clarify the rules for everyone by deferring to the state law, effectively legalizing firearms on every campus.
Although currently it is legal for those with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms through MSU’s campus, they are prohibited in dorms, classrooms, arenas or stadiums.
Prior to the Board’s vote in June, MSU completely banned guns on campus. At the time, MSU officials claimed the vote was to better align MSU’s policies with that of the state. MSU Trustee Colleen McNamara was the sole trustee to vote against the policy and remains opposed to the bill, saying weapon regulation on campus should be determined solely by the university.
But even though MSU law matches state law in this regard, we do not support the proposed bill, as it would take away the ability for any university or college to decide whether concealed weapons should be permitted on their campuses.
We agree with McNamara and believe MSU should retain its independence to regulate its own policy regarding concealed weapons. It’s worth noting the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University and Wayne State University still have outright bans on weapons across their campuses.
If MSU ever did want to go back to a complete ban of all guns from campus — as it was before June — it would be unable to do so under the proposed legislation.
It’s unrealistic to expect the state of Michigan even to taper the rights of its citizens to legally carry firearms. Blanket legislation would force those opposed to guns on campus to fight a long and drawn-out fight in the state Legislature, as opposed to the MSU Trustee boardroom.
The question of whether students should retain the right to carry guns through campus is a contentious one, and we make no judgement whether or not carrying a weapon is a good or bad thing.
But if a university — be it MSU or any other — should decide they want to ban firearms, it should retain the right to do so.
Originally Published: 10/25/09 7:07pm
student
10/25/09 7:45pmFirst, I think that the MSU regulations on guns is largely influenced by the new shooting facility on campus. And, honestly, I don’t care about this. People read that you are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, but they are not aware of other regulations and conditions for this to be true.
Second, this is another demonstration of how the state wants all the control but none of the responsibility nor support of its agencies. A way for lawmakers to make money and to keep control since everything positive is to their credit and all the negative is not their fault.
J
10/25/09 9:06pmMost lawmakers are attorneys, they could make a hell of a lot more money being just that, attorneys! So, get real, they are just representatives of their districts, nothing less, nothing more.
Secondly, while you’re at it, why not give the Board of Trustees the right to regulate breathing on campus? And how about procreation? How about how often you flush the toilet in a week? How about we regulate the demographics and skin pigmentation of students?
...View full comment »
J
10/25/09 9:10pmFinally, the autonomy of MSU is intended to be purely academic and intellectual, not when it comes to basic human rights (the right to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary).
MSU is a public institution receiving over $287 million in State of Michigan funds, collected from the first 4% of sales taxes, all income taxes, lotteries, business taxes, and fees collected from every single Resident of Michigan. Therefore, they cede their financial and legislative autonomy by receiving public monies.
J
10/25/09 9:14pmFor the record, I support affirmative action based on financial grounds only. If you were born into poor white trash in Appalachia, I do not believe for a microsecond that you have any advantage whatsoever over Barack Hussein Obama’s children who currently attend a private school.
student
10/25/09 10:31pmJ,
Most of the lawmakers are also attorneys and they could make more money in that profession, but they don’t and there a reasons for that.
The main reason is that the combination of prestige, power and financial remuneration is more satisfying for them than just a private law practice. They don’t get as much as money as they would in the private practice but the combination of the salary and other factors is much more attractive, as well as the opportunities after public service.
So, although there are good lawmakers, the vast majority has personal goals and doesn’t have intentions of improving the common good.
Jake Danway
10/26/09 2:04amI agree entirely, J. The application of affirmative action toward ethnic delineation, rather than socio-economic status, is necessarily counter-productive in the realm of equality.
Juan
10/26/09 8:54amNOTE: Attorneys don’t make anywhere near what folks want to think they do…
Todd
10/26/09 9:58amThis editorial didn’t answer one basic question. Why does the SN editorial board think it is OK for people to be forced to sacrifice their state and federal rights simply because they set foot on the MSU campus?
Murderers
10/26/09 10:47amThose anti-gunners who wish for only criminals to be able to carry on campus are murderers, each and every one of them.
When will you uninformed liberals/lemmings learn? Those who seek to disarm the innocent and law-abiding are the necessary accessory, without which the terrorist (or school psycho gunman) would be far less successful.
I don’t give a CRAP if you don’t like guns – They are HERE TO STAY – we have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of them and they will always be in the hands of both the law abiding, and the criminals.
Get real, deal with the facts, stop irrationally hating guns.
...View full comment »
matt
10/26/09 12:08pmare you allowed to have weapons in civil buildings? courthouses, fire stations, the capital, etc?
Jack Abrams
10/26/09 12:59pmMatt…yes, with a CPL you can carry in a firehouse, the capital, and all govt buildings except for courthouses…even police stations.
RC River
10/27/09 2:25amI was surprised to learn that I am a murderer. But maybe I am just the last to know. OK, murderers are felons and felons are disarmed, so I can’t have a gun on campus anyway.
I guess we have to let these gun owners have their way. I look forward to seeing guns in all the sports areas. It will bring a new meaning to those empty words, “sudden-death playoff.”
beau
10/27/09 8:27amLove the 2nd Amend. I have guns and most likely always will but I think there are places they don’t belong, campuses are one of them. As for the “law abiding” gun carrying citizens. If you want a real eye opener go to a gun show and check out all the right wing circus freaks that are drawn to them. I don’t want 90% of those clowns getting anywhere near a loaded gun.
Todd
10/27/09 9:01ambeau,
Yeah, because good public policy should always be based on one’s impression of others. What next, suggesting those “freaks” should be counted as three-fifths of a person in the 2010 census?
beau
10/27/09 9:41amNot every one Todd, just you and I.
Jack Abrams
10/27/09 12:47pmRC….by state law people with CPL’s are prohibited from carrying weapons into any facility with a seating capacity over 2500…so you don’t have to worry about concealed weapons at sporting events. The law allowing CPL holders to carry their weapons on campus will NOT override that.
Lol
10/27/09 1:13pmRC River, armed murderous felons are not disarmed, they are armed illegally – Are you one of those idiots that think criminals follow the law?
Ha.
People need to chill out. This bill doesn’t mean there will be ANY more guns on campus than their ALREADY ARE – The people who carry concealed have to leave their guns in their cars right now, when they go to class.
...View full comment »
John Wayne
10/27/09 4:20pmThis is the pedagogical opportunity dreams are made of. If a student doesn’t pay attention, the prof can pull out his Colt .45 and shoot the i-Pod out of the derelict student’s hands.
JR
10/28/09 9:41amThe point of the state law superseding local laws is so that when you cross county lines (or in this case campus boundary lines) the laws are not drastically changing. It is for the consistency of applying the law.
Furthermore, if a law abiding citizen has a concealed weapons permit – they have gone through the training necessary by law, and one can reasonably assume they can handle their weapon and be responsible with it.
...View full comment »
Baby Killers
10/28/09 12:43pmYou should be ashamed of yourselves! anyone that buys a gun is a baby killer and a racist! you know how many children are shot because stupid parents cant use a safety is makes me sick! and everyone knows that guns are given to people in lower income areas to wipe out their population. its genocide of financially disabled individuals! you really want to support something like that? DO YOU!!
Spartan
10/28/09 5:03pmReally Baby Killer???
you, my friend, are perhaps the least informed person on this page. Geocide of the Financially Disabled? then why do we have welfare for them?
Go read a book, or a newspaper…
if you CAN read.