When you move beyond politics and religion, there is probably no other topic that creates as much divisiveness on a college or university campus as the right to carry a firearm. Since 2004 when Utah became the first state in the U.S. to allow campus carry, there has been an average of one state per year that has passed legislation allowing guns on campus. There are now 11 states that permit concealed carry of guns on college and university campuses, with Georgia being the latest to ratify its version, and now there are at least 16 more states that have pending bills on the books.
Perhaps no other governor took a more circuitous route to his state’s ratification of campus carry than Georgia’s Nathan Deal. He blindsided his state house in 2016 when he vetoed a similar bill most thought destined to pass, as he cited a 2008 opinion by then-Justice Antonin Scalia who said colleges were “sanctuaries of learning where firearms have not been allowed.”
But in May of this year Deal reversed himself saying he signed the bill to help protect students that might be traveling through “dangerous territory” on their way to or from campus. Governor Deal apparently reopened discussions with lawmakers to include a compromise the governor had insisted on that would ban guns from on-campus child care facilities, faculty and administrative offices and at disciplinary hearings.
The highly-charged political road map the Georgia governor traveled to finally approve concealed campus carry in his state illustrates the complexities, legal speed bumps, public confusion and backroom politics that have characterized many other states’ path to ratifying their bills.
Understanding that both campus administrators and public safety officials across the country are wrestling with new and/or pending state legislation that would allow myriad variation of campus carry in their communities, The National Center for Campus Public Safety recently issued a report entitled , Policy Development and Implementation of Legislation Permitting the Carrying of Concealed Handguns on College and University Campuses: Promising Practices, that was the result of a two-day critical issues forum issues forum of 27 college and university police and public safety executives and federal officials.
Participants at the forum, who themselves have varying experience in implementing policy and procedure for campus carry at different levels of authority at colleges and universities across the country, didn’t come looking to discuss the pros and cons of the legislation, rather the expected and unexpected consequences that could result from not having a plan to address what some critics call a Pandora’s Box.
“The National Center for Campus Public Safety’s role is not to determine whether or not legislation is right or wrong. The forum was conducted in response to requests from campus safety officials to help identify critical items that should be considered during the process of developing and implementing new legislation in accordance with state law. This report is the result of that forum,” says NCCPS Director Kim Richmond. “One of the key findings from this conversation was the importance of communication. It is critical that institutions provide communication both on campus and with their external campus community throughout the policy implementation process. It is recommended that campuses develop and implement a comprehensive communications plan to establish a multi-way dialogue to discuss issues that will resolve questions, concerns, and fears. The NCCPS is a clearinghouse of information and resources that will provide assistance to campuses as needed.”
The report stresses that laws vary significantly between states, as do the attributes each campus must consider when developing and implementing a policy. Community colleges have different challenges than traditional four-year colleges or universities, similar to the distinctions between urban and rural colleges. There is no one-size-fits-all solution or policy for campus carry.
“Over our two-day forum, we identified eight critical factors to the development and implementation of a concealed carry policy for colleges and universities,” points out Richmond, citing issues ranging from policy to culture and climate of individual campuses. The critical factors include:
- Policy: The policy must reasonably address stakeholders’ concerns while complying with state law in an easy-to-understand manner.
- Legal: The policy development process must necessarily involve legal counsel consultation and resources.
- Education: Educating faculty, staff, students, and campus visitors about the provisions of the policy, exclusions, responsibilities, and actions if stopped by a police officer or encountering a use-of-force situation.
- Implementation: Implementation has both pragmatic policy elements and broader concerns for dealing with the behaviors and, in some cases, the emotions of the campus community. There will be direct and indirect costs associated with implementation.
- Training: Training is the development of skills and the application of procedures to support the effective implementation of the campus carry policy and may be required for employees/faculty or incentivized for others such as students or campus visitors.
- Research and Evaluation: There is a need to monitor and evaluate new policies and procedures to find out if they are working.
- Communication: The importance of communication is to establish and maintain a multi-way dialogue to discuss issues that will resolve questions, concerns, and fears.
- Culture/Climate: Each institution has its own culture and climate, which includes attitudes, values, beliefs, and language of organizational members. Colleges and universities are eclectic, sometimes divisive, with a wide range of tolerance given to diverse viewpoints on virtually any issue. Campus carry is typically one of these divisive issues and every effort needs to be made to remain inclusive, objectively reviewing diverse opinions and making decisions on all aspects of the campus carry policy.
Richmond says that additionally, “a significant challenge institutions have faced is considerations for the geography of their campuses when implementing, communicating, and enforcing the policy.”
Proponents for concealed carry on campus often cite the growing number of high-profile violent incidents on or near campuses. The report says that those supporters believe that persons with lawfully concealed handguns could intervene in violent crimes, helping to prevent further victimization. Conversely, opponents feel that the presence of handguns on campus can be an intimidating force and raises concerns of some faculty about intimidation in the classroom, concerns of campus public safety personnel about security during large-scale events on campus (e.g., sporting events, festivals, and concerts), and concerns of some members of campus communities who are ideologically opposed to having any type of firearm on campus for a variety of reasons.
Interestingly enough, one statistic in the report came from Tennessee’s 51 public colleges and universities that found that less than 10 percent of roughly 27,000 eligible employees registered for campus carry. In Tennessee, full-time employees, but not students, may carry concealed weapons. And therein lays the landmine for both college administrators and public safety officials.
The rules and restrictions are all over the map as each state dictates its own vision of what campus carry should be. Some states allow any individual with appropriate permits to carry a concealed gun on campus, while others may prohibit firearms in certain area on campus and specific buildings. Some colleges and universities are even requiring the use of metal detectors or are posting armed security guards where guns are specifically banned.
Soon after Georgia passed its campus carry legislation, the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Mandi Ballinger said it was the “God-given right that people have to not be a victim in the state of Georgia," even though there is no substantive evidence or research supporting the claim that increased gun availability on campuses will deter violent crime or spontaneous active shooter incidents.
The NCCPS’s report concluded that the passage of state laws for campus carry is another iteration of socio-legal evolution that provides new challenges for public safety on our nation’s campuses, saying that colleges and universities are environments that are accustomed to debate and, in some cases, isolation from the broader social community. As a consequence, there are frequently diverse reactions—either in support of or opposition to—new policies that upset the status quo. Campus carry represents one of those policies. The challenge is to move forward with the policy in an objective, thoughtful manner.
In the end, the report admits that the challenge is to move forward with the policy in an objective, thoughtful manner. Campus carry surely provides challenges, but the barriers are not insurmountable.
So as parents usher their freshmen children into their new dorms rooms this year, while it is still forbidden to bring hot plates, toaster ovens, Christmas lights, swords, pets or candles along to college if Annie wants to get her gun; no problem.
About the Author:
Steve Lasky is the Editorial Director of SouthComm Security Media, which includes print publications Security Technology Executive, Security Dealer & Integrator, Locksmith Ledger Int’l and the world’s top security web portal SecurityInfoWatch.com. He is a 30-year veteran of the security industry and a 26-year member of ASIS.
