Welcome to The Senate Site

By Greg Bell
Utah State Senator, District 22

SB 251 is the result of a working group of Senators (Waddoups, Knudsen, Bell, Madsen, and Mayne), Representatives (Oda, Hunsaker, Wimmer) and, for the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE), Associate Commissioner Dave Buhler, President Ann Milner of Weber State University, and Kim Wirthlin, Vice President of the University of Utah.

Recently, the Utah Supreme Court ruled against the U of U and in favor the State Legislature’s position that the Legislature alone could determine gun policy for Utah’s public colleges and universities. However, the U of U’s claims in its lawsuit in Federal court are still outstanding, to the effect that the U has a right to control its learning environment as a part of academic freedom and other claims. The Working Group was convened to resolve the outstanding Federal claims and the USHE’s expressed desire to have some accommodation of gun policy.

USHE sought to ban weapons from classrooms and academic areas, labs, athletic venues, student union areas, faculty and staff offices, and residence halls. With one exception, the legislators could not accept these requests.

The agreement between the working group members is as follows (and is reflected in SB 251):

1. The USHE and the U of U expressly acknowledge that only the Legislature may determine gun policy on the campuses of Utah’s public colleges and universities.

2. The U of U will dismiss its federal claims against the Legislature.

3. A concealed weapons permit holder may carry a legally permitted weapon anywhere on a campus except specific faculty and staff offices where a notice is posted. Faculty/staff members will have the choice of an office a) in which legally carried weapons are permitted, or b) which is posted with a sign indicating no weapons are allowed inside the office. Convenient safe storage for weapons must be provided near posted offices.

4. Dorm residents will be allowed to request a roommate(s) who does not carry a concealed weapon, much like they can indicate a preference for a roommate who does not smoke.

7 Comments:

 Tom Grover said...

It is so incredibly sad that Utah's places of higher learning will continue to allow concealed weapons on campus. There is not one good reason for any lay citizen to ever have a concealed weapon on campus. That is an absolute statement that is absolute truth and I challenge anyone to provide a single cogent argument as to a practical need for such a concealed weapon.

Mandatory storage lockers near the offices of faculty who don't want guns in their office? How ridiculous and expensive. Further, faculty can request this, but they have no way of knowing whether or not the law is being complied with. Compliance for those who carry the weapons is a hassle and won't happen.

And guns allowed in dorms? Don't even get me started. College kids are careless and emotional, and those traits are amplified in a dorm setting. Even if a student can request a roommate without a gun, they still live in buildings with guns and in close proximity. Making the situation worse, they have no idea who has a gun and who doesn't. My best friend in college injured himself with a handgun when he was horsing around. Fortunately it happened outside our private apartment because the handgun was not allowed- for good reason.

2/07/2007 10:39 PM  

 Cogent Arguments said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/08/2007 12:56 PM  

 The Senate Site said...

You made three excellent points, Cogent. Would you please edit out the personal insults and then repost your comment?

Gracias amigo. We try not to start family feuds on this blog.

2/08/2007 3:08 PM  

 Brent said...

I’m a student at the University of Utah, and have a CWP. I’ve followed the course of the U’s lawsuit and the accompanying policy for some time now, but having never waded very deeply into our political process, I’m doing the best I can here. If I give incorrect or incomplete information I hope you’ll understand. I’m not a lawyer or legal scholar, just a concerned citizen.

Here is a brief summary of why I oppose this bill, and a more detailed analysis after that

Unnecessary
o SB 251 is a “solution in search of a problem”
o “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
o No problem with CWP holders on campus in the last 12 years
o Everything is functioning as it should, why change the law now?

Poorly written
o Open to the University Administration’s (a known anti-gun organization!) interpretation
o Words like “reasonably proximate” and “faculty and staff offices” leave too much wiggle room for the U. Does “reasonably proximate” mean in the same hallway? Floor? Building? The same campus?

Worse than before the ban
o Previously, the U’s gun ban applied only to University students, faculty, and staff
o SB 251 would apply to ALL CWP holders
o Penalties for violating the U policy previously were limited to academic discipline
o SL Tribune reports that it would now be a misdemeanor to carry in these areas
o This constitutes to a HUGE expansion of gun control in this state!
o I find it UNFATHOMABLE that we would win the court battle and still lose ground

Loss of anonymity
o This will destroy CWP holders’ anonymity
o Constitutes a brazen violation of our right to privacy

Everyone will be less safe
o Having CWP holders repeatedly draw and holster their sidearm as they enter and leave gun-ban offices increases the possibility of an accidental discharge. The fact that this will be done in a very public place increases the likelihood that an innocent person will accidentally be harmed.
o CWP holders will be disarmed and defenseless in the staff and faculty office. Unlike other secure zones, they will have no reasonable assurance (through metal detectors, guards, etc) that other people have been disarmed as well.
o This will be the only unsecured “secure zone” in the state. It truly will be a victim disarmament zone.

Now I’ll touch on some of the text of the bill and enter into a more detailed analysis.

Actually, before that, I think the entire premise of this bill is flawed. It’s designed to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. The University of Utah has not been able to point to a single “problem” with CWP holders on campus. Since the Supreme Court overturned the university's gun ban, students have survived an entire semester of wild dorm parties, heated classroom discussions, and bad grades without a single irresponsible use of a firearm by a CWP holder. What would this bill accomplish? “Protect” university students from a responsible group of law-abiding citizens the state authorizes to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense in almost every other setting? This whole idea is absurd. To the legislators it seems to be an abstract exercise in reconciliation and compromise, or as a way to put a bitter and protracted legal battle in the past and bury the hatchet. There’s nothing abstract about it to me. These are MY rights they are considering infringing upon. It is me that they will be leaving defenseless. Oppose this unnecessary bill.
Back to the text again (this is based on my understanding of SB 251 after just a quick read-though in class while I’m supposed to be listening to my professor, so if I’ve misunderstood some part of the bill, please politely correct me):

53B-3-103(2)(a)(iii) = This section basically gives the Board of Regents authority to authorize an institution of higher education to make a rule that allows dorm residents to be assigned roommates that are not CWP holders.
It’s discriminatory, plain and simple. Here’s an excerpt from a letter I wrote to some local newspapers on it:
The full text for Senate Bill 251 was made public today, and I like it even less now. There are a whole slew of reasons I oppose this bill, but let’s just focus on one for now: Segregation. That’s an ugly word, isn’t it? It conjures up images from the Reconstruction-era deep South. It’s strange that the idea of segregation would be resurrected in Utah in 2007 in the form of SB 251. This President-Young-supported bill contains a clause that would allow dorm residents to “have only roommates who are not” Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) holders. It creates second-class citizens out of Utah’s law-abiding CWP holders. What would they call this bill if it said, “have only roommates who are not” black or gay or illegal immigrants or any other group? Ignorant? Hateful? Bigoted? They’d be right. This bill’s supporters would turn and run from it. They’d be sick to their stomachs at what they’d done. So why then, is it ok to do this to CWP holders? How long until we have “separate but equal” housing for CWP holders and non-permitees? This bill would plunge a knife through the heart of ideas like diversity, acceptance, and tolerance at the University. It would be a victory for the forces of ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. I urge you to oppose SB 251.

There are only two quasi-rational explanations for this clause that I can think of (if you think of a third, please share it with me):
Either, (A) you think CWP holders present a danger to their roommates, and so want to give the dorm residents a chance to protect themselves by requesting that they don’t share a room with them,
Or (B), you realize that CWP holders aren’t really dangerous, but you don’t want someone to be placed with a roommate that they’d feel uncomfortable with (like gun-owners).
If the reason is (A), my rebuttal is: There are lots of other demographic slices of the population that, statistically, are much more prone to violence than CWP holders (and thus present a greater threat to fellow dorm residents). Why not create a rule allowing the dorm residents to request not to be paired with someone from those groups (people with criminal histories, for example, or people on the sex offender’s list, or of a particular economic / racial background, etc)?
And if the reason is (B), my rebuttal is: there are a great variety of lifestyle choices that have the potential to make a roommate feel uncomfortable (sexual orientation jumps to the front of my mind, but there are plenty of others). Why are we singling CWP holders out? Are anti-gun people the only ones who are going to be accommodated? Why not anti-gay people? Or anti-asian? Or anti-anything-else? I’ve got a better idea: why not eliminate this silly clause and refuse to accommodate everyone? My understanding of “the college experience” was that a big part of it was supposed to be being exposed to people of different backgrounds, mindsets, beliefs, lifestyles, etc. Isn’t that what “diversity” is all about? This clause is a first step at doing away with that. If you absolutely cannot abide the thought of a student being made uncomfortable by his roommate, then design a process that doesn’t single out CWP holders. Allow any resident to request not to be paired with a particular roommate for whatever reason. Who’s to say that the anti-gun person’s discomfort is more valid and worthy of accommodation than the anti-gay person or the anti-blond person or the anti-rich person?

76-10-505.5(4)(a) = Faculty or staff who request, in writing, and post a reasonable sign, can ban concealed weapons from their office.
The biggest issue I see here is this: in the past, the U had their gun ban, but the silver lining was that it only applied to students, faculty, and staff of the University of Utah. The only penalties they could inflict were academic discipline. As near as I can tell, this new law would apply to EVERYONE, regardless of their formal relationship, or lack thereof, with the University, and the penalty is now dramatically increased. Instead of just school disciplinary action, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that it would be a criminal matter (a misdemeanor). This is a HUGE expansion of the gun ban, and depending on how liberally they interpret the word “office,” can effectively be stretched to an almost-complete ban on campus. What’s more, instead of just being limited in scope to students, faculty, and staff, this would be a ban on ALL CWP holders. In short, if this bill passes, CWP holders will be WORSE OFF than they were before the Supreme Court decision!!!
Can any of you imagine a parent telling their child, “Be a good boy, play nice with others, don’t cause trouble for your teacher, and don’t hit, and next week you’re grounded anyways?” That’s the way I feel that the Legislature is treating CWP holders. We’ve kept up our side of the bargain. We’ve been good. We haven’t caused any trouble at the U. We even won the court case, and now they Legislature is going to punish CWP holders with SB 251.
A big part of this will be in their interpretation of things like “staff office”. Maybe they’ll be reasonable about it, but I’m not going to hold my breath. For example, the University bookstore employs X (some number) “staff.” If just a single employee at the Bookstore submits a request to make their “office” (the University might call any staff workspace an “office”) gun-free, will that mean that the entire Bookstore will be off-limits for CWP holders? I could imagine large sections of the Union, Student Services, Bookstore, and many other campus buildings, quickly being made off-limits to CWP holders.
In a bit of irony, classrooms (the one area that the U seemed most concerned about “protecting” from CWP holders during the debate leading up to SB 251) might be the only area on campus where CWP holders will be allowed.
76-10-505.5(4)(b) = Require that “secure storage facility” be made available for CWP holders within ‘reasonable proximity’ outside of any gun-ban office.
Again, most of my complaints with this will hinge on their interpretation of “reasonably proximate”. In my mind that should mean a lock box right outside the door of any gun-ban office. Unfortunately, they’re not asking my opinion on this. The U will have their own interpretation, and I’m doubtful that it will be nearly as accommodating as I would like. The wording is just far too vague to ensure that CWP holders are adequately protected. But let’s assume, for a minute, that they actually were to follow through in good faith on this clause, and were to put a secure storage facility on the same floor of the same building as any gun-ban office, or something along those lines. I still see the following concerns:
First off, if the University and the Legislature want this issue to become a non-issue (which they both seem to), this is not the way. For most CWP holders, it’s a quiet and anonymous personal decision. Requiring that CWP holders disarm and re-arm in a public place (like in the hall outside of a gun-ban office) is going to destroy our anonymity (to which I believe we are entitled). I wonder which professors will look at me differently (and treat me differently in class) after they’ve seen first-hand that I carry a sidearm.
From the University’s perspective, I wonder what effect having a CWP holder strap on a sidearm in a hallway in the Union, just as one of those high-school orientation / campus tour groups passes by, will have. Do you really think this is the way to minimize CWP holders’ visibility on campus?
Secondly: safety. For many CWP holders, they put their sidearm on once in the morning, and take it off once at night, and the rest of the time it sits quietly (and SAFELY) in its holster. This bill would mandate that CWP holders disarm and re-arm multiple times throughout the day. I believe that, as a whole, CWP holders are extremely safe and cautious with their sidearms, but every time a loaded firearm is drawn from holster, handled, and re-holstered, it increases the odds of an accidental / negligent discharge. In a typical day, a CWP holder might have to visit two or three offices and disarm and re-arm at each one. It’s only a matter of time before the law of large numbers takes over and there is an accidental discharge that could’ve been avoided if CWP holders weren’t required to remove and re-holster their sidearm every time they enter and leave a gun-ban office. Worse still, any accidental discharge would be in a public place, with other people around that tragically, might be harmed. Without this law, most arming and disarming would be done in the relative safety and seclusion of a CWP holder’s own place of residence.
The CWP holder side of this goes something like this. We may not like having to disarm for other “secure zones” (airports, mental hospitals, federal buildings, etc.), but as a consolation prize we know that everyone passes through metal detectors with armed guards and so we can be reasonably-assured that we’re on roughly the same footing as everyone else inside the secure zone: no one has weapons. With the U’s “faculty and staff office” ban, there is no such reasonable assurance. We’ll leave our only means of self-defense behind to enter the gun-ban zone, but there’s nothing to stop anyone who wants to harm us from entering the same zone without removing their weapons. No metal detectors, no guards, no reasonable assurance of relative safety. It will be the only “secure zone”-type area in the state (where it is a crime to carry) that doesn’t take these other safety precautions. It truly will be a victim disarmament zone.
Third, financing. Who is going to pay to establish and maintain this system of secure storage facilities? Who is going to ensure that they are truly secure? I think it’s likely that these facilities will be targeted by criminals in search of a gun unless they are made and positioned in a way that makes theft virtually impossible.

Fourth, what will happen if the University simply refuses to install the secure storage facilities (like Utah courts have done)? Will violators of the (a) clause still be prosecuted? (a) and (b) need to be linked much more strongly than they currently are. The law should make it absolutely clear that (a) doesn’t take effect unless (b) is met.



Thank you. I appreciate so much that you took the time to read and address my concerns. Best of luck to you this legislative session.

2/08/2007 7:14 PM  

 Anonymous said...

In response to Tom Grover:

I am an U of U student, I do not carry a concealed firearm on campus but I do have a CWP.

If comiting a crime is against the law, and that has never stopped anyone from commiting a crime, how is it that preventing someone who went to the extent of having their criminal background verified by the FBI, having their fingerprints catalogged by the police department and having every police officer know that that individual can carry a concealed weapon will prevent any violent acts?

Also, keep in mind that Columbine happened in a "gun free zone". If a shooting happens at the U of U, I want to have the option to protect myself. The incident that happened at Trolley Square a couple nights ago could have been stopped by one CWP holder before so many lives were taken away.

Truth is, any law only affects law abiding citizens, but those are not the ones we should be concerned about.

2/14/2007 11:32 AM  

 Anonymous said...

Trolley Square was a "Gun Free Zone." CWP holders were not welcome.

2/14/2007 2:48 PM  

 Anonymous said...

Just to point this out but:
1) even if Trolley Square was not a gun-free zone it's quite possible no conclealed weapons holder would have been there to stop it anyway;
2) Trolley Square is a private business - they can ban whatever they want, including firearms;
3) The person who largely was responsible for stopping the violence was an off-duty POLICE OFFICER, not an average CWP holder;
4) A whole bunch of CWP people firing off is not helpful: they are not trained the way officers are, they would largely get in the way and probably shoot each other (that is of course excepting police didn't shoot THEM because they appeared to be a second or third or fourth or whatever shooter);
5) I live in the dorms on campus and I know as a result that a significant portion of the residents drink, and drink heavily (despite the fact the U is a dry campus). This will not change and therefore adding guns to the mix really won't solve any problems;
6) To all others that are U students: would carrying a gun really make you feel safer? When was the last time you ever felt you genuinely needed a gun? All it could do is escalate a relatively benign confrontation into a deadly one. I would rather be robbed and beaten than kill anybody;
7) There is no evidence that concealed weapons make a person any safer - on the contrary they could (and most likely would) be stolen and used against them or someone else

2/16/2007 4:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home