The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Monday to allow guns onto college campuses.
That 5-3 vote came after Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, sided with Democrats in opposition. Yarbrough said he was not convinced that limiting the right to those with a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon provides sufficient safeguards.
But the other Republicans on the GOP-dominated panel said all they were doing is affirming the constitutional right of individuals to protect themselves.
SB 1474 would still allow colleges and universities to keep buildings as gun-free zones. But that would require that they post signs banning weapons at each door.
More significant, it would mandate that schools purchase and install secure lockers for each building. Foes said, though, that lockers would cost more than $400 apiece. And the legislation contains no new funding for the schools to obtain them.
Brent Gardner, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said concerns of armed individuals on campuses are overblown.
Since 2010, Arizona law allows any adult to carry a concealed weapon. But this special permission for campuses would be limited solely to the nearly 163,000 individuals who have obtained a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Gardner said there is no evidence that these people, who already have their guns with them at most times, are causing problems.
"The notions that we heard today (is) the idea that ... suddenly when they step foot across an imaginary boundary onto a college campus become homicidal maniacs,'' he told lawmakers.
But Yarbrough was not convinced.
"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 while 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.
Other Republicans had their own concerns based on conflicting testimony.
Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, cited the comments of John Pickens, the police chief at Arizona State University who feared "unintended consequences.'' That includes the fact that armed students have nowhere near the training of a certified peace officer in being able to identify who is the target and the skills to hit only that person.
On the other side of the issue, Gardner said statistics show that campuses can be dangerous places, even with trained police. He said in 2010 there were 12 aggravated assaults, six rapes and three robberies on the main ASU campus.
"The simple fact is these folks are not able to be everywhere at all times,'' Gardner said.
"Our personal safety and responsibility is something that is incumbent upon each of us,'' he continued. "It's a right guaranteed by our constitution.''
Driggs agreed that no law can control deranged individuals.
"Those people are still going to come onto campus with a firearm,'' he said, with or without laws that now allow universities and colleges to keep guns off campuses.
"I'm being asked which is more likely: That a CCW permit holder will 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.''
Still, Driggs agreed to support the measure for now.
Others, however, had no such concerns.
Sen. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, pointed out that the Arizona Constitution spells out that "the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired.'' He argued that existing restrictions -- including those this legislation seeks to lift -- violate that restriction.
Among those testifying against the bill was James Allen, the student body president at the University of Arizona.
He said faculty and students are opposed to the change. And Allen said lawmakers should defer to the opposition of the campus police chiefs who say more guns on campus will make the schools more dangerous.
But Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, questioned the basis of the fears. He said that police chiefs from around the state opposed the 1994 legislation that first allowed people to have concealed weapons, saying it would lead to less public safety.
"The evidence of history doesn't, in my opinion, lend credence to those dire concerns,'' Murphy said.
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.
There also was conflicting testimony about what laws about guns on campuses already exist in other states. But Gerri Hills, vice president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said even if there are states that permit students and faculty to be armed, that does not mean lawmakers here should conclude that they pose no problems.
"(I) haven't heard them saving anybody, either,'' she said.
"We're making these type of policies based on assumptions, myths and hypotheticals,'' Hills said. "This is not the way public policy should be created.''
Lawmakers approved a similar measure last year, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, who expressed concern over the wording. Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, said he recrafted the measure to address the governor's comments; she has not said whether she will sign the new version.
The same committee also approved another measure to make it more difficult for other government agencies to keep weapons out of their buildings.
Under existing law, a simple "no guns'' sign suffices. SB 1448 would let owners of weapons, concealed or open, ignore those signs unless the agency also had an armed guard at any door where the public can enter.
Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said his legislation is designed to ensure that those who enter public buildings can remain armed to protect themselves if others with malicious intent ignore those signs.
Both bills still need full Senate approval.
Slabside posted at 6:05 pm on Mon, Feb 6, 2012.
I'm for it. Now, wait for the hoplophobes to come out of the woodwork.[thumbup]
soricobob posted at 4:29 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
I guess times change. When I went to college we weren't allowed to drink on campus, and the town we were in was "dry", so we had to go to the neighboring town to drink. To conceive of a campus where carrying a weapon is legal (although I own them) is so foreign to me that it is difficult to imagine why it is necessary, and what evil might come from it's inception. Maybe people who think like me should attend the hearings so that we might better understand those proponents of this legislation.
mvccd1000 posted at 5:17 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
soricobob, I believe there are already several states that allow colleges to follow the same laws as the rest of the state in regards to CCW. Perhaps you can point out a few news stories detailing "the evil that has come from that inception" in those places?
If not, it's likely that the same CCW holders who don't create chaos in the grocery store next to you will continue to not create chaos should they have to drive across campus.
This law is a non-event.
davidflucier posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
From one perspective, I agree, it is a non event, except that there is a huge cost associated with implementation and the legislation does nothing to fund the requirements.
Utah passed a similar law except it didn't mandate a multi million dollar requirement on the part of the colleges and universities.
So, what we have here is a do nothing piece of legislation which won't really increase public safety, doesn't improve the educational process for anyone, and is going to cost millions to implement.
Another shining example of the Ron Gould, Tea Party school of limited and effective government.
k33j88 posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Guns, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save lives. No gray area there, pure and simple.
geekette posted at 7:55 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
So Ron Gould and the Judiciary Committee, in the name of small government, are imposing a law on several groups of people (students, faculty, staff, safety officers) who don't want it. The next time Gould and Co complain about government intrusion, we'll know them for the liars they are.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 9:16 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
You'll need to explain to me how allowing guns on campus is going to require millions to implement? What is the sense of installing lockers and posting signs designating buildings as gun free zones? What possible safety difference is there from carrying a weapon outside but not inside. If we are allowed to carry anywhere except private businesses that don't want them on their premises - they have that right - then explain to me why a public building should be allowed to refuse our public right to carry? What on Earth could make that place less safe? Criminals are already carrying them into classes when and where they want so how will allowing legal, law-abiding citizens the right to carry in their class rooms less safe? The only people who oppose allowing guns on campus are the same list of anti gun liberals than want all guns confiscated. Liberal insanity.
Rational Human posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
This bill is flawed in that it does create extra cost for the schools that isn't funded by the government and will have to come out of their regular budget. The only way I can see to fix this is to take out the language giving the schools the right to deny access to buildings by gun carriers. It's a small expense to add a few lockers and post a few signs outside all their buildings, but they shouldn't be forced to do this unfunded. Instead, the right to bear arms should be allowed within ALL school buildings. First off, criminals wont obey the signs and if a law abiding citizen decides to go nuts and start shooting people - HIGHLY UNLIKELY - they can always just go outside to their locker to retrieve their weapon. It's an irrational fear of guns that created this ban in the first place, but if they wish to maintain their irrational fear then maybe they should be forced to use their general funds to post their rediculous signs and provide lockers. You're right TeaParty, this is liberal insanity.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:33 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Saw Ron Gould, the bill's chief sponsor, on TV this morning. He argued two things: 1. Gun free schools = criminal friendly schools; 2. Arizona's crime rate has dropped over the last decade as our gun laws have become more lenient.
Beyond the obvious oversimplification of #2, his logic is this: More guns = a safer place. Reality contradicts that, however. Compare ASU to its surrounding city, Tempe: in 2010, ASU had 0 murders; Tempe 12. ASU had 6 rapes; Tempe, 43. ASU had 12 aggravated assaults; Tempe, 457. ASU had 12 robberies; Tempe, 268.
These differences are born out year after year, yet Sen. Gould would have us believe that Tempe is safer than ASU.
Of course, our legislators prefer the idea of guns on campus rather than its reality.
Rational Human posted at 3:35 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Mike are you arguing that guns allowed on campus will create more robberies, rapes, aggravated assaults and murders on campus? Might I remind you that people who commit these crimes have very little fear of the consequences of being caught with a gun on campus or is that obvious even to a gun grabber? Does the fact that fewer criminals either live on campus or attend ASU also not strike you as pretty obvious? Is your zeal to disarm the world so great that you fail to see your own illogical assumptions? Your reality must be a strange place to exist in.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:57 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Rational, you're not being very rational here, in that nowhere in my comments will you see anything approaching a "zeal to disarm the world." So let's drop that distortion and agree to stick to the specific topic.
I definitely agree with you that "fewer criminals either live on campus or attend ASU." No doubt about that. But according to Gould's logic, ASU is a "criminal friendly" area in that the lure of a gun-free area is great. Criminals with guns, in Gould's argument, don't have to worry about an innocent person toting a gun on campus. Thus, using Gould's logic, there should be more criminals coming on campus to commit crimes. Yet by total and by per capita, there are more crimes taking place off campus in Tempe. Which is why his logic doesn't work.
Rational Human posted at 4:24 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
The fact is that home invasions, home burglaries, armed assaults and robberies are way down nationally as gun purchases by the public has skyrocketed. Don't believe Gould's logic, post a large gun free zone sign in front of your house. Criminal friendly just means that criminals know they wont have to deal with an armed public there. Still you're using the same flawed logic to describe why there is less crime on campuses than in cities even when admitting to why there is less crime there. It is pretty obvious that cities with less criminals experience less crime isn't it. If guns were not allowed in Tempe would the crime statistics go down? No Mike, it's your logic that is flawed here and not Gould's.
Rational Human posted at 4:32 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
I might add that one of the highest crime cities in the world, Detroit, is a gun free zone.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:28 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
So you want to compare Detroit to a college campus, and you're accusing me of "flawed logic"? Sure.
Anyhow, remember what Gould's premise was this morning -- a gun free campus would lend itself to attracting criminals and crime. That hasn't happened.
So let's be honest. We all know the legislation's a reaction to the horrors of Virginia Tech from a couple of years ago. Why doesn't Gould just say that rather than his pretzel logic that begs the question?
Slabside posted at 5:53 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Mike, if guns are legalized for concealed carry on campus by trained individuals you will not see random bloodshed. Nothing will change except criminals may decide a campus isn't quite right for the pickings.
Rational Human posted at 7:53 am on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
No Mike why don't you stop foolishly trying to argue that guns on campus are any more dangerous than guns in the general public. There IS a direct correlation between increased gun ownership and lower crime, and there is nothing about having guns on campus that will not be the same however small that decrease might be due to the general lack of criminals on campus. The fact is that We The People have the right to carry and you the minority don't like it so you try anything in the book to try to limit our constitutional right to carry. So if you want honesty from others you should try a little of it yourself first. Pretzel logic or not, the fact is that you have no right to prevent us from carrying our guns on campus. End of story.
Rational Human posted at 8:01 am on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
BTW, The Detroit reference was not a comparison to a college campus - not sure how you could make that comparison - but was a reference to that gun free zone sign you will no doubt be putting up on your lawn in front of your house. Maybe you should take out an advertisement in the local liberal rag of a newspaper you subscribe to just in case some criminals can read so they know where it will be safe to commit a crime. Leave your valuable out where they can see them and by all means do not lock your doors. My point being that if you're going to act a fool, why not act a complete fool.
Rational Human posted at 8:06 am on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
Correction: It's actually an inverse correlation and not a direct correlation that increased gun ownership equals decreased violent crime. Statistics have proved this to be a fact everywhere it has been seen that people are buying guns and ammo at much higher rates than in the past. It's also interesting that most places that have limited gun ownership have some of the highest violent crime statistics.
Mike McClellan posted at 11:55 am on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
Rational, no I'm not arguing that "guns on campus are any more dangerous than guns in general." Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
You avoid Gould's argument that a gun-free campus is a criminal friendly zone. But then, why don't criminals exploit those unarmed students and staff members as Gould claims would happen? Here are unarmed people, and yet criminals don't go on campus from the nearby city to commit crimes. In fact, in the well-armed community around ASU, crime is higher.
That is counter to Gould's logic.
And FYI: The two states with the most restrictive gun laws -- Mass (3.6 per 100,000) and Hawaii (2.6) -- have the least gun deaths per capita in the country. Conversely, the states with the least restrictive gun laws -- including Arizona (15) and Mississippi (18) tend to have the most gun deaths.
Now, I'm not so simplistic to claim that gun laws are the cause of gun deaths, but I'm not sure your claim is born out by these stats.
Rational Human posted at 1:31 pm on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
Ok since you can't or refuse to see the obvious let me spell it out for you. There is very little crime on campus to draw a lot of criminals into attacking. Saying gun free zones are criminal friendly just means that a criminal has little to fear there if one should choose to attack for some reason. How does that logic escape you? It's a lot simpler than you try to make it out.
In Oakland, Calimexico it's so dangerous that it's illegal to carry a sharpened #2 pencil concealed. Now that is what I would call criminal friendly. You get those gun free zone signs put up on your front lawn yet?
I noticed you didn't mention the outrageously restrictive gun laws in Washington, DC and the very high murder rate there. Pick and choose your stats that way and you can prove any baloney. All you can attempt to prove is that guns can kill people when in fact it's people who kill people.
The fact that violent crimes are going down and gun sales are going up is a well documented fact that you can google and see for yourself anytime you wish to.
Banning guns to the general public increases people's vulnerability and fails to reduce violence because the law-abiding citizenry are victims of violent crime, not perpetrators. Banning guns to felons, violent misdemeanants, juveniles and the insane (which our laws already do) is a good idea in general, though such laws are very difficult to enforce. Disarming those who only want to defend themselves, however, is a surefire road to empowering criminals at the expense of the innocent. College campuses are no different.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:42 pm on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
So let me get this straight, Rational:
You write, "Saying gun free zones are criminal friendly just means that a criminal has little to fear there if one should choose to attack for some reason."
So criminals with a ready set of victims have little to fear if they venture onto ASU, yet for some reason, they don't. Kids with money, computers, iPods, purses and backpacks, young women walking alone at night, and yet, despite no guns allowed, something the criminals know in advance, crime rates in all violent crimes are hugely lower than in the neighboring gun-toting ASU.
So are you suggesting that our local criminals are so dumb as to not recognize the enormous number of potential victims walking around unarmed?
Again, instead of dealing with Gould's argument -- which is a weak one -- you want to change the subject to crime rates vis a vis gun ownership. Or just call me names.
I'm glad you bring up the D.C. stat -- you are, of course, correct. But that just goes to show that gun ownership in and of itself is not the indicator of gun-related deaths.
Massachusetts has restrictive laws and has the second lowest gun deaths/capita in the country; D.C. has very restrictive laws and has a very high gun deaths/capita.
Arizona has the second least restrict gun laws in the country but has the second highest gun deaths/capita; Kansas has similarly less restrictive laws, and has a much lower gun death rate, as does Utah.
So maybe we can conclude that gun laws by themselves are not a fair indicator of how safe a community or state is.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 7:55 pm on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
Really Mike? Those kids is rolling in dough and expensive high tech gear? Man, us criminals thought they was all starving students that can barely pay their tuition. Well I guess we can cut their funding a little more to help pay for the illegal aliens education. The young women walking alone at night sounds good though. Man, what we's been missing. Oh wait, I's forgot cause we stands out like a sore thumb when we's waiting in the bushes for broads to come walking by and they usually walk in groups anyway. Anyway the place is lite up like a football stadium on Saturday night. So, just what planet is you from and can I have your freakin gun free zone address?
"So maybe we can conclude that gun laws by themselves are not a fair indicator of how safe a community or state is."? Are you kidding me? Of course and I don't see where RH said anything different, but I'll tell you that my guns, and I carry 3, are in fact a fair indicator of the chances of you victimizing me or my loved ones. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Removing guns from law abiding citizens makes them easier to kill. And you call yourself an educator? Didn't they have a course on logic, or was that just not a required course for you? Besides, what does anything you've said up to this point have to do with our right to carry? We have the right to carry and you sissy, gay, liberal professors can just kiss my toushy if you don't like it.
downtownresident posted at 8:55 pm on Fri, Feb 10, 2012.
This law is ignorant and stupid, and so is anyone would support it.
k33j88 posted at 4:59 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.
This lifetime member of the NRA hopes and prays that I never have to take a life. God help the deranged that wants to go on a shooting-spree. Remember, gun control is using both hands.
k33j88 posted at 5:02 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.
It has been proven over and over. Guns, in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens save lives. More guns = less crime.
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 8:24 am on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.
"This law is ignorant and stupid"? Why that must be an intelligent and smart comment. Or could it be uniformed and lacking in knowledge. lol Typical unintelligent liberal gun grabber theological mumbo jumbo.
Remember folks, the last 4 letters of democrats is RATS and Nov. 2012 has been designated as rodent extermination month.
Pancho Villa posted at 4:08 pm on Mon, Feb 13, 2012.
My people need more guns Mr Obama. Please send us all your guns south. More automatic ataque rifles.
wangly posted at 11:04 pm on Fri, Nov 9, 2012.
wasn't trained or certified to deliver facial injections. She wasn't wasn't jordan 11 wasn't even a licensed massage therapist as she advertised on
website. Ayala, according to the Miami Herald and other news news fake designer handbags news sources, has denied all charges against her. Neither Ayala
her lawyer, Milena Abreu, could be reached for comment.Experts are are jordan 11 are alarmed at the increasing number of people seeking such
procedures. According to the organization Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Research, more more replica designer handbags more than 8 million people underwent cosmetic treatments to freshen
their appearance last year. Treatments included Botox, chemical peels and and moncler jackets men and laser skin resurfacing, and consumers migtht not be aware
the risks."Cosmetic procedures are now so mainstream there's a misperception misperception fake designer handbags misperception that it's like getting your hair done," said Dr.
R. McCafferty, a board certified plastic surgeon who is president president jordan 11 concords president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. "They
inherently safe, but this is predicated on [their] being delivered delivered fake designer handbags delivered by properly trained professionals in a properly equipped facility."ASAPS
that cosmetic procedures be performed only by board board jordan concord board certified plastic surgeons or dermatologists in an accredited facility,
some states also allow registered nurses and physician's assistants to to moncler down jackets to deliver therapies under doctors' supervision. Members of the ASAPS,
similar professional organizations, are required to operate only in certified certified designer replica handbags certified centers or hospitals.Some spas meet these criteria, but even