When the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors upgraded the school’s weapons “policy” to a “regulation,” it transformed a stated preference for a gun-free Grounds into an enforceable rule. The November 4 vote also sets the stage for a heated General Assembly battle that could pit Second Amendment advocates and Virginia’s concealed carry law against universities like UVA and George Mason, which apply further restrictions to firearms on their premises.
“I think we will see legislation during this General Assembly session that will give people a right to concealed carry on University campuses,” said Delegate David Toscano, who was recently reelected to a fourth term.
“That would be a big mistake,” he added. “And it’s not something that I would support.”
According to UVA spokesperson Carol Wood, the 16-member Board of Visitors voted unanimously in favor of a regulation prohibiting weapons, fireworks and explosives. The regulation prohibits members of the public and visitors from carrying weapons in University buildings, from student residences to sports venues to the University Medical Center. However, for members of the University community—students, faculty, employees and volunteers—the prohibition covers “University property.” which includes the Grounds themselves. It also applies to University community members with concealed carry permits.
That might upset one or two members of the University community. In a June survey of UVA academic staff prepared for President Teresa Sullivan, some staff responded that they would feel safer if their colleagues were armed.
“I do believe that the Grounds would be safer in terms of the threat of violence if students and staff were allowed to carry handguns with a concealed carry permit,” wrote one. Another added, “I personally do not like the thought that I am forced by University policy to give up my right to self protection because some bureaucrat is uncomfortable around firearms.”
Comments
The emotional response to ban all guns makes no logical sense. It will have no effect on anyone who desires to shoot people as occurred at Virginia Tech, they obviously don’t care about the law. It will however insure that no one on University property can do anything to stop the slaughter. If anything it will attract those who wish to create mayhem since they know it will be unopposed.
I agree with Will Haltiwanger. This ban will do nothing at all to stop someone who is bent on death and destruction at any cost. To prohibit those who have the legal right by the state of Virginia to have a right to carry and carve out a piece of Virginia State property and mandate that a right to carry is not allowed in this section of the state of Virginia is wrong.
I agree with the above comments. Those who are willing to break the law against harming other human beings are not going to think twice about bringing a firearm on campus. Those who have concealed carry permits are usually prior military or law enforcement- the kinds of people who are well-trained and trustworthy to bear arms in defense of others.
What a wonderful idea! Finally, Mr. Jefferson’s school will be absolutely free from “gun violence”, just like Va. Tech. and other gun-free zones! Also, when a 100-pound coed and a 250-pound athlete have an dispute, there’ll be no danger that someone could be shot.
“Gun free zones” are notoriously unreliable when it comes to preventing crime. It only enables the criminal to commit acts of violence against the known defenseless. If we continue to disarm law abiding citizens in certain areas, I’m afraid we are doomed to history repeating itself. It seems painfully obvious that with prohibition of firearms on the grounds for those legally entitled to carry concealed, we have learned nothing.
I agree with the comments I see so far—banning firearms does not reduce the likelihood of violence. This new regulation is, I believe, inconsistent with the reliance on individual responsibility that undergirds our amazingly successful American society. I am sad that this magnificent university, with its admirable heritage of conserving individual liberty, is being led to this sort of regulation. I would like to see this regulation lifted.
Leave a Comment