Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has opined that a University of Virginia policy against firearms on campus may not be legally enforced.
The university flatly prohibits firearms on its property, with the exception of police officers. Emmett Hanger, a state senator, asked Cuccinelli whether the policy was legal.
In a July 1 response [pdf], Cuccinelli replies that it is not. The story was previously reported in the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.
Virginians are legally permitted to carry weapons openly, as well as to wear concealed firearms. The state’s open-carry law is one of the nation’s most permissive.
In drawing his conclusion, Cuccinelli reviews a recent state Supreme Court case. That ruling upheld a regulation at George Mason University that forbids firearms inside campus buildings and at events.
Why, then, can’t U-Va.’s policy be enforced?
Two reasons, Cuccinelli says.
First, the U-Va. policy includes not just buildings but open spaces. Cuccinelli reasons that the George Mason regulation is defensible because it is restricted to “sensitive areas” where students might be found. The U-Va. policy, in his view, is too broad, including “virtually all University buildings and property.”
Therefore, in Cuccinelli’s view, the university has no right to stop people from carrying firearms openly on its entire campus. For the policy to be legal, it would have to be tailored to restrict people from carrying firearms openly “within certain buildings.”
The second problem, he writes, is that U-Va.’s gun ban is a policy and not a regulation. As such, it does not carry the force of law.
Where does that leave the university’s gun ban? It’s fine, Cuccinelli reasons, as long as it doesn’t conflict with any actual law.
“I am compelled to conclude that under its policies, the University lawfully may prohibit persons from openly carrying a firearm in the buildings that are subject to the policy,” he writes.
In other words: Visitors to U-Va. may carry concealed firearms anywhere on the grounds, and if they are outdoors, they may carry them openly.
University officials said they are reviewing their policy in light of the opinion.
“The safety and security of our more than 20,000 students and 10,000 employees —in addition to the safety of the more than 10,000 patients and visitors who come to the University each day—are of utmost importance to us,” the university said in a statement, alluding both to the academic operation and the affiliated medical center. “Any steps we consider in our review of the opinion will certainly take that responsibility into account.”
Comments
As a parent of a UVA student,I am highly disturbed and concerned over Mr.Cuccinelli’s remarks relating to carrying guns onto campus. In light of recent gun violence on university grounds (i.e. the tragedy at Virginia Tech), I feel very strongly that UVA is correct in protecting students through its total ban on carrying weapons not only in buildings but also on grounds at the school. The very idea that visitors on grounds may not only carry concealed weapons anywhere but also carry them openly outdoors is outrageous! I DO NOT agree with this at all!
Astounding! In a state that saw the VA. Tech tragedy. Where has common sense gone in this country?
Perhaps Republican Cuccinelli is more concerned about continued NRA campaign support than security and safety on our beloved Grounds?
Outstanding. The legal system in Virginia-proves itself to be outstanding once again. Ranking somewhere near the sovereign state of Mississippi with no better champion and interpreter than Cuccinelli. I strongly believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms but a school and hospital must be able to ensure the safety of their students, staff and patients.
Ms. Allman, Mr. Rock & Mr. Lucas, you forget it is not guns that cause crime, but rather criminals. Obtaining a concealed carry permit with a criminal history is nearly impossible. If you do not understand the correlation between firearms restrictions and violent crime, it is your own common sense that is lacking. Feel free to contact me for statistics.
Also interesting: it may not occur to the opponents of the atty. general’s opinion that they should express their anger at the state of Virginia legislature and governor, not Mr. Jefferson’s university. As an alum, and California & Hawaii resident, I entreat Virginians to appreciate what you have back there. I surely do!
Mr. Cox, sadly I have come to understand that there are well-educated people out there like yourself who honestly believe that it is ok for people to be carrying weapons (concealed or otherwise) around on a college campus, who fall back on the trite “guns don’t kill; people do.” Surely, we will all be safer if a bunch of inebriated undergrads are wandering around the Grounds packing heat.
It appears to me that the problem is not in the opinion stated by Mr. Cucinelli, but in the law that gives rise to the opinion. It is truly sad to admit that this law is an indication of the level to which the legislature of the Commonwealth has descended. I wonder how many UVA graduates, especially Law graduates, sat in the legislature when the law was passed, and how they voted.
I have always thought that if that RA (or anyone other than the shooter) had had a weapon perhaps fewer people would have died at Va Tech. Responsible, trained gun owners can reduce the amount of violence inflicted upon the innocent. Carjackings and home invasions are thwarted everyday by guns. There is one city in Georgia with a mandatory gun law—and it has the lowest crime rate in Georgia. If the restrictions on who can lawfully own guns are RIGOROUSLY enforced—e.g., no felons, or those convicted of domestic violence—it would seem to make all of us safer.
Mr. Rock, as I understand the law, undergraduates are not supposed to be inebriated. Again, enforce the laws that exist.
Mr. Cox; our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see how far afield the NRA and other gun zealots have taken our 2nd amendment rights. Guns in and of themselves don’t cause crime, but criminals with easy access to guns sure do. The VT shooter is a perfect example of our “wild west” gun control mentality. Please note, Mr. Cox, that I’m both a UVA graduate and also someone who spent a portion of their vocational life in professional law enforcement. The great majority of former brethren who have to face criminals with guns would love to see stricter gun control. Statistics? I’d be happy to show you statistics which strongly support reasonable and effective gun control. Parading around the Grounds with a gun, whether open or concealed, is crazy, and I’m very sure Mr. Jefferson would agree with this sentiment.
Mr. Parker, your real world experience and assumption of the founding fathers’ collective posthumous sentiments is diametrically opposed to written history:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
—Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Mr. Ark, unfortunately we cannot continue to allow the guns don’t kill people argument to pass. Without a possessor, a gun is merely an elaborate paperweight. Humans have not invested the industrial and intellectual might to produce such elaborate paperweights. One possessed, the gun joins a gun-human sociotechnical system. This union of actor and technological artifact is what kills people, and it is what Cuccinelli believes should be allowed to freely roam around grounds. True, a gun concealed in museum will not kill people, but a gun toted by a human being is both capable of and designed for killing. It should also be noted that the gun is a purely offensive weapon. I can’t imagine medieval armor ever being legally banned.
Unfortunately Cuccinelli’s reading of the state constitution is again an interpretation obviously biased by an agenda. It surprises me that the entirety of Grounds cannot be legally considered a sensitive area. The Grounds may be the social opposite of a firing range or hunting woods. The density of naivety and blind social trust (consider how people interact on the Corner) do not align well with a policy admitting the possession of concealed firearms.
We must be vigilant. You never know when that government tyrant may come walking out of the Rotunda.
People who wish to carry guns for evil intent will carry them regardless of the
law. Also, most people owning guns do not really know how to use them,
making them unsafe in any circumstance.
Dr. MacLeod, I will grant you that there may be many who own guns who “do not really know how to use them.” However, and while I imagine there are exceptions, I have never known anyone who has taken the time and effort to acquire a carry permit, or regularly “open-carries” a weapon who does not know how to use the weapon. It is those people whom we read about thwarting attacks of various sorts.
Well, Mr. Jefferson may have had a point. I wonder how the Kent State massacre would have turned out if all the students had been armed. And I am sure Mr. Cox would have been comfortable if the 2,000 protesting students I was speaking to from the Rotunda steps leading up to the strike had all been waving their guns in the air. The occupation of the AFROTC building, the march up Carr’s Hill, the night of mass arrests on the grounds - I am trying to picture those events with masses of armed students. Not a pretty picture.
Listen up…..If a lawful gun owner was in the class that day at Va Tech a lot of innocent people might still be here today.
When you ask for these strict regulations what you are doing is leaving only the criminals with guns.
Be careful what you wish for.
I believe Mr. Cuccinelli is correct. Other academic institutions (specifically VCU) are written into the law to specifically ban firearms from their campuses. It is absurd to think that allowing folks who are legally permitted to possess a firearm to carry on Grounds will cause violence. These would be the same law abiding citizens that carry on the Corner, on Barracks Road, and everywhere else in Charlottesville, or the Commonwealth for that matter. I would imagine those that are carrying on Grounds also carry elsewhere, and do so without incident. Anybody who has read the safety alerts published by the U.Va police department over the last year or so would notice the recent increase in violent crime on and around Grounds. Why should students only be able to protect themselves when they are off Grounds? The simple fact that you may disagree with the second amendment does not give any basis as to why this right should be stripped from those part of this fine institution. As a resident or visitor to Virginia, it is your right not to carry a firearm, but it is also the right of legal gun owners to carry when they wish, and in accordance with the law.
Let’s see how UVA protects its own against violence. I see that UVA stands ready to support survivors of violence - after the fact:
“The University of Virginia takes gender-based violence seriously and provides support and information to survivors, friends and families of survivors, and the University community.”
http://www.virginia.edu/sexualviolence/
UVA’s model is that “potential victims have no control over the actions of potential assailants,” while criminals and the deranged will just have to work a wee bit harder to change their behaviors:
“No one can guarantee complete immunity from sexual assault, as it is true that potential victims have no control over the actions of potential assailants. However, we all can do whatever is possible to reduce our risk. In the end, however, since upwards of 90% of all sexual assailants are male, it is men who must work to end this behavior.”
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/resistance/models.htm
Others adopt a different model to protect themselves.
The individuals that have provided solid arguments for this have presented both stories and statistics regarding responsible gun ownership. Anyone that has taken the time to get their CC permit, learn when, how and under what circumstances they can carry and have taken the time to practice with a weapon are far more responsible citizens than anyone else out there, including cops who practice with their weapons less than the average private gun owner. If you have ever been a victim of a violent crime you know that the cops - the supposed protectors of society - were not there to prevent it. The stakes, i.e. your life and the lives of your loved one, are too high not to carry a weapon.
Mr. Gardner (BA ‘71) above makes an excellent point. I was not on Grounds in 1970-71, but at a different institution, at which there was indeed a gathering to protest Kent and mourn the victims—no armed protesters, and violence against plainclothes cop photographers avoided by the intervention of persons committed to nonviolence. CC would certainly have changed that record for the worse, since that campus was in a state governed at the time by a certain Wallace.
Justin Kidd Grad ‘73
Banning guns is not an effective deterrent to gun crime. Those who bring up the tragedy at Virginia Tech should note that a gun ban was in place on campus when it occurred. And I will argue that the VA Tech gun ban contributed directly to the tragedy by ensuring that no one could fight back against Mr Cho thus allowing him to kill and wound scores of unarmed people. Gun bans create places where bad people can kill good people with impunity. It is not good public policy. ENG’79
For all of you “gunphobes”, did it occur to you that no law would have prevented a determined individual bent on doing harm from taking a gun onto the VPI campus, but allowing law-abiding citizens to legally carry may have averted the killings? Grow up!
I am against people at the University carrying weapons, for a variety of reasons.
First, many - perhaps most - people see a nearby person with a gun as a threat, and become defensive and reticent around them. Free thought and free expression are chilled. That isn’t what a university should be about.
Second, more damage would come from the carrying of guns than from persons such as Cho at Virginia Tech. Statistics show that guns in the home cause more damage to the inhabitants than to intruders. According to the Brady Campaign, for every one time a gun in the home is used for self-defense, it is used 11 times for suicide attempts, seven times for criminal assaults including homicides, and four times for unintentional shootings.— http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome .
I also question the idea that gun-carrying students would be able to act effectively to prevent a shooter in all but the rarest of cases. The shootings of the Kennedys and Reagan teach us that even the Secret Service cannot always protect public figures against assassins. Even with the great advantages of dedication, numbers, constant training, close teamwork, and the ability to block access to the target, things sometimes happen too fast for the Secret Service. And vigilante scenarios in movies don’t often show what can happen when a scared, untrained person with a gun is put in a difficult situation. If a gunman blocked from view by a crowd opened fire, would a student with a gun be able to withhold fire? In another situation, would a student be calm enough to aim at and hit a shooter 40 feet away and miss bystanders only a few feet from the line of fire? Perhaps the bystanders might be running into the line of fire.
Here are three scenarios that come to mind if guns are allowed on Grounds: an armed student argues vigorously for an unearned grade change; armed, alcohol-drinking students at or near football or basketball games hassle fans from other schools; a clinically-depressed student has several bad things happen at once, and has a gun close at hand.
As a parent of an incoming freshman, I am horrified to hear that firearms by anyone able to obtain a license, could or would be allowable on campus. As the Brady Campaign reveals, the ill-effects of carrying and using (even in the best of intentions) firearms, and the simple availability of firearms (in a dorm room, for instance, or a back-pack perhaps), far outweighs any possible benefit.
I want to share an example of the potential disastrous effects of allowing the carrying and possession of firearms on any college campus grounds:
I work and teach at a university. This past year (2010-2011), we mourned 4 students who committed suicide. I personally knew one of those students. I cannot but think how horrific it would be to have firearms available - even under the best and most cautious scenario - and the potential result for disaster looming, for a student who was going through difficult emotional times. Today’s college is a stressful, competitive environment. Just look at what it took for our kids to apply and get accepted into U.Va. Firearms are not made for showing a person’s status, or improving a person’s sense of self-worth. They are designed to kill. It would be frightening to think that , say, thousands of students could all be walking around with killing machines.
How many of us would feel comfortable debating a sensitive political or social issue (here’s one: the right to abortion, or the condemnation of abortion) with someone we knew to be armed? We’ve seen murders committed in defense of opinions of this issue several times in our national history. Guns are meant to intimidate. Isn’t that antithetical to the point of a university, of encouraging free debate WITHOUT feeling threat of personal harm?
I remember Ronald Reagan getting shot, even despite police protection. JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King. The list goes on.
Allowing firearms on campus grounds, whether concealed or openly displayed, by those other than qualified law enforcement officials is not an environment condusive to learning or humanity. Have we gone mad?
One closing note: I know personally of one incident in my own university, where campus police were called in to respond to a reported assault. Thankfully, the incident was a false alarm, but I can tell you that within moments a mighty force of armed, trained, police surrounded the area and reacted in total command, in response to the incident. They could have, and would have, taken down any violent criminal, without hesitation. They were awesome. I would feel alot more secure with our police officers (both men & women), than I would with a bunch of 18-22 year-olds, all carrying guns. THAT is frightening.
This is precisely the sort of insanity, disguised as legal rhetoric, that makes me glad that I am living in Russia right now, and question whether my son should continue his education at UVa—the new “wild West.”
Anyone that is quoting or using statistics from the Brady Bill are essentially using biased propaganda that has been distorting facts for years. The fact of the matter is every suicide and assault/homicide is reportable. The number of times a weapon is used as a deterrent to prevent a crime from even happening is not. There are countless examples of guns used in a responsible manner to stop a violent crime that are not reported nor included in any of these statistics. Furthermore, everyone keeps citing drunk students wielding firearms and that everyone would carry like the “wild west”. You have to have training, a background check, and take the time to get a CC license. Less than 3% of the general population has their CC permit. To believe that this number would be any higher or that it would encourage less responsible individuals at UVA (a university in which the best and brightest of society attend) is absurd. Think critically about this issue rather than resort to fear mongering.
Arguing with the Irrational posters here is futile. Facts mean nothing to them. “Gunphobes” is right:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general
“A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia. The issue of continued high crime is especially disconcerting when comparing the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and highest gun ownership also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s, and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is high and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is much higher across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent.”
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
I am glad the Attorney General has made it clear that the University is subject to the same laws as the rest of the Commonwealth. Being afraid of guns doesn’t entitle UVa administrators to curtail people’s rights on public property.
I do not understand the mentality of those who don’t want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves. I always feel safer when I am among a crowd of armed citizens. I know that any criminal or deranged lunatic would not get anywhere among a crowd like that. But, even if I didn’t I am an American, and I believe in personal liberty. I went to Mr. Jefferson’s school, and I believe in limited government and an armed citizenry - and you can’t have one without the other. Indeed, massacres that take place are always deliberately chosen to be at places where the criminal knows he faces unarmed citizens - planes, post offices, disarmed schools, etc. I have been shooting since I am 6 years old. My gun club has never had an accident in the 80+ years of its existence. The pistol team at ROTC at UVA was a great experience for me. Guns are one of the most wonderful inventions ever; they ended the cycle of the uncivilized being able to conquer the civilized. An armed citizenry freed America from the British, and as little of our liberties as remains today in America, it assuredly would be much less if more of us were unarmed.
Gee, I’m learning so much from the NRAlumni. I had thought the relative violence of the DC area versus its Virginia suburbs had mostly to so with the poverty within DC and the affluence of the suburbs. Turns out DC doesn’t have enough guns. Maybe the NRA will donate a truckload of AK-47 rifles, some automatic pistols, etc, with lots of ammo, to the private citizenry of DC and thereby restore tranquillity.
Also, it appears that the history that I read was erroneous in describing General Washington and his Army of soldiers, trained by professional officers. Turns out it was the armed citizenry and their private arsenals who defeated the British Army. This is so educational.
Mr Grosss,
I am happy for your great experience on the pistol team at UVa ROTC. I guess I’m a bit outdated, as I was a fencer. Something about defending myself with a sword felt real. And I am happy to hear that you are an American. By the way, so am I. And that you believe in personal liberty. So do I. What what does that mean, Mr. Grosss? If every individual wants his or her personal liberties, does that mean that we should abandon all sense of law & order? If we all did what we wanted in the name of personal liberty, we’re talking anarchy. Are you an anarchist? I’m proud of our democracy and the democratic values we hold dear. I was thinking of your point about carrying arms. I respect our constitution. As a matter of fact, one of my relatives is licensed to pack heat. OK, fine. But we check our weapons when we go into court buildings, don’t we? So, let every citizen arm themselves (legally, of course), but simply, no guns on the campus grounds. There, that was easy.
Mr. Elliot, I’m not sure we need the NRA when you have General Holder’s DoJ right there in the middle of town.
Using Cuccinelli’s logic, I guess someone carrying a gun could legally walk in and wave it around (or just have it visible) when questioning UVA profs and scientists about climate change (perhaps get them to recant their conclusions that climate change is a real phenomenon).
Anyone, and I mean anyone… should know that weapons that are specifically designed for killing people (handguns, automatic rifles, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs, etc.) should not be in the hands of private citizens. I simply cannot comprehend the arming of the Sstate of Virginia with “right to carry” laws and “concealed weapons” permits. Does anyone remember what happened at Virginia Tech? Like a veterinarian who stops like animals, or a school teacher who learns to hate children, Cuccinelli has been desentisized to right and wrong by the act of being a lawyer. Guns have no place on a college campus, unless it’s one of the military academies. Period.
Let’s see how good UVA’s system is at keeping violent criminals off campus:
“University of Virginia football player Devin Wallace had failed to disclose a prior arrest, a violation of school policy that emerged after he and two other players turned themselves in to Harrisonburg police to face felony burglary and other charges, said UVa spokeswoman Carol Wood.
Wallace, 20, is facing charges along with Ausar Walcott, 21, and Mike Price, 20, according to police. The three were arrested Tuesday in relation to a Jan. 30 incident at an off-campus apartment complex.
The three were part of an argument outside the apartment complex, then went into one of the units and assaulted three men, according to Harrisonburg police.
Of the three victims, two were taken to a hospital and treated for non-life-threatening injuries, according to police.”
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/feb/10/uva-football-player-failed-disclose-prior-arrest-ar-834964/
“The fifth football player accused in the beating of a fellow student at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise has turned himself in to authorities, police said Monday.
Miller was charged with breaking and entering, conspiracy to commit a burglary and assault and battery.
The other players, all freshmen at UVa.-Wise, were arrested Feb. 7.
Paul Kearney Jr., 19, of New Kent, Va., Byron Lawrence, 19, of Conyers, Ga., Robert Jones, 19, of Lebanon, Va., and Victor Lawson, 20, of Newport News, Va., were all charged with attempted robbery, Jessee said earlier. Kearney and Jones were also charged with assault, and Jones was additionally charged with malicious wounding.
The players are accused of going to the off-campus home of junior Chris Riner around 11:30 that night to rob him, according to court documents. Riner was beaten with a baseball bat but has since returned to classes, police said.”
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/feb/14/fifth-football-player-charged-uva-wise-beating-tur-ar-843281/
“Two University of Virginia football players have pleaded guilty to an assault charge stemming from an altercation at a January party in Harrisonburg.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/04/uva-football-players-plead-guilty-assault
“DATELINE NBC aired a segment on campus assault on 11 Dec 2005 that addressed the problems faced by 5 college women (one from UVA) when they reported that they had been raped to their campus Police and Administration. UVA’s Administration was given a “D-” for finding the male student guilty at the SAB hearing, but still allowing him to remain on campus without sanction so that he could graduate on time.
http://www.uvavictimsofrape.com/Media.htm
A petite, perky student who counted herself “a nerd,” Russell reported that she had been raped on February 13 by a fellow junior whom she’d gotten to know through a class and a club the year before. On a campus prone to what UVA assault-services director Claire Kaplan calls “a culture of silence around sexual assault,” administrators say they have strived to encourage reporting.”
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1838/
“CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (CBS/AP) The president of the University of Virginia says that the school was not aware of the violent past of George Huguely, suspect in the murder of UVA lacrosse player Yeardley Love.
PICTURES: Yeardley Love Murdered; George Huguely Charged
The school did not know that during an arrest for public drunkenness in 2008, Huguely resisted, threatened the life of a female police officer, and had to be tasered by police. School officials didn’t know, because Huguely didn’t tell them.
According to Casteen in a press conference Wednesday, UVA students are required to self-report arrests, but acknowledged there is a critical gap in the law regarding informing colleges and universities, says FoxNews.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20004464-504083.html
But UVA officials have focused on another kind of silence. They’ve lamented their ignorance of Huguely’s violent history, while urging students to speak up if they perceive abuse or are subject to it themselves.
To what degree is heavy drinking a part of the lacrosse culture? When the Washington Post spoke with UVA men’s lacrosse coach Dom Starsia in 1999 about the team’s one-night-per-week drinking limit, Starsia remarked that the sport went “hand-in-hand” with alcohol.
“Whether it is post-game celebrations or just in general, there was something about the sport and alcohol, and Virginia was no different,” Starsia told the Post. He added that he “always thought alcohol was an issue here.”
However, in the wake of Love’s death, the surge of reports concerning both alcohol-related incidents among UVA men’s lacrosse team members and Huguely’s violent past suggests a systemic or cultural disconnect between the actions of students and the reaction of university officials.
After Casteen learned that neither the UVA police department nor lacrosse coaches had any knowledge of a prior conviction for Huguely, he asked staff whether students were required to self-report “any arrests [or convictions].”
“And there is, in fact, a regulation in the student code of regulations that requires that kind of report,” said Casteen—meaning, evidently, that students are expected to incriminate themselves.
http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064432695&ShowArticle_ID=11801005104217255
—————————————-
As Mr. Cuccinelli correctly observes, “It certainly can be argued that such policies are ineffectual because persons who wish to perpetrate violence will ignore them, and that the net effect of such policies is to leave defenseless the law-abiding citizens who follow these policies.”
In response to Nick Petro, I, too, am glad you’re living in Russia, the model of order and the rule of law. Leave the “Wild West” to us “cowboys” while you live among the gangsters, thugs and dictators masaquerading as leaders of a free society.
Why isn’t this quote billboarded anywhere on grounds? If you are honest you can’t deny where Jefferson stood on this issue.
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
Thomas Jefferson
I used to believe as many here apparently do—that guns have no place on a school campus. Two things changed my mind:
1.) My Dad was attacked by three racists with knives who were bent on “cutting themselves up a n*gg*r”, as they put it. My Dad then showed them his firearm, and they quickly changed their minds and left. Murdering people with kitchen knives is obviously illegal, but we don’t ban kitchen knives.
2.) Columbine and VA-Tech. Had there been someone else carrying in both situations, that person might’ve been able to stop those murderers before they racked up more deaths.
3.) I recall reading about someone who plowed into a bunch of schoolkids at a bus stop. Those kids are dead now. They’ll never come back. They’ll never attend U-VA, VA-Tech, or any other school. But we don’t ban cars.
4.) The fact of law is that if you’re under 21, you aren’t supposed to be drinking. That’s been true in virtually every state in our Union for decades. Why are they drinking if it’s ALREADY ILLEGAL?
Bad people will not obey some university’s policy or even the actual laws on the books. Seung-Hui Cho sure didn’t. Look at how VA-Tech’s gun ban stopped his rampage. Oh, wait…it didn’t….
You can either choose to “feel” safe…or you can choose to actually *be* safe. I choose the latter, which is why I believe in campus carry. Being a liberal, I may agree with several other of Mr. Cuccinelli’s positions, but I do agree with this one. And so does my Dad (see above).
- T
Umm, it seems to me that, after some of the horrible tragedies we’ve seen at VT and Columbine and other schools, that “gun free zones” are simply guarantees of “defenseless victim zones”. Since these rules cannot, and do not, prevent a lunatic from bringing a gun, why on Earth would any sane individual want to prevent non-lunatics from being able to carry? Several shootings have been stopped by the intervention of an armed citizen… but we don’t hear about those on the six o’clock news, because they do not confirm the reality that some people want to perceive.
Yes, UVA should be allowed to ban guns, to prevent another Cho type massacre. Wait, VT banned guns but Cho took his there anyway. (Pause for logic) Gun bans are a product of mindless emotion, not facts. Could someone please cite facts that prove lawful gunowners and concealed handgun permit holders become reckless murderers when they step foot on university property?
Jonathan your quote says it all:
“I know personally of one incident in my own university, where campus police were called in to respond to a reported assault. Thankfully, the incident was a false alarm, but I can tell you that WITHIN MOMENTS a mighty force of armed, trained, police surrounded the area and reacted in total command, in response to the incident. They could have, and would have, taken down any violent criminal, without hesitation.”
Jonathan, how many people can you kill with a firearm in “moments?” Cho shot how many in “moments” before an array of police officers showed up to draw chalk lines around the bodies? Silly Jonathan in an active shooting situation you don’t have “moments,” you have seconds to save your life. If you wait the “moments” for the police to arrive, they will be your last “moments” on earth.
As to your other points, I don’t have an issue debating anyone, armed or not, on any subject.
A couple of other points. Most undergrads do not qualify to carry concealed in Virginia because they are not 21. A key point taught in CCW classes is not to handle firearms when drinking—of course someone pointed out that students under 21 are not allowed to drink on grounds or anywhere else.
The point that Virginia Tech was a “gun free zone” has been made by many here. That did not stop 30 some people from getting killed, did it?
Concern for missing the bad guy and hiting an innocent in an active shooting situation is not unreasonable; but that is where training comes in to play. Moreover, active shooting situations are much less prevalent than the everyday criminal assault, that generally features an attacker and a victim at close to contact distances.
The analogy to a court house fails miserably. One must go through a metal detector to enter a court house, more or less ensuring that everyone other than the substantial law enforcement presence will be unarmed. If you want to place barbed wire around the University and scan everyone entering maybe students can be made safe from an active shooter, otherwise stop with trying to create a victim disarmament zone.
Whenever the subject of liberalizing concealed carry laws comes up there are people like you who raise all sorts of houses of uglies arguments. The OK Corral for some reason if a favorite citation. But it just does not happen. Where is the blood in the streets from CCW holders. Studies show they are more law abiding than the police themselves who you trust to be just “moments” away when seconds count.
Finally, if the concern is that the best and brightest students in Virginia cannot be trusted with the means to defend themselves, how about we let UVA staff carry? Are you still concerned about drunkards and crazies with that set?
As for Steve Parker’s comment, yeah show me the statistics because I have never seen any that support your view.
Mr. Oliver has stated a good point point. “Gun Free” zones are only “Defenseless Victim” zones. I’ve read all the comments here and some people really have their heads in the sand.
A first time CC license requires a person to take a safety class, get fingerprinted, and have a background check. The safety class is an NRA certified course that has been vetted and improved upon for many, many years. I know as I am a certified NRA safety instructor.
If you are carrying concealed, it is against the law for you to drink…period! In order to have a CC, you have to be 21 yrs old, you cannot be felon, and in some cases certain misdemeanors can stop you from getting one. Basically, you have to be a law-abiding citizen.
The police are not here to protect you, the individual. They are here to protect society as a whole. This has been upheld by an opinion by Mr. Cuccinelli and the Supreme Court. So if the police will do not have to protect us, who does? Who will? Personally, I’d rather take responsibility for myself, unlike other who feel they should be taken care of by others.
Seventy-one college campuses allow students with permits to carry concealed handguns, and many more let faculty carry, some for over a decade. But none—absolutely none—of these schools have experienced the type of harm predicted by opponents. Not a single permit holder on these campuses has been involved in a firearm accident or crime.
We also have extensive experience with permitted concealed handguns on campuses prior to the push for gun-free zones during the early 1990s. Back then, in the states that allowed concealed permitted handguns, students and professors frequently carried handguns, and there simply weren’t any problems then either.
But we have even more evidence than that. Permit holders, not just on campuses, are exceedingly law-abiding. Consider the two states at the front of the current debate, Florida and Texas: Both states provide detailed records on the behavior of permit holders on easily accessible websites. During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to February 28, 2011, Florida has issued permits to over 1.96 million people, with the average person having a permit for more than a decade. Few—168 (about 0.01%)—have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common was accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence.
Over the last 38 months, only four permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms related violation—an annual revocation rate of 0.0003%. The numbers are similarly small in Texas. In 2009, there were 402,914 active license holders. 101 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.025 percent, with only few of these crimes involving a gun.
Permit holders have succeeded in stopping a wide range of multiple victim public shootings, at schools and elsewhere. Yet, so far there has not been a single incident where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.
Likewise, the police have managed to get to these attacks without shooting any permit holders. Gun-free zones don’t deter criminals, just the law-abiding.—A faculty member with a concealed handgun permit who breaks the campus ban would be fired and find it impossible to get hired at another university.
A student with a permit faces expulsion and won’t get admitted to another school. For law-abiding individuals, violating the ban dramatically impacts their lives. Yet, for someone like the Virginia Tech killer the threat of expulsion from having a gun on campus means essentially nothing, even if he had lived, given he would already face 32 death penalties or 32 life sentences.
Not only does the overwhelming research on right-to-carry laws show that letting citizens defend themselves reduce violent crime, but schools that have allowed permitted concealed handguns have seen drops in crime there also.
Americans have experienced over and over again what a failure gun-free zones have been. Chicago’s and DC’s murder and violent crime rates soared after their handgun bans were imposed and fallen after their bans ended.
No gun ban around the world that has produced a drop in murder rates. Gun-free zones are a magnet for crime of all kinds. In addition, even the strictest gun regulations or bans haven’t stopped multiple victim public shootings from occurring.
In Europe, these attacks are quite common. Last year in England, despite it very strict gun laws, 12 people were killed and another 11 wounded in one attack. The two worst K-12 public school shootings have occurred in Germany, and both of those attacks have taken place in the last decade.
The fears over concealed carry on college campuses are the same as the earlier debates in the 40 states that now have right-to-carry laws. But despite predictions about innocent blood being shed, no right-to-carry state has even held legislative hearings about rescinding the law. Just as with these other places, the debate over letting permitted concealed handguns on college campuses will quickly be forgotten.
As a firearms safety instructor, a CC license holder, and a University staff member, I would like to see the UVa policy removed…or at least modified to allow those with valid CC permits to carry on-grounds.
So, UVa students and visitors can carry concealed firearms inside university buildings!! What if a discussion turns into a heated argument and gunfire is exchanged before anyone can calm the situation? Without guns, the parties might have come to blows at most, without resulting in mortal wounds? A university is for learning and civilized exchange of ideas. Mr Jefferson must be turning in his grave!
I never saw a fistfight break out at UVa. Heck I’ve never seen a fistfight break out during a heated discussion. Not that it can’t happen, but so does winning the Lotto. I guess Sid expects civil discourse to lead directly to gunfire. Um, no, Sis, that’s not how civilized people act. Savages act that way, and savages must not be allowed to commit battery on their fellow man.
So, lets see what Mr. Jefferson had to say about guns:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”—(Thomas Jefferson)
Oh yes, Mr. Jefferson is already rolling, and has been for some time. Perhaps it’s time to let him rest along with this silly ban.
This is in reply to the comment posted by Mr. Cox on July 20.
Whether guns cause crime or not, what matters is the fact that guns are used to commit violent crimes. A murder committed with a gun cannot occur if there’s no gun. If a knife, rope or hammer is used instead, there will still be a murder. But it won’t happen as easily.
Violence begets violence. I believe that non-violent persuasion is a far more effective means of settling disputes than by the use of force. To that end, I’m in favor of educating schoolchildren about the value of seeking peaceful means of settling disputes, rather than by using knives or guns. Mahatma Gandhi proved that in India.
Many people carry handguns in their homes for protection against violent criminals and maniacs. If they want to keep a gun around for protection, they should be allowed to. However, they should be properly trained in how to use it, and make sure that no untrained or unregistered family member has access to it.
A college campus is no place for guns. A law that permits people to carry them around on college campuses makes it more likely that murders will continue to take place on them. Prohibiting gun use on campuses will give the students more peace of mind. They need to concentrate on their studies. They don’t need to be fearful for their safety. An armed security guard should be sufficient to prevent most unauthorized entry. Beyond that, if a student feels the need to have a gun for self-protection, they may be allowed to, but their use should be strictly regulated.
The Australian Shooter Magazine:
“If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000
troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22
months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm
death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per
100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25
per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US
capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws
in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington…
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
As the founder of UVA I believe he should have the say in the schools policy. which if any of you idiots have studied gun rights you would realize, no man believes in the necessity of guns like Jefferson. and then you would see a gun in a law-abiding citizen’s hand is a crime deterrent. As history as actually shown gun free zones have not made places safe.
i don’t think carrying weapon openly is a good idea. i am against that too.
It is more risky than having no weapon at all.
I agree with Russ here - weapon may be more dangerous than helpful.
But on the other hand you may find yourself in a pretty complicated situation without it.
So i may as well say i am neutral about that.
Leave a Comment