Constitution
No Vests, But Guns Are OK On Campus
March 16, 2011 
In its infinite wisdom, the Idaho House has passed a bill that would allow 18 year old college kids to “open carry” guns on college campuses including at sporting events. This proves that “March Madness” is not just about basketball!
Wonder how they would have voted and what the response would have been if half a dozen college students had shown up with pistols strapped to their hips in plain site? Each person could claim, “We are just here to protect ourselves in case a bad guy has a gun.” Perhaps there will be a student or two willing to put it all into perspective during the Senate deliberations.
The GUARDIAN contacted a local police supply store about purchasing a bullet proof vest for protection, but they will sell one only with a note from the local sheriff or police department. Police chiefs throughout the state are expected to be on hand to oppose the bill in the Senate.
We find it ironic our “Old West” lawmakers think packing heat is protection among students, but it is nearly impossible to purchase REAL protection in the form of a Kevlar vest! Word under the dome has odds against the measure passing the Senate since Senator Bart Davis lost a son to an armed college student a few years back.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Comments & Discussion
Comments are closed for this post.
Mar 16, 2011, 6:58 pm
Wonder how much tuition revenue the system will lose due to parents who refuse to send their kids to our Idaho open carry campuses, both in and out of state. Brilliant decision in these economic times. My guess is we will lose more revenue than we gain. I am not too familiar with many parents who were just waiting for this sort of of legislation as a “tie breaker” to the selection of a college for their children. I am a hunter and a gun rights advocate as guaranteed in our Constitution, yet I do not support this sort of insanity. We can only hope the Senate “nullifies” this legislation
Mar 16, 2011, 7:08 pm
I carry, and have no problems with qualified citizens carrying anywhere. However, I must express concerns about some of the “activities” that happen on campus. Sporting events do not concern me. When I think of some of the concerts that happen in Taco Bell Arena,
I get just a “titch” nervous.
Mix a sufficient amount of booze into the situation and it becomes a “quandary”!
Mar 16, 2011, 7:46 pm
Doesn’t really matter.
The “bad guys” already carry guns to schools, and everywhere else (I think guns were banned at Columbine, etc.; didn’t help.)
I think open carry on campus is kind of dumb, though — more dangerous than concealed carry — cuz it can tempt some goof to want to play Wild West.
Re the vest: Fraz: They probably just didn’t have your size. 🙂
Mar 16, 2011, 8:29 pm
Conceal carry permits are given only to adults 21 years and older. Open carry by any adult is already law in this state. I’m not seeing hoards of people carrying open (except on announced open carry days) nor blood running in the streets.
This article is hype and nonsense. I’m disappointed in the Guardian not researching the law – or the facts – before publishing.
EDITOR NOTE–You are certainly welcome to disagree, but the issue at hand is the bill that passed the House takes away the authority of university presidents to ban guns at Idaho colleges. How do police respond to a call of a “man with a gun” in a classroom? Do they just assume he has a permit if concealed or if it is openly carried just ignore him (or her)? Also, why ban guns at the Ada Courthouse, but allow them in classrooms?
Mar 16, 2011, 8:48 pm
I do agree with Stephanie.
Mar 16, 2011, 10:58 pm
There already is armed security at the courthouse. Therefore, no need. As I understand the law on CCW, you cannot open carry. It is considered “brandishing”. A CCW means just that. Concealed! We are getting the ability to open carry and concealed in Idaho confused. they are not the same. I understand the arguments for concealed on campus, and agree. I still have problems with concerts at Taco Bell.
Mar 16, 2011, 11:10 pm
“why ban guns at the Ada Courthouse, but allow them in classrooms?” Well, perhaps teachers and students of higher education are less respected by the legislature than lawyers….
Mar 16, 2011, 11:30 pm
I also agree with Stephanie. I think you are on the losing end of the argument here Guardian. I think you should point out all of the gun owners that didn’t shoot someone today.
Mar 17, 2011, 8:53 am
You echo my thoughts exactly. Similar legislation is underway in the Texas Legislature. The Conservative legislature here held hearings on a bill to liberalize gun control. A representative of an organization opposing guns accused the committee chair of being on the side of criminals and he fumbled for a response. Incidentally, the Minnesota police organization opposed the bill. I am sure the governor will veto it if it gets that far. The idea seems that if everyone is armed and loaded something good will come of that. Fat chance!
Mar 17, 2011, 9:48 am
They paw through my belongings at football games to make sure I don’t have any dangerous water bottles or food items, yet the yahoo next to me could carry a gun? Take away the invasive searches and let me enjoy my own food and beverage, then talk to me about letting folks pack guns into the games.
EDITOR NOTE–Check out Michigan State’s policy announced yesterday. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110317/NEWS06/103170321/Spartan-Stadium-will-ban-all-bags-purses?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Mar 17, 2011, 10:42 am
Personally, I’m not afraid of the notion of law-abiding citizens being armed, particularly if they’ve had training and a background check. One of the most liberal states in the nation – Vermont – has no concealed-carry ordinances, because ALL law-abiding citizens can carry a weapon concealed. (I can’t authorititavely declare it extendes to college campuses, but I wouldn’t be surprised.)
Regarding the kevlar vest; that must be an arbitrary decision by the vendor. I’m surprised. If you want one, there are multiple options available on the Internet – you can buy one at Amazon.com. (Who knew?)
Mar 17, 2011, 11:55 am
With what I have seen in the news lately I am more concerned about some of the police employees carrying guns than students…
Just saying
Mar 17, 2011, 2:16 pm
Since humans, especially college students, never act on their emotions, why would any one care if guns are allowed on campus?
The only thing we have to fear is ……? I am still not clear on why guns are needed on campus? What and who will the guns protect?
Its not to late too get the legislature to amend the bill and require the colleges to supply each enrollee with a gun. If you can supply laptops, why not guns?
I love this vacuum we live in! Nothing we do is related to any thing else we do. No cause and effect. No reaction for every action. Rock on!
Mar 17, 2011, 4:30 pm
This is a problem. Terrorist are trained to maximize carnage by focusing on locations where people congregate in mass. Idaho is putting itself in the bulls-eye. Will we not stop some radical terrorist who want to bring AK-47’s into a football game, or is that their right? I support gun ownership, avid gun owner myself, but this law as written is insane.
Mar 17, 2011, 9:16 pm
Packing guns on campus will cause mass killings like those in Utah (guns are allowed)and take away that safe Virginia Tech feel we have now.
Mar 18, 2011, 6:39 am
I like the story about the two bums fighting on River street a couple of years ago. CCW person driving by sees the fight, pulls over draws down on the battling bums to break up the fisticuffs. Second CCW driving by sees the drama and pulls over. Jumps out and brings his gun to bear on the 1st CCW. Cops show up and pull thier weapons on the 2 gun owners. Everyone managed to take a deep breath before tragedy occured. I want to know in IDAHO, how bad is the crime that kids have to be able to pack guns on campus?
Mar 18, 2011, 11:15 am
It is your blog, so you are entitled to your opinion…. Armed law abiding citizens, educated in self defense, are one of the better deterrents to a criminal threat. Its called accepting some responsibility for your own well being.
Mar 18, 2011, 1:28 pm
Your worry is misplaced. The most dangerous places in this country have strict anti-gun laws, and the safest allow carry. They are not safe because of all the guns, they are safe because of the value system. That same value system allows carry. I think the VT thing would not have occurred at school, if the shooter knew of the possibility of armed students and teachers. Deterrent is the real power of carry laws.
If you carry, it should only be out in the most dire situations. The cops tend to shoot anyone with a gun in their hand. Even if you’re the good guy in your own house.
Mar 18, 2011, 4:32 pm
I’m sorry I can’t agree with the guns on Campus. I’d like to feel that I can go to a game with out the Red Neck half drunk fan next to me packing. Now don’t give me that crap it hasn’t happened to you.
Mar 19, 2011, 9:00 am
I was at Cabelas the other day. They had a gun check station at the front door. Hmm.
Mar 19, 2011, 10:54 am
I was leaning toward limiting carrying concealed on campus due to the concern about events at Taco Bell Arena. Now that the universities have played that card in today’s paper, screw ’em!! If this was a legitimate concern of the opponents they would have voiced it during the testimony phase of the legislation. It is now clear that they are fear-mongering in a last attempt to sway the senate. They have lost all credibility on this issue with such stupid statements. If indeed, this was their concern from the beginning, and failed to voice it, then they are too stupid to be running our schools of higher education!!!
Mar 19, 2011, 3:19 pm
I am retired POST therefore I carry guns concealed. I also carry guns when traveling. Years ago…
We had this oddball thing called the 2nd amendment which was supposed to trump the nanny laws of smaller government entities. They called it, “the Bill of Rights.” It is my right to carry a gun. And so I do.
If my son or daughter wanted to carry a gun at college- law or no law- I would make it so. They have another old saying…
Better to be judged by 12 than buried by six.
Mar 19, 2011, 10:28 pm
“Police chiefs throughout the state are expected to be on hand to oppose the bill in the Senate.” Police don’t seem to mind gun control as long as they are exempt.
EDITOR NOTE–Werner, same holds true for texting while driving, use of cell phones.
Mar 20, 2011, 3:24 am
I have been to many places over the last decades and never felt the need to carry a gun. What are people afraid of?
Mar 20, 2011, 8:07 pm
Treva, when I am carrying a weapon, I am not afraid of a damned thing!!!
Mar 20, 2011, 9:35 pm
I agree with Treva, since I have too been in very dangerous places around the world including the Indo/Pak border, South Africa (Soweto) under apartheid. Remote parts of Mexico and many cities in the US. I’m not fearful. Whay are you?
Most CC types I know are waiting for the opportunity to be a hero. Most of the CC promotors posting on this blog would pee/ deficate in their pants in a stress-fire situation.
Personally I think if you have a CC permit and you are not a perp in the crime, you should be legally obligated to use your weapon to prevent a shooting attack. If you fail, kill/maim innocent people, or leave the scene of a crime out of fear or cowardice, then you should be brought to justice by a court of law.
I believe if you have a current CPR certificate, you are obligated by law to perform life saving measures in the event of an emergency. You can be sued if you refuse. This is my understanding.
Mar 20, 2011, 9:45 pm
Public universities are PUBLIC (as in TAX PAYER SUPPORTED) properties and therefore should have no right to ban the possession of firearms(or any other constitutionally guaranteed rights) by lawfully allowed citizens except in extraordinary circumstances . I am open to events where alcohol figures prominently for discussion…but am not sold on that for a variety of reasons.
Regardless, They especially should have no right to ban concealed carry by lawfully allowed citizens.
@ Trivia: This is not about what we are or are not “afraid of”. Its about simply choosing to exercise my constitutionally guaranteed right. You would not be upset at me exercising my 1st amendment, yet I bet more people have been killed over the 1st amendment, 15th, the 19th amendments and indirectly over the fourth, than the second.
BG, as an avid fan of the first amendment and having greatly benefited from the same, you cannot pick and chose which amendments are worth your time to support and which ones are not. As a friend of mine once put, it is thanks to the second amendment that we can still exercise the rest!
Mar 21, 2011, 11:04 am
This is in the news and probably correct: The Gov will block because he thinks U president should be the one with the choice.
I’m ok with that, very happy we’ve driven the issue this far.
Mar 21, 2011, 11:05 am
Nemo,
As an avid fan of our first amendment. I have to disagree,BG can absolutely pick and chose which amendments are worth their time to support and which ones are not.
Mar 21, 2011, 3:02 pm
Ronnie, In a way you are right, as a private citizen he can chose which ones to support and which ones to not support.
But tax payer funded entities are NOT private citizens, and should not be allowed to disregard the second amendments any more than they should be allowed to disregard the 1st, or any other amendments or even the constitution itself. If they can disregard the second, then why cant they disregard others?
Can they discriminate on the bases of sex, or creed? We all know there are teachers today who would prevent people of color and women out of certain classrooms and professions.
Perhaps they can disregard the 4th, and search/detain any student who disagrees or protests against anything the administration / teachers/ university doesnt like?
The constitution does not hold that certain articles and amendments are more important that others. And while the BG editor may think that, the universities as taxpayer supported institutions cant without damm fine reason.
EDITOR NOTE–For the record we support the constitution, but we also support common sense. If the county can run us through a metal detector and ban nail clippers and jack knives from the courthouse, it seems logical that university pres can ban guns on campus–concealed or open carry. They ban glass bottles, but allow guns? But then you can argue that bottles are not addressed in the constitution.
Mar 21, 2011, 7:02 pm
Does the second amendment allow me to stockpile missiles, nuclear warheads, and other “arms?”
I really don’t have a problem with CWP, but I think it creates nightmare scenarios (like described above) where we already have trigger happy police. In situations where the citizen is drawing down, how does a police officer react?
Mar 21, 2011, 7:52 pm
Dog, don’t, for a second, attempt to “classify” why I carry a weapon!
If you have, indeed, traveled to those places, you would very well know that in Pakistan and the surrounding countries, once you leave cities like Karachi, EVERYONE is carrying a weapon. In South Africa, under aparteid, EVERY white person carried. You are correct about Mexico. But that is becayse the government forbids the citizens to own guns.
One more thing, if you ever see me with a weapon in my hand, you can rest assured I have already made the decision to use it. The only reason to use it is to stop someone, or myself, from a fatal threat. I am not some “gung ho” guy looking to pick a fight. I simply want the advantage that I would win.
Mar 22, 2011, 5:27 am
Cyclops, Why not just carry a baseball bat?
Mar 22, 2011, 10:22 pm
Robert,
there is an old saying: If you find your self in a fair fight, its your own dam fault not to be prepared.
In other words, a baseball bat is too up close and personal and requires more physical agility and strength than the average over 30 year old is capable of.
If someone is a potentially lethal threat, I’m not going to respond with “in kind force” I will respond with the most decisive force at hand to end the threat quickly. (THere is no legal requirement to fight fair…remember I am a lawful citizen who is the victem of an aggressive thug in this situation) In a real fight there are no referees, no bells, and fair play rules. Only who is standing and who is not. For me and my families sake I intend to be standing. Any other approach is IMHO liberal niavete that does not take into account the realities of potentially lethal encounters.
When the bad guy comes at me with a baseball bat, I will have my gun. Not only will I see him coming, but I will win the engagement, and go home to my family.
THATS why carrying a baseball bat (or a knife, or a taser for that matter) for defense when you could carry a gun is silly.
Mar 22, 2011, 10:34 pm
Dog,
Regarding CPR, for the average citizen there is no “duty to act” to do CPR, I know of no successful law case where a private citizen was held accountable for not doing CPR. And it has happened numerous times unfortunately.
And in that case most dangers are theoretical and/or presumed. In a lethal force encounter, the danger is real and actual. As long as the citizen was not obligated (i.e. a “duty to act”), then I doubt he could be held accountable.
A citizen does have a responsibility to discharge his firearm properly, and could be held liable for unintended consequences if he did intervene. But these things are better covered in tactics and CCL classess, and every day firearms training.
As for being sued, We all can be sued for anything, at any time. Even writing on here. But it wont get very far.
So, respectfully, I believe your understanding is wrong.