The Alaska Blogosphere is in a tizzy over the recent armed campus protest at UAA. Here's some links from "No Man's Land:"
The comments are worth reading. As a note of caution, Freeper over at PA is a horrid troll that for some reason Phil, the owner of PA, prefers to have around than people who can behave like adults. I tried participating at PA for awhile and was driven away by the sheer rudeness and lack of civility. Matthew, however, makes some excellent points that are worth taking to heart. More importantly, read the comments from the antis and realize that even in Alaska there are people who strongly oppose the RKBA.
I want to address some of Ms. Booher's arguments from The Mudflats essay.
A protest during finals week? Why am I hearing about this from the Chancellor? These protesters are arming themselves. That’s right folks – in the midst of everything else students are focused on this week, we’ve also been warned via the Chancellor (thanks Fran!) that yes there maybe a few armed nut jobs on campus, but don’t you worry, nothing bad will happen…..RIGHT.
Believe it or not, nothing bad happened. Nobody was arrested, nobody was shot, guns remained safely holstered. Astonishingly, that is what goes on most days in Alaska: nobody gets hurt by guns. This is pure, unadultered PSH.
Well, as President Hamilton goes on to point out to Mr. George Hines (the student questioning the University’s policies on firearms) there are restrictions to the Second Amendment that the Alaska State Legislature has thought appropriate. For instance it is illegal to carry a gun in child care facilities. It is also illegal for a person under 21 to carry a concealed weapon. The UAA campus does operate a lively day care system. And last time I checked a large proportion of the students at UAA are under the age of 21, including this one.
Nobody disagrees that it is against the law to carry in proximity to a day care facility. It is MIW V to possess a weapon on the grounds of or in the parking lot of a Child Care facility. I doubt that all of UAA is classified as a daycare, however. Additionally, just because many people in an area ar under 21 doesn't mean that all are under 21. Try that reasoning on with another right: some high school students are old enough to vote, but the vast majority are not; therefore no high school students are allowed to vote.
The problem is that as we've previously discussed here (and as Matthew discusses in the comments linked above), the Board of Regents has no statutory authority to regulate firearms.
The legislature has explicitly stated where you can and cannot carry firearms. They did not list UAA. There are only a few options here:
- UAA is public property and the state pre-emption statute applies.
- UAA is a municipality and may declare restricted areas in accordance with the state pre-emption statute, which means security screening at all access points.
- UAA is private property and can ask armed people to leave. If they fail to leave then they can be charged with criminal trespass. While Alaska Pacific might make this argument, I think it is kind of tough to argue that a public university like UAA could declare themselves to be a private entity.
- UAA is public property and state law does not apply; the board of regents have more authority than the state legislature. In comments at PA, Freeper makes the argument that as the Regents have authority to manage the land/property, they can make whatever rules they want. However, they have not been given the authority to make rules that conflict with state law. For example, could the Board of Regents institute a policy legalizing prostitution, assault, or underage drinking on campus, even if in violation of state law? By Freeper's reasoning, yes, they can.
While there is gray area, and the lawyers can have a field day, if I were a betting man I would not put my money on the latter two options.
How can we assure that the University is living up to its promise if we have students armed? Who is going to feel free to disagree with the kid that has a gun strapped to his hip? It’s ridiculous to think that this would not infringe upon the environment of learning and free exchange of ideas that the University has sought to foster.
How will you know if someone is carrying a concealed weapon? While theoretically you could open carry, I think showing up to English Lit 101 with a tactical thigh drop holster would be uncouth at best. And if you couple it with threatening verbal statements that are intimidating to others, it could quickly become "brandishing," which is a
crime. So, that is how the University ensures free speech: if an openly displayed firearm is intimidating, then the person brandishing it gets charged wtih a crime. We already have laws on the books for this exact situation.
The most perverted part of this entire debacle? This spring students are fighting back against a proposed 22% tuition increase. We’re still recovering from not getting any real action in Juneau in the way of financial aid for students. But who got more time at a recent Board of Regents meeting in Dillingham? The small organization, motivated and backed by an outside organization or a group of students fighting to keep cost down and make education a reality for all Alaskans? Well if you guessed the latter you’re sadly mistaken. By many reports George Hines got thirty minutes to argue his guns in classrooms rhetoric, while students barely got five minutes of the Regents’ time to fight against a tuition hike.
Money is more important than safety or personal rights. Got it.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Some may remember that the Board of Regents was recently considering changing the UA system’s discrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity. What lovely outside, UNAFFILIATED organization tried to force the Regents hands on this one? Which organization encouraged people who had nothing to do with the University, people who weren’t students, who didn’t work for the University to flood the Board of Regents with letters and emails against this change? Well that would be Mr. Jim Minnery and the Alaska Family Council.
What is the common denominator in both of these situations? The last time I checked neither the Second Amendment Task force nor the Alaska Family Council were University of Alaska students. I don’t deny that there are probably some students who support these organizations. But before they want to start inserting themselves in to UA business they should get supportive students to start UA AFFILIATED organizations. Students would be completely within their rights to start University clubs in conjunction with these organizations. But until that happens… They have no right inserting themselves, bullying and controlling the dialogue of the UA system.
Except Greg Hines and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are not an outside organization. They merely partnered with the AK 2ATF to get broader participation, awareness, and media access. By this logic, any student protest linked to an outside organization is thus invalid. So, all those anti-war protests that had any link to MoveOn -- invalid. Any Free Tibet protest linked to Amnesty International -- invalid. Any charity drive linked to an off campus charitable organization -- invalid.
Plus, UAA is a public university. It is paid for, in part, by the people through their elected representatives. If UAA wants to stop taking the people's money, then fine. But otherwise, the people of Alaska -- even non-students -- have a legitimate purpose for getting involved with how the university is administered. It is their money that is paying for it, and the residents of the state have a vested interest in the students that the school produces for Alaska's next generation.
Finally, Kelli tries to link this protest to anti-gay rhetoric. They are two seperate issues that have nothing to do with each other. The organizations, issues, and people are totally different. The reference is totally irrelevant.
The opinion of a small group of people (an even smaller number of students) wanting to carry weapons on campus took priority over students who traveled to Dillingham to present their case on a STUDENT issue? Remind me again who is it that the Board of Regents is supposed to represent? I am a student at UAA, and as such I pay my fair share of tuition (and more in the coming years). And yet it would seem that organizations like the Second Amendment Task Force and the Alaska Family council have more sway with the Board of Regents than I ever could. That is wrong.
This is a common progressive viewpoint: minority rights do not matter. Dictatorship of the majority! The problem is that a dictatorship of 51% is like any other dictatorship. Individual rights are just as important as any other rights, and are indeed the foundation for all rights. If this were an issue of handicapped access to campus (an issue that probably affects a minority of students), would Kelli be as outraged? What if it were benefits for homosexual employees (also likely a minority)? What if it were something related to a racial or ethnic minority? Very quickly we see that individual rights, as a principle, are the bed rock on which all other rights are based. We can't pick and choose which individual rights are more important; "Well, your freedom of speech is important, but his isn't."
Moreover, what’s wrong is the University’s response to this. I’ve been told not to worry and if I see armed protest on campus to just call the authorities. No. There are more than a few good reasons why people are not allowed to carry weapons on campus. This University needs to stand up for students at large. Not only are my first amendment rights being infringed upon by this stunt but so is my safety. Stand up to this bully and do what is right. Encourage Mr. Hines, as you have, to pursue his claims legally. My deepest fear is that someone will get hurt in all of this. Please do not let that happen. Take action.
Kelli has not named ANY good reasons why these policies make sense, other than the possibility of intimidation which I have already dealt with. Kelli's first amendment rights are quite intact; she is able to freely express herself, and if any intimidation occurs then the offender has committed a crime (look up the definition of Assault IV). I challenge anyone to come up with a good reason why victim disarmament zones make sense.
Mr. Hines has followed a reasonable process. He has tried appealing to the board of regents for over a year. He has been shut down. Some public protests have been attempted. The administration did not care. So, now they needed to stage an event to get arrested so as to have standing to sue.
So while I’m at the book store buying my blue books this week I’ll see if they’ve started selling bullet proof vests. I’ll let you know what I find.
Kelli, you can order
bullet proof vests online. I don't think you'll need one due to the protestors, however. Anyone with an Alaska Carry Permit has undergone a background check. Law abiding citizens carrying are actually less likely to accidentally shoot someone than the police. If people carrying guns makes you feel unsafe, you need to move somewhere else, like New Jersey. For example, today I CCW'd in a fast food place, some big box stores, and a few local small businesses. In Alaska, people carry guns all the time. You probably don't even realize it, because they are usually concealed. Get over it.
Go read the comments. It is enlightening. There are lots of, "I support rights, but..." This is common among so-called progressives; "I support freedom of speech, except when you disagree with us in which case it is seditious;" "I support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, except for handguns, and rifles, and shotguns, and not in stores, schools, public places, on Tuesdays, etc." Remember, Alaska was once a "no-issue" state back in the 80s; it could be so again. Don't take our great rights for granted.
The foolish thing here is that the anti-gunners are painting themselves into a corner. By taking a hard stance they will probably end up being forced to comply with state law. That would be a smart move in, say, NJ or CA -- but not in AK. If they compromised they could probably craft a reasonable agreement that would make everyone reasonably happy. I think the obvious solution would be persuading the legislature to add a provision allowing only permit carriers to carry on campus for 5 years, with a sunset allowing state-wide preemption to rule after that unless otherwise modified. That lets the PSH types feel safe, and after a reasonable acclimatization period where we see that there's no blood in the streets allows full rights. However, they will not get even this; they will likely end up with nada. So be it!
ADDENDUM: The timing of this was perfect. The legislature has just ended their session for the year, so they will be unable to take any sort of action whatsoever immediately. The court case may well be resolved before the legislature even has a chance to carve out a favorable exemption to preemption for UAA. IMHO, the best bet is for the Board of Regents to settle with a compromise solution of some sort, otherwise they risk losing all ability to regulate this issue if (when) a court rules against them.
