Students for Concealed Carry has recently been the target of a malicious attack on our website. Many of you may have noticed changes in our banners and pages over the last couple weeks as we work to restore the site to its previous working order.

Unfortunately, the most recent database we were able to recover dates back to 2011, so most of our most recent posts and recently created pages have been lost. We are working to get contacts and other information back up to date, but as all of our board members and technical staff are volunteers, there are limited resources available.

Please bear with us as we work to recover and bring the operations back online.

The New York Times Op-Ed titled “When May I Shoot a Student?” is an excellent example of the hyperbole and misinformation present whenever opponents of self-defense choose to ridicule the campus carry movement rather than have a meaningful discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the current “gun-free zone” policies fail time and time again to prevent violent crime on campus, and the predictions of shootouts in the streets are the same ones that have not materialized elsewhere as the right to self-defense has been strengthened by “shall-issue” laws and the removal of concealed carry prohibitions.

The crumbling foundation of the argument in “When May I Shoot a Student?” is based on the false notion that concealed carry on campus would change who is eligible to carry a concealed firearm, and that all people on campus are “drunken frat boys.” The first statement is patently untrue, and the second is an ignorant and insulting stereotype.

As written, Idaho Senate Bill 1254 addresses multiple issues with regards to concealed carry. First, it restates the prohibition on carrying a firearm on or about the person while under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug. It also adds to that section a penalty revoking the concealed carry license for a period of three years should that violation occur on a college campus.

The second part of the bill redefines the authority of administrations of public universities to rules and regulations pertaining to firearms, except for regulating or prohibiting the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm by someone licensed by the state. Concealed carry licensees would still be prohibited from carrying their firearm in campus housing or public entertainment facilities including stadiums and arenas.

Finally, the bill establishes civil immunity for the administrations of universities for suits arising out of policies to allow or not specifically prohibit the lawful possession and storage of firearms on their properties.

The people who would subsequently be allowed to lawfully carry on campus are the same ones that carry at the movie theater, grocery store and restaurant across the street from campus right now. They are over 21, and have been trained, fingerprinted and background checked by the state. The notion that these same adults, if allowed to cross an invisible property line onto campus, would suddenly become reckless and dangerous is frankly absurd.

Another telling statement made by the author is he has “had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but [he] always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil.” This falls under the myth that somehow a sign and a policy would keep someone intent on committing a violent crime from bringing an illegal firearm into the classroom.

“In terms of the campus murder rate — zero at present — I think that we can all agree that guns don’t kill people, people with guns do.” This argument, that a place is too safe to allow people to take responsibility for their own self-defense, also seems fundamentally flawed. How dangerous would an area have to be before self-defense is allowed? How about the three forcible rapes and three aggravated assaults reported by Boise State University in 2012? Or does it have to be as severe as the 32 people killed and 17 injured in the “gun-free zone” at Virginia Tech in 2007?

While the author presents his (hopefully) facetious examples how he would recklessly respond to incidents on campus if lawful concealed carry were allowed, projecting his lack of self-control and understanding of lawful use of force onto all licensed adults is uncalled for. These adults have been declared mature enough to incur tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, choose the next President of the United States, and yes, even enlist in the military or police force to protect him. Who is he to declare that they should not be allowed to defend themselves from threats that clearly exist on college campuses?

As the list of places where campus carry prohibitions are lifted continues to grow, we still have yet to see the doom and gloom scenarios of opponents materialize, and often violent crime even decreases. If there is no evidence that concealed carry makes campuses more dangerous, and the possibility exists that they could become safer, shouldn’t legislators and administrators err on the side of letting students, faculty and the public retain their right to self-defense?

Two Gonzaga University students face expulsion this week after they used a pistol to defend themselves at their apartment.

Roommates Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh, both seniors, used a pistol to fend off John Michael Taylor, a felon who flashed his ankle bracelet in an attempt to intimidate them and gain entry to their university owned apartment. The Gonzaga Bulletin reports they called police and Taylor was apprehended. Their phone call to Spokane Police Department triggered another visit from campus security. But instead of showing an interest in the felon threatening students, campus security was interested in Fagan and McIntosh.

Possession of a firearm on university property is prohibited. Campus security confiscated the firearms and referred the incident to the University Discipline Board. The two attended a board hearing Friday and await the outcome this week.

It is key to note that while Gonzaga is a private institution and is rightfully free to regulate firearms possession on its property, it is following policies in place at public schools that are not only specifically permitted by law, but codified as law.

WAC 478-124-020 prohibits “possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the university campus, except for authorized university purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the university chief of police, or any other person designated by the president of the university.”

WAC 478-124-030 provides that any “person while on the university campus who willfully refuses the request of a uniformed campus police officer to desist from conduct prohibited by these rules may be required by such officer to leave such premises.” Failure to leave the premises is considered criminal trespass in the first degree. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable by 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.

The same section of code that gives non-affiliates two chances before facing any serious sanctions ramps up to serious sanctions for affiliates immediately. “Disciplinary action which may result in dismissal from the university will be initiated against faculty, staff, or students who violate these rules.” University affiliates get no such free pass.

The sanctions sometimes carry consequences so severe that even where otherwise permitted by law affiliates will follow policy and not carry. Even if they choose to ignore policy and follow law, the resulting court case can take as long as two years. By this time, the affiliate’s life may have been damaged beyond repair.

University affiliates often face double standards. These double standards are usually put into place by the university as a result of limited authority. However, in Washington State, the double standard is law.

One should not be forced to surrender his or her rights when seeking or supporting an advanced education.  Public university affiliates should get the same treatment as non-affiliates with respect to firearms on campus. Anything otherwise creates a second class of citizens where affiliates are the lesser.

We often get people posting to our Facebook page telling us to just carry our guns anyway. “Concealed means concealed!” they’ll say. What they often overlook are the consequences.

We don’t.

It’s not as simple as being fired from a job as a convenience store clerk.

It’s not as simple as a pleading out to a misdemeanor.

For students, faculty, and staff, being caught with a gun on campus can carry consequences as severe if not more than a felony, even on campuses where they are permitted by law.

Heather’s story highlights just how severe violating policy, even while obeying the law can be. Instead of being able to take measures to defend herself against an active stalker, she was forced to decide between the possibility of a violent attack and expulsion from dental school with only a year left. Both carry severe consequences.

She could’ve kept her firearm in her car, increasing the odds she wouldn’t fall victim to her stalker. She could not keep her firearm in her car, ensuring she wouldn’t face administrative action. In the end, she chose the latter.

Yes, keeping a gun in her car may have saved her life or prevented a rape. But, at what cost? Never realizing her dream of being a dentist, something that she has devoted her entire adult life to achieve?

For her, expulsion was the equivalent of a life sentence.

But, why must she choose? Why must she, a lawfully licensed concealed handgun carrier, be forced to yield the upper-hand to someone intent on doing her harm? How is disarming her keeping anyone else safe?

The tragedies of last year have renewed national gun-control efforts as well as efforts in many states. Gun-control advocates are asking for a national conversation on gun crime saying that we must do more to reduce the senseless deaths. We agree and would like to pose one question.

How would things be different in Newton, Connecticut if just one person in the Sandy Hook Elementary School were able to meet that madman with tools of equal force?

Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School shown in 2010, has been referred to as a 5’2″ raging bull.

Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, who has been referred to a “5-foot-2-inch Raging Bull,” lunged at the shooter in an attempt to disarm him. Her efforts, though valiant, were fruitless. How more effective would she have been if she were able to possess a tool of equal force?

We can’t say for sure. But we can point to several instances where armed resistance has helped to minimize tragic loss of life in situations like the one that day.

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi, was halted by the school’s vice principal, Joel Myrick, after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 shooting at a Parker Middle School dance in Pennsylvania ended when the owner of the restaurant hosting the dance, James Strand, retrieved a shotgun and apprehended the shooter.
• A 2002 shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, came to an abrupt conclusion when two students confronted the shooter after retrieving firearms from their vehicles.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 home invasion planned massacre was stopped by a college-aged concealed weapons permit holder
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colorado was stopped by an off duty officer in attendance.
• The Clackamas Mall shooting was cut short when a college-aged concealed weapons permit holder trained his gun on the shooter.

Mass shootings just don’t occur in carry-friendly zones.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting (which the FBI defines as one with four or more victims) has occurred in a location where firearms were banned.

The Aurora shooter chose the barrel in which he shot his fish victims with care. There were seven theaters inside a twenty mile radius of his home showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with that night. Choosing a theater that banned firearms ensured he wouldn’t meet any of the 4% of Coloradoans possessing concealed weapons permits. The Cinemark Theater with a policy and signs banning firearms was the perfect choice for him.

In fact, a recent study on the subject of mass shootings and concealed permit laws by Dr John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes of the Chicago University School of Law, concludes “that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.”

Evil exists. We are not going to legislate it away. We are not going to counsel it away. We are not going to medicate it away. It has been part of the human experience since the beginning of time and it will remain part of the human experience until there is no human race. The fact that we will never eliminate it is a hard pill to swallow.

But it is one we must swallow if we are to address crime. Instead of looking to our lawmakers to make more laws that will only empower criminals, we need to demand they restore our right to self-defense. Concealed carry works. Elimination of gun-free zones, including college campuses, needs to be part of our discussion.