February 2009
Volume 2 - Issue 5
By Melanie Satchell As you sit in a class, a restaurant or wherever you may be today, question your stance on whether or not guns should be allowed on campus. Do you think sitting next to an 18 year old with a semiautomatic weapon would be an appropriate environment for learning? Would you feel safer if he was allowed to carry that concealed weapon, potentially protecting you from a shooter, even though he may have zero ‘gun fight’ situation experience or training? Or in such a situation would he just draw more attention your way? The South Dakota legislature is contemplating the exact same questions. Senate Bill 82 proposed allowing individuals who hold concealed weapon permits to carry on university campuses across the state. The bill was voted 5-4 in the Senate State Affairs committee on a Do Not Pass motion and then on the Senate floor with a Do Pass motion it failed 10-25. The chair noted that the majority opposed the bill, and he determined it lost. This is the second consecutive year this bill, in this identical language, has come before the legislature. Last year it started in the House and, after making it through committee, it breezed by the floor on a 63-3 vote only to be lost on the Senate side near the tail end of session. There are rumors even though this bill has failed to pass after its initial filing; it is not a lost cause. Rep. Brunner and others will likely bring a similar, if not identical, piece of legislation to the House this session. The bill, if filed in the House, may have chances of making it out; I doubt the Senate will be very amused with that a c -
Who should hold the smoking gun? tion. The legislature, along with proponents and opponents of SB 82, will debate till the cows come home over which method will prove to be most practical to protect the students of South Dakota universities from an armed gunman. During the past two legislative sessions both sides have given testimony regarding the mechanisms which could save lives. The proponents of SB 82 not only claim the right to concealed carry on campuses will deter gunman or stop them if an attack is made, but they also argue prohibiting the right to carry is a violation of their 2nd amendment right. The 2nd amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller upheld each individual’s 2nd amendment rights; this decision lifted a 32 year ban on handguns in Washington D.C. The Court, in the same decision, upheld the right for universities, among others, to prohibit the right to carry a concealed weapon. This Court in June 2008, even after the mass shootings at Columbine, Vi r g i n i a Te c h and
State senate votes no on “The Gun Law” SB 82 Northern Illinois University, upheld this decision, citing schools and government buildings as “sensitive places” that may self regulate policies in regard to concealed carry; that speaks volumes. As per the Court’s decision, universities will regulate the policy and in South Dakota that means firearms are prohibited. The state has no right to say whether or not citizens will be allowed to carry for the simple fact that the decision is not theirs to make. Sen. Berry Tourbak stated quite clearly “it is not the legislature’s job to micromanage the
universities”, and in a sense that’s an accurate description of what South Dakota Legislators are trying to do. The real question isn’t if the gun will be smoking; but rather who will hold
the smoking gun? We can talk forever about the probability and possibility of a shooter on campus but that still isn’t good enough. In the real world we look to the worst case scenario and “in the unlikely event”. But those are the things we say to help us sleep at night. The real argument in regards to guns on campus is whether the students in the classroom or the active police are better situated to handle the armed gunman.
T h a t question has been debated by Senator Schmidt, the South Dakota Gun Owners Association, the SDSU Rifle Association, along with Senator Abdallah, who is a former police chief, and current Police Chief Art Mabry of Vermillion. Senator Schmidt along with other proponents of SB 82 would argue seconds count, and if a student were carrying a firearm they could take out the shooter before massive casualties were inflicted. On the other hand, Police Chief Mabry suggests that a student put in that situation may or may not be successful at taking out a gunman due to various reasons including nerves, inexperience or (See Guns, Con’t on Page 5)