[Vision2020] Firearms on campus

Tue Mar 22 15:45:59 PDT 2011

Somehow, he'd be more persuasive if his business wasn't dependent on getting 
more people to carry:

From:phillip nelsen [mailto:phillipnelsen at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 4:05 PM
To: faculty senate
Subject: Re: HB 222, Faculty Senate Meeting

To Whom it May Concern,

My  name is Phil Nelsen. I am a second year law student at the University  of 
Idaho College of Law and I attended the Faculty Senate meeting that  was held on 
03/08/11, this is the purpose for my email today. I realize  that tomorrow the 
Senate will meet again to discuss the passage of HB  222 in the Idaho House, and 
the University’s response to as much.

I'd  like to address some inconsistencies I felt were promulgated at that  
meeting, in the hopes that it will spark a more informed debate at the  next 
meeting. To preface my comments, I’d like to note that aside from  law school I 
also own a firearm training company that currently  qualifies more people to 
obtain concealed firearm permits than anyone  else in the nation. My company has 
5 instructors on staff, most of which  are attorneys, and we teach roughly 2,000 
people each month in five  states and 24 retail locations. We have also 
certified many thousands of  the permit holders in the state of Idaho as well as 
Washington. I note  this only to clarify that I have spent years speaking with 
many thousand  Idaho residents, who fund the University of Idaho with their 
taxes, and  I would not hesitate to say that my comments reflect many, if not 
all,  of their opinions as well.  

I  recognize that a lot of decisions involving firearms are made on a  purely 
emotional level, and emotional decisions are often difficult to  refute even 
with empirical data. However, I had hoped that a faculty  senate meeting, 
consisting in a large part of very highly educated  individuals, would be 
different. After attending the meeting I feel  extremely disappointed in that 
regard. I was very much surprised by,  what I feel to be, a unilateral 
unfamiliarity with not only the  empirical data regarding firearms on school 
campuses, but also the  statutory structure for such laws in the state of Idaho. 
Considering the  purpose of the vote, and what appeared to be an absolute lack 
of  familiarity on what those in attendance where/are pledging their names  to, 
I’d like to offer three points for your consideration.  

1: Permitted Firearms on Campuses Nationwide

Several  times during the meeting members of the senate noted how  
"unprecedented" such a policy (i.e. allowing firearms on school  campuses) would 
be. The question was proffered whether any other  universities nationwide 
currently allow firearms to be carried by  students or faculty. After the 
senate's apparent inability to answer  that question (as demonstrated by an 
extended silence) a colleague of  mine, who was attending as a spectator, raised 
his hand and noted that  the state of Utah is one state that not only permits 
firearms to be  carried on university campuses, but also prohibits any public 
school  (including K-12 schools) statewide from promulgating firearm bans like  
that currently in place at the University of Idaho. It should be  noted that 
Utah absolutely does not stand-alone in this regard, and  seventy-one colleges 
nationwide permit firearms to be carried by  licensed students, some of which 
have permitted as much for over a  decade. 
(Read: http://connecticutlawreview.org/documents/Kopel.pdf).

It  is also interesting to note that there is a gun range located below the  
Memorial Gym on the University of Idaho campus and a couple of weeks  ago we 
held a concealed firearm permit class at the University of Idaho  College of Law 
that had roughly 200 people in attendance. Firearms being  carried onto college 
campuses is not a new thing, prohibiting them from  campus is.

2: Student’s Ability to Safely Carry Firearms on Campus
Several  of the comments made by Senate members expressed a concern that  
permitting firearms on campus would ultimately lead to students choosing  
violence over deliberation, murder over cogitation. I don’t know if  this was 
your intention, or a legitimate concern of yours, but it  appeared to be as much 
based on your comments. I would hope that someone  in your position would base 
such a concern off of actual documented  data, and not theories or 
fear/scaremongering. The truth is, not only is  there no empirical data to 
support such a claim, but the overwhelming  majority of the data suggests 
exactly the opposite. Every day roughly  10,000 firearms are carried onto school 
campuses in Utah alone. Never,  not a single time, has a permit holder been 
involved in any sort of  firearm related incident at any school campus. This 
does not only apply  to Utah, but all seventy-one colleges nationwide. There is 
not a single  documented incident of any permit holder acting unlawfully, 
reverting to  impish violence after failing a test, or using a firearm to 
hurt/injure  anyone on a school campus, ever.

This  data appears to run parallel with common sense when one considers  
instances of students using other permitted weapons (desks, vehicles,  etc.) to 
injure their classmates are also relatively non-existent. To  surmise that a 
student would suddenly lose his mind (after failing a  test, breaking up with a 
girlfriend, etc.) and use a firearm to injure  others, but not use his vehicle 
to inflict the same harm, not only lacks  any shroud of evidentiary support, but 
also cannot support logical  consideration from even the most imaginative mind.

Not  surprisingly, the lack of harm inflicted by permit holders does not  only 
apply to school campuses, but to their day-to-day lives as well. As  national 
expert John Lott points out:

“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 0.001%) --  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.” 

An  interesting comparison would be to evaluate the .001% of permit holders  who 
act in a way that justifies the revocation of their permits, and  compare it to 
the percentage of law enforcement officers who engage in  similar conduct. I 
will not be so bold as to offer a guarantee that the  percentage of law 
enforcement officers engaging in lascivious conduct is  much higher than the 
concealed firearm permit populace (as that data is  not readily available like 
that of permit holders), but I will say I  would be very surprised if it is not. 
Perhaps we should reconsider  allowing police officers to bring firearms onto 
campus?

My  point is that your concern that students, because of their age and  stress 
level, would not be able to exercise the control necessary to  safely carry a 
concealed firearm not only lacks merit, but also appears  to be based solely on 
an emotional response. Emotional responses by  school boards, as history has 
shown, also lead to strong opposition to  desegregation and women’s suffrage as 
well as support for redlining. I  compare those atrocities with the current 
issue not because the  substance of their argument is comparable, but because 
the logic used by  the opposition is identical. A logic that is not only flawed 
but also  fundamentally opposed to what an institution of higher learning should  
strive after. If you are going to vote in opposition of HB 222 I would  ask you 
support your opposition with something more than hypotheticals  and 
unsubstantiated fears.

3: The University’s Ability to Prohibit Firearms

Finally,  there were several comments made by members of the Senate that they  
felt it was imperative that the University of Idaho retain the ability  to 
prohibit firearms on campus. I was somewhat surprised to find that  the Senate 
(some of which consists of law faculty) felt that this was a  power that the 
University has ever possessed, not to mention one it  stood to lose. I submit 
this point not to initiate a legal debate, but  merely to ask a question. Where 
is the authority to prohibit firearms  given to the University? My reading of 
I.C. §18-3302J clearly gives that  authority to the Board of Regents (or the 
Idaho State Board of  Education), and only gives the authority to regulate, not  
prohibit.  “Regulate” and “prohibit” are two entirely different legal  grants of 
authority, at least according to Idaho common law. (seeIn re Brickey, 8 Idaho 
597, State v. Woodward, 58 Idaho 385).

I  hope that my comments are not taken as offensive or disrespectful in  any 
way, that was not my intention. You all have the very difficult job  of 
balancing your own personal opinions and biases (which we all  possess) against 
your position as a member of the Faculty Senate.  I  have premised my comments 
for this email on several presumptions, if I  am in any way incorrect I would 
welcome any comments or corrections. I  would also welcome you discussing my 
comments with any other members of  the Senate and asking them to correct me as 
to their reasoning if they  would like to do so. As I mentioned earlier, a state 
agency making  decisions purely on emotional inclinations, without researching 
what  they are voting on, is extremely dangerous. For this reason I sincerely  
hope I’m not correct in my assumption that this is what took place at  the last 
Senate meeting.

I  would invite you to read the article referenced at the bottom of this  email. 
It was written by an associate of mine named John Lott. Not only  is Mr. Lott an 
expert in this area, he is also much more articulate than  myself.

Thank you for your time,
Phil Nelsen

Read more: 
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/09/bans-carrying-concealed-weapons-lifted-college-campuses/#ixzz1G8v4kUaG 

-- 
Phillip Nelsen
801-389-4907
www.mylegalheat.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110322/4820798f/attachment-0001.html 