Norton 1

Elia Norton

CAPS 4360.16

Prof. Jennifer Ansier

Should the Texas Legislature Revoke Campus Carry?

This past October a student opened fire in a classroom at Umpqua Community

College in Roseburg, Oregon. Less than ten days after the incident, another campus

shooting occurred, this time in Houston, Texas. These two incidents underscore how

prevalent mass shootings in America are today. According to a 2013 online investigative

project published by USA Today titled Behind the Bloodshed, the Untold Story of

America’s Mass Killings, “Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in

the United States” and apparently “mass killings happen about every two weeks”

(Upton). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s official examined data, a

mass killing is defined as “four or more victims”. This data-rich interactive project,

which is continually being updated as more mass killings occur, “is believed to be the

deepest journalistic resource to date on mass killings in the U.S.” (Miller). While mass

shootings are clearly an issue, what is less than clear is the root of the problem, and more

importantly, how to address the issue.

There is no simple and clear solution to mass shootings in America, because if

there were one, we would have already followed through with it and be moving on to

other social problems. On top of that, the proposed solutions are incredibly complex as

well as controversial. They include radical ideas that represent both sides of the political

climate in this country, as well as more middle ground type solutions. For example we

could create more outlets to purchasing a handgun, such as easier background checks,

  Norton 2

private gun sales, and overall fewer restrictions on gun purchasing. Or on the other side

of the political values spectrum, we could severely restrict the availability of handguns

and firearms, similar to what Australia did after the Port Arthur massacre of 1996. While

these two solutions definitely represent people’s beliefs as to what will actually stop mass

shootings, they are quite extreme and without a doubt divisive. However one thing that is

not divisive, something both sides can agree on, is no matter what the exact solution to

these killings is, it is clear something needs to be done to end the problem.

According to a 2012 Gallup Poll, after the horrors of both the Aurora movie

theatre shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, “a record-high 47% of

Americans favor[ed] passing new gun laws, up from 35% in 2011” (Saad). These

statistics make clear that, post-Sandy Hook, Americans agreed that mass shootings need

to be addressed. While there may have been consensus regarding the problem, there was

no such consensus regarding how to solve it. Both pro-gun reform groups, as well as pro-

gun groups, pushed for Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen, and other elected

officials to do something about mass shootings. Pro-gun reform groups argued for

universal background checks, stricter mandates for gun owners, and the banning of high-

capacity magazines as well as assault rifles. Pro-gun groups argued that the only solution

was for more guns: guns in teachers’ hands, guns in school administrators’ hands, overall

more access to guns. Unfortunately no real national legislation was introduced or voted

on. However, state gun legislation was passed1, and Texas was no exception.

In early 2015, the pro-gun lobby began pushing the Texas Legislature to write

legislation that would hopefully create a solution for mass shootings. In January, Texas

1 Colorado passed new gun laws after they were directly impacted by the Aurora movie theater shooting, roughly six months after Sandy Hook

  Norton 3

Senate Bill 11 (See Appendix A), commonly referred to as “Campus Carry”, was

introduced. This bill, in short, allows a person who has obtained a Concealed Handgun

License (“CHL”) to carry a concealed firearm on a publicly funded Texas college

campus. Universities have some power to designate certain areas as “gun free zones,”

such as athletic games, campus events, etc. where CHL holders may not carry their

concealed handgun. Universities can also “establish rules, regulations, or other provisions

concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are

owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the

institution” (Texas Senate Bill 11, 2). Although the bill ultimately passed, the public is

divided on this issue. According to a Texas Tribune poll, “Voters are split when it comes

to allowing concealed handguns on state college and university campuses, with 47

percent saying they support guaranteeing the right of faculty, staff and students to carry

weapons and 45 percent saying they oppose it” (Ramsey, 3-4).

Even though Campus Carry was passed in the Texas Senate and signed into law

by Governor Greg Abbot on June 1st, 2015, due to the logistical details of creating these

sanctioned gun free zones, the actual concealed carry of firearms on public college

campuses will not be legal until August 1st, 2016. Campus Carry allows universities a

little less than year to work out the details of the gun-free zones before the law takes

effect. Given that the public is divided and the law has yet to take effect, the question

remains, in an attempt to find a solution to mass shootings on college campuses, should

the Texas Legislature revoke Campus Carry?

To many, guns and firearms are as American as apple pie, fireworks on the Fourth

of July, and the Star-Spangled Banner. Our loyalty to guns dates back to a time when we

  Norton 4

were challenging our status as a colony of England. When we gained independence from

England and formed our own nation, the prevailing thought was guns were necessary to

preserve our newly won independence, as well as a means to protect ourselves against

our own government, should that one day be necessary. These concerns were the impetus

for the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights, which provides that every American

citizen has the unalienable right to “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State,” as well as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

[which] shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Const. am. 2.)

As a result of the Second Amendment, America has a long history of gun

appreciation and allegiance. In God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, 2016 Republican

Presidential hopeful and former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, writes, “I have

never known a time in my life when there were not guns in my house. I had my first BB

gun, a Daisy Model 25, when I was not more than six years old…Before I even touched a

BB gun, I knew the fundamentals of handling a firearm,” (Huckabee, 21-23). Despite a

positive association with guns formed in his childhood, Huckabee states that he is, “not at

all in love with guns. [He] loves freedom…and the Constitution,” (Huckabee, 28).

Due to this American liberty, and a deep-rooted gun culture in America, the issue

of mass shootings and debate on how to stop them from happening only becomes more

complex. We could start the discussion of campus shootings as early as the formation of

the National Riffle Association (“NRA”) in 1877, which is to this day the strongest voice

in the gun lobby, or with the first major campus massacre, the University of Texas at

Austin tower shooting of 1966, which killed sixteen people. But it only seems fitting to

start the discussion with one specific mass shooting, so iconic in the conversation about

  Norton 5

school shootings, one word that brings up an array of emotions and reactions: Columbine.

While deaths as a result of guns were nothing new in America, and frankly had been

happening since colonial times, they did not spark a national debate on gun control until

the Columbine High School shooting of 1999. This event, now referred to as a massacre,

ended in less than an hour with twelve students, one teacher, and both shooters dead, as

well as more than twenty individuals injured as a result.

After Columbine, Americans from both political sides wanted answers. The

public wanted to know motives, wanted to know how to handle the situation, but most

importantly citizens wanted to know how to stop this from happening in the future. The

NRA reacted with a strong verbal push for support of the Second Amendment after tough

times. On May 2nd, 1999, eleven days after the shooting and fifteen miles away from

Columbine, the NRA held their annual meeting and convention. Though the timing of

this large event was unfortunate, receiving major backlash from the families of

Columbine victims, the NRA assured the public that the event was scheduled before the

school shooting occurred. In fact Charlton Heston, NRA President at the time, voiced his

opinion on the timing of the annual meeting, stating that, “What saddens me most”

speaking in regards to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's repeated request to cancel the

annual meeting "is how that suggests complicity. It implies that 80 million honest gun

owners are somehow to blame that you and I should not be as shocked and horrified as

everyone else.” Heston additionally explained that, "Each horrible act can't become an ax

for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us," (Ridder-Tribune). Pro-

gun reform groups reacted to Columbine in a completely different way. At a protest of

this 1999 NRA meeting, a parent of a young Columbine victim Tom Mauser, “carried a

  Norton 6

sign that said, ‘My son Daniel died at Columbine. He'd expect me to be here today’.”

Mauser went on to justify his frustrations and explain that in his opinion, "When a child

can grab a gun so easily and shoot a bullet into the middle of a child's face, as my son

experienced, something is wrong…There are reasonable gun owners, many…But the

time has come to understand that a TEC-9 semiautomatic weapon like the one that killed

my son, is not used to kill deer.” He ended his heartfelt speech of protest, proclaiming

that, "It is time for change" (Ridder-Tribune).

Almost exactly eight years after the Columbine massacre, America was struck by

another tragedy. Virginia Tech experienced, to-date, the worst university shooting in

America. A student opened fire in the middle of campus, shot and killed 32 people, and

wounded seventeen. And while this reignited the fire in the debate on gun control in

America, it also led the way for new special interest groups to form, such as The

Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus (est. 2008). According to a 2014 article in

Academic Questions, “The Campaign [to Keep Guns Off Campus] reports that as of

March 2014, 365 colleges and universities and the American Association of State

Colleges and Universities had signed a resolution opposing legislation that would require

colleges and universities to ‘allow students to carry concealed handguns on campus’”

(Wood, 1). Along with the formation of these organizations, independent panels were

appointed by the governor of Virginia, Timothy Kaine, to investigate the shooting and

look at the incident from all angles to assess what can be done to prevent this tragedy

from ever occurring again (Sood, Mental Health Policy on Campus and Beyond).

In 2008 a United States Supreme Court ruling pertaining to gun control, District

of Columbia v. Heller, ruled that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right,

  Norton 7

meaning that where an individual bears arms, and how many arms that individual bears,

is limited. Now in some places, such as the District of Columbia, concealed carry is

illegal as a result of this Supreme Court decision. Mass shootings unfortunately did not

stop after Heller, however. Less than six years after the Virginia Tech Massacre, six adult

teachers along with twenty first-graders were shot and killed in Newtown, Connecticut, at

Sandy Hook Elementary School. Yet again only conversation resulted. This time the

voices in the conversation to end mass shootings were a little louder. The ones on the gun

rights side of the debate were advocating for the teachers, administrators, and any other

school officials to be given guns in schools so that classrooms and entire schools can be

better prepared when tragedy strikes and a gunman shows up on campus. The voices on

the opposite side, the gun control advocates, pushed for less access to guns. Ideally

wanting there to be a focus on making sure only proper, responsible individuals had guns,

not just anybody who could get a CHL, or more broadly, anyone that could get their

hands on a gun. They also pushed for banning assault riffles and requiring universal

background checks to enforce responsible gun ownership.

Many solutions have, and continue to be, proposed. However with Campus Carry

being as controversial as it is, we have to reason through whether or not it is the safest

and most practical solution to mass killings on campus. It is important to realize that

Texas is not the first state to implement Campus Carry, or similar legislation. For

example, in a blog post on an Illinois Concealed Carry page titled Campus Carry is not

new…and proven effective…why change it? an anonymous individual writes about

Colorado’s history of Campus Carry. According to this anonymous blogger, “On April

20, The Washington Post ran a column showing that Campus Carry has been the law of

  Norton 8

the land in Colorado since 2003, and the results have not been anything like those

currently fighting against campus carry claim it should be. There have been no mass

shootings and, apart from one incident in which a gun was accidentally discharged by a

Colorado University employee, there have been no crimes by permit holders. No one was

injured in the accidental discharge, and the employee was fired” (Illinois Concealed

Carry, 1).

Proponents of revoking Campus Carry base their stance on various values. These

values include, but are not limited to, safety and well being of the campus community,

cost of implementing Campus Carry, and trusting law enforcement. And these values

have to be held by some entity. But who are groups that hold these opinions? Generally

the parties who agree with the proponents include pro-gun control or reform groups, most

university officials, and most Democrats. Specifically, this paper will speak to the extent

of three different individuals and groups/organizations that did not support the Texas

Legislature’s passage of Campus Carry and would like to see it revoked: Moms Demand

Action for Gun Sense in America, the Chancellor of the University of Texas System

William McRaven, and Texas Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston, TX).

The first major stakeholder fighting Campus Carry is Moms Demand Action for

Gun Sense in America. Similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Moms Demand

Action, “was created to demand action from legislators, companies, and educational

institutions to establish common-sense gun reforms” (Moms Demand Action for Gun

Sense in America website). This group has important ties to politicians, but they are not

as connected to elected officials as the NRA. They formed in the wake of the Sandy

Hook Elementary shooting and pride themselves on a community activist style that is

  Norton 9

parallel to tactics Mothers Against Drunk Driving utilizes. They publish public service

announcements in print, television, radio, etc. to educate the public on gun laws in

America and their impact. Moms Demand Action has numerous chapters all across

America and rely on volunteers, activists, and grassroots donations to support their cause.

The second major stakeholder is Texas Senator Rodney Ellis, a Democrat. Sen.

Ellis is a critic of both the Campus Carry legislation and its author, Senator Brian

Birdwell. One major criticism Sen. Ellis has of Sen. Birdwell is due to Sen. Ellis’ beliefs

that Sen. Birdwell gave into pressure from Baylor University, a private university in Sen.

Birdwell’s district, to include in the legislation that private universities would have the

option to opt out from Campus Carry. In a Texas Tribune article from March 18, 2015

titled “Campus Cary Gets Initial Ok in Senate,” Sen. Ellis is quoted saying to Sen.

Birdwell at a SB 11 Amendment meeting, “It is interesting that [Sen. Birdwell] would put

this in public universities, in other people’s districts, but not private when the largest

employer in [his] district is a private university” (Smith, 2). Sen. Ellis also feels as though

it is unreasonable to allow private universities the option to opt out, and not extend that

right to public universities, when many private universities are located so close to public

universities. Like many in the Democratic party, Sen. Ellis is vocal with his criticism on

many aspects of Campus Carry. However, unlikely enough, one Republican politician

who speaks out against Campus Carry is Representative Kim Hendren of Gravette,

Arkansas. Unlike most stereotypical Republicans, Rep. Hendren spoke out against a bill,

mirroring Texas Campus Carry, which passed in the Arkansas House of Representatives

in March of 2015. Rep. Hendren did not support the bill, and he argued that, “police

responding to a shooting might not be able to tell who the attacker is…You go into

  Norton 10

situations like this, the law enforcement people, whoever they are, they’re going to be

shooting the people that have got the guns. I’m not even sure if I had a permit that I’d

even want to use it at that point,” (Hibblen, 1).

The last major stakeholder against Campus Carry is Chancellor of the University

of Texas System William McRaven. Yet again, another unlikely supporter of revoking

Campus Carry, Chancellor McRaven is a retired Navy Admiral and was the overseer of

the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He explained the potential dangers of this

legislation when he spoke to National Public Radio’s Ari Shapiro in June of 2015.

Chancellor McRaven began by saying that he is, “a big Second Amendment guy…[with]

nine guns and six swords and two tomahawks, so [he’s] all about weapons,” (Shapiro, 1).

NPR interviewer Ari Shapiro then asked Chancellor McRaven about certain aspects of

the letter McRaven wrote to the Texas Legislature earlier this year while Campus Carry

was in the process of finalization. McRaven addressed the point of his beliefs, explaining

that, “the fact of the matter is, you know, any time you introduce guns into an

environment that has high stress, you know, you have a number of concerns,” (Shapiro,

1). The argument that high stress situations and guns do not make a safe combination is

just one safety concern proponents of revoking Campus Carry raise.

Along with the points brought up by these stakeholders, there are three major

issues across the board that all proponents of revoking Campus Carry will agree with.

These issues are safety, cost, and Second Amendment rights. All three of these issues

have arguments that entail why the stakeholders believe Campus Carry should be

revoked.

  Norton 11

The first argument is that it is unsafe for more guns to be on campus. For

example, professors and students might not feel safe in expressing their views on certain

topics discussed in class if they know a student with a concealed handgun might not

agree with what they are saying. Professors also voice concerns of not feeling safe when

it comes to giving a student, who might be carrying a firearm, an accurate but poor grade.

Further, evidence supports that guns owned by CHL holders, simply do not make

campuses safer. According to the Making Campuses Safer section of The U.S.

Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and

Violence Prevention 2010 publication of Guns on Campus: A Current Debate E-Fact

Sheet, “A recent study of news reports by the Violence Policy Center found that, during

the period May 2007 through October 2009, concealed carry permit holders killed eight

law enforcement officers and 77 private citizens…In addition, permit holders committed

at least eight mass shootings” (E-Fact Sheet, 1).

The second argument against Campus Carry addresses the cost associated with

the legislation. The necessary added security and training that will have to be

implemented because of Campus Carry places a financial burden on the universities. The

“so-called campus carry would cost the University of Texas and University of Houston

systems nearly $47 million combined over six years to update security systems, build gun

storage facilities and bolster campus police units” (McGaughty, 1). That statistic, taken

from a fiscal analyses by Texas’ higher education systems, which was then accessed by

the Houston Chronicle for that article, goes on to explain that, “The majority of the UT

System’s more than $39 million in costs would be borne by the M.D. Anderson Cancer

Center’s University Police Department, which would have to spend $22 million on the

  Norton 12

installation of gun safes and lockers, additional administrative personnel to fund ‘de-

escalation’ and ‘judgment’ training for staff and on-campus security,” (McGaughty, 2).

This estimated figure is quite shocking at first glance and can lead some people to

automatically turn down the concept of Campus Carry. However, according to a 2015

blog post published on a Concealed Carry website by Zachery Zalneraitis, a Students for

Concealed Carry member, the number released in the Houston Chronicle article might be

incorrect. The blogger writes about his frustration, and the frustrations of other members

of Students for Concealed Carry, over this very high number, asking “[W]why did the

[University of Texas] system’s flagship university – UT Austin, which serves more than

51,000 students – submit a fiscal note claiming that it expects to incur zero cost

associated with the bill” (Zalneraitis, 1).

Lastly, the third argument that proponents of revoking Campus Carry believe to

be true is that the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is not unlimited or

without restrictions. Nor is the right to bear arms a fundamental and unalienable right,

such as freedom of speech or religion. In fact, proponents argue that the Second

Amendment was written to give Americans the collective right to bear arms, not the

individual right. According to Ready, Fire, Aim: The College Campus Gun Fight, “in

District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the Supreme Court…went on to say that ‘It is not a

right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever and for whatever purpose’. It also wrote

that…gun-licensing laws and reasonable restrictions on possession that are uniformly

applied are permissible, but total hand-gun bans or other requirements that make it

impossible for citizens to use arms for self-protection violate the Second Amendment and

therefore are unconstitutional” (Birnbaum, 9).

  Norton 13

But what are proponents of revoking Campus Carry doing to fulfill their goals?

Proponents of revoking Campus Carry have been active in Campus Carry protests, letter

writing campaigns to government officials, lobbying against bills and legislation that

would allow other states to pass Campus Carry related bills, and campaigning for

senators and representatives that do not believe in concealed handgun laws. They have

also been looking closely at Senate Bill 11 rhetoric to identify loopholes such as the gun-

free zones universities can self-delegate. While these gun-free zones are optimistic ways

for limiting the amount of civilian guns on campus, there is a lengthy process that

requires many committee meetings and official hearings, with an array of campus

representatives. Optimistically speaking, these formalities will ultimately allow university

presidents to use the power granted to them in the bill (which organizations such as

Moms Demand Action fought hard for) to carve out gun-free spaces on campus such as

classrooms, dorms, and offices. So delegating as many gun-free zones on campuses as

possible within the next eight months might be aiming too high.

When it comes down to the opposing viewpoint, the side that argues the Texas

Legislature should not revoke Campus Carry, opponents of revoking this bill base their

stance on various values. These values include, but are not limited to, Constitutional

rights of the campus community, allowing students and faculty to defend their own self

as they see fit for safety reasons, and allowing civilians to become vigilantes in the event

of crime or an active shooter, since this side feels as though they can stop the event from

happening faster than police even have a chance to arrive to the situation. These values,

like the proponents’ values, also have to be held by some entity. And who are the groups

that hold these opinions? Generally the parties who agree with keeping Campus Carry

  Norton 14

include gun rights groups, pro-gun students, and most Republicans. Specifically, this

paper will speak to the extent of three different individuals and groups/organizations that

fully support the Texas Legislature’s decision of Campus Carry, which include the NRA,

Students for Concealed Carry, and Texas Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury, TX).

The first major stakeholder is the National Rifle Association, a nonprofit

organization that advocates for gun rights in America. The main purpose of the NRA is

to, “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis” (National Riffle

Association website). This organization has been very active in responding to acts of gun

violence with a need for more guns. The NRA believes that not only is it our

constitutional right as Americans, but it is also our duty to protect ourselves, and our

families, with firearms. They carry out this belief with classes people can take to become

better tactical shooters in the event of an active shooting, as well as overall educational

programs and seminars NRA members can sign up for that will make them more

responsible gun owners and better equip for when an unfortunate event such as a mass

shooting occurs. The NRA is a very loud voice in the gun lobby, and in 2013 they

claimed that they had more than 4.5 million members.

The second major stakeholder is Texas Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury, TX),

who is the main author and sponsor of Senate Bill 11. Senator, and retired Lieutenant

Colonel in the military, Birdwell is a native Texan who currently represents Texas Senate

District 22 (Waco area). He has been quoted on his vision for Campus Carry, saying that,

“My concern is to expand the freedom of our most trustworthy citizens,” (Smith, 1).

When Sen. Birdwell says “trustworthy citizens” he is referring to CHL individuals, who

in the State of Texas must be at least 21 years of age, 18 if they are servicemen and

  Norton 15

servicewomen, and have passed a CHL six-hour course with a recognized and trained

instructor, as well as pass a background check.

The third major stakeholder is Students for Concealed Carry, a national student-

run organization that advocates for concealed handguns on university campuses.

According to an article written by Rachel Wiseman in The Chronicle of Higher

Education, “Students for Concealed Carry has a two-part mission since its inception.

First, members seek to send a message about the importance of guns in maintaining a safe

campus. Second, they work to change state policies to legalize the concealed carrying of

weapons by licensed permit-holders on college campuses,” (Wiseman, 54). Madison D.

Welch, the southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, writes in her

February 2015 Dallas Morning News column, “Campus Carry is not an unproven

concept. Outside of Texas, more than 150 U.S. college campuses have allowed it for a

combined total of almost 1,500 fall and spring semesters, without a single resulting

assault or suicide. Licensed concealed carry is just as safe and effective on college

campuses as anywhere else,” (Welch, 2).

Along with the points brought up by the stakeholders, there are three major issues

across the board that all opponents of revoking Campus Carry will agree with. These

issues are safety, Second Amendment rights, and crime deterrence. All three of these

issues have arguments the opponents make that entail why Campus carry should not be

revoked. The first argument being, allowing the concealed carry of handguns lets students

and faculty feel safer on their own campuses. In the eyes of opponents, this argument is

not just some out of the blue statement of opinion, it is backed by statistics; a Pew

Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners

  Norton 16

said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which

someone else owns a gun felt safer. The second argument is that bottom line it is an

individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms wherever and whenever they so

choose.

The third argument is that police cannot get to the scene of a shooting quick

enough, so if an individual has a firearm on their person then they can deter the crime

before the police even arrive, therefore sparing the lives of themselves and many others.

According to a New York Times article from June of 2015 titled Texas Lawmakers Pass

a Bill Allowing Guns at Colleges, “Supporters [of Campus Carry] say it will make

college campuses safer by not preventing licensed gun owners from defending

themselves and possibly saving lives should a mass shooting occur, such as the one that

unfolded at Virginia Tech University in 2007.” (Fernandez and Montgomery, 1)

Much like the proponents, opponents of revoking Campus Carry have not been

dormant. Opponents of revoking Campus Carry have been lobbying for less restrictive

gun zones as well as legislation that would allow open carry of firearms. This has been

partially successful, seeing as during the same legislative session that Senate Bill 11

passed, Open Carry all throughout Texas passed. This update to the Concealed Carry law

that currently applies to the entire state of Texas will go into effect January of 2016, and

will allow CHL individuals to openly carry their firearms in all places where concealed

carry was previously allowed. Opponents of revoking Campus Carry have also been

writing legislation that would make background checks obsolete in public gun sales, as

they are already not required for private sales in Texas, so that more civilians can have

  Norton 17

access to guns so they may protect themselves and have their Second Amendment rights

respected.

Having discussed the cases in depth, it is time to analyze each side. Both sides

have strong arguments and fight for similar issues. In fact that is what makes the various

viewpoints on this controversial topic so interesting. Recall that proponents of revoking

Campus Carry are fighting for issues of safety, cost, and limitations of the Second

Amendment. Likewise, opponents of revoking Campus Carry are fighting for issues of

safety, crime deterrence, and Second Amendment rights. However by analyzing the

strengths and weaknesses of these arguments, which explains what issues each side fights

for, we can ultimately decide which side is more rational and has stronger evidence to

back up their claims.

When it comes to safety, both sides view this value in a different light. Proponents

of revoking Campus Carry believe that civilian guns, especially those that are owned by

CHL individuals, simply do not make campuses safer. They back this argument with

statistics and facts, such as the “Making Campuses Safer” section of The U.S.

Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and

Violence Prevention 2010 publication of Guns on Campus: A Current Debate E-Fact

Sheet previously mentioned. While the Violence Policy Center is a left-leaning

organization, their political association does not discredit this source because the VPC’s

approach is accurate research on gun violence and mass shootings, which stands valid no

matter the political affiliation. On the polar opposite side, opponents of revoking Campus

Carry believe that civilian guns are the only way a campus will be safer. However the

only statistics they give cover the correlation between gun ownership and feeling safer,

  Norton 18

which cannot be considered as the same thing as the correlation between gun ownership

and being safer. This side of the debate also backs their opinion by past history of states

that already have Campus Carry laws, such as the case in Colorado previously examined.

However this one exception cannot be the rule. When we have facts and statistics that

cover a wide array of regions in America, instead of just one country out of 50, we must

accept those rather than the anecdotal story.

In addition to the reality that concrete facts and figures make the proponents’

arguments for safety more superior than the opponents’, there is one major flaw with the

argument opponents of revoking Campus Carry make. The flaw is that the evidence

posted in the Illinois Concealed Carry blog, speaking about Colorado’s history with

Campus Carry, is plagiarized from a Breitbart.com online article written by AWR

Hawkins, which was posted the very same day as the anonymous blog post. While there

is absolutely no issue in having one source or one piece of writing in multiple platforms,

in fact it happens all the time, the unsettling part of this plagiarism that ultimately makes

this source no longer credible, is that the blog post did not mention the Breitbart.com

article nor did it provide a link to the original source; just another reason why the

proponents win the argument on the issue of safety.

When discussing cost, proponents of revoking Campus Carry claim that the bill

would cost the University of Texas and University of Houston systems a whopping $47

million combined over six years for a variety of legitimate logistical and security

enhancements. This estimated number is taken from a fiscal analysis by Texas’ higher

education systems, so we can trust that this is not a fabricated cost estimate. While cost is

not a major issue opponents of revoking Campus Carry argue for, they do have a

  Norton 19

completely different response to the cost this bill will bear. The blog entry, contributed by

Zachary Zalneraitis, which I have previously mentioned, makes the point that UT Austin

submitted a fiscal note claiming zero cost associated with Campus Carry. The fact of the

matter is there exists no fiscal note from UT Austin claiming zero cost. There is however

a fiscal note that claims, “no significant fiscal impact for the school” (Dearman). Even

after Zalneraitis correctly cited the original source and linked the blog post to the original

statistic from a Daily Texan article, Zalneraitis uses rhetoric such as “zero cost” when

that is not the truth at all. Significant fiscal impact, when “the total UT System’s budget

is $15.6 billion”, and zero cost are two completely different allegations (Dearman). If

someone just read Zalneraitis’ claim without reading the original citation they would

believe that the cost argument proponents of revoking Campus Carry speak out for is

flawed. Zalneraitis makes a noble attempt at questioning the credibility of research

sources, and while both the claims (“$47 million” and “zero cost”) are referencing the

same fiscal note/analyses, there is still a huge problem with Zalneraitis’ statement.

An issue opponents argues for, crime deterrence, brings about concern of

timeliness of law enforcement. They argue for this using anecdotal stories and “what-if”

scenarios rather than facts and statistics. While it does make sense that an active shooter

will kill some individuals before police arrive to the scene of a crime, there is no

evidence or reported statistics that this is a reasonable argument to claim. More

importantly, in the CHL course you are taught that a CHL and a legally obtained firearm

only allow you to protect yourself if directly threatened, and if the only choice you have

is to use deadly force. Campus Carry in no way allows a CHL individual to become a

vigilante if an active shooter is on campus. Therefore, unless the active shooter directly

  Norton 20

threatens you, you cannot legally use your firearm. And if you do, it will not be justified

under your Second Amendment right and you will be charged for whatever crimes you

have committed. In an active shooter situation law enforcement does have the jurisdiction

to go after any individual they see with a gun, whether that person is the active shooter,

or an innocent CHL individual trying to protect himself/herself. When they see a gun,

they shoot because they do not have the time to figure out who the shooter is first.

Clearly, this argument posed by opponents of revoking Campus Carry does not hold up.

The Second Amendment is an issue both sides argue for, but in different ways.

According to proponents of revoking Campus Carry, the Second Amendment is limited.

This side has Supreme Court case Columbia v Heller (2008) to back up this claim. Not to

be surprised, opponents disagree. They firmly stand with their American, undeniable

right to bear arms. However since proponents have recent legislation that proves the

Second Amendment is limited, like most rights, and opponents only have personal beliefs

and individual interpretations of the Second Amendment, sometimes very radical, we can

confidently say that the proponents’ interpretation of the Second Amendment is superior

to the opponents’, and their argument holds up better than the opponents’.

On the proponent side, with stakeholders such as Moms Demand Action for Gun

Sense in America, Senator Rodney Ellis, and Chancellor William McRaven, obligations

are usually tied to safety, cost, and trust in the law enforcement. Safety for the campus as

a whole (not just for individual self-protection), cost of this legislation and the extra

safety that Universities will need to implement (considering tuition throughout the whole

country is only getting more expensive before including Campus Carry into the budget),

and a general trust in law enforcement (that they know how to handle the active shooter

  Norton 21

situation better than someone who took a six hour course). Morally, they believe that

guns only make campuses more dangerous, and most faculty members, staff,

administrators, and students agree. They see the campus as a place where students and

faculty feel safe at, and where if tragedy strikes, the campus community feels

comfortable with Campus Police handling the situation.

On the opponent side, with stakeholders such as the National Riffle Association,

Senator Brian Birdwell, and Students for Concealed Carry, obligations are usually tied to

constitutional rights, self-defense, and protecting others, meaning that because it is your

right and duty to protect yourself by bearing arms, then with Campus Carry you no longer

have to worry that you cannot protect yourself on a university campus, a place where you

previously could not carry a firearm and was previously considered a defenseless zone

for CHL individuals. Morally, they believe that guns make campuses safer because it is

no longer a defenseless zone, and possible mass shooters would think twice about coming

to campus with intent to commit a gun crime if they knew people were carrying their

firearms and would be able to protect themselves.

Having analyzed each side it is time for me to take a stance on the controversial

Campus Carry. Based on all the research I have collected, and as a result of thorough

analysis of both sides’ issues, values, and arguments, I think the Texas Legislature should

revoke Campus Carry. It is clear that the proponents of revoking Campus Carry have

arguments that could actually hold up in any form of an educated debate, and they did not

rely on “what-if” scenarios, anecdotal stories, and general poorly researched claims.

However, I had to rely more on blog posts for the opponent side because it was harder for

me to find good research for opponents of revoking Campus Carry. I found this to be true

  Norton 22

in my research because gun-rights activists, NRA supporters, and most republicans (a

good indicator for someone who is opposed to revoking Campus Carry) do not publish

that many accurate statistical reports or research analyses on this topic defending their

claims, they mainly appeal to ethos and pathos to make their arguments rather than logos.

As well as making my decision based on which arguments actually make sense,

my morals and ethics also play into it. I cannot understand how someone would support a

learning environment where firearms are present. In my opinion, universities are places

of sanctuary; they are to be protected and respected. Great ideas and innovations come as

a result of the environments they foster, and civilian guns do not perpetuate that feeling

of safety. I do not appreciate a learning environment where professors are scared to give

an accurate assessment of a student’s performance in fear that the student might bring a

gun to class, or even scarier, private office hours. I value professors too much and realize

they are as integral to a University’s success as the tuition-paying students, and most

definitely more important than the state taxpayers who only fund an incredibly small

portion of public universities. In the same sense I do not feel comfortable at an

institution, as a student, where I do not know who might be carrying a gun (if they have

the CHL, if they have the CHL but also have a mental illness, or if they do not have a

CHL and are mentally ill) and where I am now walking on eggshells in fear that someone

in that classroom or lecture hall does not agree with what I have to say, and has the

inclination to pull a gun on me if they do not agree with what I have to contribute. A gun

should not be the tool for moderating discussions.

I hold college campuses in the same regard as I do places of worship, and no one

in their right mind would argue that we should allow civilian guns at churches,

  Norton 23

synagogues, mosques, or temples, just to name a few. So why should we treat university

campuses with any less respect? A university is a place where I consider myself

incredibly safe at all times, because institutions of higher learning are bound and

determined to hire only the best for campus police. Visit the website of any college, and

you are more than likely to find the words “the safety of all our students is our main

concern”. To me, when I am on campus I am always safe. And if there were an instance

where there was an active shooter on campus, I am quite certain the law enforcement

could handle it far better than an unimaginable amount of students with a CHL and

concealed handgun.

One comment that is said to contradict “anti-gun people” that I have read

throughout multiple comment sections on all these articles I have researched, is the

staged scenario where the active shooter comes into the room you are currently in. People

ask, “Wouldn’t you feel safer if you had a gun on you or someone in that room other than

the shooter had a gun?” To this I respond, no. My first instinct, if I were to see the

shooter with the gun aimed at me, would not be to grab my gun and try to shoot him/her.

Because more likely than not, when they would see me reach for something on my person

they would shoot me before I even had a chance to get my gun out. So what good does

the gun have at that point? My first instinct would be to reason with the shooter, and try

to stall them until police arrive. I would not try to run, because more often than not the

people who run get shot as they are running away. In my opinion, the choice to make, in

which you live the longest, would be to talk with the shooter.

As an attempt to reason through both sides’ opinions on this controversial topic I

decided to get my Concealed Handgun License in October at Red’s Indoor Range in

  Norton 24

South Austin (See Appendix C). I sat through the six-hour course, had to take the test at

the end, and gained a lot of valuable knowledge from the experience. While I had hoped

it would open my mind a bit more to CHL ownership, it did kind of the opposite. Before

taking the course, I thought the CHL was more in-depth. I figured we would be learning

how to handle a high-stress shooting situation and active shooter scenario, but the fact of

the matter is you cannot create an accurate representation of that moment without it

actually being an active shooter scenario. Nothing really prepares you for the race of

emotions and stress you are experiencing when put in that place. However on top of your

CHL class there are other tactical shooting classes you can sign up for, and more

certifications you can pass so that you can be as prepared as possible for when tragedy

such as a mass shooting happens where you would need to use deadly force in the case of

self defense. The CHL class I took, which I am sure is the standard Texas CHL class, was

very elementary and basic. I do not feel as though CHL individuals would be prepared to

stop a shooting on their own, and become some kind of James Bond figure, unless they

have had that additional training. I am however happy I took the CHL class, and that I am

one step closer to purchasing a gun, if I ever feel as though I truly need to protect myself

in that fashion. I feel as though the best thing I witnessed in my CHL class is something

our instructor kept insisting, which was the fact that you should treat every single gun

you see as a loaded gun. This made me rest easy knowing that at least in the CHL class I

attended this was drilled into our heads.

To further learn about the opinions of those who disagree with the passing of

Campus Carry, I interviewed Nicole Golden (See Appendix B). Mrs. Golden is first and

foremost a mom, and second an activist. Specifically she acts as the Austin Group Lead

  Norton 25

of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Mrs. Golden was incredibly

genuine and open to all inquiries I had. She represented Moms Demand Action perfectly

and expressed the organization’s hopes for Texas college students post-Campus Carry.

Mrs. Golden explained that, in her and Moms Demand Action’s opinion, Campus Carry

is potentially dangerous legislation that panders to the gun lobby's agenda of guns

everywhere, all the time, for everyone. She went on to state that the bill was supported by

a small, yet vocal group of gun extremists and does not represent what Texans want. She

mentioned something that I found very true as I researched this topic, the reality that

students, faculty, law enforcement, college administrators, and parents voiced opposition

to SB 11, and yet lawmakers passed it anyway. When I asked Mrs. Golden about what

might be the solution to mass campus shootings, she stated that the single most effective

way to prevent shootings is to require background checks on every gun sale, which

means closing loopholes on gun sales made at gun shows or online. She noted that

although we can't prevent every shooting, it is true that to date, the background check

system we do have (which requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform a check) has

prevented 2 million felons, dangerously mentally ill people, and domestic abusers from

purchasing firearms. Mrs. Golden reiterated that if we strengthened our background

check system, we could keep even more guns out of the wrong hands. Overall her

message was that guns on campus will certainly not make our campuses safer - in fact, it

could make them more dangerous for students and faculty. I had such a positive

experience from this interview, and in the future I hope to become more active as a

volunteer for organizations similar to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

  Norton 26

To gain a better understanding of those who agree with the Texas Legislature’s

passing of Campus Carry, the side that does not believe the legislation should be revoked,

I interviewed Thomas Harkness (See Appendix B). Mr. Harkness has extensive

knowledge on firearms and training. He is a former firefighter, Licensed Vocational

Nurse, EMT, and Combat Medic with the U.S. Army. After retiring he went back to

school to become a Peace Officer, and then graduated from the Police Academy in

Northeast Texas. Mr. Harkness is currently a CHL Instructor, though not the instructor I

took my CHL class from, and an NRA Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun Instructor with

specialized training in Active Shooter programs. He was an incredibly helpful interview

source that was very open to any questions and thoughts I wanted to discuss, which

helped me immensely. A major roadblock I hit in my research was finding stakeholders

on the opponent side that were willing to discuss their viewpoints. However, Mr.

Harkness answered the questions in a surprisingly refreshing manner. I definitely did not

expect him, with all his ties to firearms, to have mixed feelings over Campus Carry. And

while Mr. Harkness does have mixed feelings over the legislation, mainly about how

people with only the basics from the CHL do not have what it takes to deal with an active

shooter, overall he absolutely does not believe the Texas Legislature should revoke

Campus Carry. He also agreed that the solution to mass shootings is not a simple one, and

he talked heavily on the claim that mentally unstable people perpetuate mass shootings.

While I definitely agree with Mr. Harkness in the sense that mental illness is a

part of mass shootings, I cannot fully support that they are the only reason mass shootings

happen. On this topic of mental health and mass shootings, I attended a lecture where Dr.

Carmela Epright, Ph. D., Professor of Philosophy at Furman University, and a Clinical

  Norton 27

Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of South

Carolina School of Medicine spoke on this correlation (See Appendix C). She quoted the

interesting statistic that persons with a mental illness commit a very small percentage of

violent crimes, less than 2% (Epright). She also made the point that even in cases where

shooters are clearly mentally ill (Aurora and Tucson, for example) the courts do not

recognize it. But most importantly, the point of Dr. Epright talk was that when we focus

on mental illness with a regard to mass shootings it stigmatizes the mentally ill, which

already have so much stigma to deal with.

So what is the big solution to mass campus shootings? What is going to stop

them? I sure can tell you Campus Carry laws will not solve the problem. Campus mass

shootings are a branch of mass shootings, which has so many facets. There was not even

a word mentioning mental health up until this point, and that is a huge factor of mass

shootings that both sides agree add to the severity of mass shootings. There is also the

issue of general gun control. While it would be nice to completely rule out all firearms

and completely ban them that could never work in America. There are far too many

unregistered guns in this country, and it would just be silly to think the government could

visit every private and public property demanding all guns that are already out there; that

would also be pretty extreme of the government.

With technology constantly altering our world, the concept of smart guns comes

as a possible solution. According to a Los Angeles Times article from June of 2015 titled

Could ‘Smart’ Guns Help Prevent Violence?, the German engineered Armatix iP1 smart

gun has “coded digital locks…[and is] a pistol that can be fired only if its user is wearing

a wireless wristband that broadcast on a specific frequency” (Healy, 1). So this is great

  Norton 28

news right? It even seems as though, “the weapons have a broad support among gun

owners,” however “the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment say smart guns

only make it easier for the government to control the sale and use of lawful firearms”

(Healy, 1). And while this seems to some like a great alternative that could be a fantastic

solution, I am certain this technology would take a very long time to pass certain

regulations before it would be available to purchase legally. So quite possibly in 30 years

smart guns might be the solution, but as of now we do not have the time to wait that long.

I think the practical solution has to be stricter gun control, so we prevent the bad

people from getting the guns in the first place. I have no problem with responsible

individuals owning a gun, or more than one gun. However, I do not think assault riffles

are necessary for private ownership. Those absolutely do not need to be owned unless

you are in the line of fire in a current war. I also think it would be wise to have a limit on

how much ammunition an individual can purchase within a year. There should be a

reasonable amount, and people should not be allowed to purchase more than that amount.

But most importantly, the way we can definitely put a stop to mass shootings on

campus, is by making sure only the right people are owning guns. First of all this means

background checks have to be stricter, no question about it. It should not be easier to

obtain a firearm than it is to cast a vote in the Presidential election. Second, you should

have to consult a psychiatrist and get an official stamp of approval before being allowed

to purchase a firearm. There is no excuse for mentally ill individuals to own guns. You

should also be required to come in for mental health checkups every six months, because

mental health can deteriorate at any age, and just passing a test once does not mean you

are forever healthy until you die. Why else do most secondary schools, youth athletic

  Norton 29

organizations, companies, etc. require yearly physicals? If we required these checkups,

we might also be able to reach out to the antisocial individuals who also commit gun

crimes because people kind of forgot about them. And while this all will definitely take a

toll on the finances of this country, these kinds of costs have to be a priority. We have to

stop cutting corners when it comes to guns in this country. Bottom line we cannot assume

that because somebody maybe passed a background check, took a six-hour class, and

passed a test that required you to only know the very basics of guns, that they are now

making campuses safer by carrying their guns with them. So yes, the Texas Legislature

should revoke Campus Carry. There are still about eight months until this law goes into

effect, and a lot can happen in those eight months if the voices of activists are strong

enough. We cannot continue to live in the only developed country in the world where

mass campus shootings continue to happen, and where general gun violence happens

every day.

  Norton 30

Appendix A

S.B. No. 11

AN ACT

relating to the carrying of handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations

associated with institutions of higher education; providing a criminal penalty.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding

Section 411.2031 to read as follows:

Sec. 411.2031. CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON

CERTAIN CAMPUSES.

(a) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of

higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.

(2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of

higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education

Code.

(3) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.

(b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's

person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education

or private or independent institution of higher education in this state.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), (d-1), or (e), an institution of higher

education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not

adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying

handguns on the campus of the institution.

  Norton 31

(d) An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher

education in this state may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning

the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or

leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.

(d-1) After consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution regarding

the nature of the student population, specific safety considerations, and the

uniqueness of the campus environment, the president or other chief executive

officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable

rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed

handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises

located on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may not

establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally

prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of

the institution. The president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary

for campus safety. The provisions take effect as determined by the president or

officer unless subsequently amended by the board of regents or other governing

board under Subsection (d-2). The institution must give effective notice under

Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which

license holders may not carry.

(d-2) Not later than the 90th day after the date that the rules, regulations, or other

provisions are established as described by Subsection (d-1), the board of regents

or other governing board of the institution of higher education shall review the

provisions. The board of regents or other governing board may, by a vote of not

  Norton 32

less than two-thirds of the board, amend wholly or partly the provisions

established under Subsection (d-1). If amended under this subsection, the

provisions are considered to be those of the institution as established under

Subsection (d-1).

(d-3) An institution of higher education shall widely distribute the rules,

regulations, or other provisions described by Subsection (d-1) to the institution's

students, staff, and faculty, including by prominently publishing the provisions on

the institution's Internet website.

(d-4) Not later than September 1 of each even-numbered year, each institution of

higher education in this state shall submit a report to the legislature and to the

standing committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over the implementation

and continuation of this section that:

(1) describes its rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the

carrying of concealed handguns on the campus of the institution; and

(2) explains the reasons the institution has established those provisions.

(e) A private or independent institution of higher education in this state, after

consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules,

regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on

the campus of the institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored

by the institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by

the institution.

SECTION 2. Section 411.208, Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections

(a), (b), and (d) and adding Subsection (f) to read as follows:

  Norton 33

(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an

officer or employee of the state, an institution of higher education, an officer or employee

of an institution of higher education, a private or independent institution of higher

education that has not adopted rules under Section 411.2031(e), an officer or employee of

a private or independent institution of higher education that has not adopted rules under

Section 411.2031(e), a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor liable for damages

caused by:

(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a failure to perform a

duty imposed by this subchapter; or

(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that occur after the

applicant has received a license or been denied a license under this

subchapter.

(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against the state, an agency

or subdivision of the state, an officer or employee of the state, an institution of

higher education, an officer or employee of an institution of higher education, a

private or independent institution of higher education that has not adopted rules

under Section 411.2031(e), an officer or employee of a private or independent

institution of higher education that has not adopted rules under Section

411.2031(e), a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor for any damage

caused by the actions of an applicant or license holder under this subchapter.

(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to:

(1) an act or a failure to act by the state, an agency or subdivision of the

state, an officer of the state, an institution of higher education, an officer

  Norton 34

or employee of an institution of higher education, a private or independent

institution of higher education that has not adopted rules under Section

411.2031(e), an officer or employee of a private or independent institution

of higher education that has not adopted rules under Section 411.2031(e),

or a peace officer if the act or failure to act was capricious or arbitrary; or

(2) any officer or employee of an institution of higher education or private

or independent institution of higher education described by Subdivision

(1) who possesses a handgun on the campus of that institution and whose

conduct with regard to the handgun is made the basis of a claim for

personal injury or property damage.

(f) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Campus" has the meaning assigned by Section 411.2031.

(2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent

institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section

61.003, Education Code.

SECTION 3. Sections 46.03(a) and (c), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or

recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited

weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any

grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or

educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation

  Norton 35

vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or

educational institution is public or private, unless:

(A) pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the

institution; or

(B) the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that

the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,

Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section

applies, on the premises of an institution of higher education or

private or independent institution of higher education, on any

grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the

institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation

vehicle of the institution;

(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while

early voting is in progress;

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the

court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the

court;

(4) on the premises of a racetrack;

(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or

(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is designated by

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution under

Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day that a sentence of

  Norton 36

death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person

received notice that:

(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed

under this subsection was prohibited; or

(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within 1,000

feet of the premises was prohibited.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent

institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section

61.003, Education Code.

(2) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

(3) [(2)] "Secured area" means an area of an airport terminal building to

which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property under

federal law.

SECTION 4. Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsections (a-1), (a-2),

(a-3), and (l) and amending Subsections (g), (h), and (j) to read as follows:

(a-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a license holder commits an offense if the

license holder carries a partially or wholly visible handgun, regardless of whether

the handgun is holstered, on or about the license holder's person under the

authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally or

knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person:

(1) on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or

independent institution of higher education; or

  Norton 37

(2) on any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway,

parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area of an institution of

higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.

(a-2) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) or Section 46.03(a), a license holder

commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on the campus of a

private or independent institution of higher education in this state that has

established rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from

carrying handguns pursuant to Section 411.2031(e), Government Code, or on the

grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by such an institution is being

conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of such an institution,

regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, provided the institution gives

effective notice under Section 30.06.

(a-3) Notwithstanding Subsection (a) or Section 46.03(a), a license holder

commits an offense if the license holder intentionally carries a concealed handgun

on a portion of a premises located on the campus of an institution of higher

education in this state on which the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited

by rules, regulations, or other provisions established under Section 411.2031(d-1),

Government Code, provided the institution gives effective notice under Section

30.06 with respect to that portion.

(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (a-1), (a-2), (a-3), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is a

Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (b)(1) or

(b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree.

  Norton 38

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a), (a-1), (a-2), or (a-3) that

the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun

under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of

force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

(j) Subsections (a), (a-1), (a-2), (a-3), and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical

reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas Alcoholic

Beverage Commission.

(l) Subsection (b)(2) does not apply on the premises where a collegiate sporting

event is taking place if the actor was not given effective notice under Section

30.06.

SECTION 5. Section 46.035(f), Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (1-a) to

read as follows:

(1-a) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of

higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.

SECTION 6. Section 411.208, Government Code, as amended by this Act, applies only

to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. A cause of

action that accrues before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect

immediately before that date, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 7. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed

on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date

of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and

the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an

  Norton 39

offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense

occurred before that date.

SECTION 8.

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, this Act takes effect August 1, 2016.

(b) Before August 1, 2016, the president or other chief executive officer of an

institution of higher education, as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, other

than a public junior college as defined by that section, shall take any action necessary

to adopt rules, regulations, or other provisions as required by Section 411.2031,

Government Code, as added by this Act. Notwithstanding any other law, the president

or other chief executive officer shall establish rules, regulations, or other provisions

under Section 411.2031(d-1), Government Code, as added by this Act, that take effect

August 1, 2016.

(c) Before August 1, 2016, a private or independent institution of higher education, as

defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, may take any action necessary to adopt

rules, regulations, or other provisions as authorized under Section 411.2031,

Government Code, as added by this Act.

(d) This Act does not apply to a public junior college, as defined by Section 61.003,

Education Code, before August 1, 2017. Not later than August 1, 2017, the president

or other chief executive officer of a public junior college shall take any action

necessary to adopt rules, regulations, or other provisions as required by Section

411.2031, Government Code, as added by this Act. Notwithstanding any other law,

the president or other chief executive officer shall establish rules, regulations, or other

  Norton 40

provisions under Section 411.2031(d-1), Government Code, as added by this Act, that

take effect August 1, 2017.

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1) How do you feel about the Campus Carry legislation passed this past summer in Texas?

2) Do you feel as though revoking this legislation is practical, or is there a better more effective way to handle the new law?

3) Just how dangerous would you say bringing guns to campus is? 4) What do you think the solution to mass shootings on campus is? Or a way we can

get to the solution?

Proponent of revoking Campus Carry: Nicole Golden

Contact information: email - nicole.g.tx@gmail.com; phone - (512) 299-0302

Opponent of revoking Campus Carry: Thomas Harkness

Contact information: email - fireman@scfh.net; phone - (903) 634-7234

Appendix C

St. Edward’s University Center for Ethics and Leadership

Speaker Series: Carmela Epright

“We Need to do Something About Mental Illness…but it won’t stop mass shootings”

October 13th, 2015 from 4:30-6pm in Fleck Hall 305

  Norton 41

Appendix D: Civic Engagement

REMOVED

  Norton 42

Works Cited

Birnbaum, Robert. "Ready, Fire, Aim: The College Campus Gun Fight." Change: The

Magazine Of Higher Learning 45.5 (2013): 6-14. ERIC. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

"Campus Carry: 12 Years, No Mass Shootings, No Crimes by Permit Holders." Illinois

Concealed Carry: Campus Carry Is Not New...and Proven Effective...why Change

It? Illinois Concealed Carry, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.

Dearman, Eleanor. “If Passed Campus Carry Could Cost UT System 39 Million.” The

Daily Texan. The Daily Texan, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2015/02/26/if-passed-campus-carry-could-

bring-cost-ut-system-39-million>

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Web.

18 Oct. 2015

Epright, Carmela. "We Need to Do Something About Mental Illness…but It Won’t Stop

Mass Shootings." St. Edward’s University Center for Ethics and Leadership

Speaker Series. Fleck Hall 305, Austin. 13 Oct. 2015. Lecture.

Fernandez, Manny, and Montgomery, Dave. "Texas Lawmakers Pass a Bill Allowing

Guns at Colleges." The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 June 2015.

Web. 14 Sept. 2015.

Golden, Nicole. Personal interview. 19 Nov. 2015.

Harkness, Thomas. Personal interview. 10 Oct. 2015.

Hawkins, AWR. “Colorado Campus Carry: 12 Years, No Mass Shootings, No Crimes by

Permit Holders.” Breitbart.com, 20 April 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Healy, Melissa. "LA Times." LA Times. N.p., 15 June 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.

  Norton 43

Hibblen, Michael. “Guns on Campus Bill Passes Arkansas House, Heads to Senate.”

KUAR News. uarlpublicradio.org, 02 March 2015. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Higher Education Center for Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Violence Prevention (ED). "Guns

on Campus: A Current Debate. E-Fact Sheet." Higher Education Center For

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, And Violence Prevention (2010): ERIC. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Huckabee, Mike. God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy. n.p.: New York : St. Martin's Press,

2015., 2015. St Edward’s Univ's Catalog. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

McGaughy, Lauren. "Campus Carry Would Cost Texas Colleges Millions." Houston

Chronicle, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

Miller, Douglas. “‘Behind the Bloodshed’: Behind USA Today’s Data-Rich Interactive.”

American Journalism Review, 16 April. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

"Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America." Moms Demand Action for Gun

Sense In America. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://momsdemandaction.org/>.

"NRA Explore." NRA. National Rifle Association, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

<https://home.nra.org/>.

Ramsey, Ross. “UT/TT Poll: Voters Less Open to Open Carry.” Texas Tribune, 24 Feb.

2015. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Ridder-Tribune, Knight. "Still-grieving Colorado Turns Out to Protest NRA Meeting."

The Baltimore Sun, 02 May 1999. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.

Saad, Lydia. “Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans.” Gallup Poll, 27

Dec. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Shapiro, Ari. "Guns on Texas Campuses Won't Make Them Safer, University Chancellor

Says." Npr.org. National Public Radio, 05 June 2015. Web. 14 Sept. 2015.

  Norton 44

Smith, Morgan. “Campus Carry Gets Initial OK in Senate.” Texas Tribune, 18 March

2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Sood, Aradhana Bela. Mental Health Policy on Campus and Beyond. n.p.: Oxford :

Oxford University Press, 2014., 2014. St Edward’s Univ's Catalog. Web. 15 Sept.

2015.

Texas. Leg. Senate. Campus Carry. 84th Leg. S. 11. Austin: Birdwell, Bettencourt,

Burton, Campbell, Creighton, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Hall, Hancock, Huffines,

Kolkhorst, Nelson, Perry, Schwertner, Seliger, L. Taylor, V. Taylor, 2015. Web. 03

Oct. 2015.

Upton, Jodi. “Behind the Bloodshed: The Untold Story of America’s Mass Killings.”

USA Today, 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2015.

U.S. Const. am. 2. Print. 14 Oct. 2015.

Welch, Madison D. "Madison Welch: Concealed Carry Laws Unjustly Exclude

Colleges." The Dallas Morning News, 5 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2015.

Wiseman, Rachel. "Campaign for Right to Carry Concealed Guns on Campuses Gains

Traction." Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review 77.7

(2012): 53-56. ERIC. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Wood, Peter. "Gun-Free Campuses." Academic Questions 27.4 (2014): 426-428.

Professional Development Collection. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Zalneraitis, Zachary. "If Campus Carry Would Cost UT System Tens of Millions, Why

Does UT-Austin Estimate its Cost at Zero?" Students for Concealed Carry RSS.

N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.