Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts

[JuanCarlos]

Isn't there something unconstitutional about this? I don't even technically live on campus and my right to own a gun is (I feel) being violated.

Last I read up on the issue, it's legal. They simply have to have some reason for doing it, they can't do it explicitly because they just don't like guns...but "safety of other residents" counts. At least in my state, this could very well vary elsewhere. I wish I could cite this at the moment, but it was quite some time ago that I read it...so weight it appropriately.

In general property owners' rights will trump second amendment rights, and in most cases I'd even argue that this is appropriate.

(or rapes, should you be of the fairer sex)

Members of the not-so-fair sex have been raped on my campus. Forcibly. In nice, safe, gun-free dorms.



Up here even older, nontraditional students living in graduate/family housing, which are functionally no different than apartments, simply owned by the "school," are forbidden from keeping handguns or any loaded long guns in their units. There's also a fun "hunting" clause regarding long guns, so while vague I'm pretty sure a whole plethora of weapons that are otherwise legal off-campus are illegal for them.

I say owned by the "school" because of course this is a public university, so these are theoretically state buildings (this is what they invoke for banning firearms and carry indoors elsewhere).

The question I have is whether this even is legal. I seem to remember coming across a ruling (Tinker, perhaps? been a while, and I don't have time to look now) regarding situations in which an employer also acts as an agent of the state (in this case, a public school district). Thus they must have Constitutionally valid reasons for infringing rights that private employers would otherwise be free to, because they act as the state as well. I wonder if such a standard could ever be applied to situations in which the state acts as landlord (since it's essentially the state renting these housing units to families).

At that point I see no way the ban in place at my university would pass Constitutional muster. It already failed in D.C., right?

Of course, it would probably be a long legal battle to assert this, and with the average resident spending at most 4-6 years in such a situation the school will always have the upper hand...apathy is on their side.

Or it's possible that this is simply Constitutional to begin with.

[Bruxley]

This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.

Let's take away the private verses State ownership issue for a moment and just assume that they are all private as that is where the ownership rights causes the snag.

Even if the streets and businesses areas and infrastructure and grounds are privately owned they operate open wide to the public. Not just open to the public as a mall or amusement park or grocery store are, but wide open in that the streets are always accessible, shops used by the residences of the city as well as those on campus, and are as public as any other place can be.

MARSH v. STATE OF ALA., 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

In this case we are asked to decide whether a State, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management. The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama, known as Chickasaw, is owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Except for that it has all the characteristics of any other American town. The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a 'business block' on which business places are situated. A deputy of the Mobile County Sheriff, paid by the company, serves as the town's policeman. Merchants and service establishments have rented the stores and business places on the business block and [326 U.S. 501, 503] the United States uses one of the places as a post office from which six carriers deliver mail to the people of Chickasaw and the adjacent area. The town and the surrounding neighborhood, which can not be distinguished from the Gulf property by anyone not familiar with the property lines, are thickly settled, and according to all indications the residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block and upon arrival a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.

A campus has the same charachteristics. If fact, a company town and a campus are very much the same kind of establishment.

We do not agree that the corporation's property interests settle the question. 2 The State urges in effect that [326 U.S. 501, 506] the corporation's right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We can not accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. As we [326 U.S. 501, 508] have heretofore stated, the town of Chickasaw does not function differently from any other town. The 'business block' serves as the community shopping center and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through. The managers appointed by the corporation cannot curtail the liberty of press and religion of these people consistently with the purposes of the Constitutional guarantees, and a state statute, as the one here involved, which enforces such action by criminally punishing those who attempt to distribute religious literature clearly violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

As it has been established that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments are pre-existing rights [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876)]they hold equal standing in indeliblity. In the case above it was the 1st and 14th Amendments and the distribution of religious materials being restricted, on todays campuses it is the 2nd Amendment and the right of law abiding, even permit holding, citizens to BEAR arms in case of confrontation that is being overtly infringed and States have, and enforce, laws that are unconstitutional to enable this.

Regardless of ownership, campuses are so wide open to the public they cannot constitutionally restrict law abiding citizens to responsibly carry while on campus. Surly the status of adult student doesn't make forfeit that students civil rights.

[Webleymkv]

This issue has at it's crux the premise that campuses are private property and therefore have the right to assert their property rights over an individual's civil rights and the premise that laws against carrying on campuses are not unconstitutional based on those property rights.

Here is where I think we're misunderstanding each other. I do not support government enforced laws banning carry on campus. What I'm saying is that the individual campuses may institute their own individual policies with consequences that don't have legal ramifications. I view it no differently than many companies' no-weapons policies for their employees. With the exception of a few very sensitive jobs, you cannot be arrested for carrying at work, but you can be fired if your employer takes issue with it. If you refuse to leave company premises after you've been fired, then your employer may have you arrested, but for trespassing rather than for carrying. I do indeed feel that laws against carrying on campus are unconstitutional but I don't feel that school policy against it can be unconstitutional because school policy is not law and violation of such policy doesn't necessarily carry legal ramifications.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My philosophical view is that companies have no right to control behavior that is not directly related to the job. Whether there are legal precedents for this or that - I'm not a lawyer. I speak from my viewpoint. You cannot be fired for behavioral actions not relevant to the job.

A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.

For example - it is quite reasonable to say you can't carry a gun around the MRI. That's dangerous. I might even go so far as to say that open carry might be forbidden as it might detract from dealing with some customers. But concealed carry wouldn't.

Thus, if you wore a large Christian or Jewish or Islamic symbol around your chest outside your clothes - then that might be problematic - I saw an argument about this on the tube. But the company could not ban you from wearing a discrete cross, etc. under your shirt.

If a guy wanted to wear ladies underwear - not the companies' business or if a woman was wearing boxers (seen it done - - but that's for my memoirs), not the company's business.

There would have to be an evidential case made based on empirical data that licensed concealed carry is dangerous for the company to ban it under penalty of job loss. If not, then it is not their business and I am quite OK with legislation that prevents companies from engaging in control of the right for self-defense.

The property right is a specious argument in this instance. I would remind you again, that property rights types on the Internet do not have the same motivation as companies. The latter ONLY carries about the bucks. You are not defending champions of liberty, here.

[Bruxley]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

The more I think about this, the more I realize that we may be mixing up two separate issues. I am adamantly opposed to government mandated "gun free zones" on college campuses. I am, however, equally opposed to the government telling colleges that they must allow their students and faculty to carry on campus. If an individual college wants to pass a school policy banning guns on school grounds, that's their business and someone who disagrees with that policy is free to pursue their education or employment elsewhere. However, sweeping legal reprecussions for carrying on campus I do not support. Basically, I don't think that it's any of the government's business and that it should be left up to the individual institutions with penalties similar to those for violating other school policy (suspension, expulsion, etc.).

I was addressing this kind of point of view. As stated above, campus are too public to assume dominion of all that enter. The faculty may decide that it is or isn't acceptable terms of the job offer but employer prerogative extends no further then the employees in such a public setting. The administration of the school has not legitimate authority to assert a policy the subdues civil rights to all who enter the campus as it is too public.

As an employer myself I have not made known a gun policy as asserting an 'allowed' or 'disallowed' position. Obvious reasons to not proclaim a 'guns allowed' need not be stated. When asked about the policy I have responded that if it is legal and unseen how could I have a problem with it. That has always been enough said about the matter.

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just as an aside - years ago, my father's employer told him that he had to register in a specific political party to keep his job during the Depression.

Is that legit? What aspects of behavior not relevant to the job, can an employer control?

[Webleymkv]

Bruxley, it is generally legally accepted that a business may post a "no firearms" sign in their window (as an example, the closest Jared jewelery store has one). Ignoring such a sign even carries legal reprecussions in certain states (though I do disagree with it here, it's not the government's responsibility to enforce inane company policies). Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?

The premise that campuses bear some special standing seems to be hard to shake off for some. They have no such standing. Some are doing their reasoning off of an invalid premise which is yielding them invalid conclusions and evoking an acceptance of unjust policies/laws. I made a quite clear case that they are too public. They cannot usurp civil rights by policy or force of law.

You're correct, a campus has no special standing that a Wal-Mart or McDonalds (both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish) does not. They are also incapable of usurping my civil rights as I have to allow them to do so by stepping onto their campus.

[rampage841512]

After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?

lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.

However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.

I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.

No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.

Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.

People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.

For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.

*Standing ovation*

[divemedic]

both of whom can ban firearms on their premises if they wish

Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.

A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.

[Bruxley]

Are these businesses somehow less public than a college campus?

Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.

Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.

Here is the analogy that the SCOTUS used in the Marsh case cited above:

Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 , 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. 3 And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the on before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce. Port Richmond & Bergen Point Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County, supra, 234 U.S. at page 326, 34 S.Ct. at page 823, and cases cited, 234 U.S. at pages 328, 329, 34 S. Ct. at pages 824, 825; cf. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, 303 U.S. 177, 625 , 58 S.Ct. 510. Had the corporation here owned the segment of the four-lane highway which runs parallel to the 'business block' and operated the same under a State franchise, doubtless no one would have seriously contended that the corporation's property interest in the highway gave it power to obstruct through traffic or to discriminate against interstate commerce. See [326 U.S. 501, 507] County Commissioners v. Chandler, 96 U.S. 205 , 208; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., supra, 199 U.S. at page 294, 26 S.Ct. at page 94; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112, 125. And even had there been no express franchise but mere acquiescence by the State in the corporation's use of its property as a segment of the four-lane highway, operation of all the highway, including the segment owned by the corporation, would still have been performance of a public function and discrimination would certainly have been illegal. 4


We do not think it makes any significant constitutional difference as to the relationship between the rights of the owner and those of the public that here the State, instead of permitting the corporation to operate a highway, permitted it to use its property as a town, operate a 'business block' in the town and a street and sidewalk on that business block.

In short, when they became open for general public use they distinguished themselves from a private home owner or place of business.

[Cawnc4]

The thread above this one kindof hurt my head to read it (im tired) so I am just going to ask a simple question. Supposing I owned a college, And I am able to kick people off my campus for having weapons, Why couldnt I kick out black people?

[Hunter Rose]

Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination. And it's considered unlawful to discriminate based on race...

[Cawnc4]

So then kicking people with weapons of the campus isnt discrimination against people with weapons?

[Bruxley]

The key phrase in the Marsh opinion, and what may help clarify the distinguishment is "Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.

That goes for a privately owned stretch of highway, but not a privately owned farm. It goes for a privately owned 'company town' but not a grocery store. It goes for a campus, but not a Wal-Mart. Farms, grocery stores, and Wal-marts are not for general public use, they are specific uses. They are not operated to benefit the public, they are operated to sell wares or services. Highways, 'company towns', and Universities are built and operated to benefit the public and their operation is primarily a public function therefore property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

[maestro pistolero]

The "target-rich backstop" theory:

If someone is intentionally slaughtering people, then the chance of a stray bullet hitting a bystander that was intended for the perpetrator is one worth taking. The perpetrator's next unchecked shot will likely take take down an innocent life anyway.

Training issue:
If the CCW training is insufficient for campus carry, then it's insufficient, period, and ought to be improved. Contrary to what scholastics like to imply about campuses, they are not holier ground than a movie theatre, grocery store, or bank property. Innocent life is present everywhere.

[Webleymkv]

Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.

A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.

Depends, in some states, carrying a firearm into a business with a "no firearms" sign posted is a crime. Texas is one example

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ignposting.htm

Now, that being said, I do not agree with such a law. I believe that it's withing the business owner's rights to ask you to leave but I'm against their inane policy being enforced by the law.

Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.

Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.

Does a college not provide a service by providing you with an education in exchange for tuition and technology fees? I think a better example of what you're describing would be a city or county hospital. While such a place is privately owned, it has entered into an agreement not to turn people away or refuse service. Thusly, many people who are seeking the services of such a hospital have no other option. A college on the other hand can and will refuse to render their service if you do not pay their fees and a person does have the option to seek that service elsewhere should you disagree with their policies. Your quote states

Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function

All these businesses are ones that are otherwise operated by the government and are deemed essential to the day to day operation of society. Higher education simply does not fit this criteria.

Supposing I owned a college, And I am able to kick people off my campus for having weapons, Why couldnt I kick out black people?

Because kicking someone out for carrying a weapon is kicking them out for their behavior. Kicking them out for being black is kicking them out for their race which they have no control over.

[Hunter Rose]

Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...

[Webleymkv]

Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...

I couldn't agree more.

[Al Norris]

Race, gender, etc. are "protected classes," according to case law. Gun owners (people with weapons) are not a protected class. Hence, no possible discrimination.

[Bruxley]

Webleymkv,
As a campus, I am referring to a wide area consisting of residential housing, shops, professional offices, theaters, museums, and a wide variety of actives available to the general public and open grounds available for general use by the general public, even University hospitals to serve the general public. ALL on campus. Not to mention public paved roads, water, sewer, and some provide their own electricity, phone, and INTERNET services which are accessible at any time while either on, or traveling through campus-even when no classes are being held.

These are much more then the big classroom building with a parking lot you may be envisioning. University and college campuses are much more like a town within a city then they are a typical business setting. They are public places generally used by the surrounding general public for a great number things.

Without being familiar with the area you could have gone to the bank, driven to a restraint and picked up lunch for you are a friend to meet and play football in one of the open areas, picked up a paper and met your date for a show and afterwords took a walk in the night and never known you had come onto campus. You could even get a place for the night so you can be close by for the parade and street fair the next day.

Your hospital example causes me to think your not getting the concept of general public use. Try reading the Marsh opinion if you haven't already and put in 'campus' where they talk about Chickasaw. You'll see that it fits like a glove on a hand how campuses, especially the larger ones, are run, built and arranged and what the justice state about the conpany toen in the case. Maybe the opinion itself will do a better job of illustrating the distinguishment between privately owned businesses that are open to the public and privately owned facility built and operated to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it's owner's property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

If a University campus were just a big building and a parking lot that's singular activity were holding class rather then of a small community within a larger municipality then the rebuttals you present might make comparing them with retail stores or a hospital might be more compelling.

[Webleymkv]

Bruxley, I think I understand your point about large university campuses and agree that such an institution has no right to ban guns in the private businesses and roadways that happen to fall within the campus area. I do, however, maintain that it is within their rights to ban guns, with properly posted signs, within buildings that belong to the college.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).

Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.

Or are 'property rights' so important? Recall, I see no business types going to war over having to have toilets or no cooties in your pizza.

About training - there is a subtle issue here:

1. If the state allows carry - then the training should whatever is mandate by that state's carry law. What that should be is a separate issue.

2. If you ask the college administration to grant you carry permission, separate from state laws (they can do that) - if I were a president, I would ask a potential carrier if they have trained for a high intensity gun fight.

3. If you do see yourself as a protector of the young and proactive (another debate about what you want for a role) and make that argument, you are not as defensible if you have taken the time to train.

4. As I mentioned before about the backstop problem, it's well know that a death of an innocent caused by taking some action is emotionally unacceptable to many even if a cost benefit analysis suggests it is sensible.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.

Glenn, this may be your opinion but in many states employers may fire you for no cause. They might just not like you and they can fire you if they choose. The law only says they can't fire you for specific things like your race, religion and so forth. They have a lot of leeway there.

However, if the choice is safety or employment then the employer has offered you an immoral (but maybe legal) choice that you might disobey in good conscience.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TG - that's why I stated my opinion. Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.

I would extend similar analyses to the RKBA. It would not be allowed to fire those who carry for that stated reason. If we saw a discernible pattern of CCW/CHL employees being fired, then as with any other protected class discrimination pattern, the employer then gets their butt kicked.

About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.

Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.

So, for a quite silly example - Rosa Parks disobeyed and made a moral stand. If she had tried through a disguise to pass as white to sit in the front of the bus, just to have a good seat - then that might not be seen, by some, as a greater moral action.

Whether there is moral decision making without some ultimate self-interest is one debated by folks for a zillion years.

To return to the point. I regard carry as a basic right and support legislation to remove the ability to modify employment based on carry (except for techy stuff). Current laws need to be changed on this regard.

[Webleymkv]

So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).

Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.

What you're missing is that there is a fundamental difference between carrying a firearm and one's race or religion. Carrying a firearm is a behavior while race and religion are not. I have no control over my race and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior. Saying that an institution must allow someone to carry a firearm onto their premises would be analagous to saying that that same institution must also allow someone to perform a religious ceremony on their premises. I don't think that many would disagree that banning certain religious ceremonies such as animal sacrifice on an institutions premises is unreasonable. While that is an extreme example, the principle is the same. You may hold whatever belief you wish, but you may not necessarily perform ceremonies of that belief anywhere you like.

To use your Rosa Parks example, had Rosa Parks been refused a seat on the bus because she was wearing a tee-shirt with derogatory phrases about whites on it, I'd say that the bus company's action is completely justified. However, her race was something that she had no control over as she did not choose to be born black, white, asian, latino or any other race. As such, the bus company's actions were unjust as she was punished for something over which she had no control and did not harm or otherwise infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

You have to look at this from another perspective. Some people may not feel safe or comfortable working, doing business, or otherwise having activity in a place where people may be carrying firearms. Is that belief rational? I don't think so but that's their belief and I have no right to impose my belief on them just as they have no right to impose theirs on me. If the decision of whether or not to allow firearms was left up to the individual institution, then both that person and myself have the freedom to work, do business, or pursue an education in an institution that is in line with our beliefs. A law saying that an entire group of institutions must allow carry is just as oppressive as one banning carry in an entire group of institutions. Obviously there are exceptions as Bruxley has pointed out, but college owned facilites such as classroms, offices, stadiums or gymnasiums do not fall within such exceptions.