The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that George Mason University’s ban on guns in buildings and at events on the campus does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, the Associated Press reported. “Regulations restricting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings,” the ruling said, “are presumptively legal.” The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
29 Responses to Virginia Supreme Court Says George Mason U.’s Gun Ban Is Constitutional
amcneece - January 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm
EAT THAT, NRA!
11274135 - January 13, 2011 at 3:59 pm
You know, in Arizona the president of the state senate recently claimed that laws like GMU’s create “victim zones.” What a skewed view of the world in which we live. I’m surprised that the AZ senate president doesn’t pack a lightning rod to protect himself from lightning since he is probably more likely to be struck by lightning than shot, even in AZ. He’s one sick puppy.
akprof - January 13, 2011 at 4:15 pm
VA Supreme Court is apparently a voice of reason!!
swish - January 13, 2011 at 4:23 pm
11274135, can you give a source for that info? I’m not finding numbers on the chances of being struck by lightning versus shot by a gun.
I did find mortality figures, though: in the same recent years, about 10 people per 100,000 per year generally die from gunshot wounds, whereas about .025 per 100,000 die of lightning strikes.
11182967 - January 13, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Good for the Virginia State Supreme Court. But (amcneece)this is an especially good time to avoid being trumphalist. For one thing, this is but one decision in an ongoing debate. More importantly, this decision should be treated as not as a victory in a battle but as a success for good sense.
22259152 - January 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@11274135
The AZ Pres of the Senate is correct. Care to disprove his assertion?
rick1952 - January 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I agree, this decision should be viewed as a success for good sense.
To what degree the tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted good sense is anyone’s guess, but clearly Virginia has had a tragic enough experience with guns on campus to make any rational person think twice about dismissing gun regulations established for the safety of the community.
Perhaps some will dispute my logic but the Declaration of Independence lists “Life” first among our unalienable rights, while the second amendment to the Constitution is just that – second and an amendment, so it should not take priority over regulations intended to protect the very first unalienable right every human being has as stated in our nation’s founding document. We need balance and care when dealing with firearms, and sensible regulation of firearms that provide balance and care should be constitutional.
henr1055 - January 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm
These rednecks are something. Just think if everyone had guns at the Arizona shootings. They could have all pulled them out and started blazing away to protect themselves and we could have had a memorial service for 50 or 60 people.
In Texas where I live there is some state rep that wants to allow guns on campus. He teaches at the school and walks around with an empty holster. Looks like it will be empty for a long time. Maybe he will get sick of it.
Tim
ledzep - January 13, 2011 at 5:47 pm
@ rick1952 – I agree, it’s crazy to think that guns on campus is going to make them safer overall. It is not, however, crazy to think that guns on campus would make it harder for one person to kill 32 people. The lesson of Virginia Tech, in that sense, is not that gun regulations prevent massive killing sprees, but that such things are still rare, while the opportunities for crimes of passion are legion.
chandrak - January 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm
The Virginia Supreme Court ruling today that George Mason University’s ban on guns in buildings and at events on the campus does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. It is a bad decision. If a person wants to do something, he/she can do it.
new_theologian - January 14, 2011 at 12:22 am
I, personally, don’t want to see institutions of higher learning turn into places where people have to walk around armed. And I don’t really want to carry a weapon, myself. But I have to insist that it is factually incorrect to say that violent crime–even death by gunfire–goes down as gun regulation becomes more strict. It is counterintuitive, but it is a fact, nonetheless, that where gun regulations increase, crime also increases, and where more people own guns, crime goes down. Some theorize that this correlation is due to the would-be criminal’s confidence in gun-free zones that an attack would go un-resisted. Fear of resistance is a deterrent against violence. Criminals, remember, have a nasty habit of disregarding the law. They conform because they are made to conform by someone who can restrain them. That part of the equation shouldn’t be forgotten. So, without suggesting that we SHOULD have guns on campus, I think we ought to at least understand the facts.
rick1952 - January 14, 2011 at 8:52 am
@new_theologian – I can appreciate the logic of your argument about the correlation between gun crimes and gun regulations as well as the need to understand the facts.
But my real life experience leads me to be VERY wary of efforts to permit guns on campus. I grew up in and have lived as an adult in three major urban areas which suffered significantly from gun violence. The greatest danger I faced as a teenager (during the 1960′s) was gun violence from peers. Many of my peers had guns and none of us were safer nor were any of my peers appreciably restrained by the thought that another peer potentially had a gun. Unfortunately, as I recall, an average of 50 adolescents per summer were killed by gun violence in the city in which I spent my high school years – it was primarily a gang-related problem.
Raising my children in a major city with a significant gun homicide rate (during the 1980′s and 1990′s) there was a proliferation of guns primarily due to the crack epidemic. Again, it did not seem that anyone was restrained from engaging in gun violence by the fact that others might also be armed. Unfortunately, the son of a physician-friend was murdered by gun violence by a peer during a robbery. A member of my family was killed by gun violence as a result of drug activity in his neighborhood. It is not clear to me in either case that if the victims were armed or thought to be armed, the assailants would not have committed the crimes.
So, I think allowing more people to be armed with guns is not really an answer. I will have to leave it to those who are more expert in analyzing data on gun violence to help me understand the correlation you cite, but I have to wonder if there isn’t some factor other than gun regulation that is contributing to this correlation.
In the meantime I have to say that when I arrived on campus in the early 1970′s, I found it a wonderful relief to realize I did not have to worry about whether or not others on campus were armed and dangerous. I continue to enjoy that feeling on the campus where I work today. Based on what I know, the number of gun crimes on campus are very low compared to the number of gun crimes in the wider community. I imagine that is due, in some measure, to the lack of guns on campus. I hope that guns will continue to be absent in significant numbers from college campuses.
What my experience shows me is that competent and effective law enforcement makes a big difference with respect to reducing all kinds of crime, including gun violence. Why can’t we, as a society, put more energy into that as a solution? How is it that we have developed a mentality that is basically, “every person for him or herself” when it comes to gun violence? These are hard questions and they trouble me greatly.
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 9:08 am
Two points:
1. Some data IS actually available. In one state at least (Utah) guns on public campuses have been allowed for four years now. Not a single problem reported so far. No shootings in the fraternities by drunk students, no guns drawn on professors, nothing. Texas now joined Utah. It is a much bigger state, so data will flow in at a faster rate.
2. The ban is obviously “feel safe” law, not “be safe” — a suicidal individual of the Virginia Tech or Tucson type would not care less about such a ban.
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 9:18 am
“How is it that we have developed a mentality that is basically, “every person for him or herself” when it comes to gun violence?”
1. Because courts ruled that police are not obliged by the law to be there to protect individuals, only society as a whole.
2. Because we are not trained or taught or obliged by the law to take on gun violence when we see it applied to other people. We are not soldiers. Our obligations are to our families, to come home alive. We dial 911.
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 9:48 am
“These rednecks are something. Just think if everyone had guns at the Arizona shootings. They could have all pulled them out and started blazing away to protect themselves and we could have had a memorial service for 50 or 60 people.”
That’s a foolish statement. Nobody knows khow many people actually did have a gun in Tucson supermarket that morning. It is a common misconception of people with no knowledge to think of concealed carry holders as citizens on patrol. Here is what I tell my students when I teach concealed carry classes. Your gun has one and only one purpose, your own and your family safety. You are not a sworn peace officer. It is not your business to protect other people who are not willing to inconvenience themselves by taking on a HUGE responsibility of carrying. Your goal is to get home safely and avoid all possible legal trouble from getting involved in a gun fight on someone else’s behalf. If you are facing two options: a gun fight or a safe escape through the back door, it is not in your interest to choose the first option.
katisumas - January 14, 2011 at 10:50 am
There were several people with guns at the shooting. Remember the shooter was able to shoot 31 bullets in a matter of seconds. One of the person who had a gun and helped subdue him said he didn’t pull it out for the very reason he didn’t want to add to the carnage.
Another person with a gun ran to the scene, he didn’t realize the shooter had already been subdued and he was about to shoot one of the subduers who by then had pulled his own gun out. He was stopped at the last second… He was interviewed on TV and he’s still traumatized at what he might have done…
Wouldn’t it have been better to require licenses to carry guns in Arizona? That is, as in some other states to apply for a permit and take a course in gun use and safety? Just as we have to do to get a driver’s license. This particular shooter wouldn’t have passed it because it was obvious he was mentally ill.
Also, can you all support the proposed legislation to make gun magazines limited to 10 bullets? The shooter was subdued when he tried to reload. Perhaps if he had been subdued after 10 shots that little girl might still be with us.
katisumas - January 14, 2011 at 11:08 am
I’ve been trying to find a stat list comparing states with gun laws that require licenses to carry guns with those that don’t. there is an inverse correlation between death by guns in non gun control (or quasi non gun control) states and states with gun control.
If you live in Hawaii of Connecticut where you require to apply for a gun license from the police dept. and take a course in gun use and safety before you get it, you have the least amount of risk of dying from being shot –after taking into account population nb.
I saw the stats on the Rachel Maddow show yesterday but I can’t find them again. I only had a couple of minute to look for it so could only find lists of gun crimes by states but not the correlations with gun contol laws. Perhaps someone might find them and post them?
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 11:13 am
“he didn’t realize the shooter had already been subdued and he was about to shoot one of the subduers who by then had pulled his own gun out. He was stopped at the last second… He was interviewed on TV and he’s still traumatized at what he might have done…”
katisumas, you account is grossly incorrect. Joseph Zamudio was about to shoot the shooter, not “one of his subduers”, and he is not “traumatized at what he might have done…”. From
http://www.nydailynews.com
- “I was ready to end his life,” Joe Zamudio said. “I had my hand on the butt of my gun. If they hadn’t grabbed him and he was still moving, I would have shot him.”
- Without hesitation?
- “Damn right,” said Zamudio. “This is my country, this is my town.”
katisumas further asks:
“Wouldn’t it have been better to require licenses to carry guns in Arizona? … This particular shooter wouldn’t have passed it because it was obvious he was mentally ill.”
And so without license he wouldn’t be able to carry his legally purchased gun to the site?
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/11/2011-01-11_if_they_hadnt_grabbed_him__i_would_have_shot_him.html#ixzz1B1hhTFaj
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 11:19 am
“Death by gun” includes suicides. Gun homicides are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
MA and CT fare worse than Utah and Wyoming.
lesliebaker - January 14, 2011 at 1:52 pm
It is you who are incorrect, physicsprof. Zamudio admits he saw a man with a gun and considered shooting him, but fortunately decided not to do so (his apparent cool-headedness under pressure is very admirable). The man he saw was the one who had taken the gun away from Loughner, because by the time Zamudio arrived on the scene, Loughner had already been subdued by people armed only with bravery and quick thinking. There is a video interview with Zamudio about this on Fox News and another at cnn.com. I don’t know if he is traumatized, but he is aware that he considered shooting an innocent man and that he is “really lucky” he didn’t (his words).
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Source, lesliebaker?
In the MSNBC interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY&feature=related) he says that he grabbed the gun-holding hand of a non-shooter for a moment, but not that he was close to shooting him. Media might want to put any spin on it (including convincing us that he is “traumatized” now) but the bottomline is simple. A civil gun carrier was able to exercise sound judgment and act more confidently knowing that he was armed (his own statement from the same interview).
marntex - January 14, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I’m both amazed and saddened by the lack of common sense of those commenters who claim this was “good sense.” Would any of those in that camp please explain how a restrictive gun law would have prevented Tucson, Va.Tech, Columbine? Where there’s a will there’s a way. All gun laws do is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and others from fanatics who are prepared for the consequences-including their own deaths-that might have come from their attacks. Every elementary school has a rule against plaground fights, but the bully always punches out the weak kid, regardless of the punishment. You weak kids need to wake up.
lesliebaker - January 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/01/14/ps.zamdio.tucson.hero.cnn?iref=allsearch
http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/10/one-of-the-men-who-subdued-loughner-had-a-gun-and-he-was-ready-to-use-it/
Hedge all you want, physicsprof. You stated Zamudio was about to “shoot the shooter” and you were wrong. He was prepared to shoot the person he *thought* was the shooter. Coming in at the time he did, this was a reasonable inference on his part, but he was still mistakenly targeting the wrong guy.
You were ready to accept “I had my hand on the butt of my gun” as being “about to shoot” when you thought he was about to shoot Loughner. Now that it turns out he was looking at someone else, you want to claim that it isn’t really that close to shooting after all?
Also, a number of other people proved that day that you do not need a gun to (a) act with confidence, or (b) stop a killer. I do not say this to detract from Zamudio, who also acted bravely, but to point out that his gun made absolutely no difference in the outcome.
physicsprof - January 14, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Me stated??? Please see my post from 11:13am. I simply quoted Mr. Zamudio as cited by the NY Daily News.
So, I watched both clips. Never in any of them does he say that he was about to shoot a non-shooter. Watch them yourself. He states that he saw a man with “a gun with the slide locked” (=unloaded) — “clear” — and decided that he “was no threat” and “he could handle him” without his gun (after all Mr. Zamudio is a 220 pound man) so he took his arm off the butt of his own gun concealed under his jacket and grabbed the arm of a non-shooter holding that pistol. Again, sound judgment by Mr. Zamudio, the rest is pure media spin and sensationalism.
va_adjunct - January 15, 2011 at 9:33 am
As a former light infantry soldier, I am very happy to hear this decision. Guns in the hands of individuals with no technical or contextual training scares me.
hawkeye515 - January 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm
So physicsprof, where do your concealed carry classes fit on your syllabus? I’m guessing you get to this topic after you’ve covered mechanics and thermodynamics, but before you get to electricity and magnetism.
oldphilprof - January 17, 2011 at 9:10 am
People, PLEASE listen to va_adjunct! I’ve seen 20+ trained and experienced police officers fire off 100′s of rounds at a single suspect and hit everything BUT the suspect (in fairness, the suspect was running and firing at the officers). That’s right — trained officers. Unless permits to carry concealed weapons include regular; i.e., monthly, requirements to prove your ability to hit what your aiming at, and regular police-style street-practice ranges, I will find amateurs carrying guns every bit as frightening as bad guys and loonies with guns.
dank48 - January 17, 2011 at 10:38 am
Speaking as a gun-owner, two things scare the bejesus out of me. One is a society in which the government (i.e. armed forces and law enforcement) have all the guns. Another is a society in which people who aren’t trained in handling guns are carrying them.
Wishing weapons out of existence doesn’t work, and putting them all in the hands of the government is an expression of trust in our rulers that I’m not prepared to make. However, books, movies, and television–including well-produced, high-quality, otherwise intelligent works–seldom if ever show much knowledge, much less understanding, of firearms. (People never have to reload unless it’s dramatically necessary or convenient; silencing a gun is as easy as covering it with a cushion or sticking a plastic pop bottle on the end; hitting a running bad guy at a hundred paces is no big deal for the good guy; a “flesh wound” from a firearm can be ignored while continuing the fight . . .)
There are no easy solutions. Prohibition is not the answer. Neither is laissez-faire. Suppose we tried education?
physicsprof - January 17, 2011 at 10:57 am
hawkeye515, thank you for your question, it is nice to have a discussion with academically-minded people on the CHE board, but… do you really expect an answer?
oldphilprof, va_adjunct, concealed carry is nothing new — all but two states have some form of it with 39 states adopting “must-issue” laws — and since there are now estimated millions of concealed carry permit holders some hard data must be available on the type of shootings you worry about. I do not have statistics at hand but they are very rare, certainly much less frequent than wrongful police shooting. You can be sure NYT or Brady people would quickly be on top of every one of them. This problem just seems to be nonexistent.