The Utah Legislature is being asked by university administrators to override a recent state Supreme Court decision striking down policies banning guns on campus -- including those carried legally by holders of concealed weapon permits. Now University of Utah President Michael Young and Senate President John L. Valentine are working on a legislative compromise that would place some restrictions on guns but allow them other places on campus.

DON'T SACRIFICE RIGHTS TO SOLVE NON-PROBLEM

By Clark Aposhian"The Individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property or the state as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed."

Utah State Constitution.

The language of Utah’s constitution is plain. Anybody except, perhaps, extreme ideologues can understand a person’s rights as outlined in clear language. It is a right to defend one’s self, not a privilege granted by the state.

Without a showing of some sort of abuse, rights should be left alone. History shows that once gone, they are unrecoverable.

Nobody is opposed to solving problems. Real problems should be addressed by public policy. But that’s just the point. There is no real problem here. Unless the universities can show me that an actual problem exists for which banning guns would be an effective solution, I am not persuaded to adopt their view.

The argument put forth by university officials is vague, consisting mainly of a single sound bite: ‘Guns and colleges do not mix.’ In truth, what they’re saying is, ‘Self-defense and colleges do not mix.’ This is nothing but an effort to condition people into negative, knee-jerk responses for anything related to firearms. Guns are ‘evil,’ and anyone who carries a gun, for whatever purpose, must be a bad person. They would have you believe that all weapons are intended for nefarious purposes, that gun owners are inherent threats to society and that the mere presence of guns is a problem regardless whether or how the gun is used.

You’d think a group of supposedly educated people could make better distinctions. A gun is just a tool, no better or worse than the person using it. And properly permitted concealed weapons have always been legal on campuses under Utah law. College campus policies are not law; the law is the law. Which is why the Utah Supreme Court ruled against administrative gun bans.

Why is it necessary to change a long-standing legal principle tied to the fundamental right of self-defensefi Proponents are silent. Would an actual problem be solved by making a law against legal concealed weapons on campusfi No.

If they could get such a law, administrators would still not be happy. They don’t even like guns in the hands of campus police. Not long ago at the University of Utah, a duly sworn campus police officer walked into her class. Unable to change clothes after her shift she wore her firearm along with the rest of her uniform. This officer/student was told by the professor: ‘I don’t want those things in my classroom’ (referring to her duty weapon). She was forced to leave.

This is revealing. Usually, even garden-variety anti-gun arguments make an exception for police. But some university faculty are apparently nursing the notion of the evil gun a notion that knows few, if any, limits.

These are the people and ideas that are setting the tone of discussions with the Legislature.

What they don’t want you to learn is that there have been no patterns of lawlessness or accidents involving concealed weapon permit holders on campus, so there is really no reason for a new law. Since 1995, law-abiding residents in increasing numbers have been discreetly carrying guns as an effective means of self-defense. They have their own reasons to which they are entitled as free citizens and they have not been a problem for anybody.

Nobody is advocating that guns be carried openly, with people swaggering into classrooms like John Wayne and shooting up the place. We’re talking about concealed weapons permit holders, who statistics show are highly responsible individuals.

Irresponsible people don’t bother with permits.

To obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm, a person must be at least 21 years old. The applicant must be free of felonies, wants, warrants, indictments, domestic abuse, violent misdemeanors, offenses of moral turpitude (writing bad checks, shoplifting), alcohol and drug-related offenses. He must also receive firearms instruction covering Utah handgun and use-of-force laws by a state-certified instructor. The applicant must also be fingerprinted and photographed, and undergo federal and state background checks. The notarized application must include $59 for processing, which can take more than two months. Once a person has obtained a permit, he is subject to daily checks to assure that he maintains a clean record.

A permit allows one to discreetly carry a loaded, accessible firearm. It does not allow one to brandish it to frighten people, or to use it inappropriately in any way.

To put the issue in perspective, fewer than 3 percent of Utahns have permits far fewer than the estimated number who carry a gun without a permit. Factor in the number of students at the university who are old enough to obtain a permit and you are talking about a very small number of permit holders on campus.

These people are simply not an issue. It’s the mere thought of them that sends the ideologues over the edge. The thought, not the reality. In reality, they pose no problem at all.

Gun bans and gun-free zones are just feel-good measures unless coupled with security measures that can prevent illegal carrying of firearms. Such measures are found in the state’s only secured areas: prisons, courthouses, mental institutions and airports. But they won’t be found on campus. The universities have no plans for installing metal detectors or other detection devices. Administrators conveniently forget to tell you that their plan would create the only state entity which bans guns without any assurance of compliance by people carrying weapons illegally.

Their position illustrates an astounding breakdown of logic. But then, this isn’t really about logic. It’s not about solving any actual problem on Utah campuses. It’s all about the personification of ‘evil’ guns. It is about the existence of guns, not about their misuse. An important point to remember is that all school shootings in North America have occurred in unsecured, gun-free zones.

In the end, it’s easy to see the result of gun-free zones. They prevent just one thing: the ability of a person to engage in lawful self-defense against someone bent on violence.

If they ban guns on Utah’s college campuses, permit holders will obey. But don’t be so naive as to think that no one will carry a gun.

Clark Aposhian, owner of FairWarning Firearm Training in Cottonwood Heights, is chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.

WHY CHANGE CAMPUS POLICYfi

By Steven H. GunnMy old high school debate coach taught us that when we were on the negative side of a proposition, one of our best arguments was that no change in the status quo was necessary.

If he had been an attorney, my coach probably would have advised us to argue that the affirmative side -- the proponents -- had failed to meet the burden of proving that the status quo should be changed. Instead he taught us to say to the other side, "Gentlemen, where is that needfi"

It is the same thing I would say to gun-rights advocates: Where is the need to change the policy of no guns on campus that has existed for decadesfi

Certainly, the colleges and universities don't think that a change is necessary. Taking the University of Utah for example, polls and expressions by student leaders show that most U students don't want guns on campus. So, too, have administration officials, faculty members, campus employees and the Alumni Association expressed their opposition.

Indeed, in 2004 the board of trustees of the University of Utah supported the admnistration's legal challenge to the statute that prohibited colleges and universities from banning guns. In doing so, it expressed its "concern for the safety and well-being of the university's faculty, staff and students ..." if guns were allowed on campus.

No one has demonstrated that the status quo -- gun-free campuses -- needs to be changed. No one has produced any evidence that those who frequent our campuses are in such danger that they need to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves.

Instead, the argument sometimes goes like this: If we prohibit guns on campus, criminals will stream into this gun-free vacuum knowing that they can ply their trade without fear of being shot. The trouble with this argument is that college campuses have been relatively free of firearms for decades without experiencing any significant violent crime. So, gentlemen, where is that needfi

Another argument which seems to resonate with legislators is that there should be uniformity of gun policy throughout the state. It is not clear what social policy is furthered by such uniformity. Indeed, there are many places where guns are prohibited: the BYU campus, court houses and airport terminals, to name a few.

It cannot be said that the lack of statewide uniformity will cause confusion in the midst of students or university employees. Every student can be informed upon entrance that he or she is prohibited from carrying a firearm. Employees and faculty members can be told that it is a condition of their employment that they not bring firearms on campus. Gentlemen, where is that need for uniformityfi

The other argument for allowing guns on campus that I have heard is that if the state doesn't allow people to protect themselves by carrying guns, it could be liable for interfering with that self-protection. No legal support for this proposition is ever adduced; it is simply stated as a self-evident truth.

Of course the converse can just as easily be argued: The state may be liable for failing to provide a safe place of learning for its students and place of employment for its teachers. But neither argument really holds water. Unlike private citizens, a state can decide under what conditions it will be liable for injuries that it causes or permits to be caused by its neglect. This principle is known as "sovereign immunity." If the state doesn't want to be sued for allowing or not allowing guns on campus, it need only say so by statute. Gentlemen, where is the needfi

There is a need, but it isn't for more guns on campus. It is a need to keep guns out of dormitory rooms. It is a need to exclude firearms from intercollegiate and intramural sporting events. It is a need to prevent guns from being brought to campus political demonstrations, such as anti-war rallies. It is a need to keep concealed weapons out of classrooms where controversial or emotional subjects are being discussed. It is a need to protect members of review boards from intimidation or harm.

Yes, the Legislature could try to micromanage our institutions of higher learning on this or any issue. But why would it want to do sofi Gentlemen, where is that needfi

Steven H. Gunn is an attorney with the law firm of Ray, Quinney and Nebbeker in Salt Lake City.

What do you thinkfi

Should concealed-carry permit holders be allowed to carry guns on state-owned campusesfi Send your comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should not exceed 100 words; voice-mail comments should be no longer than 30 seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published.

The Daily Herald will publish comments on Jan. 21.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6.