Christine Brashier is an advocate and supporter of concealed guns on college campuses. She even attempted to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny Country in Pittsburgh (CCAC). Brashier would be the campus leader of a group that "supports the legalization of concealed carry by licensed individuals on college campuses."
But when Brasher tried to distribute pamphlets about her cause, school officials told her that she needed "prior written approval" for "personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events."
According to the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Brashier was also told that her pamphlets were unacceptable "solicitation" and that any further efforts would be considered "academic misconduct."
During a meeting Brashier had with college administrators, Dean Yvonne Burns reportedly said, "You may want to discuss this topic but the college does not, and you cannot make us." Brashier was warned that any further efforts would be considered "academic misconduct."
FIRE apparently made Brashier's case public because they felt school officials were violating the student's freedom of speech. But, school administrators eventually backed off and now allow Brashier to form her gun-rights group and pass out the pamphlets.
While I do not condone concealed weapons on any school campus, I do feel it is important to respect an individual's freedom of speech and allow open dialog concerning various topics, even gun control. If a student wants to form a group supporting gun-rights, he or she should be allowed to exercise that right.
There are several different groups on college campuses that support a variety of issues. Singling out a supporter of concealed weapons is not acceptable. Campuses are able to progress by considering the ideas of many. However, the question of whether or not guns should be allowed on campus is a different question.
Carrying concealed guns on campus is unsafe and unnecessary. Students should not have to fear running into someone carrying a gun on campus. Schools should be a place for learning, not fear.
For those who disagree, consider weapons on a larger scale and how the U.S. does not want another country to possess weapons of mass destruction. The reason for that is because the U.S. cannot take a risk and assuming all countries with WMDs are rational actors. So in order to maintain a safe international system, it is best that no other country has WMDs.
The same strategy can be applied to guns on college campuses. Not all students are rational actors, and it is so easy to obtain a gun with or without a license. It would be best to keep campuses safe by not permitting concealed weapons.
Comments
Bravo! Freedom of speech -- yes! Guns on campuses -- no! Easy as pie. :)
Ana is fundamentally right concerning the freedom of speech issue here. Obviously silencing debate on any topic simply because it offends your sensibilities or makes you uncomfortable is incredably inappropriate and lacking democratic integrity. As for the issue being debated, concealed carry on campus, I have to admit I am completely opposed to Ana on this one. Obviously we disagree on whether guns on campus would make things safer or more dangerous, and the evidence available is not conclusive.. that said, I do not believe you have the right to disarm other citizens as you do countries. In international affairs there are no rights, only realist balance of power. Within a nation, especially a democratic one, citizens have rights, including defense, anywhere and anytime, that supercede other people's sensibilities and fears. You cannot disarm students in a college anymore than other private citizens in their home or on the street, simply because other people are afraid.
Unfortunately, students already risk running in to someone on campus with a gun, knife or other weapon. A concealed carry permit helps certify that the individual is a 'rational' actor rather than a criminal.
Eyyyk.. The Gun culture and the USA..When you read stories like this you just appreciate more and more what my country's values and beliefs.
~ Angelo , Australia
I do like the fact that you defend part of the Constitution but not others. You point about "Weapons of mass destuction and Carrying concealed on campus" is a very interesting but pointed statement. These two have nothing to do with each other. Weapons of Mass destruction are used in an offensive manor, concealed weapons are carried in a defensive manor. In order to obtain a CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) You have to go through a thorough background check and finger printing. CCP holders are probably the most law abiding citizens you will ever meet. Everyone that I know with a CCP hopes to never have to use it. Criminals can not wait to use theirs. Big difference. I will bet that if a college were to allow it, criminals would seek out mour liberal policed schools to commit their crimes. It has been proven that when guns are present by law crim goes down. DC is now safer and less crime is commited now that law abiding citizens can own guns not just the criminals.
Ray
"Carrying concealed guns on campus is unsafe and unnecessary."
Perhaps one could open carry? Open carry is legal in PA.
"Students should not have to fear running into someone carrying a gun on campus." Why should we fear someone with a gun? The assumption is that those who carry are not law abiding--just plain wromg.
"Schools should be a place for learning, not fear." Hard to argue with. Straw man.
"The same strategy can be applied to guns on college campuses. Not all students are rational actors, and it is so easy to obtain a gun with or without a license." If it is so easy for anyone to obtain a "WMD" must the good people not be allowed to defend themselves?
"It would be best to keep campuses safe by not permitting concealed weapon" If we cant stop bad actors from obtaining "WMD" then how does banning those who follow the rules make us safer? Where is the logic to this Ana? Its clear you come from little firearms experience in your community/family.
Unfortunately Ana you repeat the same "if good people are allowed to carry guns there will be gun battles in the streets" nonsense that is always trotted out by the antigun/antiself defense people. It just has not born itself out in reality. States that passed carry laws had the opposite happen. DC and Chicago have terrible crime.
The antiself defense crowd should go after the "war on drugs" and illegalization that has contributed in large measure to violence in America. But do they?
Denying the right to self defense is elitist. Communities or people wealthy enough to hire enough police or live in a gate community or apartment building are bad enough. These politicians or celebrites that are "against" guns and they have a well armed bodyguard shadowing then are complete hypocites. You just do not understand that to a large part of the country you are saying to them: "you have no right to protect you or your family" because I know better.
I do like the fact that you defend part of the Constitution but not others. You point about "Weapons of mass destuction and Carrying concealed on campus" is a very interesting but pointed statement. These two have nothing to do with each other. Weapons of Mass destruction are used in an offensive manor, concealed weapons are carried in a defensive manor. In order to obtain a CCP (Concealed Carry Permit) You have to go through a thorough background check and finger printing. CCP holders are probably the most law abiding citizens you will ever meet. Everyone that I know with a CCP hopes to never have to use it. Criminals can not wait to use theirs. Big difference. I will bet that if a college were to allow it, criminals would seek out mour liberal policed schools to commit their crimes. It has been proven that when guns are present by law crim goes down. DC is now safer and less crime is commited now that law abiding citizens can own guns not just the criminals.
Ray
I worry most about the criminal or mentally ill individual who brings guns and ammo to a campus to kill as many as possible. I'm not concerned about the individual who goes through certification and training to earn a concealed carry permit.
People who want to harm others don't follow laws anyways. People who want to protect themselves do follow laws, don't want to harm others except in self defense, and only want to save lives. No law-abiding citizen wants to be helpless when the worst case scenario occurs.
"Eyyyk.. The Gun culture and the USA..When you read stories like this you just appreciate more and more what my country's values and beliefs."
~ Angelo , Australia
Your values of not accepting refugees? The values of detaining the refugees with no charge, even the ones who were approved.... climb back in the kangaroo pouch.
You don't need a permit for 1st Amendment, or any other amendment for that matter, so why for the second? It plainly states, "...the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." If I need a permit (permission) then my right is infringed until I get it.
Get it?
stop making up rules.
And wait Aussie, there is MORE violent crime DESPITE the gun ban.
In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.”
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!