Pistol Packing in SD . . . in Class?

According to a news source (I no longer link to outside sources; sorry), it seems as if the South Dakota legislature is trying to make it possible for concealed guns to be allowed on university campuses. (Currently, the proposed bill died in a committee, but some are trying to override this committee action.) The initial reaction from many is “heavens, no!” We don’t want people carrying guns on campus—legally!

Now, even given my stance on guns (see here (I will link to my own stuff)), I realize the above thoughts initially miss the point. As most all studies show, it’s not the people who carry guns legally who cause the most alarm. When someone goes through the process of obtaining and maintaining a concealed-carry permit, this person is probably a little more stable than the person who goes on the rampage we’ve seen in the past.

But not always or in all circumstance.

Consider law school, as just one example.

In law school, people who start out as mild-mannered, in control people don’t always wind up there. This is the first time many of my students have ever dealt with what is, in their eyes (and those of their family members), a sort of failure. And this is not just the people who actually fail. I’m talking about the people who, for the first time in their lives, make a C. Or some, even a B-. This is quite common in law schools all across the country. And those are not people I want thinking that it’s perfectly fine to walk into my class with a concealed weapon.

Consider also the student I call on—perhaps, for one, it’s the first time the student is called on during law school. Although I consider what I’m doing “asking questions,” my students call it “grilling” (especially as I wait patiently for them to work through some legal analysis to get to the answer, having to apply a just-understood law to a whole new factual scenario). This is someone who’s perhaps under the most stress this poor little 23-year-old has ever dealt with. Again, this is not someone I want carrying a concealed weapon, even legally. The stress level and immaturity are both cumulative. Add a weapon, and the hat trick might lead down a scary path.

Or consider the student who, if she has one more absence in my class, will not graduate. Period. Is this a person I want, when she gets that news from me after she next misses class then reappears, to think it's fine to have a weapon on her (if she has a permit to carry concealed) . . . after she’s spent the last five or six years pursuing this degree? Not really.

And so, while I agree with the initial reaction we should have concerning concealed carry permits and the general person who gets them, I think putting them in the hands of people this young who are at an unbelievably stressful time in their lives is a mistake.

(This does not even address the issue of universities being prevented from letting family know if a student has become mentally unstable--an area I plan to write about next fall perhaps.)

I had said I was open as to where I taught. Not so sure I couldn’t mark South Dakota off the list. This would give a whole new meaning to the “Badlands.”

-------------------------

Related: today thirty-one states, led by Texas (not surprisingly), filed a brief in support of the respondent, Heller, in the Supreme Court case to be heard next month. The basic argument raised by those states is that the handgun ban in DC should receive strict scrutiny review—a review type that hardly ever works well for legislation prohibiting something. For the constitutional right to be infringed upon, there must be compelling state interest,” the law must be narrowly tailored, and the law has to be in the least restrictive means to get that interest met.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Thirty-one states are part of this Texas group. Fourteen states have chosen to remain neutral, and five states have joined up with DC. A fellow prof broke it down:

Of the 31 pro-Heller states, 26 voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential election, while five (Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) voted for John Kerry.

Of the 14 "neutral" states, five (Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee) voted for Bush, while nine (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) voted for Kerry.

And all five of the pro-D.C. states (Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York), as well as the District of Columbia itself, voted for Kerry in 2004.

Interesting indeed.

Now, I am a huge supporter of our constitutional rights—trust me. (This is where I first really figured out I was not the conservative I thought I was.) Still, I am uncomfortable with where this could go, which, no doubt, is why we’ve not had a true Second Amendment case in so very long. But I'm also horribly uncomfortable with constitutional rights being infringed.

And so, the real question: just how much of a constitutional right is it to have a handgun. I know, I know---it seems obvious that it's part of the 2A. But do we extend that to an interpretation that we have a constitutional right to have assault rifles? I'll repeat my phrase from above: heavens, no! (please no.) Why on earth would anyone need a machine gun? But if the right is there for a handgun, why not for other firearms?

Ah, we must wait until June for the first round of answers.