Although mass shootings by crazed gunmen on college campuses draw intense media coverage, these incidents are exceedingly rare. Despite being one reason for permitting campus carry, they are not the primary reason. When licensed concealed carriers express frustration about being prohibited from carrying on campus, they aren’t doing so because they have aspirations to be a campus hero. They simply want the ability to defend their own lives.  According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, a violent crime (murder, rape, assault, armed robbery) occurs somewhere on a campus in Florida on six out of every seven days, or about 300 per year. Being able to defend oneself from these virtually everyday crimes is what truly justifies removing colleges from the prohibited places list for licensees.

Before the tired howls of immature, alcohol-fueled, emotional hormone driven, shootouts ensue, two basic facts must be presented and understood. First, a person who is intent on criminal activity does not care if there’s a law or campus rule prohibiting the carry of firearms. Criminals are illegally carrying firearms on campus. Additionally, there’s an old saying, “I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” There are people (students, faculty, and staff) illegally carrying firearms on campus for self-defense every day. Second, the removal of the carry prohibition would only authorize persons with valid concealed carry licenses to carry on campus. One must be 21 years of age, undergo a background check, be fingerprinted, present evidence of training, and pay a fee in order to get a license. And, if the averages applicable to the general population of Florida apply, only 1 – 5% of eligible persons will get a license, and only about half of those will carry on a regular or periodic basis. This means that only a very small portion of faculty and staff will carry, and an even smaller portion of the student body will carry due to age restriction. So, the scenario portrayed by some campus police officials regarding not being able to identify the bad guy during an incident because everyone is shooting at everyone else is simply nonsense.

The editorial also states, “…strict enforcement of screening and background checks for gun applicants will need to be instituted.” It is already instituted by federal law as well as state statute. All sales of a firearm from a dealer are contingent upon an approval from FDLE. The issue with background checks is not one of enforcement, but one of intentional or accidental exclusion of certain disqualifying data from the system. The editorial mentions that both Cho and Lougher purchased their firearms legally after passing a background check. In Cho’s case, this occurred because Virginia’s law specifically restricts mental health data from entry into the check system unless one is “involuntarily committed” or “mentally incapacitated”, neither of which was the case with Cho. Jared Loughner was well known to Pima County officials at both the college and the Sheriff’s Department. In the months preceding the shooting of Rep. Giffords and others, However, despite death threats levied by Loughner at several people and documented erratic behavior, the Sheriff’s Department did not arrest him, allegedly because his mother worked for Pima County and “the family had enough trouble”. He was barred from campus until he got a mental health clearance, but withdrew instead. Like Cho, Loughner’s disqualifying information was not entered into the system, and he was allowed to legally purchase a firearm.

Now, onto the legal issue. The editorial proposes “The University could institute a system in which students who carry a legal firearm on campus have to register with the University so the student can be identified, and staff and faculty know when someone possesses a gun.” Aside from the fact that the whole idea behind concealed carry is that no one knows a licensee is carrying a firearm, registration would constitute a violation of §790.335 Florida Statutes which in part states, ”No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms.”

http://www.DanielDickey.com