PSU representatives give testimony to committee
Many Oregonians are calling for stricter gun control laws, especially with respect to banning guns from school areas. Senate Bill 1550, if passed, would do just that. However, during a Feb. 8 Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the question of whether guns should be allowed on school grounds was pushed to the back burner, leaving current gun control laws unchanged. The committee decided that the bill would be revisited at a later date, but until then, students and faculty with concealed gun permits are still allowed to bring their guns to school.
Senate Bill 1550 called for a complete ban of deadly weapons at all schools, including college campuses. Senator Ginny Burdick, sponsor of the bill, introduced it at the Feb. 8 committee meeting, after which both sides of the issue had the opportunity to make their case.
Proponents of the bill, including Portland State GeneralCounsel David Reese and Phil Zerzan, director of Campus Public Safety, gave testimony in support of the bill. “Guns don’t belong in dorms,” Reese said. “Adding people on campus to the list of people holding guns is not part of an emergency response plan.”
Reese and various other witnesses spoke in favor of passing the bill. Proponents saw the bill as “common sense,” and said that it carried overwhelming support by parents and faculty within the state. “Having more guns is not useful. That seems to be the universal opinion of law,” Reese said.
In his testimony to the Senate, Reese stated that PSU supported his bill, and that it would be in the best interest of campus safety if it passed. He also noted that the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators shared PSU’s viewpoint. Additionally, he explained that the difficulties involved with college life often lead students to take drastic measures, and that having guns available to them would create a much more dangerous campus environment. The bill would treat school grounds in the same way as the law treats court facilities, he said.
Reese then introduced Zerzan to the Senate. Zerzan cited a study that indicates two-thirds of students in possession of firearms participate in binge drinking, which greatlyhinders their decision-making capabilities. Students who own guns are more likely to engage in activities with potentially dangerous consequences, such as drinking and driving, Zerzan said.
He also spoke about the challenges of college life and that it wasn’t a wise choice to put guns in the hands of students under extreme pressure from school, life and relationships. “All of these challenges become particularly difficult with the addition of firearms,” Zerzan said in his testimony. “There are no apologies, therapy, or do-overs that can repair the damage caused by a gunshot wound.”
Other proponents of the bill said that safety on school campuses would not be heightened by the addition of firearms. Jim King, who has a doctorate in Organizational Psychology, has worked on college campuses before and advocates for the stricter law. “I spent six years at Western Oregon University, heading up the career opportunities program from ’70 to ’76, and then spent 23 years at Chemeketa Community College in Salem,” King said. “Mostly, we trained a lot of alcohol and drug workers. Why would you even consider allowing guns?”
Those who opposed the bill pointed out at the hearing that passing the bill would not ensure public safety, because it keeps citizens from protecting themselves. Opponents indicated that self-defense is a basic human right, and that the bill would remove that right. They also remarked that most of the comments were pointed at students.
One of those in opposition to the bill brought to light a recent incident where a student discharged a firearm in the middle of a college campus and could have caused major damage if another student with a gun had not intervened and stopped him.
In the end, Reese was disappointed with the committee’s decision, although he seemed somewhat optimistic that the Senate was willing to hear the bill and remarked that he looked forward to the time when this kind of legislature could be open for consideration.
I must ask why this article is presented in this point of view. The quotes and commentary are clearly treating the issue as if the status quo were that concealed possession is currently illegal and should be retained as such.
“Adding people on campus to the list of people holding guns is not part of an emergency response plan”, “Having more guns is not useful”, and “Why would you even consider allowing guns?” all directly imply that failure of this legislation would have an additive effect on firearm possession.
Concealed carry by legal permitees is the status quo and has been for many years, yet the proponents of these bills continue resorting to a rhetoric of fear in their attempts to gain support. Why is this? Could it be because there has not been a single case of campus gun violence perpetuated by a concealed carry permit holder in the State of Oregon?