Running head: GUNS ON CAMPUS

Guns on Campus
Lisa Newhouse
Western Michigan University

GUNS ON CAMPUS

2
Guns on Campus

Until recently, institutions of higher education (IHEs) had been fairly insulated from the
gun debate. However, in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy and two Supreme Court cases
regarding the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. II), the issue
has been brought to the forefront on many IHEs in the United States (U.S.). Advocates for
conceal and carry legislation for IHEs, interpret the Second Amendment as a fundamental right
to have weapons, regardless of the location or environment. Often this argument is framed
around issues of personal safety and the right to protect and defend oneself. Opponents of such
legislation argue that all public spaces are not equal, and guns on campus could divert from the
learning environment and lead to an increase in violent crimes. Additionally, opponents argue
that IHEs are a subset or special environment, where a free exchange of diverse ideas are openly
debated, and therefore guns in this type of environment would not be appropriate (Gilroy, 2013;
Wasserman, 2011;Wood, 2014; Wiseman, 2012).
On the surface, it appears that the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court
interpretations of it are fairly straight forward. However, a deeper analysis of case law,
regulations, and statutes reveals shades of grey that are much more complex and difficult to
interpret, requiring deeper consideration. In this paper, I will analyze the legal issues
surrounding guns in IHEs and provide a context from the perspective of a student affairs
professional. Next I will scrutinize the various legalities and perspectives that need to be
considered, and provide recommendations for action.
Case Example
New Michigan University (NMU) is a state owned university in Kalamazoo, Michigan
with a student population of approximately 20,000. The current gun policy on NMU, prohibits

GUNS ON CAMPUS

firearms on campus by students, faculty, or staff with the exception of security guards or police
officers. Prompted by a threat of litigation over the Second Amendment at a University similar
to NMU in Illinois, the President has set up a task force of senior leadership to examine whether
or not NMU policies are in compliance with recent Supreme Court decisions in the nation. The
task force is comprised of university legal counsel, campus security, a representative from the
faculty senate, Director of Student Conduct, and the Vice-President of Student Affairs. The
President has appointed the Vice-President of Student Affairs as the chair of this task force and
has requested a report and recommendations regarding the current policy in 60 days.
Prior to the first meeting of the task force, the Vice-President of Student Affairs has
gathered information regarding the current gun policy, as well as extraneous issues occurring on
campus that may be relevant. One issue in particular that is pertinent is a recent spike in crime on
campus, particularly robberies that have occurred at night. The robberies have all involved
female students and there has been a student movement led by one of the victims of the robberies
to allow guns on campus. This particular student has organized demonstrations and started a
petition which supports legislation allowing for concealed weapons in IHEs. Furthermore, she
has applied to start a charter for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Students opposed to
the group have also held demonstrations and have applied to start a charter for Students for Gun
Free Campuses.
The faculty have also weighed in and issued a statement indicating that the presence of
guns on NMUs campus could have a crushing effect on academic freedom. Moreover, there is a
smaller group of faculty that have come forth who support the Second Amendment, arguing that
campuses should represent and promote a free exchange of ideas even when they are
controversial. As both movements have grown in numbers and become more vocal, an

GUNS ON CAMPUS

adversarial response that is negative in nature has been noted amongst students and faculty alike
by the administration.
At the first meeting of the task force, the Vice- President of Student Affairs provides a list
of relevant case law, regulations, and statutes (table 1), which are germane when considering
policies about guns. She divides the task force into sub-committees and provides each group
with a particular piece of legislation, directing them to review, consider, and analyze its
significance and bearing on NMUs gun policy. She also asks them to keep in mind issues
pertaining to academic freedom, student development, and campus safety. The task force is
asked to provide reports at the next meeting.
Table 1
Case Law, Regulations and Statutes Relevant to Guns on Campuses______________________
Legal Resource

Case Law/Regulation/Statutes

Federal Constitution

U.S. Const. amend. I

U.S. Const. amend II

Michigan Constitution

Mich. Const. art. 1 6

State Laws

MCL 28.425o
MCL 750.237d

Case Law

DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason

University, 281 Va. 127; 704 S.E. 2d 365; 263 Ed.
Law
Rep.966 (2011)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct.
2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S 742; 130 S. Ct
______________________________3020; 177 L. Ed. 2d. 894 (2010)____________________
Legal Issues
Review of case law, regulations and statutes exposes a myriad of issues that need to be
considered by administrators in IHEs when developing and implementing policies and guidelines

GUNS ON CAMPUS

regarding guns. At times the issue can appear to be clear cut, but deeper analysis of the issue
from multiple angles and viewpoints reveals a spectrum of complexity that needs to be carefully
measured. Gun policies in IHEs need to not only consider Second Amendment rights, but rights
regarding the right to keep and bear arms that are granted under state constitutions as well.
Moreover, state statutes also need to be reviewed to determine how they may apply to IHEs
(Kaplan & Lee, 2014; Wasserman, 2011). Lastly, concepts surrounding academic freedom and
student development should always be foremost when considering policies and guidelines.
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed upon (U.S. Const. amend. II). Prior to 2008, every court decision regarding the
Second Amendment concluded that it protected the right to have firearms solely for the purpose
of militia service (Wasserman, 2011). However, with the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller
(2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second
Amendment to encompass individual rights in the home, as well as applied the Second
Amendment to state and local governments, moving the debate about guns into IHEs. In both
cases the argument was brought forth regarding sensitive places, but it was not until Digiacinto
v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University (2011), that sensitive places were more
clearly defined.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER. This is a landmark case that opened
the door for Second Amendment challenges to state and local gun control laws, including those
involving firearms in IHEs. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the court held that an
individual has a right to keep and bear arms in their home, which could be argued to include
resident halls in IHEs. Although the court characterized the Second Amendment as fundamental,

GUNS ON CAMPUS

it recognized that places may exists that carrying of a weapon would be prohibited, noting that
nothing should cast doubt on long standing restrictions on the possession of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings. In essence providing a foundation for
arguments regarding sensitive places that could be made by IHEs.
MCDONALD V. CITY OF CHICAGO. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the
Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment applied to the states and local
governances and could nullify state or city ordinances which restrict the possession of handguns
by private citizens. In this case, as in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the case involved the
rights to carry firearms in the home, and it is unclear what the boundaries of the home may be or
if it would extend to residences on college campuses. This case also reiterated that the right to
bear and carry arms is not unlimited, thereby again putting forth the argument regarding sensitive
places.
DIGIACINTO V. THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY. In both of the above cases, the U. S. Supreme court noted that nothing
should cast doubt on longstanding restrictions on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings. Moreover, they acknowledged that these were only examples
of sensitive places and not an exhaustive list. In Digiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George
Mason University (2011), the State Supreme Court of Virginia applied the same sensitive place
reasoning from Heller and McDonald when determining if George Mason Universitys (GMU)
policies regarding the regulation on the carrying of firearms violated the Second Amendment of
the U. S. Constitution.
GMUs policy on firearms prohibited the carrying of any weapon by any person, except a
police officer, in academic buildings, administrative office buildings, student residence buildings,

GUNS ON CAMPUS

dining facilities, or while attending sporting, entertainment or educational events. In this case
GMU successfully argued that its campus qualified as a sensitive place due to the number of
students on its campus that were under the age of 18, as well as documentation regarding
summer camp programs that were hosted on campus involving elementary and high school
students. This case is significant because it continues to support the argument for sensitive
places, however at the same time it details the need to provide hard data that correlates to the
argument of the campus being a sensitive place. The court made note of the many arguments
GMU presented related to campus programming, student population, and the outside community
presence on campus when considering if it qualified as a sensitive place.
Michigan Constitution and Legislation
The state constitution for Michigan clearly states that residents of Michigan have the
right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state (Mich. Const. art. 1 6).
This is an important factor to keep in mind when considering the implementation of policies that
prohibit the carrying of guns in Michigan. As indicated throughout Kaplan and Lee (2014),
policies cannot override state legislation. If the state constitution expresses provisions that grant
residents the right to keep and bear arms, then policies cannot be legally enforced that are in
opposition to these constitutional rights. Although it would appear that Michigans constitution
would allow for the carrying of guns in IHEs within the state, there are two statutes in Michigan
that have determined otherwise.
MCL 28.425o. MCL 28.425o prohibits individuals with a concealed pistols license
(CPL) from carrying a weapon in nine pistol-free zones, one of which is a dormitory or
classroom of a community college, college, or university. This law clearly indicates that
individuals with a CPL cannot carry a concealed firearm in IHEs, however it should also be

GUNS ON CAMPUS

noted that it does not say anything regarding individuals who have a permit for a firearm and
open carry, which is defined as wearing of a holstered gun at the waist. MCL has no specific
state law stating that citizens can open carry firearms, but there is no MCL that expressly
prohibits it either. Therefore, it has been interpreted to mean that open carry is allowed in this
state with a few exceptions.
MCL 750.237d. MCL 750.237d makes it a 90 day misdemeanor to possess a firearm
at eight different gun-free zones including: depository financial institution such as a bank or
credit union, church or other place of worship, court, theater, sports arena, daycare center,
hospital, and an establishment licensed under the liquor control code. Within these eight gunfree zones are exceptions for the following individuals: individuals hired as security guards,
peace officers, or individuals with valid CPLs issued by any state. Any individual that meets
these exceptions may open carry at the locations listed above.
Both of these statutes begin to highlight the complexity that exists when attempting to
draft and implement policies in IHEs that are in compliance with legal parameters.
Understanding the nuances that exists for individuals who have a CPL and wish to carry a
concealed firearm, and for those who have a CPL and wish to open carry is an absolute necessary
for administrators in IHEs.
First Amendment
IHEs cherish a robust tradition of academic freedom, and underlying this tradition is the
advancement of free speech which is protected under the First Amendment (U.S Const. amend I).
In an environment of academic freedom, students are challenged to actively participate in critical
discourse that encourages further growth and development. The question that needs to be

GUNS ON CAMPUS

explored is whether or not allowing guns on campus could create a stifling effect on academic
exchanges and student development.
A common expectation of IHEs is the encouragement of an environment where faculty
and students will participate in a dialog that not only nurtures a free exchange of ideas, but also
challenges preconceived beliefs. This type of environment encourages critical thinking which
hopefully results in the intellectual growth of our students (Mash, 2013; Sinor, 2014).
Engagement in this form of dialog is encouraged and protected by academic freedom and First
Amendment rights. However, it is free speech that may be at risk in IHEs that allow guns on
campus. Free discourse inherently goes hand in hand with risk, due to the strong emotional
responses that may be inflamed when strongly held beliefs and ideas are allowed to be
challenged. According to Mash (2013), the effects of carrying weapons on campus stifles open
discussion, limits the marketplace of ideas, and hinders training students about engaging difficult
ideas that challenge their core values (p. 58).
Sinor (2014) puts forth the argument that guns in IHEs may inhibit faculty and students,
contributing to a subconscious participation in self-censorship due to the possibility of a
perceived threat. Faculty may omit controversial material and stifle classroom discussions that
could inflame tempers, while students may also avoid free expression in and out of the classroom
due to the presence of guns on campus and the possibility of a threat. Not knowing whether or
not the other person involved in a dispute has a gun or not, can breed fear and mistrust which
negates an environment where free and open discourse can flourish (Birnbaum, 2013). While it
is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether or not these type of scenarios will occur, it
does lead to the possibility that guns on campuses could contribute to students receiving an

GUNS ON CAMPUS

10

education that was less expansive. Limitations on academic freedom could contribute to a less
challenging, less provocative, less varied experience (Sinor, 2014, p. 2).
Student Development
The current situation on campus involving Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and
Students for Gun Free Campuses, could actually be an opportunity for student growth and
development. Currently these groups are adversarial in their demonstrations and approach for
effecting change in IHEs, as well as at a state and federal level. While valid arguments exists
that suggest that allowing guns in IHEs could affect the intellectual growth and development of
students. It should also be noted that there is a window for promoting growth and development
of students that also surrounds this issue.
IHEs have traditionally been a place where not only diverse discourse is encouraged, but
where student activism is also encouraged. Kezar and Maxey (2014), suggest that creating and
fostering a collective campus environment that encourages activism and partnerships between
students, faculty, and staff can support student learning. Partnering with students as educators
versus activists, can foster student development in the area of civic engagement by nurturing
knowledge in how groups can effectively and posititvely shape local, regional, and national
politics (Kezar & Maxey, 2014, p. 31). A campus climate that supports faculty and staff in these
endeavors through its mission, policies, and formal/informal learning opportunities can have
positive impact on promoting a robust learning environment that encourages student learning and
development.
Student Safety
Student safety and well-being is a number one concern on NMUs campus and as such,
the recent robberies on campus are of great concern. The Students Right to Know and Campus

GUNS ON CAMPUS

11

Security Act of 1990 requires NMU, as well as all IHEs in the U.S, to report data on all campus
incidents of crime that is reported to campus or local law agencies (Birnbaum, 2013). Based on
this data, NMU is aware that violent crime that has occurred on campus in the past five years is
well below the comparative national violent crime rates. Furthermore, when comparing NMUs
data to data of surrounding IHEs, it is noted that crime incidents on NMUs campus are lower.
However, even one violent crime against an individual cannot be tolerated and it is the
perception of crime on campus that can have broad and longer reaching effects. Baker and
Boland (2011), indicate that campus crime can contribute to an overall fear of safety that can
affect the learning environment in and outside of the classroom; affecting academic freedom and
discourse and possibly contributing to students leaving the institution entirely. Therefore, a
detailed reexamination of the campus environment and policies and procedures regarding
campus safety will need to be implemented.
Recommendations for Action
The task force reports continue to illuminate that the issue of guns on NMUs campus is
not as black and white as it may initially appear to be. In order to determine if the current policy
that prohibits guns on campus is legally sound, it is important to not only look at federal
regulations, but to also look at our state constitution and statutes. In Michigan, the state
constitution has a provision that allows citizens to carry guns, and it would appear that a ban of
guns on NMUs campus would be in opposition to this provision. However, a review of state
statutes reveals that concealed guns on campus are prohibited by law and therefore NMUs
policy of guns is within legal boundaries.
While these issues are fairly straight forward, there is still ambiguity when considering
open carry laws in Michigan. Secondary to no state statute expressly prohibiting open carry, it is

GUNS ON CAMPUS

12

generally interpreted to mean that open carry is allowed in the state. Review of MCL indicates
that there are a few exceptions to this law as listed in section MCL 750.237d, however it would
not apply to an individual who has a CPL from any state and wishes to open carry. Meetings
with NMUs legal counsel and campus security has indicated that from the standpoint of personal
property, NMU can prohibit the open carry of guns in all other areas of NMU as well. With this
thorough understanding of the legal issues, the following recommendation for action are
submitted:
1. Recommend that the current policy regarding guns on NMUs campus remains intact.
2. Formation of a preventative task force should be initiated. Purpose of task force is to stay
current in federal and specific state laws to inform future policies.
3. Policies be implemented to ensure the active collection of data regarding student
populations, campus programming, and surrounding community presence on campus.
Purpose to substantiate arguments pertaining to NMUs campus being a sensitive place
that should not allow guns.
4. To address issues regarding student safety the following initiatives are recommended:

Implementation of a campus environment scan to determine if there are

areas on campus that could present safety concerns. Examination of the
following for proper working order and appropriateness should be
considered, but by no means should this list be considered list: locks in
buildings, security cameras, lighting in outdoor spaces, shrubbery and
physical other objects that may obscure field of vision, and availability of
emergency phones. The environment scan should be conducted by
representatives from campus security, faculty, staff, and students.

GUNS ON CAMPUS

13
Initiate an awareness campaign that educates campus community on
behaviors that will not be tolerated, policies and procedures to follow if
victimized, precautions that can be taken, identification of safe zones, and
safety features on campus.

Ensure all security officers are easily accessible and trained to protect the
student body.

5. Initiatives should be created that foster an environment where freedom of speech is

encouraged by faculty, staff, and students. The issue of guns on NMUs campus has
elicited many responses from students and faculty that at times has been adversarial.
While this can be a normative process when emotions are high and debate is
controversial, it is important that NMU continues to promote an environment that
encourages free speech and promotes open and diverse discourse. While our policies
have not discouraged or prevented the student demonstrations, additional programs with
an emphasis on the First Amendments and its tenants of free speech would be
encouraged. The development of a committee to determine what avenues could be
explored with this premise in mind is recommended.
6. Meet with academic departments to develop incentives for faculty and staff to work with
student groups as educators. Focusing on student development in leadership and civic
engagement.

GUNS ON CAMPUS

14
References

Baker, K., & Boland, K. (2011). Assessing safety: A campus-wide initiative. College student
journal, 45(4), 683.
Birnbaum, R. (2013). Ready, fire, aim: the college campus gun fight. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 45(5), 6-14.
DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, 281 Va. 127; 704 S.E. 2d
365; 263 Ed. Law Rep.966 (2011).
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)
Gilroy, M. (2013). Guns, hazing, and cyberbullying among top legal issues on campuses.
Education Digest, 78, 45-50.
Kaplan, W. A. and Lee, B. A. (2014). The law of higher education (5th ed.): Student version. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). Collective Action on Campus Toward Student Development and
Democratic Engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2014(167), 31-41.
Mash, K. (2013). Guns on campus: A chilling effect. Thought and Action, 57-60. Retrieved
from http://www.nea.org/home/61255.htm
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S 742; 130 S. Ct. 3020; 177 L. Ed. 2d. 894 (2010)
Mich. Const. art. 1 6
Sinor, Jennifer. (2014, 27 October). Guns on Campus Have Already Curtailed Free Speech. The
Chronicle of higher education.
Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990, 20 USC 1092
U.S. Const. amend. I
U.S. Const. amend. II

GUNS ON CAMPUS

15

U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Wasserman, L. M. (2011). Gun Control on College and University Campuses in the Wake of
District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L.,
19, 1.
Wiseman, R. (2012). Campaign for Right to Carry Concealed Guns on Campuses Gains
Traction. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(7), 5356.
Wood, P. (2014). Gun-Free Campuses. Academic Questions, 27(4), 426-428.