Mandatory Security Requirements Bill When you are Denied Your Gun in a CCH Free Zone
HB 2685 – Building Security And No CCH Signs
Kansas –-(AmmoLand.com)- HB 2685 was passed by the House of Representatives today with a vote of 65 -57, a narrow but successful margin. The bill must now be worked by the Senate.
To refresh your memory, this bill does the following:
This bill requires that if any state or municipality facilities post NO CCH signs that they must provide “adequate” security and ensure that NO guns are allowed on the premises.
Adequate is defined as, minimally, metal detectors, electronic detection and wands and security personnel. Also mandates that no state agency can prohibit their employees unless adequate security measures are provided as well. Sets the stage for arguments concerning the liability issue of any facility that prohibits your right to carry on those premises. Also sets the stage for arguments concerning any business which makes the choice to post those signs. Also requires secure storage for lawfully carried guns upon entrance to the facility.
Please call and/or email your Senator and request that they urge the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee to schedule a hearing for this bill before the session clock runs out.
The Kansas Board of Regents is strongly opposing this bill. Please contact the Kansas Board of Regents and ask them what they are doing specifically to keep college campuses safe from criminals. Their written statement concerning these measures do NOT satisfy our definition of adequate security and display they do not even possess a clear understanding of the current concealed carry law. CLICK HERE TO SEND EMAIL TO KIP PETERSON at KBOR.
Following is their statement:
On behalf of the Kansas Board of Regents, I write to you in opposition to House Bill 2685, legislation that would prohibit the state’s seven public universities, 19 community colleges, and six technical colleges from exercising meaningful efforts to make their campuses weapons-free.
House Bill 2685 seeks to amend the Personal and Family Protection Act to preclude State agencies and municipalities, including state universities, community colleges, and technical colleges, from prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon anywhere on campus where there is not a metal detector or other electronic equipment and personnel to detect the presence of weapons. The Board of Regents has substantial concerns about the implications of this legislation.
The six governed state universities consider the safety of their students, employees and visitors to be among their highest priorities. Each has expended considerable effort working to create a safe and secure environment for students to study, learn and reside in while attending the university to further their educational pursuits and for all other individuals to continue their legitimate activities. Soon after the Virginia Tech tragedy in April of 2007, the Board of Regents and the state universities engaged in a system effort to ensure that all possible measures were being implemented to ensure the safety and security of students, faculty, staff and other persons spending time on the campuses. Margolis Healy & Associates,[1] a professional services firm specializing in higher education safety and security, was retained to review each university’s plans, procedures and policies compared to national best-practices, and campuses have been actively addressing recommendations made by that firm, as well as otherwise continuing to enhance their crisis management plans and numerous other security measures. Additionally, the Board implemented policies for background checking state university and Regents office employees and creating/maintaining weapons-free campuses. The Board’s weapons policy is attached for your review.
The safety and security efforts of these universities would be substantially undermined, if not crippled, by the passage of House Bill 2685. It is our firm belief that allowing weapons on campus would significantly increase the risk of violence and harm to students, faculty and others rather than making anyone safer. While persons licensed to carry a concealed weapon no doubt receive training to qualify them for licensure, we should not assume that such limited training will enable them to react in violent situations in the same manner a trained law enforcement officer would.
Each state university campus maintains an onsite police department with 24-hour coverage and the ability to respond quickly to incidents of violence. University police are state certified law enforcement officers and are highly trained in the proper use of firearms during a violent encounter. The presence of firearms, legal or not, would complicate the job of our police officers. Eighty-six percent of campus police chiefs disagree or strongly disagree that allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would prevent some or all campus killings. Thompson, Amy, James H. Price, Adam Mrdjenovich, Jagdish Khubchandani, “Reducing Firearm-Related Violence on College Campuses-Police Chiefs’ Perceptions and Practices,” Journal of American College Health, 58(3)2009:247, 250.
We do not believe it appropriate to “test the theories” on our college campuses. About 1,100 college students commit suicide every year, and another 24,000 attempt to do so, according to a 2006 newspaper report (M. Cintron, “College Campuses Grapple with Escalating Suicide Rates,” Near West Gazette, October 2006). Reports from the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence indicate that “if a gun is used in a suicide attempt, more than 90 percent of the time it is fatal, compared to a 3% fatality rate for suicide attempts by drug overdose.” We are concerned that if students are allowed to carry guns on our campuses, the number of suicide fatalities could increase substantially, and that would be a tragedy of immeasurable proportions.
Students and parents seek safe and comforting environments in which to live, study, learn and grow; neither weapons nor metal detectors seem consistent with or conducive to a safe and comforting living and learning environment. We note that one of the state university campuses houses the KAMS program, and therefore high school age youth reside, study and learn on that campus. Others house daycare facilities where young children are regularly on campus. The Medical Center has patients on its campus. Thus, in addition to the college students, parents and employees, there are other more vulnerable populations on the campuses to consider.
Finally, we note that the “adequate security methods” proposed in this bill would have very limited effectiveness from a safety perspective. The requirement to have electronic equipment and security guards in place would not absolutely guarantee safety because those with intent to do harm will find an alternate route (such as a window) or use alternative weapons, and given the number of buildings on our college campuses, these security methods would be cost prohibitive.
The Board of Regents does not favor legislation that would preclude the Board and the public universities and colleges from choosing to make our campuses weapons-free. If the House’s desire is to move this bill forward, the Board would request that the state’s 32 public higher education institutions be exempted from the legislation. Thank you for your consideration of the Board’s opposition to House Bill 2685.
Sincerely,
Reginald L. Robinson
President & CEO
About:
The Kansas State Rifle Association has one purpose. To promote and strive for the improvement and protection of the firearms and sport shooting industry and protection of second amendment principals by encouraging and stimulating well-qualified individual citizens to run for public office and to take a more active and effective part in governmental affairs. Visit: www.ksraweb.net