Governor Deal's Veto Statement

I have been harshly critical of Governor Deal for several years, for what I take to be good reasons. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I want to put his veto statement in front of you. It is thoughtful and rooted in the right way: in an understanding of the Founding and the traditions of our nation. I don't think he has understood the argument of his opponents, or else he is raising a straw man by suggesting that his opponents' position can be characterized as a demand for an absolutely unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. No one is proposing eliminating restrictions on violent felons keeping and bearing arms -- indeed, the NRA worked hard to help get Project Exile passed into law.

However, leaving the straw man fallacy aside, he has an argument that I will present for your consideration. It's a long piece, so I'll put it after the jump.


Veto Number 9

HB 859 seeks to amend O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127.1, which relates to the carrying of weapons within school safety zones. It would add an exception to the prohibition of carrying or possessing a weapon in such school zones, to “any licensed holder when he or she is in any building or on real property owned or leased to any public technical school, vocational school, college or university or other public institution of postsecondary education,” except for “buildings or property used for athletic sporting events or student housing, including, but not limited to fraternity and sorority houses…”

Some supporters of HB 859 contend that this legislation is justified under the provisions of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides in part that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Identical words are contained in Article I, Section, I, Paragraph VIII of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. It would be incorrect to conclude, however, that certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional.
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the opinion of the Court, reviews the history of the Second Amendment and sets forth the most complete explanation of the Amendment ever embodied in a Supreme Court opinion. While the subject matter of HB 859 was not before the Court in the Heller case, the opinion clearly establishes that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Scalia further states that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings…”

Georgia, like most jurisdictions, has set forth statutory provisions defining what constitutes those “sensitive places” and has imposed specific rules relating to the presence of weapons in those places. Indeed, the Georgia Code section which HB 859 seeks to amend is called the “Georgia Firearms and Weapons Act.”

Since the right to keep and bear arms in sensitive places such as those enumerated in HB 859 is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment nor the Georgia Constitution, the inquiry should then focus on whether or not those places deserve to continue to be shielded from weapons as they are and have been for generations in our state.

Perhaps the most enlightening evidence of the historical significance of prohibiting weapons on a college campus is found in the minutes of October 4, 1824, Board of Visitors of the newly created University of Virginia. Present for that meeting were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, along with four other members. In that meeting of the Board of Visitors, detailed rules were set forth for the operation of the University which would open several months later. Under the rules relating to the conduct of students, it provided that “No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or venomous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”

The approval of these specific prohibitions relating to “campus carry” by the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and the principal author of the United States Constitution should not only dispel any vestige of Constitutional privilege but should illustrate that having college campuses free of weapons has great historical precedent.

That college campuses should be a “gun free zone” is a concept that has deep roots in Georgia as well. In the 2014 session of the Georgia General Assembly, HB 60 was passed and I signed it into law. That bill greatly expanded the areas where licensed gun owners could take their weapons. At that time, campus carry was considered but not adopted.

While there have been alarming incidents of criminal conduct on college campuses in which students have been victimized during the past two years, do those acts justify such a radical departure from the classification of colleges as “sensitive areas” where weapons are not allowed? The presumed justification is the need for students to provide their own self-protection against such criminal conduct. However, since students who are under 21 years of age would be ineligible to avail themselves of such protection under the terms of HB 859, it is safe to assume that a significant portion of the student body would be unarmed.
As for the buildings and places referred to in this legislation, I will simply call “colleges.” In order to carry a weapon onto a college, there is no requirement that the armed individual actually be a student, only that they possess a license to carry a weapon. Since most, if not all, of our colleges are open campuses, this bill will allow any licensed gun owner to bring a concealed weapon onto the campus and neither police nor other law enforcement personnel will be allowed to even ask the individual to produce evidence of his license.

If the intent of HB 859 is to increase safety of students on college campuses, it is highly questionable that such would be the result. However, I understand the concerns of the authors of this legislation and the parents and students who want it to become law. They apparently believe that the colleges are not providing adequate security on their campuses and that civilian police are not doing so on the sidewalks, streets and parking lots students use as they go to and come from classes.

I have today issued an Executive Order directed to the Commissioner of the Technical College System of Georgia and the Chancellor of the University System of Georgia, requesting that they submit a report to me, the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House by August 1, 2016, as to the security measures that each college within their respective systems has in place. I hereby call on the leaders of the municipalities and counties in which these colleges are located, along with their law enforcement agencies to review and improve, if necessary, their security measures in areas surrounding these colleges. Since each of these municipalities and counties receive significant revenue by virtue of the location of these colleges in their jurisdictions, I believe it is appropriate that they be afforded extra protections.
Since much of the motivation for HB 859 is the commission of crimes involving the use of firearms on college campuses, I suggest to the General Assembly that it consider making the unauthorized possession and/or use of a firearm on a college campus an act that carries an increased penalty or an enhanced sentence for the underlying crime.

From the early days of our nation and state, colleges have been treated as sanctuaries of learning where firearms have not been allowed. To depart from such time-honored protections should require overwhelming justification. I do not find that such justification exists. Therefore, I VETO HB 859.

9 comments:

  1. I note two things upon my first reading of his argument:
    "Since most, if not all, of our colleges are open campuses, this bill will allow any licensed gun owner to bring a concealed weapon onto the campus and neither police nor other law enforcement personnel will be allowed to even ask the individual to produce evidence of his license."

    LEOs are not allowed to request to see a CCW? I'm almost certain that can't be true. Perhaps not without cause, and that makes sense to me so that no one is harassed out of there rights, but if they have cause, I'd be dumbfounded if they were still unable to request to see it. What's the point of issuing them? Or is this a technicality where they wouldn't likely anyway, but would verify it via a drivers license or general ID check.

    This one though, is playing with semantics to his advantage when he later refers to colleges as 'Gun Free Zones':
    "Perhaps the most enlightening evidence of the historical significance of prohibiting weapons on a college campus is found in the minutes of October 4, 1824, Board of Visitors of the newly created University of Virginia. Present for that meeting were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, along with four other members. In that meeting of the Board of Visitors, detailed rules were set forth for the operation of the University which would open several months later. Under the rules relating to the conduct of students, it provided that “No student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or venomous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind…”
    So non-students- Faculty, visitors, parents, staff would still be allowed to be armed. It was hardly a declaration of a 'gun free zone'.

    Regardless, in recent decades it has proven that those desiring to attack random citizens seem to find 'Gun Free Zones' the most promising targets, and continuing to pretend that keeping everyone there unarmed will somehow serve us better is a childish fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Faculty, visitors, parents, staff would still be allowed to be armed. It was hardly a declaration of a 'gun free zone'.

    Yes, that's right. Nor did they have to deal with mass shootings in general.

    There has been a lot of paranoid fantasy, too. The academic community was completely up in arms about the proposal. They were certain that the result would be gunfights in literature class. They were terrified at the mere thought that students might be armed -- even though most students wouldn't be eligible for the permits anyway, a fact they didn't know because none of them I discussed it with had read the law.

    Georgia's weapons carry permit is one of the better ones. It extends to citizens 21 years old, who pass a background check at the state and Federal level, as well as investigation into their drug, alcohol, and mental health histories. The class of permit holders is among the most responsible of citizens.

    There should probably be a training requirement (or at least a training option), with regular courses offered by local deputies. It would be helpful to everyone if the permit holder also knows how to use their arms and is capable of doing so safely and accurately. In the spirit of a 'well regulated militia,' I'd like it if we did more to teach ordinary citizens how to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LEOs are not allowed to request to see a CCW?

    I think the concept is that LEOs can't just stop you if you aren't obviously committing a crime. If carrying a gun is legal with a permit, then noticing that someone is carrying a gun is not noticing that they are obviously committing a crime.

    But I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't have any objection to changing the law such that asking to see a permit for a visible firearm is permissible. It's one of those things that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is not a "right", if you have to ask permission to exercise it.

    I am totally against permits to carry. They do nothing to enhance the public safety, and serve to inhibit the free carry of arms by the peaceable. Can anyone, anywhere, produce even one example of a criminal, intent on harm, who was deterred by a lack of permit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Probably not. But on the other hand, interactions with law enforcement can be dangerous enough without the permit. I like being able to establish quickly that I'm not someone they need to think about maybe shooting if they want to go home tonight. Being able to show that I have been through the background checks means being able to change the tone of the encounter from "encounter with a possible killer" to "encounter with a responsible citizen."

    That's healthy for both of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Georgia is one of the few states that requires neither voluntary declaration of being a CCW license holder, nor can police detain someone to determine if they have a valid CCW license. In many states, the holder must either declare or produce the license upon request. Georgia is not one of them:

    http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=11&section=137

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right, so that's atypical, but it's still essentially a strawman to say "...this bill will allow any licensed gun owner to bring a concealed weapon onto the campus and neither police nor other law enforcement personnel will be allowed to even ask the individual to produce evidence of his license."

    If all they did was carry concealed on campus, why would anyone even know to ask about it? If there's other reason to detain them, then it's permissible to ask them to produce the CCW. This is simply ginning up fears, not dealing with reality or meaningful arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  8. They were certain that the result would be gunfights in literature class.

    Well, to be fair, if you've taken any literature courses lately, they are enemy beachheads. I'm not sure we won't eventually need to use the National Guard to defend ourselves from them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Tom - I spit my cocktail over the keyboard on that one.

    ReplyDelete