Campus Carry Rights Likely To Be on Legislative Agenda

One of the bills that didn’t pass during the final moments of the 2013 legislative session dealt with the right to carry guns in public places. The major sticking point dealt with the ability of students to carry on college campuses, an idea strongly opposed by the State Board of Regents. According to a story in the AJC (unfortunately behind the paywall), the issue might be getting closer to resolution.

Final details are expected to be hammered out over the first few weeks of this year’s legislative session, which starts Monday. Broad points were agreed to last year, although proponents must still bridge a rift over whether to allow students to carry concealed weapons on the more than 50 campuses of the state’s university and technical college systems — a prospect staunchly opposed by the state’s powerful Board of Regents and other higher education leaders.

“It will come a little sooner than later,” state Sen. Frank Ginn, R-Danielsville, said of an expected agreement this year. “I’d like to get a good bill passed for our citizens.

Legislators thought they had a deal to pass Senate Bill 101, which as modified in conference would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry on campus. People between 21 and 25 years of age would have to pass a gun safety course in order to carry. A last-minute disagreement over whether everyone, regardless of age, should have to take the safety course doomed the bill last year.

The Board of Regents still opposes campus carry. However, the Second Amendment is a popular issue with Georgia Primary Election voters. The AJC article hints at a possible compromise, where private colleges and universities could offer students the right to carry, but public institutions could not.


  1. Noway says:

    Awwww, let’s not get too worked up about the gov’t selectively “letting” us exercise our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It seems to be working jus’ fine with the 4th Amendment these days. Getting your phone data intercepted and stored without a legal reason? No prob…It’s to save us from terrorists, don’t you know. Throw in that it’s “for the children” and you should be golden! You want to arm yourself based on your 2nd Amendment rights? Well, ok, but not on campus….
    What a crock of s**t.
    If you’re 21, have taken a safety course and aren’t bats**t crazy, then you should be able to carry any-damn-where you please.
    And any “stats” that supposedly show all of this raging gun violence by legal carry citizens simply does not exist.
    Thanks for playing.

    • Lea Thrace says:

      “and aren’t bats**t crazy”

      That’s the part that I think is most troubling in any new legislation. How does one determine that? What is the standard and where do you set the cutoff?

      I have a family member who has been committed twice in the last year and has an ongoing mental issue. After each commitment, he has been able to go out and by several guns. He has made multiple suicide attempts which involved these guns (not to mention the threats to family). The family has had no way/help to remove these guns or to prevent him from buying more. The police cannot help ( he hasnt been convicted of anything) and there is only so much social workers can do. It is a frustrating situation on all fronts.

      • Noway says:

        Lea, has your family member threatened anyone other than himself? Your post sounds like other family members have been put at risk.

        • mountainpass says:

          Well if he was involuntarily committed then bought his guns at a dealer, he lied on Form 4473, which is a felony.

          On top of that this legislation deals with license holders. In which the law addresses:
          {No License shall be granted to:}
          {Any individual who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within five years of the date of his or her application. The Probate Judge may consider the reason for the hospitalization and decide whether to issue a permit or not;}

          • Noway says:

            Mountain, will any guns I already own before I had mental issues be considered grandfathered, meaning authorities can’t take action on guns owned before the mental issues surfaced?

              • Michael Silver says:

                Noway, you would be in violation of Federal Law if you were adjudicated as a mental defective or were committed to a mental institution and possessed a firearm. You would have to dispose of your guns otherwise its a trip to the big house. Georgia’s process for commitment is very rigorous so I’d expect Law Enforcement would have had your guns well in advance.

                In terms of Lea’s example, I don’t believe people who suffer from mental illness and VOLUNTARILY seek help should be punished by losing their self-defense rights. We, as a society, want people to seek help and we should be removing every roadblock in the way for them to get help. Punishing them is cruel and very counter-productive.

                Lea’s family member is very likely a prohibited person already due to the domestic violence and mental hospital commitment. The issue isn’t with the law but with Law Enforcement that aren’t doing their job of enforcing the law.

                Lea, a good starting point to get your cousin disarmed would be the Probate Judge of his county. They have the authority over these matters and can initiate the process.

                • Noway says:

                  Actually, Gordon Liddy did just that, he gave all of his guns to his wife after his conviction. Cops couldn’t do a thing about it.

                • Lea Thrace says:

                  Yes. He has threatened family.

                  Thanks for this information. Didnt know that we could go to a judge directly without there being a preceeding event (arrest or conviction). The police pretty much told us that since his commitments were voluntary, he could buy all the guns he wants and we couldn’t do anything.

                  That is probably an added wrinkle to the discussion of guns. It appears sometimes that even law enforcement doesnt have a clear understanding of the law.

                  Let me also add that he is a college student. Currently enrolled in a USG school. Think about that…

                  • Michael Silver says:

                    That he is a student is more reason that his classmates need to be armed to protect themselves. The University System can’t and won’t protect students. They make a lot of empty promises about security, ie LIES.

                    Chancellor Huckaby would want you to believe that guns were never on campus ever in history. The reality is that prior to 1990 guns were permitted on campus. That changed when Joe Biden’s Gun Free Schools Safety Act was signed by George Bush 1 in 1990.

                    When the Republicans defend the school carry ban, they are in fact defending a Joe Biden idea. How upside down is that?

  2. Noway says:

    I have a question for the more legally-learned members of the group. When a school is designated a Gun Free Zone, is that set by the individual school boards or is it set at the Gold Dome for all schools?

    • GotUrBack says:

      It is a federal law, but state law can allow permitted individuals to carry in those areas. It includes all schools, private or government indoctrination portals. Georgia, however, does not allow carry on school property.

  3. Michael Silver says:

    Somewhere along the line, the University System developed an idea that they are more than a sub-unit of Government. Now the University System acts like they are above the 3 branches of government, above the state and US Constitution, and above the taxpayers whose only allowed role is as serfs forced to fund lavish salaries and benefits.

    If you want to see how far their aggregation of power has gotten, look at how many people within the system are paid more than the Governor. The Chancellor’s Salary is 4 times what Gov. Deal is paid. Who is in charge of who?

    The truly sad part of the Republicans bowing down to the Chancellor, is that a significant portion of Academia is violently hostile to Republicans and Conservatives. In fact, many openly threaten Republicans and Conservatives with death, eg

Comments are closed.