By Steven C. West
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 27, 1998

Regent's weapons policy suspect

To the Editor:

I always look forward to Rachel Alexander's column. Her piece "The regents' anti-self-defense policy (Mar. 25)" summarized many statistical and legal points well.

The Arizona Board of Regents apparently gains authority for arbitrary preemption of state laws (designed to facilitate personal protection) through a broad interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 13-2911 - "Interference with the peaceful conduct of educational institutions." I question several aspects of this interpretation.

How is the peaceful conduct of an educational institution upset by a woman defending herself with a gun against violent crime?

How can this policy be justified against the unambiguous wording of the Arizona Constitution which states "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, ...").

After disarming the law abiding, how does the university guarantee that violent criminals comply with the policy?

Airlines and courtrooms provide a reasonable guarantee with gated perimeter security, a high concentration of full-time time guards, scanners, and metal detectors. Once you remove an individual's ability to protect themselves, you must also violate their privacy to insure their security-is that what we want?

Ms. Alexander noted that this ABOR policy preempts ARS 13-3102(A)(10) which mandates that public "establishments" provide weapons storage-points for those who enter weapon-free zones. Attorney General opinion I88-119 extends the interpretation of "establishment" to governmental agencies. This statute makes it possible for people to protect themselves on their daily commute to and from the university without violating no-weapons policies within its borders. Having been pushed off the road while bicycling to the UA and then assaulted at knife point, I understand the importance of this statute. The spirit of this statute is applied to K-12 school grounds via ARS 13-3102(I) which defines exemptions for people legally carrying a weapon in their vehicle or engaging in safety instruction.

Who is responsible for the consequences of this policy when violent criminals ignore no-weapons signs? The regents have refused to provide a statement of liability and responsibility for their policy. Does preemption of ARS 13-3102(A)(10) mean they assume liability for our safety during our commutes to and from campus?

Since this policy was instituted prior to ARS 13-3112 becoming law (the state concealed carry permit system), the regents owe permit holders further clarification and a statement of liability and responsibility.

I find it difficult to believe that the legislature intended for the regents to blatantly preempt reasonable state laws designed to help people defend themselves. I invite the ABOR to revisit their policy and treat employees and students with more respect.

Steven C. West
Associate Staff Scientist