 "Photo: N/A")
 "Photo: Lisle Alderton")
 "Photo: Lisle Alderton")
A diverse crowd of more than 150 people gathered in Forum Hall Wednesday evening to hear the opinions of two law professors as they debated the ever-present topic of gun control in relation to the language of the U.S. Constitution.
The audience sat intently as the debate-style information session titled “Guns on Campus? The New Understanding of the Right to Bear Arms” brought two perspectives on the future of the courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment through the research and experience of Raymond T. Diamond, law professor at Louisiana State University, and William Merkel, law professor at Washburn University.
The debate, moderated by Michael Kaye, law professor at Washburn University, featured a 14-minute segment each for Diamond and Merkel, along with periods for cross-examination of their arguments.
Diamond first commented on the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that was decided by the Supreme Court in 2008, which essentially protected the long-standing individual’s right to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, agreeing that the language of the amendment allows citizens to keep a firearm for protection of their home.
Diamond used a long history of American gun ownership to support his argument. He said in that 18th century England, and even in the new colonies, “All able-bodied men were to serve in the militia [or armed citizenry] ... the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.”
Using historical precedent, Diamond continued stating that the Second Amendment provides Americans with protection should they keep and need to use a firearm in self-defense of their home, and that during early American history, it was considered a duty to be ready and able to protect not only one’s home, but one’s community.
Merkel used his time to present a different interpretation of the Second Amendment. Using other parts of the Constitution, such as the Ninth and 14th Amendments, he argued that the Second Amendment only refers to bearing arms with the sole intent of participating in an organized militia, which he referred to as a “purpose clause.” Merkel also pointed out the correlation between lower numbers of violent acts and stricter gun restrictions.
“The text of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private self-defense,” Merkel said. “Four hundred texts discuss what the right to bear arms means, and about 95 percent of those refer to use in a militia.”
Merkel went on to call the nation’s current idea of the right to bear arms a “historical fantasy,” meaning most individuals’ idea of the Second Amendment is a more frivolous interpretation of the text.
Another subject was the concern of whether and what kinds of limitations might be enacted to keep those with criminal records from being able to own a weapon.
Both professors agreed that, ultimately, it is up to each state to interpret gun control laws. Each professor also agreed, though in different ways, that changes throughout the nation’s history have created changes in the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted.
After each professor had made his point, a panel of Kansas Court of Appeals justices took turns asking questions of each side, followed by the reading of audience questions by Kaye.
Diamond said that, while he supports the right to bear arms and sees the issue making another appearance in the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few years, he doesn’t see concealed carry on college campuses any time soon.
Olivia Alexander, sophomore and Johnson County Community College and Kansas’s representative for the national organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, attended the debate. Alexander, though relatively new to the concealed carry on campus movement, joined the organization last spring after taking a concealed carry class. She said her interest in gun control laws was first sparked after her God-brother took her to shoot guns last year.
“This freedom [the right to bear arms] won’t be around if we don’t exercise it,” said Alexander.
She said her approach to concealed carry on campus is that she hopes for the best, but is prepared for the worst.
Most in attendance, like John Clark, junior in open option and K-State’s Students for Concealed Carry on Campus leader, agreed on two things: first, the event remained unexpectedly calm, though the turn-out was better than expected; and second, for the time being, students and citizens will have to find alternative ways to defend school campuses.
Diamond recommends throwing books.
It is very clear, and a vast majority of legal scholars agree, that the Bill of Rights ennumerates individual rights, not those of the government.
“Shooter Prepared at Home, Leaves Hit List,” The Enterprise-Ledger, March 11, 2009
“Poplawski Bought Guns Through Shop in Wilkinsburg,” Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, April 7, 2009
"Slaying Suspect Denied Gun Permit 3 Times Before Getting 2007 OK," Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 19, 2009There have probably been more than that, too, including killers like George Zinkhan. Those four are just the ones that have been confirmed at this point. The NRA has enacted secrecy laws in most states that make the identities of permit holders difficult or impossible for the public to access.Every one of them had obvious red flags in his background that should have prevented these guys from buying a gun, much less carrying one in public. The screening process for permit holders in most states is an absolute joke.Here's another recent article about permit holders who threatened Knoxsville officials that publicly supported a ban on concealed handguns in public parks:“Guns in Parks Ban Evokes Threats,” Knoxville News Sentinel, September 17, 2009And for the record, you're wrong, New York has a May-Issue policy on concealed carry (although law enforcement in upstate New York might not always exercise their discretion).