ASU Police


If the bill to allow weapons on college and university campuses passes, it will total $13.3 million in one-time costs and $3.1 million annually for the three state universities, according to the Arizona Board of Regents’ fiscal impact study released Wednesday.

SB 1474, a modification to current law, would stop universities from banning firearms on campus. It would require them to allow guns in public accessible buildings unless signs are posted at every entrance stating guns are banned and additional security personnel and gun lockers are provided.

“Even residence halls are considered public because people can enter through the lobbies,” said Lisa Frace, Arizona State University associate vice president of planning and budget. “Really, all of our buildings are public buildings.”

However, a state senator said that the amount of money estimated by the universities is grossly overstated and designed to kill the legislation.

Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, told Capitol Media Services that the existing ban on guns on college and university campuses is largely meaningless.

He said those who seek to do harm ignore the law. That means they remain armed while more law-abiding citizens are unarmed -- and campus police are minutes away.

“The best thing you can do is match force with equal force,’’ Gould said.

Additionally, he maintains that the colleges can bolt down the lockers, rather than build them into the wall.

“It doesn’t have to be Fort Knox,’’ he said.

But the ASU police chief disagrees.

“We don’t want a locker that can walk off,” said Police Chief John Pickens, speaking figuratively. “We take safety seriously. Any time you’re dealing with weapons in the wrong hands—whether that’s stolen or otherwise—there is a greater public risk.”

The university intends to incorporate the lockers into the design of the building to best secure the lockers, Frace said.

“We know that we need to build a false wall on the exterior of the buildings to secure the lockers,” Frace said. “Our intent would be to minimize the damage to the aesthetics of the buildings.”

Gould acknowledged to Capitol Media Services that the university opposition is taking its toll. He said the National Rifle Association, which supports his measure, just brought in someone from its national office to help lobby the measure and convince doubters to go along.

The cost estimates come as a new informal automated telephone survey of 843 Maricopa County adults found that only 13 percent who responded would favor a law to allow students to carry guns on university and college campuses. Pollster Earl de Berge said 74 percent were opposed.

ABOR adamantly opposes the legislation because there is no evidence the measure will increase campus safety, said Regent Bob McLendon, ABOR chair, in a press release.

“Additionally, this legislation will saddle the universities with additional costs that will cut into educational priorities,” Regent LuAnn Leonard, ABOR vice chair, said in the release.

The bill also is opposed by all three university presidents — including ASU President Michael Crow — all three university police chiefs, the four student governments from each ASU campus and the ASU graduate and professional student government.

The costs study estimates ASU would need $4.7 million the first year, with an additional $1.9 million in operating costs. Additionally, the training for the security personnel would necessitate another $341,000 the first year.

ASU has 254 public accessible buildings across four campuses, the study states. A sign would have to be posted at each of the 9,000 entrances at approximately $10 each.

Estimates point costs to a $13,000 per-building average to install the lockers to the exterior of the walls.

The reoccurring costs of $1.9 million each year would be the associated costs of hiring additional police officers and aides, the report states. Currently, the police department operates on an $11.8 million annual budget, according to Frace.

The estimates assume that the lockers do not have to be individually staffed, but if that’s the case, the report said, the costs would be substantially higher.

Instead, the police department would hire an additional police officer and aide at each of the four campuses at all times, meaning an additional 20 positions university-wide, Pickens said.

“We know there will be unintended consequences of allowing guns on campus—additional calls and reports of suspicious behavior, unintentional discharges, even weapons stolen,” Pickens said. “We respond to every call about a weapon.”

Pickens is worried not that guns will be stolen from lockers, but from unattended backpacks and purses. Petty theft and crimes of opportunity are the most common form of crime at all three universities.

“The board of regents continues to heed the advice of the university police chiefs — the experienced, trusted law enforcement professionals responsible for the safety and well-being of campus visitors — who strongly advise against SB 1474 given the high-risk factor of harmful or deadly situations occurring with more guns on campus,” McLendon said.

NAU would require $2.3 million and $519,000 in startup and annual costs, respectively. UA would require $6.69 million the first year and $692,988 in annual personnel costs.

It is unknown where the funds to cover the cost of installing gun lockers and the associated costs will come from, said Frace.

“It’s basically an unfunded mandate,” Pickens said following an ABOR meeting earlier this month.

Capitol Media Services contributed to this report.


Contact writer: (480) 898-5645 or

(41) comments

Rational Human

I will fight to preserve both my country and constitution. My family have fought in every war this country has fought from the Revolutionary War to today's conflicts and will continue to do so as it is our way to serve our nation.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

If you have a problem with this you are free to move elsewhere or try to change our constitution. Otherwise, get over it.


rational human: as a member of of a well regulated militia, are you prepared to called up by the president of the united states of america?

Rational Human

Schools here in Arizona do not need to spend one thin dime because of this bill. It is never a waste of time, energy, and resources to insure that our freedom is protected from those who would try to take it from us. The issue of building gun lockers and placing gun ban signs outside of public school buildings has no place on college campuses as it neither makes for a safer or less safe environment. This legislation is important to freedom lovers who demand that our constitutional rights be protected. The socialist that want you caged can just go ply their business elsewhere. Let us carry as the US Supreme Court has already ruled on. We demand it and we will get it.


Since Arizona became a state, schools seemed to get a long just fine without spending over $13 million on gun related legislation and another $3 million a year to operate and comply with gun laws.

These issues have no place on our college campuses as they add no value to the educational process and certainly don't make the campuses any safer.

This legislation certainly does nothing to increase jobs, or increase revenues from a job starved state.

What a waste of time, energy and resources.

Rational Human

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court has ruled. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service. Get over it. We have the right to carry. If you don't like it then either move to Canada or Mexico where the people allowed their rights to be taken from them.

Rational Human

This article is about the purported costs of allowing guns on campus if gun lockers and signs are needed to prevent gun owners from entering public school buildings with their guns. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms - Supreme Court already decided we have that - or whether guns kill or people kill or if it makes the classroom safer or not. All of that is irrelevant. We have the right to carry. It doesn't make the classroom less safe to carry there. Therefor, there is no rational reason to disallow guns in the classroom. It is an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights to deny us our right to carry in the classroom. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that we have the right to bear arms. Get over it.




Did you gun fantasy people see that headline in the paper, on the TV, the internet?
No you did not. Why? No one is goinig to massacre a number of people with a knife. They do it with guns because guns kill people. This is not conservative vs. liberal. It is intellegence, logic and reason vs what ever fantasy is motivating you propnents of murder. That is all you are, a proxy murderer. Blood on your hands. You might as well give your money to Al Quida as the NRA. K, don't pray for me because the thing you pray to is as full of hate as you are.


Dale, I pray that common sense will someday fill your senses. Otherwise, this proud, lifetime member, of the NRA, may have to save YOUR life. It's ok though, some of my best friends are liberals too. Some of our debates get quite heated. You libs sure make for great entertainment, however dilusional you've become. I know, used to be one. Gun control is using BOTH hands.


rich, you should stop leaving out leaving out key words of the second amendment.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
the part about the well regulated militia. i would say that you are taking the second amendment "out of context." if you are pushing for the right to keep and bear arms you should use the first amendment--the freedom of expression, which has been bastardized to allow massive amounts of money into campaigns, but i digress. the freedom of expression by carrying a weapon.


The Shore Patrol, in a foreign port, at least at the time, could be armed only with a baton.

"Now, please explain this to me. If the English common law stems from William and Marry, why don't Englishmen have a right to bear arms today? And if they do, why have I never heard any talking about it? What is it about us Americans that we go over board on the second amendment?"

Actually Dale, the right of a freeman to bear arms stems from Roman law, and has been dissected in European law since. "If the English common law stems from William and Marry, why don't Englishmen have a right to bear arms today?" To stop Catholics and Irishmen from doing it.


"They are purchased to arm criminals." Nope, criminals don't have problems getting guns. The average man does, but the criminal doesn't. Therein lies a part of the problem. Law only effects the law-abiding.

"Where does the Second Amendment say that gun control laws are an infringement of gun rights?" Actually, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." says it pretty clearly. "keep and bear" couldn't be simpler.

Put it in for you, knew you'd bite. You're so predictable. Avoid the fact you made an emotional and rather irrational argument. You fixed on the out I left you, I deserve a thank you. The point is this: the psychotic gunman is an unpredictable, improbable, outre thing that with 7 billion variables is inevitable. You can't guard against it any more than you can prevent double zero coming up twice in a row on roulette wheel. However you have a system with a foundation and when you pull a brick out of that foundation, the system wobbles. When it does, more people commit suicide than psychotics have killed since the beginning of recorded history. What we need from a government is that foundation, that bedrock. Some nutballs grab some planes and knock down some buildings. Outre, unusual. outside of anything predictable. So you molest 80 year old ladies, maybe it makes you feel better, but it does nothing to prevent the next psychotic from shooting a Congresswoman and several other people. With nearly seven billion variables, it has happened, will happen. It can't be prevented. And to wobble your entire society because it has, is rather mindless.

Dale Whiting


You say "Dale has me carrying a night vision .45" Hell no! An M1911A1 is a Colt .45 automatic pistol, with a standard 9 [or perhaps 8, I forget] round magazine. The sites are the typical open sites in use since 1911. And it has a so called "floating barrel." So Rich, how is the Shore Patrol armed, with beebe guns? If you want to see a M1911A1, just look at Slabside's picture. It's there every time!

That punch must be spiked much harder than I thought!

Now, please explain this to me. If the English common law stems from William and Marry, why don't Englishmen have a right to bear arms today? And if they do, why have I never heard any talking about it? What is it about us Americans that we go over board on the second amendment?

Me thinks you have been drinking much to much NRA punch!

Mike McClellan

Ad hominem? Nice dodge, Rich. You make a claim, I disagree and it's suddenly an ad hominem against Gould? Because I note he believes his legislation makes students safer? Good try.

Like I said before, go ahead and pass the legislation -- nothing changes vis a vis the psychotic shooter.


It is very clear that more guns create more carnage. The main problem with the Va Tech shooting besides the deaths is that the Virginia gun laws allowed the killer to purchase gun after gun. The NRA knows that guns bought in easy purchase states are bought for resale in other states and/or bought by one person for nefarious reasons. They are purchased to arm criminals.
@ Rick, your comments are clearly pro gun proliferation and that is not what the men you speak of envisioned. The psuedo Constitution part is about the pro guns misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. ie. Where does the Second Amendment say that gun control laws are an infringement of gun rights? No court has said so. Tight, it does not. Gun laws in this country are political sparring and not Constitutional. Some people do not mind seeing that innocent Americans are murdered with guns and some of us do. I am former law enforcement and I know the violent gun culture well. This is why despite the hoopla of the NRA they are slowly getting beaten up in the courts.


"So for Rich, it might be only a Second Amendment issue; for others, it's more than that."

Exactly, and that's why your government doesn't work. Why we're awash in red ink, unemployment is high, people lost and are losing their homes. Why it isn't working. A broken system only works sporadically. They spin off nonsense and do more harm than all the guns on all the college campuses could ever do. But they can fascinate you spinning it in a nice glittery circle. It's a nonentity, it's a symbol is all it is. Won't save anyone, won't hurt anyone except as an extreme set of outre circumstances and that is so far out of probabilities' ability to measure it that it can't be predicted. Everybody wants to tell me I claiming this that or the other thing to fit the glittery emotional arguments that are being presented. No one person has yet addressed the argument I laid out. Dale has me carrying a night vision .45, THM calls all sorts of names, and Mike gets all emotional before an ad hominem argument against the bill's author. No wonder things are such a mess.

Mike McClellan

I see Rich feeds into another illusion, that this legislation " has nothing to do with safety."

That claim, of course, can be believed only if you think that the clamor for guns on campus has nothing to do with the shootings at Virginia Tech and other campuses in the recent past.

It also call for you to ignore the chief sponsor of the legislation, Ron Gould. Who argues that guns on campus make kids on campus. . . safer.

So for Rich, it might be only a Second Amendment issue; for others, it's more than that.


Where's the lie? What is it?
What propaganda? Selling what from where or whom?
What Fear Mongering? What is the fear?
What deceit? What is the deception?
Actually what I said was a combination of Madison, Adams' and Hamilton's arguments among others from three newspapers contemporary with the enactment., both for and against and how it ended up there is all, so how is that pseudo?
NRA? No don't own a gun, frankly don't care for them.
Evil government? No, unless you can site an instance, that's rather silly. The government was set up to operate a certain way and part of the checks against misuse of power is an armed populace. Which is all I said, and you take off on a name-calling crusade that's pretty irrelevant to anything at all. Can you justify your statements?


Rich is at the Kool Aid buffet of lies, propaganda, fear mongering, deceit and pseudoConstitutionality. He thinks he needs to protect himself from the Government so he might be a member of the NRA. They promote such fantasies of an evil government coming to get them. If this did occur all the government has to do is hack into the NRA computers and easily get a list of the mailing list. To think that one is going to defend himself with a gun is laughable. Yes, one in a while you hear a story about this but it is a very remote situation. Guns kill people it is that simple. They are meant to maim and kill. If they did not kill the dunces would not want them.


"When Rich was going shore patrol, he was not armed with his old hunting rifle or his boyhood pump beebe gun. He was armed with a Colt calibre .45 M1911A1 automatic pistol [and a night stike, too]. "

Think you need to look up how, by International law the Shore Patrol is armed.

And the 'militia' part comes from Common Law true, but it was put there because the Catholic King, James II, tried to disarm Protestants. William and Mary agreed to the proposition after the Glorious Revolution as essential to a unified kingdom. The 'militia' as it was used then, refers to a private party or parties banding together for any reason. Actually in the original case, to preserve Protestant political power, not self-defense. It is a building block in a system of checks and balances to create a government that cannot become a tyranny.

"Furthermore, those of you who, while on campus, might choose to check your firearm at the locker so that you can go into a classroom will probably still be killed by a nut who is bent on shooting up the class and fails to check his."

Probably quite true, and a very nice and concise point, once the government has 'infringed' where they have done so, people aren't as safe. I didn't make the point because the point has nothing to do with safety, but rather with power. However, a few others did.


It is apparent to free thinking people that guns kill people. However the NRA tramples our Constitution and fights real gun control and management with their lies and propaganda. The promote fear and violence throughout America and more recently Mexico. I do not know why Al Quida is a terrorist organization and the NRA is not considered one. They are both zealots groups casuiing death and destruction by misinterpreting the writen laws governing their culture. Just that the NRA has killed more Americans than Al-Quida. The Second Amendment does not rule out gun control, regulation of high powered weapons and ammo or licensure of people who own guns. Now watch the NRA dunces say, " Gawd wants me to have a gun", " I have to protect myself from the evil Government", "you can kill someone with a spoon if you want to", " outlaw cars because they kill more people than guns" or the dumbest one of all, " I' gonna defend myself with a gun" . They are too indoctrinated to say much else but go ahead and try dummy, "make my day".

Dale Whiting

Rich, Slabside, TeaParyPatriot, KJ, etc. you are all punch drunk!

Let's begin with the second amendment. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Our forefathers did not mince words. The reason no laws would be allowed to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms is straightforward. In 1790 we had a tradition of an all volunteer militia that was self-armed. When Rich was going shore patrol, he was not armed with his old hunting rifle or his boyhood pump beebe gun. He was armed with a Colt calibre .45 M1911A1 automatic pistol [and a night stike, too]. When we stopped depending upon a self-armed, well regulated militia to secure a free state, we still had English common law which recent court decisions have sustained as not permitting law to prohibit bearing of arms for self defense.

Now, for those of you out there who fear being unarmed when you happen upon a nut case who is exercising his right to bear arms to defend himself from the likes of an elected Congresswoman, know that where we would prohibit the ownership and possession of armor pearcing ammunition and extended round magazines, chances are better that you will be able to defend yourself from him. But where we do not, chances are he'll get the drop on you and you'll be dead meat, too.

Furthermore, those of you who, while on campus, might choose to check your firearm at the locker so that you can go into a classroom will probably still be killed by a nut who is bent on shooting up the class and fails to check his.

So let's get off the punch. Life has inherant risks and being armed may help you deal with some of those risks but not all of them. $pending no amount of money will make you $afe from all ri$k$.

Get real! Sober up! Your punch has been spiked!



It has nothing to do with safety. It may even be unsafe. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." usually attributed to Franklin, but probably a paraphrase of Richard Jackson. In any case, that is the issue here, not safety, or false security. It isn't that it is safe or unsafe, it is that our government cannot work as intended if the government is allowed to control an essential liberty.


"rich: as a member of the well regulated militia are you prepared to be called up?"

Been there done that, with the Navy in fact. Too old now. Part of the time with the Shore Patrol, which may give you a clue as what I think about carrying all the time. The fact here is that the Constitution is an absolute, what government can't do, What this is about is the government being caught with it's hand in the cookie jar. Government can't ban guns, anywhere. It's part of the price you pay for freedom, and when they do you're just being short changed. The government was designed with checks and balances, one of those checks is an armed populace. When you remove it, the government doesn't work as well as it was designed to.

Mike McClellan

This bill is an illusion, an illusion of safety. Had every kid in the Chardon, Ohio, cafeteria been armed, there still would be three dead children today, along with one wounded and one wounded still in critical condition.

Sure, someone might've shot the shooter after the initial firing, but that's little solace to the families of those five kids.

So, pass the bill, sign it (even though, like so many other moves by our legislature, it's unfunded) and have the 21's and over carry their guns to class. Give yourselves a false sense of security.

The psychotic shooter will still show up and fire away. No amount of weaponry will deter the crazy person . . .


TeaPartyPatriot ,



"What you knuckleheads can't, or won't, grasp is that instead of having one or maybe two suspects, the entire population of the campus will now have to be considered as suspects whenever anything happens."

Are you trying to tell us that the entire population of the campus wouldn't already be considered suspect until they could be eliminated by police as suspect? Perhaps you missed the video's of the Columbine High School massacre where all the fleeing students were told to raise their hands in the air as they fled the school until the police could identify them as not the suspects. It pretty obvious to any thinking person that every student will be suspect until proven otherwise by law enforcement if a pair of nuts open fire, and it's pretty rediculous to assume that just because no one is legally allowed to carry on campus that the police will operate any differently.


Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots". After the gunman ran out of ammunition in the first magazine, he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair.

If just one of the people standing around him had had a gun, Loughner would have never gotten through half his first clip. They were fortunate that he dropped his second clip on the ground. 6 People were shot dead because the people were unarmed, ready-made victims to be.


I can see the headlines now. Some nut secretly carry's a gun into a classroom and open fires killing a dozen students because everyone was defenseless. Several students try to get to their guns just outside the classroom but it's too late and the carnage is over. I wonder how many fewer people would have been shot by Loughner if several people standing around him had been carrying firearms? If the universities are so worried about guns in classrooms then why don't they already have armed guards in every classroom? The truth is that they have armed guards in many classrooms already. I conceal carry where ever I go unless their is a metal detector to stop me. You will never know who is carrying concealed around you. Having a sign saying "guns not allowed" doesn't really do very much to prevent people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and it will never, ever stop a criminal h3ll bent on a massacre.


What you knuckleheads can't, or won't, grasp is that instead of having one or maybe two suspects, the entire population of the campus will now have to be considered as suspects whenever anything happens.
This is total insanity!!!!!!


ABOR adamantly opposes the legislation because there is no evidence the measure will increase campus safety, but they really can't argue that it will make it any less safe. All they can do is pretend to need millions of dollars worth of additional security and signs of course. Next they'll want to install metal detectors at each of those 9000 entrances. After all, it must be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to keep firearms just outside the classrooms, and you know without metal detectors at each of those 9,000 doors with at least two security guards each the criminals will still ignore the law and carry firearms through them. The 18,000 plus new security guards will of course need to be well armed just in case some unruly 2nd amendment advocate demands to carry their firearm past the doors. My goodness it's getting mighty expensive. Maybe we would be better off just wiping our behinds on the constitution like all the gun grabbers are trying to do. The only intelligent thing to do is to change the bill so that the university cannot ban guns inside the classrooms. It would save them hundreds of millions of dollars and be no more unsafe than if they were allowed to force students to store their firearms just outside the classrooms. Their entire argument is a joke and we should of course allow them to be the b-tt of their own joke. Spend all your money pretending that guns in classrooms and other university buildings is less safe than storing them in lockers just outside and needs to be denied, but you will do so at your own expense.

Maybe the president of ASU can fork over a few million from his compensation package of over $700 million, including salary, car and housing allowances, and retirement contributions. I'm sure he wont mind if it insures the safety of his students. Yup, that is what you pay this socialist gun grabber to subvert the minds of your children. Well worth it don't you agree? Maybe we should give him a raise. That would improve education in America.


the 2nd amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

article 2 of the constitution states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

rich: as a member of the well regulated militia are you prepared to be called up?


Agreed Slabside, Rich posted an excellent article, cut straight to the bone. How many of you anti-gun progressives would've tried to reason with that fruitloop from tuscon while he was on that killing spree? Would you have stood tall to protect that innocent child or ran and ducked for cover?

Dale Whiting

Not hard to see that someone spiked the punch on this series of comments!

We have two traditions supporting that right to bear arms. First is English common law. Second is our tradition, now long since discarded, to form militia. Neither of these bear any realtionship whatsoever to another tradition, schooling. Teachers are not government, at least not in the classical sense. We have a tradition of respecting teachers and demanding of them an atmosphere of discipline, also a dying tradition. When I moved to Texas in the 50's, failing to place a "mam" or a "sir" behind my simple responsive "yes" or "no" earned me a swift hand to the bottom.

Now we appear poised to spend millions of dollars so that students can bear arms in the hallways outside classroom doors!

Yes, Mam, someone has spiked the punch!


What a joke, I have no doubts this will pass; nice to see it was supported by a state senator from Havasu. I don't even need to make a punchline for that to be funny!


"We don't needs guns on campus."

Then don't carry one, how hard can that be? Just allow the same choice to everyone else. I guess that's harder, but I'm sure you'll suck it up. Freedom isn't free, part of the price is to acquire the confidence to live in a world full of guns without running to Mommy.


I went to school there and I work there. We don't needs guns on campus. Hey Rambo stay home, we don't need you to protect us.


Well said Rich.


The government shouldn't even care, after all "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If they hadn't done that in the first place, it wouldn't be so expensive in the second place. Also, 'the people' probably would have a clue as to how to use one and carry it. The politicos spent so much time 'infringing' that a law that says they can't anymore is a major trauma. Basically an armed public is a threat to them and their power, and that is what they oppose. They will say anything to stop it, and that is really all it is about. The right of politicians to borrow billions to cover the fact they can't balance the books and mess around in your life, without you making a peep. The right to carry a gun, anywhere you want, is established in the Constitution. The right of politicians to keep the mine and give you the shaft isn't. But that's about the only 'right' being established here.

Dale Whiting


Just what leads you to your apparent conclusion that SB 1474 will "stop a massacre from happening on Arizona Campuses?" Let's not jump to irrational conclusions here!


Hmm, maybe they should consider not installing the gun lockers and security personnel. Seems that would save most of the money the limp-wrists and other assorted weenies want to spend to "be safe" from the mean ole' gun-totin crazies that would flock to campus and ave shoot outs like the Old West.

I remember the horrific fantasy scenarios painted by those opposed to the conceal carry law last year...hmm, no shootouts or massacres from that law.

Leon Ceniceros

$13 Million Dollars is a small price to pay to stop a massacre from happening on Arizona Campuses. Take the money out of the Football Programs....$2 Million dollars a year for a Football Coach....give me a break ! ! ! !....[sad]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.