Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
THE OPEN AND CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS AT PUBLIC COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES IN FLORIDA: PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF CAMPUS
PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTORS
A doctoral dissertation presented by
Joel S. Bolante
To the Graduate Faculty of the Doctor of Law and Policy Program at Northeastern University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Law and Policy
Under the supervision of Dr. Kimberly Larson, Dr. James D. Sewell, Second Reader
College of Professional Studies
Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts
June 2018
2
Ó Joel S. Bolante, 2018
3
DEDICATION
The road to success is filled with women pushing their husbands along.
—Lord Thomas DeWar
I dedicate this work to my wonderful wife, Linda, for her unwavering support, love, and
encouragement and for pushing me through this long and hard road. You have already put up
with and pushed me along an unyielding law enforcement career spanning more than 34 years;
and more recently, you have continued to love, support, and encourage me during the long hours
that I have spent away from you completing my course work and research project. My
professional and academic accomplishments could not have been achieved without you. You are
the rock in my life and the rock for our family. Thank you for always being there; I will always
love you.
To my brother Marvin, who, I lost while going through this journey—you are terribly
missed by our family. There is not a day that goes by without thoughts of you. You will forever
be in my heart, as I will never forget the fond and fun times we had growing up. I just wish we
had stayed better connected as we became busy adults trying to make something of ourselves in
this world. Take care, brother; you will never be forgotten.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My experiences in law enforcement and in academia have sparked my interest in campus
carry. It is my hope that I will have the opportunity to continue researching this important public
policy issue. This research project is the product of an enormous academic and personal
undertaking, and there are many individuals whom I would like to thank for helping me through
this endeavor.
To my adviser, Dr. Kim Larson, thank you for your guidance throughout this whole
process and for encouraging me to take on more than I thought I could do. I appreciate the
confidence that you have instilled in me to complete this research project. To Dr. Jim Sewell,
thank you for your willingness to serve as my second-reader and for your many years of law
enforcement service to the citizens of Florida. Your advice, counsel, and expertise in my area of
study was extremely beneficial. I also appreciated your timely responses in making
recommendations to improve my research. To Dr. Nancy Pawlyshyn, thanks for the ride on the
high-speed rail that you put us on from the 2017 summer quarter to our final quarter in 2018. If
not for you, I am sure that many of us would not have finished with our research projects. I
appreciate your lessons, guidance, advice, and steadfast expectations on our assignments. You
are the one that truly set us up for success.
To Professor Dan Urman, thanks for your tutelage on our legal system. I always looked
forward to your classes. I also want to thank you for the guidance and the advice that you
unselfishly provided to me and other members of our cohort on our research projects.
Furthermore, the trip to Washington D.C. was awesome. Finally, many thanks to Dr. Steven
Bird for taking the time out of your busy schedule to assist me with my data analysis; your
expertise in this area was certainly impressive.
5
To my fellow cohort members Dianne Davis and T.J. Swenson, thanks for allowing me to
be a part of your awesome peer team. You have both been encouraging and inspiring. You two
helped me to become a better student. I could not have survived this program without your
support and friendship, which I will always cherish.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. William Proctor at Flagler College in St. Augustine,
Florida. Not only did you encourage me to get my doctorate, but you also gave me the
opportunity and support to attend my classes and conduct my research, and I am eternally
grateful.
6
ABSTRACT
The open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of institutions of higher education
(IHEs) has been the subject of intense debate throughout the country. In Florida, legislators have
been considering campus carry legislation for public IHEs since 2011. The purpose of this study
was to explore the perceptions and attitudes of the campus public safety directors at the 40 public
IHEs in Florida. Campus public safety directors are arguably the most knowledgeable
individuals when it comes to campus safety and crime. Additionally, a statutory analysis was
conducted to analyze statutes from states that permit campus carry in order to identify themes
and patterns. This mixed-method research design included a quantitative survey of campus
public safety directors and a qualitative content analysis (QCA) of the statutes from the states
that allow campus carry. The results of the survey found that 86% of the responding campus
public safety directors opposed the open carry of firearms on campus, while 50% opposed and
32% supported the concealed carry of firearms on campus. Furthermore, concealed campus
carry was more acceptable for faculty and staff than for students or any person at large on
campus. The QCA revealed that only 5 of the 11 statutory schemes examined addressed
specifics regarding who can carry and locations on campus where firearms are permitted. The
remaining statutes were vague, requiring other sources, such as the opinions of attorneys general,
legislative proposals, or legislative history, for clarification. The results of the quantitative and
qualitative analyses supported campus carry statutory schemes similar to that in force in
Tennessee, which authorizes only full-time faculty and staff to carry firearms at IHEs.
Keywords: campus carry, open carry, concealed carry, concealed firearms, active-shooter
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction 14
Background and Context 14
Problem and Purpose Statement 19
Law and Policy Context 20
Concealed Carry of Firearms in the United States 20
Florida Constitution and Relevant Statutes 21
Significant Court Cases 24
States with Campus Carry Laws 28
Campus Carry Proposals for the 2017 and 2018 Legislative Sessions 30
Research Questions 33
Theoretical Framework 34
Definitions of Key Terminology 38
Assumptions 40
Limitations 41
Rationale and Significance 42
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
Analysis of the Second Amendment 43
Empirical Studies on Campus Carry 45
Quantitative Surveys 46
Examination of Secondary Data 48
Review of Active-Shooter and Other Campus Shooting Incidents 50
Chapter Summary 54
8
Chapter 3: Methodology 57
Research Approach and Design 58
Variables 60
Positionality/Reflexivity 61
Participants 63
Recruitment and Outreach Procedures 63
Instrumentation 64
Data Analysis Plan 64
Reliability and Threats to Validity 69
Chapter Summary 70
Chapter 4: Results 72
Quantitative Analysis 72
Description of Participants 73
Support for Open and Concealed carry 75
Perceived Impact of Open Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime 76
Perceived Impact Concealed Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime 77
Statistical Testing 79
Additional Results 84
Qualitative Content Analysis 91
Description of Data 91
Results of QCA Analysis 94
Patterns Identified in the Statutory Analysis 110
Analysis and Themes Identified in the Qualitative Survey Questions 111
9
Themes and Patterns from the Converged Statutory and Survey Data 114
Summary of QCA 115
Chapter 5: Discussion 117
Summary of Problem and Purpose Statements 118
Summary of Law and Policy Review 119
Summary of Literature Review 121
Summary of Research Methodology 123
Summary of Research Results 124
Discussion of the Results and Policy Implications 128
Answers to the Research Questions 129
Summary of Limitations 132
Recommendations for Future Research 133
Conclusion 135
References 138
Appendix A. Introductory Email for Quantitative Survey 157
Appendix B. Informed Consent Form 158
Appendix C. Survey Instrument 159
Appendix D. List of Public Colleges and Universities in Florida 166
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2007 to 2012 50
Table 2. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2015 to 2016 51
Table 3. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2017 to 2018 51
Table 4. Initial Predetermined Code Book 67
Table 5. Qualitative Content Data Analysis Methodology 68
Table 6. School and Enforcement Characteristics of Survey Respondents 74
Table 7. Support for Open Carry versus Support for Concealed Carry 81
Table 8. Role of Open Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” 81
Table 9. Role of Open Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” 82 Table 10. Role of Concealed Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” 82
Table 11. Role of Concealed Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” 83 Table 12. Summary of Statistics – Chi-Square Test 84
Table 13. Description of Data Sets for QCA 93
Table 14. Initial Analysis of Campus Carry Statutory Data 95
Table 15. Emergent Codes Developed from Second Cycle of Coding 96
Table 16. Arkansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 97
Table 17. Colorado Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 98
Table 18. Georgia Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 99
Table 19. Idaho Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 101
Table 20. Kansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 102
Table 21. Mississippi Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 103
Table 22. Oregon Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 105
11
Table 23. Tennessee Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 106
Table 24. Texas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 107
Table 25. Utah Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 108
Table 26. Wisconsin Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 109
Table 27. Responses to Survey Question 31: Budgetary Impacts 111
Table 28. Responses to Survey Question 32: Acceptable Elements or Provisions for
Campus Carry 113
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Support for Concealed Carry and Open Carry 75
Figure 2. Will Open Carry Help Make My Campus Safer? 76
Figure 3. Will Open Carry Help Reduce Campus Crime? 77
Figure 4. Will Concealed Carry Help Make My Campus Safer? 78
Figure 5. Will Concealed Carry Help Reduce Campus Crime? 79
Figure 6. Support for Concealed Carry on My Campus 80
Figure 7. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Campus Size 86
Figure 8. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Campus Size 86
Figure 9. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Agency Characteristics 87
Figure 10. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Agency Characteristics 87
Figure 11. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers 88
Figure 12. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers 88
Figure 13. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by School Geographic Setting 89
Figure 14. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by School Geographic 89
Figure 15. Pre and Post Parkland Responses 90
13
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CCW Carrying Concealed Weapons
FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
DCA District Court of Appeals
HB House Bill
IHE Institution of Higher Education
NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System
NRA National Rifle Association
QCA Qualitative Content Analysis
RTC Right To Carry
SCCC Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
SGFS Students for Gun Free Schools
SB Senate Bill
UCR Uniform Crime Reporting
14
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background and Context
The concealed or open carry of firearms on the campuses (campus carry) of institutions
of higher education (IHEs) in the United States has been the subject of fierce national debate
since the massacre that claimed the lives of 32 students, staff, and members of the faculty at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or Virginia Tech, in 2007 (Bennett, Kraft, &
Grubb, 2012; Birnbaum, 2013; Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, & Cavanaugh, 2012; Patten, Thomas, &
Wada, 2013). Legislative efforts have been directed at allowing students, faculty, and staff to
carry firearms on campus in order to protect themselves and others during violent incidents
(Ewing, 2017). In 2015, legislators from 16 states proposed bills supporting firearms on campus,
though a majority of the proposals failed to pass out of committee. Texas was the only state to
pass such a bill during the 2015 legislative session; it took effect in August 2016 (Morse,
Sisneros, Perez, & Sponsler, 2016). Conversely, California legislators passed a bill strictly
prohibiting concealed firearms on the campuses of IHEs (Morse et al., 2016). In 2017, the
governors of Arkansas and Georgia signed legislation allowing for some form of campus carry at
public IHEs within those states. Overall, since the Virginia Tech shootings, nine states have
passed legislation allowing for some form of concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of
IHEs. Colorado and Utah, had already passed campus carry laws before the Virginia Tech
shootings (National Conference of State Legislators, 2017).
In Florida, during the legislative sessions from 2015 through 2018, lawmakers have
introduced a number of bills in support of the open and concealed carry of firearms on the
campuses and within the facilities of IHEs in the state (Florida Senate, 2018). Although none of
these bills survived committee and subcommittee hearings, they provide an indication of the
15
legislative momentum that the open or concealed carry of firearms on the campuses and within
facilities of IHEs has gained in Florida in recent years.
From June 2016 to February 2018, there were five mass-shooting incidents in the United
States—at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida (2016), the Ft. Lauderdale Airport in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida (2017), the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada (2017), the First
Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Parkland, Florida (2018). In the first of the three incidents in Florida (the Pulse Night
Club, June 1, 2016), 49 people were killed and 53 injured (DOJ, 2017); in the second (the Ft.
Lauderdale International Airport, January 6, 2017), 5 were killed and 6 injured (Herrera &
Sherman, 2017); and in the third (the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, February 14,
2018), 17 were killed and another 17 wounded (Fleshler & Zhu, 2018).
The Parkland incident has had a significant impact on Florida’s campus carry legislation.
It also sparked the “#NeverAgain” movement and other gun control-related efforts by students,
parents, school officials, and other supporters across the state. The #NeverAgain group
organized a march on Florida’s capital of Tallahassee to promote gun control and related mental
health legislation (Witt, 2018). Feeling the pressure from the movement and from distraught
relatives and friends of the victims, legislators in the Florida House and Senate hurriedly
addressed active-shooting incidents at schools by advancing legislation to create a new statewide
program to arm staff in public elementary and secondary schools. Many teachers, parents, and
Parkland residents vocally expressed their opposition to this program (Bousquet, 2018).
The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivors and other supporters of
the #NeverAgain movement have shifted the ground in the decades-old, stalemated debate over
gun control (Gomez, 2018). They began a national movement that has forced legislative action
16
addressing gun control in Tallahassee and Washington D.C. (Gomez, 2018). The pressure even
reached the White House, where President Trump ordered the Justice Department to crack down
on the sale of bump-fire stocks (devices that allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire fully automatic)
and called for more rigorous background checks and mental health measures. The movement
has sparked marches, protests, and school walkouts across the country (Gomez, 2018).
On March 9, 2018, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School Public Safety Act (S. B. 7026) into law. This 105-page bill provided for some gun
control measures, such as increasing the minimum age to purchase a rifle, prohibiting bump-fire
stocks, and addressing mental health-related issues. Another feature of the Act was the Coach
Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which authorized certain school staff members who had received
enhanced training to carry concealed firearms on campus. The aim of the Guardian Program is to
provide additional protection to students and staff in the event of violent incidents on campus,
such as an active-shooter attack. The Act only applies to the state’s public elementary and
secondary schools (S.B. 7026, 2018); campus carry at public IHEs remains statutorily prohibited
(§ 790.06 (12)(a)13 Fla. Stat.).
Former National Rifle Association (NRA) president and gun rights lobbyist, Marion
Hammer, unsuccessfully opposed S.B. 7026, arguing that “gun control provisions are
unnecessary, ineffective, and ‘won’t stop massacres’” (Bousquet, 2018). Hammer had
previously said that she would continue lobbying “hot and heavy for gun bills.” She told the
Sunshine State News “not to count her or gun rights activists out just yet,” recalling that it had
taken seven years for “concealed carry” legislation to pass in Florida (Nielsen, 2017a).
Republican Senator Greg Stuebe, who had sponsored campus carry bills as a member of both the
17
Florida House and Senate, said that he would keep trying to pass campus carry and other pro-gun
rights legislation (Nielson, 2017a).
At the core of the campus carry debate is the right for every citizen to keep and bear arms
as prescribed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many have argued that the
appropriate response to campus crime and violence is to allow the concealed carry of firearms on
campus (Jensen, 2015). Many others have argued that doing so would create an unsafe campus
and adversely impact classroom debate and the learning environment (Shepperd et al., 2018).
The only certainty and consistency about campus carry is the inexorable debate that it always
occasions. Thus, groups of college students have formed to advocate for and against campus
carry and have engaged in intractable discourse. One such group, Students for Concealed Carry
on Campus (SCCC), formed one day after the Virginia Tech shootings (LaPoint, 2010). The
SCCC have argued that its members should have the right to defend themselves and that any
school policy that denied them of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would be
unconstitutional (LaPoint, 2010). Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) in turn formed as a
direct response to the SCCC, arguing that colleges and universities should be safe sanctuaries for
learning in which concealed firearms have no place (LaPoint, 2010).
Although several empirical studies have examined the perceived impacts of campus carry
laws and policies at IHEs in other states, very little such work has been done on Florida, apart
from some surveys of Florida residents. Thus, in a 2015 University of South Florida (USF)
Nielsen Sunshine State Survey of 1,251 adults, 73% of the respondents opposed allowing
students with concealed carry permits to carry guns on campus (Larrabee, 2015). Fifty-six
percent of 522 respondents to a Saint Leo University Polling Institute survey conducted that
same year opposed campus carry. In 2016, another USF Sunshine State survey found that 56%
18
of adult Floridians favored allowing only staff and faculty to carry firearms on campus. Then, in
2017, a University of North Florida (UNF) survey found that 62% of Florida voters opposed
legislation that would allow concealed campus carry, 48% strongly opposing (Nielson, 2017c).
All of these surveys targeted Florida residents and voters (Larrabee, 2015; Nielson,
2016b, Nielson, 2017c) but not the populations that campus carry legislation directly affects,
namely the students, staff, and faculty members of the 40 public colleges and universities in
Florida. Shepperd and his colleagues, however, recently conducted two studies regarding
campus carry at a major university in Florida to investigate just these groups regarding campus
carry (Shepperd, Pogge, Losee, Lipsey, & Redford, 2017, 2018). Again, the majority of the
respondents felt that allowing guns on campus would be detrimental to the educational
environment.
Should campus carry legislation pass, public safety directors at the 40 public IHEs in
Florida would be responsible for developing and implementing the relevant policies, including
responses to campus incidents involving firearms. Campus carry legislation could also impact
the budgets of these institutions, in particular those that do not have armed public safety forces
(State of Florida, 2017). Therefore, these agencies may be compelled to establish armed public
safety forces in order to be consistent with the new laws. The intent of this study was,
accordingly, to provide a voice for campus public safety directors in Florida regarding campus
carry laws and to provide the Florida Legislature with empirical research to assist in its
deliberations on campus carry legislation.
19
Problem and Purpose Statements
The issue of allowing firearms on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities has
occasioned a spirited national debate since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (Bennett, Kraft, &
Grubb, 2012; Birnbaum, 2013; Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, & Cavanaugh, 2012; Morse, Sisneros,
Perez, & Sponsler, 2016; Patten, Thomas, & Wada, 2013). Although previous campus carry
proposals in Florida have failed, legislators and pro-gun advocates have vowed to continue their
fight to allow the open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of public IHEs (Nielson,
2017a). One problem with these proposals is that not all campus public safety agencies at IHEs
in Florida are made up of armed, sworn law enforcement officers. As mentioned, should campus
carry legislation pass, campus public safety directors would be at the forefront in developing and
implementing policies and procedures governing institutional responses to campus incidents
involving firearms. Campus carry raises a number of issues, including how campuses without
armed security are to respond to institutional incidents involving firearms and the potential
budgetary impacts of increased security measures, such as the cost of converting an unarmed
force into an armed one.
The purpose of this mixed-method study was twofold. First, the effort was made both to
explore the potential impact of campus carry policies on the perceptions and attitudes of public
safety directors regarding firearms on campus and to assess the potential budgetary impacts of
campus carry laws. Second, the content of the campus carry statutes from the 11 states that
currently have such laws on the books was analyzed in order to identify any common patterns
and themes that could assist the Florida Legislature in developing campus carry legislation. This
study has thus provided a voice for campus public safety directors and insights for lawmakers
regarding campus carry legislation in Florida.
20
Law and Policy Context
A review of the law and policy aspects of campus carry is necessary to provide context
for and highlight the importance of this study. This material includes various laws concerning
the concealed carry of firearms and other relevant statutes in Florida, the Florida Constitution,
and federal and state court cases relating to the Second Amendment. The proposals from the
2017 and 2018 Florida Legislative sessions are also presented. This review of law and policy
concludes with a discussion of empirical research regarding campus carry at IHEs across the
United States.
Concealed Carry of Firearms in the United States
Although considered a “dastardly practice” during the years before and after the
American Revolution (Cornell, 2017, p. 34), at present, concealed carry is lawful in some form
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-nine states require a state-issued
permit to carry concealed in public; 11 states do not require any permitting (Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, 2017). In a 2012 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) assigned each state to one of four categories based on concealed carry laws as either a
no-issue state, a may-issue, a shall-issue, or a permit-not-required state. However, the no-issue
category was obviated a year later when Illinois became the last state to allow concealed carry in
2013 (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2017).
Currently, nine states have may-issue permitting requirements (Law Center to Prevent
Gun Violence, 2017). May-issue laws are restrictive, granting the issuing authority broad
discretion in approving or denying a concealed carry permit and, in general, an individual must
show cause for carrying a concealed firearm in public. The may-issue states are California,
21
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode
Island (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2017).
Thirty other states fall under the shall-issue category, meaning that concealed carry
permits must be issued to applicants who meet the criteria mandated by statute (Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, 2017). Shall-issue states can be further distinguished in terms of those
that extend limited discretion to issuing authorities and those that extend none. Limited
discretion refers to the authority to deny permits in situations in which the issuing authority has
reasonable suspicion that an applicant poses a danger to his or herself or others (Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, 2017). Limited discretion shall-issue states include Alabama, Arkansas,
Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia. No discretion shall-issue states include Florida,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin (Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, 2017).
Eleven states fall under the category of permit-not-required, meaning that their citizens
need not obtain any official document in order to carry a concealed firearm lawfully (Law Center
to Prevent Gun Violence, n.d.). Permit-not-required states include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming
(Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2017).
Florida Constitution and Relevant Statutes
A brief review of the history of gun laws in Florida, from early constitutional declarations
to the evolution of its current constitutional and statutory schemes, can clarify how campus carry
laws may impact the 40 public IHEs in Florida. The “right of the people to bear arms” has been
22
embedded in the Florida Constitution since the Federal Reconstruction Act of 1867 (Florida
Memory State Library and Archives of Florida, n.d.). In 1885, Florida’s Constitution was
revised, as a result of which it for the first time stated that “the Legislature may prescribe the
manner in which they [firearms] may be borne” (Article I, sect. 20) (Florida Memory State
Library and Archives of Florida, n.d.). Florida’s Constitution has been amended several times
since, but the “right for the people to bear arms” and the Legislature’s authority to “prescribe
regulations” of firearms have remained unaltered (Art. I, sect. 8).
Current Concealed Carry of Firearms Law in Florida. Florida Statute § 790.06
currently and comprehensively covers all aspects of the concealed firearms program in the state.
The statute enables the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) to
administer the program from the application and education process to the issuance of concealed
carry permits. Since the statute is comprehensive, the law enables FDACS only to implement
the statue and not to promulgate administrative rules to assist it in administering its statutory
mandate (§ 790.06 Fla. Stat.)
To be eligible for a concealed carry permit, an applicant must be a citizen of the United
States aged at least 21 years who has not been convicted of a felony, does not abuse drugs or
alcohol, and has not been committed to a mental institution. Successful applicants pay a nominal
fee and demonstrate competence with a firearm by taking a state-approved course; no other
qualification exams or firearms proficiency tests are required during the seven-year period during
which the license remains active. Florida Statute § 790.06 (12)(a)13 prohibits explicitly either
the open or concealed carry of firearms on any college or university facility, though stun guns
and other non-lethal electrical devices or weapon that do not fire a dart or projectile and are
designed solely for defensive purposes are allowed.
23
State preemption of the regulation of firearms and ammunition. In 1987, the Florida
Legislature passed the Florida Preemption of Firearms Law (Fla. Stat. § 790.33) stipulating that
only the state legislature can regulate firearms and ammunition. In 2011, it strengthened this
statute with an amendment prescribing serious penalties for any “person, county, agency,
municipality, district, or other entity that violates the whole field of regulation of firearms and
ammunition” (§790.33(3)(a) Fla. Stat.). The law now provides for the recovery of fines,
litigation costs and fees, the termination of employment or contract of administrators who
willfully violate it, and the removal of offending local politicians from office by the governor.
The preemption statute clearly prohibits state agencies and local governments from
promulgating administrative rules or ordinances regulating firearms and ammunition. It has on
these grounds been argued that § 790.33 Fla. Stat. and Art. I, § 8(c) of the Florida Constitution
prohibits public or private IHE administrators from promulgating college and university policies
governing firearms on campus (Florida Carry, Inc. & Alexandria Lainez v. University of North
Florida, John Delaney,133 So. 3d 966, Fla. 1st DCA 2013, en banc).
Florida Justifiable Use of Force Statute (Stand Your Ground). In 2005, the Florida
Justifiable Use of Force Law, also known as the “Stand Your Ground Law,” was codified as §
776.012 Fla. Stat. This statute is relevant to the present discussion because it could be invoked
in the context of a campus-related altercation. The statute states that
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably
believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent
death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent
commission of a forcible felony. (§ 776.012 Fla. Stat.)
24
Prior justifiable use of force law specified that an individual had “a duty to retreat” when
engaged in an altercation and could only use deadly force when he or she could not do so, or if
the other party posed a threat and continued to press the altercation (§ 776.012 Fla. Stat.).
In 2017, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law an amendment to this statute.
Before this amendment, the burden of proving that an individual was justified in using deadly
force under Stand Your Ground was on the shooter, who had to show that there was reason to
believe that his or her life was more likely than not at risk of harm or death (the “preponderance
of the evidence” standard) (§ 776.012 Fla. Stat., as amended). Under the amended law, the
burden shifted to the prosecutor to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the shooter had no
such fear (Turner, 2017). Thus, the “duty to retreat” requirement was eliminated.
Significant Court Cases
U.S. Supreme Court cases. Two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases changed the
landscape regarding the meaning and application of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Before the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago
(2010) cases, a majority of American case law involving the “right to keep and bear arms”
derived from various state court systems (Meltzer, 2014). State courts had consistently
connected this right with the duties of a state militia (Cornell, 2017). The Supreme Court’s
holdings in Heller and McDonald established that the Second Amendment guaranteed an
individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected to a militia. Furthermore, the decision in
McDonald required states and their political subdivisions to comply by incorporating the
Privileges or Immunities and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Legal
Information Institute, n.d.; McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010).
25
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the District of
Columbia’s Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 (FCRA-75) was unconstitutional. The
FCRA-75 banned those living within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, except for
police officers, from owning or possessing firearms registered before 1975. The Act also
required that any firearms stored within a home be “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a
trigger lock or similar device” (FCRA-75). Although the FCRA-75 was held to be
unconstitutional, the Court affirmed that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not
absolute, recognizing long-standing state regulations of firearms in sensitive areas, such as
schools and government buildings (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 2008).
The holding in Heller, then, conclusively established that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-protection irrespective of service
in a state militia. In the wake of that decision, legal discourse concerned whether the individual
right to bear arms extends beyond the home (Meltzer, 2014), as well as to the states and their
political subdivisions, given that the FCRA-75 was a federal law applied to a federal city.
The answer came two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010),
in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Chicago’s municipal gun control ordinances violated
an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense.
The Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunity and Due
Process Clauses required the states to comply with the Second Amendment (Legal Information
Institute, 2017), explicitly stating that “the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States” (McDonald v. City of
Chicago, 2010). As in Heller, the Court upheld long-standing state prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and on the carrying of firearms in
26
sensitive places like schools and government buildings, as well as laws regulating the conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008;
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010).
Decisions by the Florida District Court of Appeals and Florida Supreme Court.
Three recent cases regarding open carry and campus carry within Florida by the Florida First
District Court of Appeals (DCA) and the Supreme Court of Florida are of concern here. In the
first, Florida Carry, Inc. & Alexandria Lainez v. University of North Florida, John Delaney,
133 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc), a student at University of North Florida (UNF)
named Alexandria Lainez filed suit against the university and its president, John Delaney,
claiming that UNF’s policies regarding firearms violated Article I, § 8 of the Florida Constitution
and § 790.33 Fla. Stat. As just discussed, the Florida Legislature declared that it alone had the
authority to regulate firearms and ammunition in the state. UNF had banned the storage of any
weapons or destructive devices in vehicles located on university property or within its facilities
and, under § 790.001 Fla. Stat., firearms are considered destructive devices.
UNF moved to have the lawsuit dismissed based on § 790.115(2)(a) Fla. Stat., which
prohibits firearms on school property except those associated with school-sponsored events.
Lainez argued that, under § 790.25(5) Fla. Stat., a firearm may be kept in a private conveyance
provided that it is securely encased. In a 12-3 majority en banc ruling, the First District Court of
Appeals held that prohibitions of firearms on school property as specified in § 790.115(2)(a) Fla.
Stat. applied to public school districts, but not to institutions in the state university system and
thus, ruled for Florida Carry, Inc. and Lainez. Based on this ruling, firearms may be legally
stored, secured, and maintained within vehicles on the campuses of public IHEs in Florida.
27
On January 10, 2014, attorneys for Florida Carry, Inc. filed suit in the Circuit Court of the
Eighth Judicial Circuit in Alachua County, Florida, against the University of Florida (UF) and its
president, Bernie Machen. The allegation again involved violations of the Florida Constitution
and Florida statutes by regulations strictly prohibiting firearms on the UF campus, specifically
within vehicles and within student housing owned by UF. The Circuit Court ruled against the
plaintiffs on the grounds that § 790.115(2)(a) Fla. Stat. provides no exception for the possession
of a firearm in a residence hall as it does for a vehicle.
Florida Carry, Inc. appealed the decision to the First DCA. A three-judge panel affirmed
the decision of the Circuit Court holding that § 790.115(2)(a) Fla. Stat. clearly prohibits firearms
on university property and makes no exception for university housing. The court also found that,
although UF policies specified that firearms were prohibited on campus property, university
officials had not been enforcing the “vehicle storage” provisions of the policy following the
court’s decision in the UNF case (Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, Bernie Machen,
Case No. 1D14-4614 [Fla 1st DCA 2015]).
These two rulings by the Florida First DCA reinforced the existing statutory prohibition
of firearms within college- and university-owned facilities and housing. They, along with other
previous state judicial decisions addressing the same issue, likely served as the impetus for the
push in the 2015 through 2018 Florida legislative sessions to pass bills allowing for the open or
concealed carry of firearms on the campuses and within the facilities of the state’s IHEs.
The third case of concern stemmed from the arrest on February 19, 2012, of Dale Lee
Norman by officers of the Ft. Pierce Police Department for carrying his .38 caliber revolver
openly in his waistband in a holster in public, a misdemeanor violation under § 790.053 Fla. Stat.
Norman had in his possession a concealed carry license, but his clothing did not allow for
28
concealment of his gun. Having been convicted in county court, Norman appealed to the Fourth
District Court of Appeals claiming that § 790.053 Fla. Stat. violated both the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Florida Constitution. After the
Fourth DCA affirmed the decision of the trial court, Norman appealed to the state supreme court.
On March 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the decision of the Fourth
DCA holding that Florida’s prohibition on the open carry of firearms (§ 790.053 Fla. Stat.) did
not in fact violate either the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, § 8 of the
Florida Constitution. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald,
the Supreme Court of Florida reasoned that § 790.053 Fla. Stat. did not violate the Second
Amendment because Florida’s statutory scheme for regulating firearms allows for individuals to
keep and bear arms for self-protection through the carrying of concealed firearms as permitted
under § 790.06 Fla. Stat. Moreover, Article I, § 8 of the Florida Constitution specifically
authorizes the Florida Legislature to regulate firearms and affirms that the state has an important
interest in doing so as a matter of public safety. The court, then, indicated that Florida’s
prohibition on the open carry of firearms is substantially related to state’s interest in public safety
(Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida, No. SC15-650 [Fla. 2017]).
States with Campus Carry Laws
Currently, 16 states (including Florida) have laws banning the carrying of concealed
firearms on the campuses of IHEs. In 23 states, the decision to prohibit or allow campus carry is
made by each individual college or university. However, 11 states allow for some form of
concealed campus carry through legislation and court rulings (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2017). Some campus carry states enable administrators of IHEs to establish safe or
gun-free zones, such as in dormitories, athletic events, and dining halls, but a majority of the
29
regulations are reserved for the legislature through preemptive statutes. Additionally, some
campus carry states require an “enhanced concealed carry permit” to carry firearms on campus
grounds. Campus carry states include the following (ArmedCampus.org; National Conference of
State Legislators, 2017).
• Arkansas (2017): Legislation; enhanced concealed permit required for campus carry;
minimal restrictions on campus.
• Colorado (2003): Legislation; some campus restrictions.
• Georgia (2017): Legislation; some campus restrictions.
• Idaho (2013): Legislation; enhanced concealed permit required for campus carry.
• Kansas (2017): Legislation; no permit required; some campus restrictions.
• Mississippi (2011): Legislation; enhanced permit required; some campus restrictions.
• Oregon (2011): Judicial decision; campus carry limited to outside grounds.
• Tennessee (2016): Legislation; only full-time staff and faculty.
• Texas (2016): Legislation; some campus restrictions.
• Utah (2004): Legislation upheld by courts; unrestricted open and concealed carry.
• Wisconsin (2011): Legislation; some campus restrictions.
Colorado and Utah are, as noted above, the only states that had passed legislation to allow
firearms on the campuses of IHEs before the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings (Morse et al., 2016).
The legal and policy implications of campus carry at public IHEs are evident. The U.S.
Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions have left the door open for states to continue
legislating this controversial public policy issue, and inconsistencies in campus carry laws
throughout the country will obviously persist. The many categories of concealed carry permits
30
that vary from state to state add to the confusion and complicate the enforcement of reciprocity
agreements.
Campus Carry Proposals during the Florida Legislature’s 2017 and 2018 Sessions
Legislators in Florida introduced three bill proposals specific to campus carry during the
2017 legislative session (Florida Senate, 2017), none of which became law:
• Senate Bill 140 (S.B.140), Openly Carrying a Handgun, sponsored by Senator Greg
Steube (R), would have allowed the open carry of firearms at any public location
where concealed carry is permitted, including public college and university facilities.
• Senate Bill 622 (S.B. 622), Concealed Weapons or Firearms, sponsored by Senator
Greg Steube (R), would have allowed for the concealed carry of firearms at any
public college and university facility. The proposal was simply to remove the
firearms prohibitions at any college and university facilities (§ 790.06 Fla. Stat.)
without the addition of any further verbiage or direction.
• House Bill 6005 (H.B. 6005), Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms,
sponsored by Representatives Scott Plakon (R) and Rene Plasencia (R) and co-
sponsored by Representatives Dane Eagle (R), Jay Fant (R), Jason Fischer (R), and
Amber Mariano (R), was the companion bill to S.B. 622 and would likewise have
allowed for the carrying of concealed firearms at any public college and university
facility.
On the same day—May 5, 2017—S.B. 140 and S.B. 622 failed to pass the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and H.B. 6005 met a similar fate in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee
(Florida Senate, 2017).
31
In November 2017, Senator Greg Steube, a prominent gun-rights supporter and the
primary sponsor of many previous gun-related proposals, said that he had no plans to file further
campus carry bills during the 2018 legislative session (Turner, 2017b). The Parkland massacre
on February 14, 2018, however, occurring right in the middle of the 2018 Florida Legislative
session, created considerable public pressure that, again as mentioned earlier, induced the Florida
Legislature to introduce several hurried proposals. Most of the legislation directly addressing
campus carry at public elementary and secondary schools once more died in committee, the
exception being the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (S.B. 7026).
This proposal is being closely watched by IHE administrators, since wording in it requires the
coordination of activities under the newly created Office of Safe Schools with the “Board of
Governors of the State University System and public and non-public post-secondary institutions”
(S.B. 7026, 2018).
Early versions of S.B. 7026 proposed a Florida Sheriff’s Marshal program, under which
any school district in the state could recommend to the local sheriff that a faculty or staff
member be designated an “armed” school marshal. The purpose of the voluntary program would
be “to provide comprehensive firearm safety and proficiency training for selected faculty and
staff strategically focused on providing security on campus during an active assailant incident.”
The designated school marshal would only be empowered to act in a law enforcement capacity
during a “situation in which an armed assailant is posing an immediate deadly threat to persons
on the premises or campus of a public school” (S.B. 7026, 2018). Governor Rick Scott publicly
expressed his opposition to this aspect of the bill, indicating his preference for a greater law
enforcement presence at Florida public schools rather than the arming of teachers (Kennedy,
2018).
32
Senate Bill 7026 was introduced by the Senate Rules Committee on February 21, 2018,
seven days after the Parkland incident. After 231 proposed amendments by members of both the
House and Senate, the bill was finally approved by the Florida Legislature, and it was presented
to the governor for his signature on March 8, 2018. Section 2 specifies
The Legislature finds there is a need to comprehensively address the crisis of gun
violence, including but not limited to, gun violence on school campuses. The
Legislature intends to address this crisis by providing law enforcement and the
courts with tools to enhance public safety by temporarily restricting firearms
possession by a person who is undergoing a mental health crisis and when there is
evidence of a threat or violence, and by promoting school safety and enhanced
coordination between education and law enforcement entities at the state and local
level. (S.B. 7026, 2018, p. 11)
As amended, the bill provides, in part, for the following:
• creation of student crime watch programs funded by grants from the Crime
Stoppers Trust Fund;
• establishment of an Office of Safe Schools within the Department of Education,
its purpose being to promote and support safe learning environments by
addressing issues of student safety and academic success;
• creation of the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program (replacing the Marshal
Program), under which each county sheriff may appoint volunteer school
employees (not including classroom teachers)—who must possess a valid
concealed carry permit as prescribed in § 790.06 Fla. Stat. and complete 132
hours of training conducted by firearms instructors with certification from the
33
Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission—as “armed” school
guardians to provide security on campus in the event of an active assailant
incident;
• prohibition of persons who have been adjudicated mentally defective or
committed to a mental institution from owning or possessing a firearm “until
certain relief is obtained”;
• prohibition of persons younger than 21 years of age from purchasing a firearm;
• prohibition of the sale and possession of bump-fire stocks;
• creation of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety
Commission within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; and
• appropriation of $400 million to support implementation of the statute.
On March 9, 2018, Governor Rick Scott signed S.B. 7026 into law, declaring in a press
release that, although he did not support the arming of teachers or other school staff members,
the bill provided everything else that he was expecting to protect Florida schools (Governor’s
Press Office, 2018). The governor also expressed his satisfaction that the state was not
mandating participation in the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would rather remain
up to local officials, as would implementation of the Guardian Plan (Governor’s Press Office,
2018).
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were formulated to address the effects of campus
carry policies and to assess the perceptions and attitudes of campus public safety directors at
Florida’s 40 public IHEs. As discussed, campus public safety directors will be directly impacted
if campus carry becomes law in Florida. The research questions are:
34
1) Do campus public safety directors at Florida’s public colleges and universities
support campus carry legislation?
a) What are the perceptions and attitudes of these professionals regarding both the
open and concealed carry of firearms on campus in relation to safety and crime on
campus?
b) Would campus public safety directors be more receptive to campus carry by one
group (i.e., any person or specifically students, faculty, or staff) over others at
their IHEs?
c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry on
campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable campus
carry legislation?
Theoretical Framework
This mixed-method study relies on two distinct theoretical frameworks. To begin with,
social and self-control theories provide a basis for analyzing external and internal influences that
keep individuals from engaging in behaviors that transgress social norms and rules (Akers &
Sellers, 2009; Hirschi, 1969; Intravia, 2009; Jensen, 2015; Nye, 1958; Reiss; 1951; Wiatrowski,
Griswold, & Roberts, 1981). This framework is appropriate for this study because the
implementation of campus carry policy can be viewed as an instance of government establishing
external rules, in this case in an effort to prohibit or deter campus crime. Furthermore, according
to self-control theory, individuals’ levels of self-control correlate negatively with their likelihood
of engaging in criminal behavior or violating social norms (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Nye,
35
1958; Reiss, 1951). Control theories, then, offer a useful perspective on the role of external and
internal influences in limiting criminal and other deviant behaviors on campus.
The second theoretical framework relates to the fundamental human need for safety. This
approach, developed by Abraham Maslow (1943) and sometimes referred to as Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, offers a useful perspective on campus carry legislation as a means to address
the safety needs of students, faculty, and staff on the campuses of public IHEs in Florida.
Maslow’s insight was that, when basic human lower-order needs, including safety, are not met,
higher-order needs, such as social and esteem, cannot be satisfied.
Social control theories served to relate the research questions to perceptions of campus
crime (Jensen, 2015), focusing on factors that prohibit individuals from engaging in criminal
activity rather than those that motivate them to do so (Intravia, 2009). Allowing students,
faculty, and staff to carry firearms on campus represents, in a sense, the imposition of an external
control mechanism that may deter campus crime. The idea is that allowing for the arming of
students, faculty, and staff may reduce campus crime and violence by making potential offenders
unsure regarding who may be armed on campus (Jensen, 2015). Beyond deterrence, allowing
guns on campus has, as discussed, been promoted as a means to stop an active-shooting incident.
Social control models are grounded in the assumption that specific controls can prevent
individuals from engaging in criminal misconduct. Conversely, a decline in social control may
increase criminal activity when such individuals find it easier to engage in criminality (Akers &
Sellers, 2009). Hirschi (1969) suggested that criminal behavior is a fundamental part of human
behavior but that conformity, which includes avoidance of criminal behavior, is achieved
through socialization, that is, the formation of a bond between individuals and society
(Wiatrowski et al., 1981). In other words, individuals are naturally inclined to engage in
36
delinquent behavior, but social bonding can induce them to conform to social norms (Intravia,
2009; Wiatrowski et al., 1981).
Reiss (1951) had earlier distinguished “personal” from “social” controls in an effort to
explain repeated criminal behavior. Thus, an individual with greater personal control would be
less likely to take on criminal social roles. Building on Reiss’s work, Nye (1958) further
distinguished patterns of attitudes and behaviors in terms of direct, internal, and indirect control
(Intravia, 2009). Rewards and punishment shape direct control, as when deviant behavior incurs
a penalty. Internal control, manifested in an individual’s conscience, likewise serves as a check
on non-conforming, deviant behavior. Indirect control is related to an individual’s relationships
with others, in particular family members, who are engaged in non-deviant behaviors and is
fostered by the socialization process, whereas negative feelings weaken indirect control.
Social control provides the best theoretical framework for explaining why crimes occur,
as modern society has created specific controls (codified laws) to govern the behaviors and
activities of the people. Absent such established boundaries, an increase in criminal behavior
may occur (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Jensen 2015). Campus carry legislation may serve to
reinforce these boundaries. However, while social control theory has gained considerable
support in criminology (Jensen, 2015), it has not been accepted uncritically (Taylor, 2001).
Thus, Smith (1995) argued that such theory “provides no motivation for offending, beyond the
absence of controls” (p. 39). Hirschi (1969) anticipated this criticism, observing that “The
question ‘Why they do it?’ is not the question the theory was designed to answer” (p. 34; cf.
Taylor, 2001). A further step was taken by Gottfredson and Hirschi, who in their A General
Theory of Crime (1990) attempted to use self-control theory to bridge the gap between the
classical and positivist traditions of criminology (Taylor, 2001). Their argument was that the
37
“essential nature of criminality is low self-control, and that is the common factor in a host of
problematic behaviors including accidents as well as crime and delinquency” (Taylor, 2001, p.
373).
Turning again to the issue of safety, social scientists have long held that it is a
fundamental human need (Shepperd et al., 2017). To expand on the earlier discussion, Maslow
(1943, 1954) distinguished five hierarchical categories according to their levels of biological
urgency (Tompkins, 2005). Once the lower needs, physiological (air, water, food, rest) and
safety-related, have been met, the higher order needs, for socializing, esteem, and self-
actualization, take their place. It is of course the safety need that proposed campus carry
legislation impacts. Maslow’s perspective is of particular interest in light of the report by
Shepperd et al. (2018) that a majority of students, staff, and faculty surveyed at a large university
in Florida believed that allowing guns on campus would—rather than facilitating self-
actualization by creating a sense of safety—harm classroom debate and compromise the learning
environment by making engagement in heated interactions on campus seem risky (Shepperd et
al., 2018).
The psychologist Clayton Alderfer (1969) later reduced Maslow’s five categories of
human needs to three, namely existence, relatedness, and growth (E.R.G.), the first of which
embraces Maslow’s lower-order physiological and safety needs. Many psychologists believe
that Alderfer’s model better represents actual human behavior than Maslow’s (Arnold &
Boshoff, 2002; Tompkins, 2005). For one thing, it rejects Maslow’s strict hierarchical
progression, recognizing that individuals are likely to regress under certain conditions and do not
always satisfy lower needs before attempting to satisfy a higher one (Tompkins, 2005). In other
38
words, Alderfer’s model asserts that all three needs (existence, relatedness, and growth) can be
operative at any given time or at the same time.
The purpose of the quantitative aspect of this research study was, then, to measure the
perceptions and attitudes of campus public safety directors regarding legislation to allow campus
carry, specifically with respect to campus crime and campus safety. The aim was not to generate
new theory, but rather to use social, self-control, and safety needs theories, as a framework for
answering the research questions.
Definitions of Key Terminology
Active Assailant Incident
An active assailant incident is defined as a situation in which an armed assailant is posing
an immediate threat to persons on the premises or campus of a public school (FL Senate Bill
7026, 2018).
Active Shooter
An active shooter is defined as “An individual actively engaged in killing or attempting
to kill people in a confined and populated area. Implicit in this definition is that the subject’s
criminal actions involve the use of firearms” (DOJ, 2013).
Campus Carry
Campus carry refers to both the open carry and concealed carry of firearms on the
campuses of IHEs (FL Senate Bill 140, 2016; FL Senate Bill 622, 2016; FL House Bill 6005,
2016).
39
Campus Crime
A campus crime involves social harm that is punishable by law (Black’s Law Dictionary,
2000). Such crimes include any violation of a criminal law of Florida or of the United States,
whether a misdemeanor or felony, as codified in the relevant codes.
Campus Safety
Campus safety is defined as “being free from fear or harm, danger, threat, or deprivation”
(Maslow, 1943), or having “no concerns of being victimized or threatened by another person”
while on campus.
CCW
CCW is an acronym for “carrying concealed weapons” (§ 790.06 Fla. Stat.).
Concealed Carry
Concealed carry refers to the carrying of a firearm in a manner that is concealed from
public view (§ 790.06 Fla. Stat.).
Institution of Higher Education (IHE)
Institutions of higher learning are postsecondary educational institutions, including both
colleges and universities.
Mass Killings
A mass killing is defined as the killing of three or more individuals in a single incident
(Congress, Public Law 112-265, 2013).
Open Carry
Open carry refers to the carrying of a firearm in a manner exposed to public view (§
790.053 Fla. Stat.).
40
RTC
RTC is an acronym for “right to carry” (Webster et al., 2016).
Assumptions
Assumptions are issues or circumstances that are beyond the control of the researcher but
that are necessary for the study to be possible or meaningful (Simon, 2011). This research
focused on the perceptions and attitudes of campus public safety directors at Florida’s 40 public
IHEs regarding campus carry legislation. As discussed above, several previous studies of
campus carry, some conducted in Florida, found that a majority of the students, faculty, and staff
at IHEs opposed campus carry and believed that allowing guns on campus would have a
deleterious effect on the learning environment (Bartula & Bowen, 2015; Bennet, Kraft, & Grubb,
2012; Canon, 2016: Cavanaugh, Bouffard, Wells, & Nobles, 2012; Patten, Thomas, & Wada,
2013; Shepperd et al., 2017; Shepperd et al., 2018; Spratt, 2015; Thompson, et al., 2013;
Webster et al., 2016). The results of this survey study are unlikely to differ significantly from
those of previous studies; the aim here was rather to reveal the specific point of view of campus
public safety directors in Florida, a population that has not been targeted in previous surveys.
A further assumption is that respondents will be honest and truthful in their responses. In
part because the topic of campus carry legislation can be highly political and controversial, the
anonymity and confidentiality of respondents were maintained, having been fully explained to
the participants in the informed consent form that was attached to the electronic survey.
Additionally, all respondents were informed that they were free both to skip any questions that
made them uncomfortable and to withdraw from the survey at any time.
41
Limitations
All research has limitations. The purpose of this research was to explore the perceptions
and attitudes of campus public safety directors at public IHEs in Florida regarding the potential
impact of campus carry policies on campus crime, campus safety, and campus public safety
budgets as well as their assessments of programs for employees to carry firearms on campus.
Often, administrators delegate the completion of such surveys to subordinates who may not have
the breadth of administrative and budgetary experience that this study sought to access.
However, though some of the surveys may not represent the actual views of a campus public
safety director, all of the respondents likely had the training and experience necessary to provide
the information sought. Nevertheless, in an effort to mitigate this limitation, web-based surveys
were sent directly to the email addresses of the campus public safety directors targeted in this
study.
Another limitation was that the respondents may have been hesitant to complete the
survey owing to the sensitivity of the political opinions and emotions associated with firearms
control and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. At least one campus police chief at
a major university in Florida declined to participate for just this reason. For similar reasons,
college and university presidents may prohibit their campus public safety directors from
responding to surveys addressing campus carry.
A third limitation was created by an event that took place during data collection. The
data collection period for this research project extended over three weeks. The web-based
surveys were initially distributed to the survey population on February 7, 2018, and reminders
were sent on February 15 and February 22. As mentioned earlier, it was on the first day of the
second week of the survey data collection period, February 14, that the Marjory Stoneman
42
Douglas High School mass killing took place. This dramatic and tragic incident may have
impacted the replicability and internal validity of this research study; for though it occurred at a
high school and not a college campus, the two contexts bear obvious similarities. Thus,
proponents of campus carry have referenced active-shooter incidents, including this one, to
support their position.
Rationale and Significance
The open or concealed carry of firearms on the campuses and within the facilities of IHEs
in Florida is, then, a controversial and political issue that is of concern to college administrators,
faculty, staff, campus public safety, and students and indeed to all citizens of and visitors to
Florida. In any case, though, college and university administrators are ultimately responsible for
ensuring that their campuses are safe. One factor in the debate has been the national social
movement for gun control that was sparked by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
shootings, as students, parents, school officials, and other supporters have marched, protested,
and rallied in cities across the country to demand legislative action (Gomez, 2018). Although
young, the survivors of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School incident have been able to
help shape the aftermath of this event, taking advantage of social media to challenge the NRA
and its pro-gun allies (Alter, 2018).
This research study represents a contribution to the existing body of literature regarding
campus carry. In conjunction with other empirical campus carry studies conducted in Florida
and elsewhere, the findings presented here can assist legislators in their deliberations regarding
campus carry legislation. The following chapter situates these findings in the context of previous
studies of the issue.
43
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Analysis 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.
—Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Second Amendment is naturally central to arguments for and against campus carry.
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald
v. City of Chicago (2010), discussed in the previous chapter, represented the Court’s first
interpretation of the Second Amendment as applying to an individual’s right to bear arms for
self-defense unconnected to service in a state militia.
The Second Amendment is perhaps the best-known of the constitutional amendments
regarding what it says and represents but, at least before the Heller decision, was also one of the
more underdeveloped amendments in terms of academic and legal scholarship (Cornell, 2017).
Thus, in 1974, a Ph.D. candidate studying the Second Amendment observed at the beginning of
his research that “Anyone undertaking research on the origins of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution is bound to be impressed by the paucity of published materials on the subject”
(Kopel, 2012, p. 1590). Only in the mid 1990s did the Second Amendment become a topic of
serious academic and legal discourse (Cornell, 2017; Kopel, 2012; Meltzer, 2014).
The right to keep and carry arms in public in the United States has its origins from
English common law (Cornell, 2017). Interests in preserving liberty associated with the right to
bear arms have always been balanced against the concept of “the peace.” If an individual’s
actions in exercising the right threatened the peace, he or she could be incarcerated and forced to
pay a fine. These actions imply that, even under English common law, there were regulations on
44
the carrying of arms in public. All offenses under English law were considered an affront to the
crown and dignity; “Thus, to arm oneself, apart from the specific exemptions or the context-
dependent exceptions recognized by common law, was by its very nature a rebuke of the King’s
peace and Majesty” (Cornell, 2017, p. 27). Individuals arming themselves suggested that the
monarch was unwilling or unable to protect his or her subjects (Cornell, 2017).
English common law governing the right to keep and carry arms was brought to America
and incorporated into colonial law. The biggest difference was that the words “the King’s
peace” were replaced with “the people’s peace” (Cornell, 2017, p. 14). A text published in North
Carolina in 1776 stated that “Justices of the Peace, upon their own View, or upon Complaint,
may apprehend any Person who shall go or ride armed with unusual and offensive weapons, in
an Affray, or among any great Concourse of People” (p. 30). Two of the few exceptions to this
prohibition on traveling armed were the use of firearms to ward off attacks by Native Americans
and to prevent the omnipresent threat of slave uprisings (Kopel, 2012; Meltzer, 2014). Given the
nature of these threats, gun control was considered a Southern phenomenon during the nineteenth
century. The only gun control that found acceptance outside of the South involved restrictions
on concealed carry; open carry of firearms was considered legitimate and constitutional, whereas
an individual who concealed firearms was viewed as a “person who was up to no good” (Kopel,
2012). In 1820, for example, a Richmond, Virginia Grand Jury published a statement criticizing
the “dastardly practice of concealed carry but reiterated that open carry of arms was perfectly
legal and honorable” (Cornell, 2017, p. 34).
During much of the period from the American Revolution until the mid-twentieth
century, the states were free to implement firearms regulations through their various
constitutions and legislatures. In fact, much of the historical case law on which the Supreme
45
Court relied on in the Heller decision consisted of antebellum state supreme court decisions that
had consistently upheld bans on concealed carry and reinforced that the right to keep and bear
arms openly for self-defense (Meltzer, 2014). The states were not required to comply with the
U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, until the early to mid-twentieth century, when the
U.S. Supreme Court began incorporating the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Klotter
& Kanovits, 1991). As was the case with the development of the First Amendment’s clauses
pertaining to freedom of speech and of the press in the 1930s, the doctrinal development of the
Second Amendment is currently in its infancy (Meltzer, 2014).
The Heller and McDonald decisions clearly established that an individual has the right to
“keep and bear arms” for self-protection. But the Supreme Court has also recognized the validity
of longstanding state regulations of firearms under certain conditions, leaving the door open for
the states to continue regulating firearms. Although some state legislators have argued for
campus carry on the grounds that the policy will make college campuses safer (DeBrabander,
2015; Mangan, 2015), others consider carrying a firearm a Second Amendment right with which
IHEs should not interfere (Auslen, 2015). Further, uncertainty persists regarding whether the
holdings in Heller and McDonald extend beyond the home (Meltzer, 2014).
Empirical Studies on Campus Carry
Studies of campus carry in the United States, which began to appear in 2008, have
focused primarily on measuring quantitatively the attitudes and perceptions of students, faculty,
and staff and on comparing the crime rates of institutions that do and do not prohibit the practice.
Most of these studies have shared similar methods of data collection and analysis, with
researchers relying for the most part on surveys to gather data. As has been seen, in most of
these studies, a majority of students, faculty, and staff have either opposed campus carry or
46
indicated that they would not carry a firearm on campus even if doing so were lawful (Spratt,
2015). Studies have also reported, not surprisingly, a relationship between gun ownership and
political affiliation (Bennet, Kraft, & Grubb, 2012; Cavanaugh, Bouffard, Wells, & Nobles,
2012; Patten, Thomas, & Wada, 2013; Thompson, A. et al., 2013). Other researchers have
examined secondary data to assess the relationship between campus carry and campus crime
rates (Jensen, 2015). The following sections provide an overview of recent quantitative studies
of campus carry.
Quantitative Surveys
Spratt (2015) replicated a quantitative survey by Thompson et al. (2013) in exploring the
impact of concealed handguns on public IHE campuses on students’ perceptions and behaviors,
in this case focusing on a large public university in an urban, Midwestern setting. Purposive and
convenience sampling were used to select a cross-section of undergraduate students from a broad
range of academic disciplines, and a nonparametric test, specifically chi-square, was used to
analyze the data. Seventy-two percent of the respondents indicated that they would be unlikely
to carry a concealed firearm on campus even if doing so were lawful; 59% reported that they
would feel safe if faculty or staff carried handguns on campus, but 65% reported that they would
not feel safe if students did so (Spratt, 2015).
Shepperd, Pogge, Losee, Lipsey, and Redford conducted two survey studies regarding
campus carry, one published in 2017 and the other a year later. In the first study, Shepperd et al.
(2017) measured the attitudes of students, faculty, and staff regarding campus carry at a major
university in Florida. Shepperd et al. sent a web-based survey to a campus population that was
representative in terms of gender and race/ethnicity, though faculty and staff participated at
higher rates than students. Interestingly, the researchers distinguished respondents who did not
47
own a gun, those who owned a gun for reasons other than self-protection (such as collecting or
hunting), and those who owned a gun solely for self-protection. They hypothesized that the
motivation for owning a gun was the best predictor of support for campus carry or lack thereof
and concluded that gun owners should not be considered a homogeneous group. According to
the results, 79% of non-gun owners, 63% of those who owned guns for reasons not relating to
defense, and 15% of those who owned guns for defense opposed campus carry. Although 80%
of the latter group approved of concealed campus carry, all three groups indicated feeling
relatively safe on their campus without it. Importantly, non-protection gun owners more closely
resembled non-gun owners than protection gun owners. The conclusion was that gun ownership
alone was not a reliable predictor of either an individual’s feelings of safety on campus or of his
or her support for campus carry legislation (Shepperd et al., 2017).
In their second study, Shepperd et al. (2018) utilized the same survey population
(students, staff, and faculty) and survey instrument in an effort to anticipate the consequences of
allowing guns on IHE campuses. They found that all three of the aforementioned groups—those
who did not own guns, those who did for defense, and those who did for reasons other than
defense—believed that authorizing guns on campus would have negative effects on the learning
environment and classroom debate. They also believed that allowing guns on campus would
make them feel unsafe, particularly during heated exchanges and when evaluating student
outcomes (faculty), particularly when dealing with armed students (Shepperd et al., 2018).
Bartula and Bowen (2015) conducted a quantitative survey of college campus police
administrators in the Texas university system. Their aim was to determine the perceptions of
university police officials’ regarding the effects that an open carry policy would have on campus
crime, incidents involving firearms, and fear of victimization among students, staff, and faculty.
48
These researchers also utilized an electronic survey; variables included such demographic
information as gender, age, years of experience in policing, and years of service at the
respondents’ current colleges or universities. An overwhelming majority of those responding to
the survey (91.5%) opposed the open carry of firearms on campus on the grounds that the policy
would increase the fear of crime and victimization among students, staff, and faculty.
Examination of Secondary Data
Researchers have collected and analyzed secondary data from such crime statistical
reporting systems as the Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR) compiled by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and
specific campus crime reports from each college and university as prescribed by the Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (Clery Act, 1990).
Using these data, Jenson (2015) conducted a quantitative study measuring the impact of
college campuses’ concealed firearms policies on what are referred to as “Part I index crimes,”
which include criminal homicide, sexual battery/assault, aggravated assault, burglary, and
robbery. Jenson utilized a non-experimental, ex-post facto research design and collected
secondary data specifically from the UCR and Clery Act reports. The total sample size consisted
of 74 universities from over half of the states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana,
New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Of the 74 universities, half were identified as pro-
carry institutions and half as prohibitive institutions. Crime data collected through the UCR and
Clery Act crime reporting systems from multiple institutions were compared using a series of
regression analyses to assess the impact on selected Part I index crimes at the two kinds of
49
institutions. Jenson (2015) found similar rates of campus crime rates between institutions that
allowed the concealed carry of firearms on campus and those that did not. Although these
findings did not establish a statistically significant difference between the two types of campuses,
he did find that campuses that allowed concealed carry experienced a slightly lower rate of
overall Part I index crimes.
Lee (2015) conducted a meta-analysis using two previous studies of the perceptions,
attitudes, or responses to gun violence among students on the campuses of IHEs. One of the two
studies used a convenience sampling of participants from Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and
Florida and covered the period from 1999 to 2004 (i.e., before the Virginia Tech shootings). The
second study began three weeks after the Virginia Tech shootings, running from May to October
2007, and included a convenience sampling of students from that institution. Owing to missing
data, however, Lee was unable to complete the meta-analysis, but her research did produce a
descriptive analysis that allowed her to draw some significant conclusions. Thus, she argued that
her study had “provided a significant indication that college students perceived supporting
students’ mental health as a strong indicator associated with college gun violence” (p. 25).
Most quantitative survey studies, then, have indicated that those directly affected by
campus carry (students, faculty, and staff) oppose it and would not carry firearms on campus
even if doing so were lawful (Bartula & Bowen, 2015; Bennet, Kraft, & Grubb, 2012; Patten,
Thomas, & Wada, 2013; Shepperd et al., 2017, 2018; Spratt, 2015, Thompson et al., 2013).
Additionally, studies of the relationship between campus carry and campus crime have revealed
no statistically significant differences in crime rates between pro-carry and prohibitive campuses
(Jensen, 2015).
50
Review of Active-Shooter and Other Campus Shooting Incidents
As has been seen, the term “active shooter” is used by law enforcement officials at all
levels of government to describe a situation in which a shooting event is in progress, specifically
when “an individual is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and
populated area. Implicit in this definition is that the subject’s criminal actions involve the use of
firearms” (DOJ, 2013, p. 5). In a report titled A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United
States Between 2000 and 2013 published by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI
(2013) conducted a study of 160 active-shooter incidents that had occurred in the United States.
Although there may have been additional shooting events during this period, the FBI only
captured incidents falling within the definition of active-shooter. There was an average of 11.4
incidents per year with an increasing trend toward the latter years of the study, especially from
2009. During these 160 incidents, 486 people were killed and 557 wounded, for a total casualty
count (not including the shooters) of 1,043. Seventy percent of the incidents had occurred at
either a place of business (73) or an educational environment (39). The incidents from 2007 to
2012 with the highest casualties are listed in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2007 to 2012 Location City/State Date Killed Injured Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
April 16, 2007 32 17
Ft. Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center
Ft. Hood, Texas November 5, 2009
13 32
The Cinemark Century 16 Theater
Aurora, Colorado July 20, 2012 12 58
Sandy Hook Elementary School
Newtown, Connecticut
December 14, 2012
27 2
Note: Adapted from DOJ (2013).
51
Four years later, the DOJ (2017) published a supplement to its 2013 report that included
active-shooter incidents from 2000 to 2016. Mass killing-shooting incidents between 2015 and
2016 are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2015 to 2016 Location City/State Date Killed Injured The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church
Charleston, South Carolina
June 17, 2015 9 0
Umpqua Community College
Roseburg, Oregon October 1, 2015 9 7
Inland Regional Center San Bernardino, California
December 2, 2015
14 22
The Pulse Night Club Orlando, Florida June 12, 2016 49 53
Note: Adapted from DOJ (2017).
Since the release of DOJ’s 2017 supplement, there have been four active-shooter
incidents in the U.S. resulting in mass killings, two of which occurred in Florida. Table 3 below
includes the mass killing-shooting incidents for 2017 and the first part of 2018 (Crosby, 2017;
Fleshler & Zhu, 2018; Montgomery et al., 2017; Witt, 2018).
Table 3 Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents – 2017 to 2018 Location City/State Date Killed Injured Ft. Lauderdale International Airport
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
January 6, 2017 5 6
The Route 91 Harvest Festival
Las Vegas, Nevada
October 1, 2017 58 500
First Baptist Church of Sutherland
Sutherland, Texas November 4, 2017
26 20
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Parkland, Florida February 14, 2018
17 14
52
The DOJ’s 2013 report further indicated that of the 39-school active-shooter events
reviewed, 27 occurred at primary or secondary schools and 12 at IHEs (DOJ, 2013). Since
active-shooter events began increasing, administrators at IHEs have attempted to create effective
violence prevention and crisis response policies. Nevertheless, there were in 2015 alone 23
shootings on college and university campuses (Morse et al., 2016; Sanburn, 2015).
Cannon, in her report to the Citizens Crime Commission of New York titled Aiming at
Students: The College Gun Violence Epidemic (2016), found that gun violence on college
campuses had increased dramatically from the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 school years, from 12 to
nearly 30, as had the number of shooting victims. Likewise, casualties from gun violence on
college campuses increased by 241% from 2001-2002 to 2015-2016 when compared to previous
years. According to Cannon’s analysis, the increase in gun violence was particularly marked on
college campuses in states with relatively free access to firearms. Of the 190 shooting incidents
that she examined, 64% had occurred on or near college or university campuses in Tennessee
(14), California (14), Virginia (13), Georgia (13), North Carolina (11), and Florida (11). Cannon
also reported that
• 64% of the shootings had occurred in Southern states;
• students are usually the victims in campus-related shootings;
• 59% of the shooters had not been associated with the IHE that they targeted; 28% were
students, 9% were former students, and 4% were employees; and that
• disputes resulted in the highest percentage of incidents resulting in gun violence on
campuses (38%), followed by robbery (21%), domestic violence (7%), and rampages
with mass casualties or active-shooter incidents (5%).
53
In a Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study, Webster et al. (2016)
stated that
one rationale for allowing more civilians to carry firearms, both on and off college
campuses, is to avert rampage shootings or stop rampage shooters before additional
victims are killed. . .. There is an unsupported assumption of campus carry advocates
that armed students or staff on campus will shoot accurately enough to stop the shooter in
an active-shooter incident without wounding or killing innocent victims. (pp. 2, 11)
Most right to carry (RTC) laws around the country require minimal training for permit
holders in the areas of familiarity with firearms, basic range shooting, and, in some instances,
crisis-shooting as a prerequisite to legally carry. Furthermore, it has been well documented that
police officers—who necessarily receive extensive training about the use of firearms in critical
situations—often fire inaccurately during such situations (Webster et al., 2016).
The available data indicate that campus carry policies are unlikely to reduce the
frequency of active-shooter incidents or the casualties that occur as a result. It is important to
note in this context that over half of students at IHEs report significant emotional and mental
stress unrelated to firearms (Webster et al., 2016). Thus, “Increasing gun availability on campus
could make far more common acts of aggression, recklessness, or self-harm more deadly and,
thus, have a deleterious impact on the safety of students, faculty, and staff” (Webster et al., 2016,
p. 3)
In sum, active shooters and other incidents of gun violence have been increasing on the
campuses of IHEs. Providing students, faculty, and staff the weaponry to confront and end such
incidents on campus is one of the rationales cited by pro-campus carry advocates in favor of
54
campus carry legislation. The research, however, suggests that more guns on campus do not
necessarily equate to less violence or crime (Jensen, 2015; Webster et al., 2016).
Chapter Summary
Research into campus gun violence, campus crime, and the open and concealed carry of
firearms on the campuses of IHEs has only begun to be conducted in recent years, but it is
proliferating rapidly as these issues have come to attract increasing attention over the past
decade. A push for legislative action to permit students, faculty, staff, and others to arm
themselves on campus has been spurred by such shooting events as the following (Blair &
Schweit, 2014; Cannon, 2016):
• Virginia Tech, VA, 2007,
• Louisiana State University, LA, 2007,
• Northern Illinois University, IL, 2008,
• The University of Central Arkansas, AR, 2008,
• Hampton University, VA, 2009,
• The University of Arizona, AZ, 2009,
• The University of Alabama, AL, 2010,
• The Ohio State University, OH in 2010,
• San Jose State University, CA, 2011,
• The University of Pittsburgh, PA, 2012,
• The University of Southern California, CA, 2012,
• Auburn University, AL, 2012,
• Oikos University, CA, 2012,
• Hazard Community and Technical College, KY, 2013,
55
• Santa Monica College, CA, 2013,
• The University of California Santa Barbara, CA, 2014,
• Umpqua Community College, OR, 2015, and
• El Centro College, TX, 2016.
In Florida, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass killing-shooting on
February 14, 2018, led to feverish activity in the state capital and further amplified the
intractable discourse about gun control and guns on campus. The Republican-controlled
legislature continued to refuse to ban semi-automatic rifles (AR-15s were used in both the Pulse
Nightclub and Parkland mass killing-shooting incidents). Senate Bill 7026 (2018), which, as
discussed, raised the age for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 and created the
Guardian Plan to arm school staff members, was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott in this
context. Advocates and lobbyists have kept pressing for legislation supporting the right to carry
firearms in public, including on campuses and within facilities of IHEs, as have such Florida
legislators as Senator Greg Steube (Nielson, 2017a). At the heart of the controversy is the basic
question of whether campus carry contributes to or rather undermines campus safety. Another
important consideration is that “risks for violence, suicide attempts, alcohol abuse, and other
risky behaviors” are especially prevalent among college-age individuals and in campus
environments (Webster et al., 2016, p. 24).
In Kansas, a campus carry law went into effect on July 1, 2017. Two weeks later, an
incident occurred at Wichita State University in which a university employee found a firearm
that had been left in a campus restroom. The employee was quoted as saying that “Seeing the
gun just made me roll my eyes” and that “Thinking about the ramifications of irresponsible gun
56
ownership is unsettling” (Roll, 2017). Campus police have investigated this incident, but the
findings have not been released.
Allowing firearms on the campuses of IHEs continues to be a highly controversial and
political public policy issue. Nevertheless, the legislative push to permit concealed firearms in
these spaces as yet seems so far to be uninformed by research findings into how students, faculty,
staff, and other interested parties regard campus carry, campus safety, and campus crime.
As is stressed throughout this study, it is the campus public safety directors at Florida’s
40 public IHEs who will be at the forefront in developing and implementing any state legislation
regarding campus carry. These are the professionals who coordinate responses to campus
incidents involving firearms. It is important to keep in mind that not all campus public safety
directors in Florida oversee armed police forces (State of Florida, n.d.). Thus, the passage of a
campus carry law could have a major budgetary impact if all colleges and universities are
compelled as a result to establish such forces.
The findings presented here represent a distinct contribution to the existing literature on
campus carry. In part, this research has replicated a quantitative survey study of campus public
safety administrators conducted in Texas by Bartula and Bowen (2015). One significant
difference between the two studies is that, unlike those in Florida, all public and private IHEs in
Texas are required to employ armed campus law enforcement (A. Bartula, personal
communication, August 14, 2017).
57
Chapter 3: Methodology
A research methodology is the set of steps in a study that lead from the formulation of
broad assumptions to the detailed procedures of data collection and analysis. In this respect,
Creswell (2013) distinguished qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. The
primary difference between qualitative and quantitative research is that the former looks for
complex meanings in the human experiences that are generally framed in words, while the latter
looks at the impact of particular variables and their relationships based on statistical formulas
that researchers use to organize and manipulate their data (Healy, 2009). Moreover, qualitative
methodologies rely on open-ended questions, while quantitative methods do not (Creswell,
2013). At the same time, these two approaches “should not be viewed as rigid, distinct
categories, polar opposites, or dichotomies” (Creswell, 2013, p. 3) but rather as lying along a
continuum. The mixed-method approach, as the name suggests, combines qualitative and
quantitative methodologies.
The purpose of this mixed-method study was twofold. First, the effort was made to
explore the effects of campus carry policies on the perceptions and attitudes of campus public
safety directors both regarding the impact of firearms on campus safety, campus crime, and their
responses to incidents involving firearms and regarding the potential budgetary impacts of
campus carry laws. Second, the relevant statutes of the 11 states that currently have campus
carry laws were analyzed in order to identify patterns and common themes. It is hoped that both
aspects of this study may assist the Florida Legislature in developing a reasonable campus carry
law.
58
Research Approach and Design
Based on my pragmatic worldview, I used a convergent parallel mixed-methods research
approach for this study. In the words of Creswell (2013), “Pragmatism as a worldview arises out
of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions” (p. 10). Pragmatic
researchers emphasize the research problem over any specific research methodology and make
use of all available approaches to contribute to their understanding (Patton, 1990). A convergent
parallel mixed-method design, by extension, converges or merges quantitative and qualitative
data to provide a comprehensive analysis of a research problem (Creswell, 2013). Incongruent
or contradictory findings can be explained or further investigated through this design. In this
study, quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, and information gleaned
from both quantitative and qualitative analyses was integrated during the interpretation of the
results (Creswell, 2013).
This mixed-method design used a quantitative survey instrument to measure the
perceptions and attitudes of campus public safety directors at Florida’s public IHEs. The survey
method is appropriate for this purpose and for documenting relationships between perceptions
and attitudes and one or more variables (Schutt, 2015). A hard copy and an electronic version of
the survey were tested at a private college in northeastern Florida. This pilot test served to
confirm the validity of the survey questions and to establish the amount of time necessary to
answer the questions; thus, no changes were deemed necessary.
The web-based data collection and analysis platform Qualtrics was used to administer the
surveys and collect the data. These data were initially stored in Qualtrics and presented in
descriptive form. Once the data collection was complete, the information was exported into
Microsoft Excel and XLSAT software to assess the relationships among variables in statistical
59
terms. This was, then, the basis of the quantitative survey used to answer the research questions,
which were formulated in the first chapter and are reproduced here for the sake of completeness
and convenience:
1) Do campus public safety directors at Florida’s public colleges and universities
support campus carry legislation?
a) What are the perceptions and attitudes of these professionals regarding both the
open and concealed carry of firearms on campus in relation to safety and crime on
campus?
b) Would campus public safety directors be more receptive to campus carry by one
group (i.e., any person or specifically students, faculty, or staff) over others at
their IHEs?
There were also open-ended qualitative questions in the survey (Questions 31 and 32)
that asked the respondents for their professional opinions regarding campus carry legislation and
potential budgetary impacts. These data were analyzed utilizing the qualitative procedures of
Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA). QCA procedures were also used to analyze campus carry
statutes from the 11 states identified in the literature review as well as the open-ended survey
questions. QCA involves the analysis and interpretation of qualitative data through systematic
classification procedures, specifically coding and identification of themes or patterns (Hsiegh &
Shannon, 2005). Content analysis combines manifest and latent analysis approaches (Braun &
Clarke, 2006), as word frequency counts are used to identify patterns in the data for coding. The
coding process allows for the “interpretation of the context associated with the use of the word
phrase” (Hsiegh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1285). QCA was thus deemed the appropriate
methodology to answer the following research questions:
60
1c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry on
campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable
campus carry legislation?
The purpose of the content analysis of the statutes was to identify commonalities and
recurrent themes. These results were also merged with those from the content analysis of the
qualitative survey questions.
Variables
Variables embody constructs that researchers seek to define and measure. In the words
of Balnaves and Caputi (2001), “the basic aim of any quantitative research is to investigate how
variables interact with each other” (p. 46). Independent variables are those expected to cause
change in other variables. Dependent variables are those influenced by the independent variables
(Schutt, 2015).
The independent variable for the quantitative portion of this mixed-method study was the
introduction of campus carry policy into the environment of Florida’s public IHEs. The
respondents’ years of experience and their political ideologies served as moderating variables
that could alter the strength or direction of the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. Other demographic data, such as whether a given campus public safety
agency consisted of armed or unarmed security, its size, and its geographic setting, were also
viewed as moderating variables.
The dependent variables included perceptions of campus safety and crime and responses
to campus calls involving firearms. I defined the concept of campus safety as “being free from
61
fear or harm” or the condition in which individuals experience “no concerns or fear of being
victimized by another person” while on campus. For this study, campus crime was defined as
any violation of the criminal laws of the State of Florida or the United States. Additional
variables included “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” and “staff only.” A Likert-type
scale was used to measure responses to a series of questions and statements regarding campus
carry score as either “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither disagree or agree,” “agree,” or
“strongly agree.”
The datasets for the qualitative portion of this mixed-methods study included, first, two
open-ended questions on the survey and, second, the campus carry statutes from the 11 states
identified in the literature review. The open-ended survey questions asked the respondents for
their professional opinions both on the potential budgetary impacts of campus carry legislation
and on acceptable statutory elements or provisions that could assist the legislature in developing
reasonable campus carry law.
Positionality/Reflexivity
Positionality involves the acknowledgement that researchers are part of the social
worlds that they research and that, therefore, their views, values, and beliefs may influence
the design, execution, and interpretation of their research (Holmes, 2014). A positionality
statement helps others to appreciate the researcher’s views, values, and beliefs as they relate
to a given study. Such statements are important because, in the social sciences, there can be
many answers, or truths, to a given problem, even one that may seem easy to solve (Holmes,
2014).
I was a law enforcement officer for almost 35 years, retiring in 2015. I worked in a
range of different positions, from corrections, uniform street patrol, special weapons and
62
tactics (SWAT), narcotics and organized crime, criminal investigations, drug-related
homicides, to internal affairs; my final years were spent in an administrative capacity.
Throughout my career, I was required to demonstrate proficiency with various types of
firearms at least twice per year. I was also exposed to devastating effects of firearms. I am
keen on both the benefits and consequences of gun possession and ownership. Thirteen years
before retiring from law enforcement, I began teaching as an adjunct instructor in the Public
Administration Program at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida. Seven months after my
retirement from law enforcement, I assumed a full-time position at the college assisting the
Chancellor with administrative duties and teaching in the public administration program.
Because of my experiences in law enforcement, the issue of campus carry is of great interest
to me. I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-protection, but I also
believe in gun owner responsibility. In my view, individuals can be held accountable for their
responsibilities only through well-conceived regulations.
In considering my topic, I believe that I qualify as an insider as described by Holmes
(2014). My law enforcement experience and current position have helped to shape my
viewpoint, both as a person who carries a firearm and as one who now works on the campus
of an IHE. When first considering this project, I sought to remain neutral on the issue of
campus carry and to let my research findings speak for themselves, considering this the only
way to ensure objectivity and keep my biases in check. However, as my research progressed,
I felt compelled to take a position. Doing so does not disqualify me as a researcher, provided
that I recognize my biases and that my work is ethical and trustworthy. Herod (1999)
suggested that positionality may change over time, which stands to reason as one gains more
experience and exposure to different points of view.
63
Participants
The aim of this study was, as discussed, to explore the perceptions of campus public
safety directors at public IHEs in Florida regarding proposed campus carry legislation. Since the
targeted population was selective, non-probability purposive sampling was employed. This
sampling methodology was appropriate because the targeted population served as the primary
data source for this study. The other source of qualitative data were the relevant statutes from
the 11 states that allow campus carry.
Campus public safety agencies in Florida consist of either sworn law enforcement,
unarmed security, non-sworn armed security, or some combination thereof. The website of the
Florida Police Chiefs Association (FPCA) provided the email addresses for the campus public
safety directors at Florida’s main IHEs. Email addresses for the remainder of the target
population were obtained through the websites of their various colleges. In total, 40 public
colleges and universities were identified in Florida (Appendix D).
Recruitment and Outreach Procedures
After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), I contacted the
participants for this study through an introductory email (Appendix A) which provided access to
the informed consent form (Appendix B). Respondents who read the form and agreed to take
part in this study were directed to the electronic survey instrument (Appendix C). Outreach
procedures were not necessary for the content analysis part of this study, for the statutes for
analysis were easily accessed from state websites and LexisNexis. As mentioned in previous
chapters, the quantitative survey was electronically distributed on February 7, 2018, and
reminders to complete it were sent to potential respondents on February 15 and 22. The survey
concluded at the end of the day on February 28, 2018.
64
Instrumentation
The electronic, web-based survey platform Qualtrics was utilized to collect data for this
research project. The survey instrument was structured in five sections following Fanning
(2005). The questions in Sections I and II focused on the respondents’ current perceptions of
and attitudes toward campus carry legislation and its potential impact on campus safety and
campus crime. Section III consisted of demographic questions, including the size of
respondents’ agencies, their years of experience in campus safety, and whether their agencies
consisted of sworn law enforcement or non-sworn public safety officers. Other questions in this
section asked about respondents’ political ideology and the geographic setting of their schools.
Section IV addressed the potential budgetary impacts of campus carry legislation, in part through
an open-ended question. Section V concluded the survey by inviting open comments and
suggestions regarding issues that lawmakers should consider when drafting campus carry
legislation so as to maximize its positive effects on campus safety and campus crime.
As already explained, the survey instrument used Likert-type scales to record whether
respondents strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed, or strongly
disagreed with statements regarding campus carry. Such scales are widely held to provide a
reasonably accurate gauge of the opinions and beliefs of respondents to surveys like this one
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).
Data Analysis Plan
Qualtrics provided descriptive statistics in terms of the demographic and background
characteristics of the respondents to the survey. Further descriptions included support or non-
support for open or concealed carry of firearms on campus. The data were then exported to
Microsoft Excel and XLSTAT for statistical testing. First, a paired t-test was used to identify
65
any differences between the two proportions retrieved from responses to Question 10 of the
survey. Specifically, this test was used to determine whether the respondents were more likely to
support (agree or strongly agree) or not to support (disagree or strongly disagree) concealed carry
on college and university campuses.
Second, a Fisher’s exact test for independence was used to evaluate a 2 x 2 factorial
contingency table regarding the respondents’ support for open as opposed to concealed carry on
campus. Specifically, this test analyzed data retrieved from Questions 1 and 10.
Third, Friedman’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to determine whether
1) the participants’ responses (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree,
agree, strongly agree) regarding support for “open carry legislation” differed when
they were asked whether firearms in the hands of (a) any person, (b) students only, (c)
faculty only, or (d) staff only would assist “in making my campus safer” (Questions
2-5);
2) their responses differed in the same respects “in helping reduce campus crime”
(Questions 6-9);
3) their responses regarding support for “concealed carry legislation” differed when
asked whether firearms in the hands of (a) any person, (b) students only, (c) faculty
only, or (d) staff only would assist “in making my campus safer” (Questions 11-14);
or
4) their responses differed in these same respects “in helping reduce campus crime”
(Questions 15-18).
Finally, a chi-square test was used to identify any statistically significant relationships
between political ideology and support for concealed campus carry (Question 26). In addition to
66
statistical testing, data from Questions 1-18 were analyzed descriptively in the terms just
mentioned (institution size, agency size, geographic setting of school, whether sworn law
enforcement or unarmed security, and years of experience).
For the other source of qualitative data, the state campus carry statutes, QCA was
conducted to identify commonalities and recurrent themes in combination with the qualitative
data obtained from Questions 31-32 on the survey. Following Elo and Kyngas (2008), the
following procedures for content analysis were employed:
• preparation, meaning immersion in the data in order to obtain a sense of the whole, select
the unit of analysis, and decide on the analysis of manifest or latent content;
• organizing, that is, open coding and creating categories, grouping codes under higher-
order headings, formulating a general description of the research topic by generating
categories and subcategories; and
• reporting, or describing the analyzing process and the results through models, conceptual
systems, conceptual maps or categories, and a storyline (p. 7).
QCA is appropriate when conducting exploratory work in an area about which relatively
little is known and for reporting commonalities among datasets (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The
data analysis process included identifying the units of analysis, meaning, and condensed
meaning, the code, and the categories or themes (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Statutory coding
frames were based on two major categories for analysis, the first to determine “who” would be
permitted to campus carry (students, staff, faculty, or any person) and whether open or concealed
carry or both would be permitted and the second to identify where campus carry would be
permitted.
67
Some states had embedded sections of their campus carry laws within larger statutory
schemes, while others had stand-alone campus carry statutes. Initially, then, the statutes were
coded holistically in this regard in order to allow for the separation of the campus carry data for
further analysis. The second cycle of coding, which was conducted after all of the campus carry
data had been grouped together, involved provisional identification of smaller meaning units
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Hendlund-de Witt, 2013) and included a deductive phase.
The third cycle involved pattern coding, in which the data were grouped into more meaningful
and parsimonious units of analysis (Hendlund-de Witt, 2013). The qualitative research
questions, law and policy review, and literature review served as guides for the development of a
predetermined codebook or “start list.” Table 4 presents the codes, definitions, and
purpose/outcomes for the start list.
Table 4
Initial Predetermined Codebook Code Definition Purpose/Outcomes Stand Alone Statute/Embedded Statutes
Campus carry statute was either stand alone or embedded within other statutory schemes.
Extract campus carry data that is embedded within larger statutory schemes for further analysis.
Type of Institution Private or public. To determine whether a campus carry statute pertains to private or public institutions or both.
Who is Permitted to Carry Any persons, students, staff, and faculty.
To determine who is statutorily authorized to campus carry.
Open/Concealed Open carry means carrying a firearm so that it is purposely in public view. Concealed carry means carrying a firearm out of public view.
To determine if open carry, concealed carry, or both are authorized.
Locations Permitted/Prohibited
Campus grounds, vehicles parked on campus grounds, classrooms, dining halls, dormitories or residence
To determine where campus carry is statutorily permitted.
68
halls, sporting events, stadiums, or any other IHE owned facility or property.
Signage/Notices Warning signs or notices either permitting or prohibiting firearms on campus.
To identify any statutory requirement for signage or notification regarding where campus carry is permitted or prohibited.
Permit Required/Not Required
Permit refers to a concealed carry permit or license.
To determine whether permitting or licensing is statutorily required for campus carry.
The start list allowed for further condensing of the data into smaller meaning units for
continued analysis. The same coding methodology was used for the data retrieved from
Questions 31 and 32 of the survey. Frequency and latent analyses identified categories and
themes (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). Table 5 presents the
methodology of the QCA for this study.
Table 5
Qualitative Content Data Analysis Methodology First Phase Second Phase Third Phase Fourth Phase Holistic Coding Cycle
Provisional Coding (repeat as necessary)
Pattern Coding Cycle Identifying Patterns and Themes
Holistic coding of raw data to extract campus carry data from larger statutory schemes, legislative proposals, and campus carry policies of colleges and universities.
Provisional coding using a “start list” to condense the data further and to identify any additional codes to apply for further analysis. Repeating the coding process for consistency and applying any emergent codes from previous coding.
Grouping data from previous coding cycles into a smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). Pattern coding further condenses data into more meaningful units of analysis.
Determine themes and patterns from the analysis of data.
69
The data were then converged in order to identify commonalities and recurrent themes
among the 11 states’ campus carry laws with respect to campus carry proposals introduced
during recent sessions of the Florida Legislature and suggestions communicated by the
respondents in the open-ended survey question regarding reasonable campus carry laws.
Reliability and Threats to Validity
Instruments used in a study are said to be reliable when they yield consistent results
(Patten, 2014). Assessing reliability is difficult when the variables being measured are
subjective, such as perceptions and attitudes, which can also change over time (Herod, 1999).
The reliability of this study could have been undermined if, as discussed earlier, respondents
delegated the task of filling out the survey to subordinates who did not possess the administrative
experience or perspectives that this study was designed to document. This threat was mitigated,
as has been seen, by sending the electronic survey directly to the email addresses of the targeted
individuals (rather than to the general email address of the campus public safety office).
Nevertheless, the possibility remains that someone other than the campus public safety director
completed one or more of the surveys. Even in such cases, however, the actual respondent may
have had the necessary training and experience, especially if he or she was a member of the
campus agency’s command staff.
Validity describes the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to
measure (Patten, 2014). For this study, perceptions and attitudes were measured in an attempt to
assess the relationships among several variables. Specifically, the perceptions and attitudes of
campus public safety directors at public IHEs in Florida were explored regarding the perceived
impact of firearms on campus safety, campus crime, public safety budgets, and responses to
campus calls for service involving firearms.
70
The electronic, web-based survey instrument described above was used to collect these
data, the ultimate goal having been to answer the research questions. The detailed informed
consent form (Appendix B) made clear that participation was voluntary and could cease at any
time, that confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained, and that there were minimal
potential risks (discomfort or annoyance) associated with the survey. As already discussed, the
internal validity, and replicability, of this study may have been affected by the Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting incident in Parkland, Florida, midway through the data
collection.
Regarding the QCA, these data were considered reliable because they were derived from
state statutes accessed through official state websites and LexisNexis. The validity of the coding
process and results was also tested by an independent peer researcher (Cavanaugh, 1997).
Chapter Summary
The open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of public IHEs continues to be
a pressing and controversial legislative issue throughout the United States. Although recent
campus carry bills in Florida have failed to pass, the policy’s advocates, including some
legislators, have vowed to continue the fight (Nielson, 2017a). In empirical studies, some
conducted in Florida, a clear majority of students, faculty, and staff at IHEs have either opposed
campus carry or indicated that they would not carry a firearm on campus even if the law so
allowed (Bennet, Kraft, & Grubb, 2012; Cavanaugh, Bouffard, Wells, & Nobles, 2012; Patten,
Thomas, & Wada, 2013; Shepperd et al., 2017, 2018; Spratt, 2015; A. Thompson et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, legislators continue to push for campus carry.
The intent of this study was twofold. First, it has provided a voice for campus public
safety directors in Florida regarding campus carry legislation; second, it has identified common
71
themes and patterns among the 11 states’ campus carry statutes. It is hoped that both aspects of
the findings presented here can assist Florida lawmakers in drafting reasonable campus carry
legislation. Should such legislation pass, reasonable or not, campus public safety directors will,
of course, be at the forefront of implementing it and responding to incidents that arise in relation
to it. Furthermore, IHE budgets may be adversely impacted by it, in that not all public safety
forces on Florida’s campuses currently consist of sworn law enforcement or armed security.
A combination of a quantitative survey and qualitative content analysis (QCA) was
deemed an appropriate methodology for answering the research questions. Furthermore, the
quantitative survey approach was considered well suited to investigating the relationships among
the variables used in this study (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001). The results of the statistical testing
and QCA analyses are reported in the next chapter.
72
Chapter 4: Results
The quantitative analysis of the data derived from the electronic survey instrument is
presented and summarized in the first part of this chapter. In the second part, the results from the
QCA of the campus carry statutes are presented along with the converged data from the
qualitative questions on the survey.
Quantitative Analysis
The survey was administered for 21 days during February 2018. After the survey period
closed, the data were exported from Qualtrics into Microsoft Excel. The survey was designed to
answer the following research questions, which were formulated in Chapter 1 and are reproduced
once more here for the sake of convenience and completeness:
1) Do campus public safety directors at Florida’s public colleges and universities
support campus carry legislation?
a) What are the perceptions and attitudes of these professionals regarding both
the open and concealed carry of firearms on campus in relation to safety and
crime on campus?
b) Would campus public safety directors be more receptive to campus carry by
one group (i.e., any person or specifically students, faculty, or staff) over
others at their IHEs?
c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry
on campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable campus
carry legislation?
73
In what follows, a description of the data is first presented, followed by the results of the
analysis of statistical differences between the datasets selected for testing. This section
concludes with additional descriptive results of interest.
Description of Participants
Surveys were distributed to 40 campus public safety directors at IHEs throughout Florida
for this study. Twenty-nine of them had responded (72.5%) by the end of the third week of the
survey period. Of the 29 responses, 7 did not have enough data for analysis and were therefore
not used for this study, leaving a total of 22, or 55% of the original 40, for analysis. Forty-six
percent (n = 10) of the respondents were from schools with a student population from 10,001 to
20,000, and 27% (n = 6) were from schools with a student population of more than 20,000.
Fifty-nine percent (n = 13) of the respondents had more than 20 years of experience as a campus
public safety director or a law enforcement administrator.
As discussed earlier, the term “sworn law enforcement” refers to state certified law
enforcement officers who possess the powers of arrest, whereas non-sworn officers do not
possess state authorized arrest powers and are generally unarmed. Forty-six percent (n = 10) of
the respondents reported that their agencies consisted entirely of sworn law enforcement officers,
while 32% (n = 7) reported that their agencies included both sworn law enforcement and non-
sworn, unarmed officers (hybrid). Eighteen percent (n = 4) reported that their entire campus
security forces consisted of non-sworn and unarmed officials. Fifty-five percent of the hybrid
and unarmed security agencies (n = 11) reported that it was the policy of their institutions not to
allow unarmed officers who possessed concealed carry permits to carry a firearm on campus
while on duty. In terms of location, 45.5% (n = 10) reported working at an IHE in a suburban
environment, 45.5% (n = 10) in an urban environment, and 9% (n = 2) in a rural environment.
74
Table 6 presents these and additional characteristics of the schools, agencies, and respondents
themselves as reported by them.
Table 6 School and Enforcement Characteristics of Survey Respondents No. (%) Responses N = 22 No. Students (School Size)
1-1000 1 (4.5%) 1001-5000 2 (9.1%) 5001-10,000 3 (13.6%) 10,001-20,000 10 (45.5%) 20,001+ 6 (27.3%) Campus Agency Enforcement Characteristics
Yes, all sworn 10 (45.5%) Hybrid, sworn and unarmed 7 (31.8%) No, all unarmed 4 (18.2%) No, all armed non-sworn 0 (0.0%) No Response 1 (4.5%) Number of Officers
1-10 officers 1 (4.5%) 11-20 officers 3 (13.6%) 21-30 officers 6 (27.3%) 31-40 officers 7 (31.8%) 41+ officers 4 (18.2%) No Response 1 (4.5%) Years of Experience
1-5 years 2 (9.1%) 6-10 years 3 (13.6%) 11-15 years 2 (9.1%) 16-20 years 2 (9.1%) 20+ years 13 (59.1%) Political Ideology
Conservative 12 (54.5%) Independent 8 (36.4%) Liberal 1 (4.5%) Rather not answer 1 (4.5%)
75
Table 6 (cont’d) School and Enforcement Characteristics of Survey Respondents No. (%) Responses N = 22 Geographic Setting
Rural 2 (9.1%) Suburban 10 (45.5%) Urban 10 (45.5%) On-Duty Non-Sworn On-Campus Carry
No, not allowed 6 (27.3%)
Support for Open and Concealed Carry
Question 1 on the survey asked the respondents to select among the previously listed
responses on the Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or
strongly disagree) to describe their assessment of the statement, “I support the open carry of
firearms by persons with concealed carry permits on my campus.” Question 10 asked them
about the statement, “I support the concealed carry of firearms by persons with concealed carry
permits on my campus.” Figure 1 displays the respondents’ answers to these two statements in
the form of a diverging stacked bar chart.
Figure 1. Support for concealed carry and open carry.
76
Eighty-six percent (n = 19) of the respondents “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” with
allowing open carry on their campuses. Since none of the respondents “agreed” or “strongly
agreed,” statistical testing was not conducted to assess whether more respondents supported or
did not support open carry legislation. In contrast, 32% (n = 7) of the respondents “agreed” or
“strongly agreed” with allowing concealed carry on their campuses.
Perceived Impact of Open Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime
Campus safety. Questions 2-5 asked the respondents whether they thought that allowing
open carry by either “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” would make
their campuses safer, as can be seen in Figure 2. Interestingly, although none of the respondents
“agreed” or “strongly agreed” that allowing open carry would make their campuses safer, 23% (n
= 5) were neutral (“neither agreed nor disagreed”) with the notion that allowing open carry for
either faculty or staff would make their campuses safer.
Figure 2. Will open carry help make my campus safer?
02468
1012141618
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry / Making My Campus Safer (N = 22)
Any Person Students Only Faculty Only Staff Only
77
Campus crime. Questions 6-9 asked the respondents whether they thought that allowing
open carry by either “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” would help in
reducing campus crime, as can be seen in Figure 3. Again, a majority of the respondents did not
believe (“strongly disagreed” or “disagreed”) that allowing open carry by “any person” (82%) or
“students only” (86%) would reduce campus crime. However, at least one respondent “agreed”
that allowing open carry by any of the four groups on campus would reduce campus crime.
Figure 3. Will open carry help reduce campus crime?
Perceived Impact of Concealed Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime
Campus safety. Questions 11-14 asked the respondents whether they thought that
allowing concealed carry by either “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”
would make their campuses safer, as can be seen in Figure 4. A majority of the respondents did
not believe (“strongly disagreed” or “disagreed”) that allowing “any person” (73%) or “students
only” (77%) to concealed carry would make their campuses safer. Forty-one percent were
neutral (“neither agreed nor disagreed”) regarding the notion that allowing “faculty only” and
36% for “staff only” to concealed carry would make their campuses safer. Fourteen percent
02468
10121416
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry / Reducing Campus Crime (N = 22)
Any Person Students Only Faculty Only Staff Only
78
“agreed” that allowing “faculty only” or “staff only” to concealed carry would make their
campuses safer. None of the respondents thought (“agreed” or “strongly agreed”) that allowing
“students only” to concealed carry would make their campuses safer, but 23% were neutral
(“neither agreed nor disagreed”).
Figure 4. Will concealed carry help make my campus safer?
Campus crime. Questions 15-18 asked the respondents whether they thought that
allowing concealed carry by either “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”
would reduce campus crime. Twenty-one of the 22 respondents answered the question regarding
concealed carry on campus for “staff and faculty only.” The responses for all categories are
displayed in Figure 5. Seventy-seven percent (n = 17) of the respondents did not think (“strongly
disagreed” or “disagreed”) that allowing “any person” to concealed carry on campus would help
reduce campus crime. Seventy-three (n = 16) percent did not believe (“strongly disagreed” or
“disagreed”) that allowing “students only” to concealed carry on campus would reduce campus
crime. Twenty-seven percent (n = 6) of the respondents were neutral (“neither agreed nor
disagreed”) regarding the notion that allowing “faculty only” to concealed carry on campus
would reduce campus crime, and 41% (n = 9) were neutral in believing that allowing “staff only”
would do so.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry / Making My Campus Safer (N = 22)
Any Person Students Only Faculty Only Staff Only
79
Figure 5. Will concealed carry help reduce campus crime?
Statistical Testing
Since the sample size for the quantitative aspect of this study was small, statistical testing
of variables was limited. However, a paired t-test was conducted on data obtained from
Question 10 of the survey, and a Fisher’s exact test for independence was performed on data
collected from Questions 1 and 10. Additionally, non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA tests
were conducted to determine whether the respondents differed significantly in terms of allowing
open carry by “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” and the perceived
impact on campus safety (Questions 2-5) and crime (6-9). The same ANOVA tests were also
conducted to assess whether the responses differed significantly in these respects regarding the
perceived impact of concealed campus carry on campus safety (Questions 11-14) and crime (15-
18). The criterion for significance was set using a two-tailed a = .05.
Statistical t-test. Question 10 of the survey asked the respondents to assess the statement
“I support the concealed carry of firearms by persons with concealed carry permits on my
campus.” A paired t-test was conducted using Microsoft Excel to determine whether the
respondents were more likely to support (“agree” or “strongly agree”) or not to support
(“disagree” or “strongly disagree”) concealed campus carry legislation in Florida (n = 18).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry / Reducing Campus Crime (N = 20)
Any Person Students Only Faculty Only Staff Only
80
Neutral responses (“neither agree nor disagree”) were not included in the analysis (n = 4). A
paired t-test was selected because the proportions were obtained from the same sample. Analysis
of the data revealed no statistically significant difference in support (M = 0.61, SD = 0.50) or
lack of support (M = 0.39, SD = 0.50) for concealed campus carry, t (17) = 0.94, p = .3605, as
can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Support for concealed carry on respondents’ campuses.
Fisher’s exact test. A two-tailed Fisher’s exact test for independence was executed
using Microsoft Excel to evaluate whether the respondents were more likely to support
concealed than open carry on campus. Support was defined as responses of “agree” or “strongly
agree” to Questions 1 (“I support the open carry of firearms by persons with concealed carry
permits on my campus”) and 10 (“I support the concealed carry of firearms by persons with
concealed carry permits on my campus”). Because both questions were directed to the same
sample population, and because the data were limited and presented in a 2 x 2 factorial
contingency table, the Fisher’s Exact Test was used. The contingency table is presented in Table
7.
8
34
5
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
I Support the Concealed Carry of Firearms by Persons with Concealed Carry Permits on My Campus (N = 22)
81
Table 7
Support for Open and Concealed Carry Agree Disagree/Neutral Total
Open Carry 0 22 22
Concealed Carry 7 15 22
Total 7 37 44
The analysis found greater support for concealed carry than open carry, and this result
was statistically significant. Thirty-two percent of the campus public safety directors (7 of 22)
agreed to support concealed carry on campus and not one supported open carry on campus (p =
0.0089).
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 1. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for open carry legislation as a means to “make my campus safer”
(Questions 1-5), as can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8
Role of Open Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” Friedman's Test 1
Q (Observed Value) 5.71
Q (Critical Value) 7.815
Degrees of Freedom 3
p-value (one-tailed) 0.127
alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that open carry would “make
my campus safer” was at a one-tailed p = .127, indicating no statistically significant difference,
!" (3, N = 22) = 5.710, p > .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e., “any
person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”).
82
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 2. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for open carry legislation as a means to “reduce campus crime”
(Questions 6-9, as can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9
Role of Open Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” Friedman's ANOVA Test 2 Q (Observed Value) 3.686 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.297 alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that open carry would “reduce
campus crime” was at a one-tailed p = .297, indicating no statistically significant difference, !"
(3, N = 22) = 3.69, p > .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e., “any person,”
“students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”).
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 3. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for concealed carry legislation as a means to “make my campus
safer” (Questions 11-14), as can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10
Role of Concealed Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” Friedman's ANOVA Test 3 Q (Observed Value) 10.32 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.016 alpha 0.05
83
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that concealed carry would
“make my campus safer” was at a one-tailed p = .016, indicating a statistically significant
difference, !" (3, N = 22) = 10.32, p < .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry.
These differences were largely due to five respondents indicating greater agreement with
concealed carry for “faculty only” and “staff only” than “any person” and “students only” as a
means to “make my campus safer.”
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 4. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for concealed carry legislation as a means to “reduce campus
crime” (Questions 15-18. Data from 20 (rather than 22) observations were tested, as one of the
respondents did not answer for “staff only” and another did not answer for “faculty only.” Table
11 summarizes the results from this test.
Table 11
Role of Concealed Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” Friedman's ANOVA Test 4 Q (Observed Value) 9 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.029 alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that concealed carry would
“reduce campus crime” was at a one-tailed p = .029, indicating a statistically significant
difference, !" (3, n = 20) = 9.0, p < .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e.,
“any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”). These differences were largely
due to the respondents again indicating greater agreement with concealed carry for “faculty
only” and “staff only” than for “any person” or “students only” in reducing campus crime.
84
Chi-square test. A Chi-square test was conducted using Microsoft Excel on responses to
Question 26, which asked about the participants’ political ideologies. Fifty-five percent (n = 12)
indicated being conservative, 36% (n = 8) independent, and 5% (n = 1) liberal; one responded
with “rather not answer.” Five of the 12 respondents identifying as conservative (42%)
supported (“agreed” or “strongly agreed”) concealed carry of firearms on their campuses by
individuals with concealed carry permits. One of the eight identifying as independent “agreed”
in supporting concealed carry by such individuals, as did the respondent who replied “rather not
answer.” One of those identifying as conservative and three of those identifying as independents
“neither agreed nor disagreed,” and four conservatives and four independents “strongly disagreed
and disagreed” with allowing concealed carry of firearms by persons with concealed carry
permits.
The chi-squared test revealed no statistically significant correlation (p = .125) regarding
support for concealed campus carry (or lack thereof) and the respondents’ political ideologies.
Table 12 provides a summary of the results.
Table 12
Summary of Statistics - Chi-Squared Test: Political Ideology / Support for Concealed Carry Support Concealed
Carry Do Not Support Concealed Carry
Marginal Row Totals
Conservative
5 (3.43) [0.72]
7 (8.57) [0.29]
12
Liberal/Independent
1 (2.57) [0.96]
8 (6.43) [0.38]
9
Marginal Column Totals
6
15
21 (Grand Total)
Note. The chi-squared statistic is 2.3528; p = .12506. This result is not significant at p < .05.
Additional Results
This section includes descriptions of the school and agency demographic data gathered
through the survey. There was not sufficient variability in the responses that provided the
85
demographic data to analyze the influence of these variables on support for open or concealed
carry policies. Accordingly, only the data regarding campus size, campus enforcement
characteristics, number of officers, geographic setting, and before and after the Parkland
shooting are described.
Campus size by student population. Question 19 asked the number of students on
respondents’ campuses. All respondents were also asked whether they supported open or
concealed carry of firearms on their campuses by persons who possess a concealed carry permit
(Questions 1 and 10). Ten of the 22 respondents (45%) worked on a campus with a student
population between 10,000 and 20,000 students, of whom 8 (80%) opposed the open carry of
firearms on their campuses; of the other two, one “strongly agreed” with open carry and one was
neutral. Half (n = 5) of the same respondents supported the concealed carry of firearms on their
campuses by individuals with concealed carry permits. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents
(n = 6) worked on campuses with more than 20,000 students, all of whom opposed open carry on
their campuses and only one supported concealed carry on their campuses by individuals with
concealed carry permits. The remainder of the respondents (n = 6) worked on campuses with a
student population below 10,000. One “strongly agreed” with concealed carry of firearms on
their campuses by individuals with concealed carry permits. Figures 7 and 8 represent all of the
responses graphically.
86
Figure 7. Support for open carry by campus size.
Figure 8. Support for concealed carry by campus size.
Characteristics of campus agency enforcement. Question 20 asked the respondents
whether their agencies consisted of either sworn law enforcement, non-sworn and unarmed
public safety officers, licensed unarmed security officers, or some combination of the various
types of officials (a hybrid agency). Forty-five percent (n = 10) reported that their agencies
consisted entirely of sworn law enforcement officers, 32% (n = 7) reported a combination of
sworn law enforcement and non-sworn, unarmed security, and 18% (n = 4) reported that their
agencies consisted entirely of non-sworn and unarmed security officers.
0
2
4
6
8
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Campus Size (N = 22)
1-1000 1001-5000 5001-10,000 10,001-20,000 20,001 +
0
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Campus Size (N = 22)
1-1000 1001-5000 5001-10,000 10,001-20,000 20,001 +
87
Ninety-one percent (n = 20) of the respondents opposed the open carry of firearms on
their campuses, but 32% (n = 7) supported concealed carry, three of whom worked at hybrid
agencies. Figures 9 and 10 represent all of the responses graphically.
Figure 9. Support for open campus carry by agency characteristics.
Figure 10. Support for concealed campus carry by agency characteristics.
Number of officers. Question 21 asked the respondents to indicate the number of
officers employed by their agencies. Thirty-two percent (n = 7) reported that their agencies
employed 31 to 40 officers, 27% (n = 6) reported 21 to 30 officers, and 18% (n = 4) reported
more than 41 officers.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Enforcement Agency Characteristics (N = 22)
All Sworn LE Hybrid Agency All Unarmed Armed, Non-Sworn No Response
0
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Enforcement Agency Characteristics (N = 22)
All Sworn LE Hybrid Agency All Unarmed Armed, Non-Sworn No Response
88
Ninety-one percent (n = 20) of the respondents opposed the open carry of firearms on
their campuses; of the others, one (from an agency of between 11 and 20 officers) “neither
agreed nor disagreed” and the other (from an agency of between 31 and 40 officers) “strongly
agreed.” By contrast, 32% (n = 7) supported the concealed carry of firearms on their campuses.
These results are presented in Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11. Support for open campus carry by number of officers.
Figure 12. Support for concealed campus carry by number of officers.
Geographical settings of schools. Question 27 asked the respondents whether their
schools were located in an urban, suburban, or rural geographic setting. Forty-six percent (n =
10) indicated an urban environment and another 46% (n = 10) indicated a suburban environment.
The only respondent who “strongly agreed” with support for open carry worked at a suburban
0
2
4
6
8
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers in the Agency (n = 21)
1-10 Officers 11-20 Officers 21-30 Officers 31-40 Officers 41 + Officers
0
1
2
3
4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers in the Agency (N = 22)
1-10 Officers 11-20 Officers 21-30 Officers
31-40 Officers 40 + Officers No Response
89
school. Ninety-one percent (n = 20) opposed open carry. Again, by contrast, 32% (n = 7) of the
respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with support for the concealed carry of firearms on
their campuses. Figures 13 and 14 present these findings.
Figure 13. Support for open campus carry by geographic setting.
Figure 14. Support for concealed campus carry by geographic setting.
Responses before and after the Parkland incident. As discussed above, the mass
killing-shooting incident at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida
occurred in the midst of the survey, on February 14, 2018. The data revealed that 68% of the
respondents (n = 15) had responded to the survey before February 14, 2018, and that the
remaining 32% (n = 7) had done so after the incident. Of the former group, six (40%) supported
(“agreed” or “strongly agreed”) concealed carry on their campuses, whereas only one of the six
02468
10
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Open Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Geographic Setting (N = 22)
Rural Suburban Urban
0
1
2
3
4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree
Concealed Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Geographic Setting (N = 22)
Rural Suburban Urban
90
who responded afterward (14%) supported concealed campus carry. None of the respondents
supported open carry. These responses are illustrated in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Responses before and after the Parkland incident. Summary of the Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis revealed that 86% of the respondents (n = 19) did not support
the open carry of firearms on their campuses and the remaining 14% (n = 3) were neutral. Half
of the respondents (n = 11) opposed concealed carry, 32% (n = 7) supported it, and 18% (n = 4)
were neutral. Of the seven respondents who supported carrying concealed firearms, four
indicated that allowing either “any person,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” to do so would make
their campuses safer. None of the respondents indicated that allowing “students only” to
concealed carry would make their campus safer, nor did any indicate that concealed carry would
reduce campus crime, though more respondents were neutral with respect to “faculty only” or
“staff only” than to “any person” or “students only.” Only one respondent indicated that open
carry would reduce campus crime.
Although these data were limited, the statistical analysis did indicate significant
differences between the support for concealed as opposed to open carry, p = 0.0089. There was
also a statistically significant difference in the responses regarding support for concealed carry
6
1
9
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pre-Parkland Post Parkland
Pre and Post Parkland Support / Non-Support for Concealed Carry
Support Not Support
91
by “faculty only” and “staff only” and “making my campus safer” (p = 0.016) and “reducing
campus crime” (p = 0.029).
Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)
The purpose of the QCA was to answer the following research questions 1c and 2, which
are reproduced here one more time for completeness and convenience:
1c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry on
campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable
campus carry legislation?
Statutes and other legislative documents collected for the QCA were retrieved from the
states’ legislative and executive office websites and through the LexisNexis database. The
campus carry policies of the various colleges and universities and their governing entities were
also collected and reviewed for context that could clear up the vagueness of some state statutes.
Thus, for example, the provision for campus carry in Kansas § 75-7c20 required clarification in
the form of a statement by the Kansas Board of Regents.
Description of the Data
The data examined for the QCA included state statutes, legislative proposals, legislative
history, a policy statement from an IHE governing board, opinions of attorneys general, and
campus carry policies from select IHEs. In total, 38 such documents were evaluated and
analyzed amounting to more than 660 pages of data (Table 13). As indicated, some of the
campus carry regulations were embedded within larger statutory schemes; thus, for example
92
Mississippi’s formed part of the state’s law governing licenses to carry stun guns and concealed
pistols or revolvers (Miss. Code § 45-9-101).
93
Table 13
Description of Data Sets for QCA State Data # of Pages Arkansas Statute § 5-73-306
Statute § 5-73-322 House Bill 1249 (2017)
14
Colorado Statute § 18-12-105.5 Statute § 18-12-214 Senate Bill 03-024 (2003) Legislative History of SB 03-024 Colo. State University Student Code of Conduct
50
Georgia Statute § 16-11-127.1 House Bill 280 (2017)
7
Idaho Statute § 18-33.3301-3325 Senate Bill 1254 (2014)
34
Kansas Kansas Personal & Family Protection Act Kansas Board of Regents Attorney General Opinion (2013) House Bill 2052 (2013)
54
Mississippi Statute § 97-37-7 Statute § 45-9-101 Legislative History of § 45-9-101 Attorney General Opinion (2012) Attorney General Opinion (2013) House Bill 506 (2012) House Bill 1083 (2018) University of Miss. Campus Carry Policy
55
Oregon Statutes Chapter 166 Oregon University System Governance Policy
57
Tennessee Statute § 39-17-1309 Senate Bill 2376 (2016) University of Tennessee Campus Carry Policy
12
Texas Statute Chapter 411 Senate Bill 11 (2017)
316
Utah Statute § 76-10-505.5 Statute § 76-8-311.1 Statute § 53-5-704 Statute § 53B-3-103
7
Wisconsin Statute § 175.60 Senate Bill 93 (2012) University of Wisconsin Alumni Position
55
94
Results of the QCA Analysis
Holistic coding. The purpose of the initial analysis of the statutes of the 11 states was to
determine which were stand-alone and which were embedded within larger statutory schemes,
for which purpose holistic coding was used. This coding also assisted in organizing the data into
smaller meaning units for further analysis. Six statutes were found to be stand-alone and five
embedded, as can be seen in. Table 14.
95
Table 14
Initial Analysis of Campus Carry Statutory Data State Statute Stand
Alone Embedded
Arkansas § 5-73-22: Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building
x
Colorado § 18-12-105.5: Unlawful carrying a weapon; unlawful possession of weapons on school, college, or university grounds
x
Georgia § 16-11-127.1: Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school
x
Idaho § 18-3309: Authority of governing boards of public colleges and universities regarding firearms
x
Kansas § 75-7c20: Concealed handguns in public buildings and associated public areas; when prohibited; public buildings exempted; definitions
x
Mississippi § 45-9-101: License to carry stun gun or concealed pistol or revolver; license fees; exemptions; no license required to carry pistol or revolver in purse, briefcase, fully enclosed case, etc.
x
Oregon § 166.370: Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school
x
Tennessee § 39-17-1309 Carrying weapons on school property
x
Texas § 411.2031: Carrying of handguns by license holders on certain campuses
x
Utah § 76-10-515.5: Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short-barreled shotgun on or about school premises; penalties
x
Wisconsin § 175.60: License to carry a concealed weapon x
Provisional coding. After the first cycle of holistic coding, a second cycle of provisional
coding was applied to the data. The purpose of this coding cycle was to determine, based on the
statutory language, both who would be permitted to carry firearms, open or concealed, on
campus and where. A predetermined codebook or, to use the term introduced earlier, “start list”
96
was used for this coding cycle. Thanks to the second coding cycle, additional codes emerged
and were added to the codebook and applied to all datasets during the subsequent, third cycle of
coding. The emergent codes are represented in Table 15.
Table 15
Emergent Codes Developed from Second Cycle of Coding Code Definition Purpose/Outcome Criminal Penalties Identifies the level of offense
for violating the provisions of the statute.
Defines the seriousness of the penalties for violating the statute.
Issue Category Identifies whether the state is a “may-issue, shall-issue, or no-permit-required” state regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits.
Determines whether the state does not have to issue a permit or has discretionary authority to determine who may receive a concealed carry permit or whether they are mandated to issue the permit when all minimum qualifications are met.
State Preemption Means that the state legislature is the only legislative body in the state that can govern or regulate firearms and ammunition.
Determines whether local governments have the authority to decide campus carry regulations. Additionally, state preemption laws may prohibit administrators of IHEs from promulgating policies permitting or prohibiting campus carry.
IHE Employee Requirements Identifies employees of IHEs who are participating in campus carry.
Specifies requirements for employees of IHEs who are carrying a concealed firearm and their responsibilities.
Immunity Identifying who receives immunity from lawsuits regarding incidents of campus carry on school property.
Determines who receives statutory immunity from incidents arising on campus due to campus carry.
Reporting Requirements Specifies IHE requirements to submit reports to the legislature regarding campus carry.
Determines whether IHEs are required to report to the legislature when establishing prohibitions.
97
The following tables describe the results from the second and third cycles of provisional coding
by state, beginning with Arkansas.
Arkansas. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Ark. Code § 5-73-322 and
titled “Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building.” Arkansas
had one of the more detailed campus carry statutes governing campus carry. The results of
coding are shown in Table 16
Table 16
Arkansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Arkansas
Codes Code: Title 5; Subtitle 6; Chapter 73; Subchapter 3 / § 5-73-322 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building
Public Institutions • Mandatory Private Institutions • Optional
• Private institutions must make their policies clear Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• Within Facilities • On the grounds • In vehicles
Locations Prohibited
• College-operated student dormitories or residence halls • Location where official meetings occur within no more than 9
hours of a grievance or disciplinary meeting o 24-hour notice must be given o Notice posted on the doors of every entry way into and
including the meeting room o Room must be no larger than necessary to complete the
hearing Signage Requirements
• Private IHEs must post signage if prohibiting or allowing campus carry
Criminal Offenses • For violation of grievance and disciplinary meeting prohibitions Permit Requirements
• Permit required. o Course of up to 8 hours, no renewal required. o Offered at all training courses and concealed carry
training courses • Anyone receiving a permit may campus carry where permitted
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Arkansas is a shall-issue state
98
State Preemption • Yes - § 14-54-1411 (b)(1). However, the law gives local governments limited authority regulating the unsafe use of firearms
IHE Employee Requirements
• Campus carry by employees of IHEs is voluntary • Must be qualified through permit process
Immunity for Employees
• None o Employees taking action using their firearm while
working receive no liability protection from the IHE. Immunity for IHE • IHEs are immune from liability should a firearms incident
result in injury or loss of life o Exception: Campus law enforcement acting under the
color of their authority Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Colorado. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Colo. Stat. § 18-12-105.5 and
titled “Unlawful carrying a weapon—unlawful possession of weapons—school, college, or
university grounds.” The statute does not provide specific guidance regarding locations where
firearms are permitted, though Colorado State University’s Student Code of Conduct Manual
specifies that firearms are not permitted within any university housing. The results of coding are
shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Colorado Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Colorado
Codes Statute: Title 18; Article 12; Part 1 / §18-12-105.5 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Unlawful carrying a weapon; unlawful possession of weapons; school, college, or university grounds
Public Institutions • Mandatory with permit Private Institutions • Mandatory with permit Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• In a vehicle without a permit • Statute otherwise does not specify
Locations Prohibited
• Statute does not specify
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Campus carry without a permit is a Class 6 felony
99
Permit Requirements
• Specified under §18-12-214
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes, by permit only Issue Category • Shall-issue state State Preemption • Yes IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Georgia. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Ga. Code § 16-11-127.1 and
titled “Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other
transportation furnished by a school.” According to § 16-11-127.1 (a)(3)(B), a “school safety
zone” includes any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or
other institution of postsecondary education. The results of coding are shown in Table 18.
Table 18
Georgia Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Georgia
Codes Code: Title 16; Chapter 11; Article 4; Part 3 / § 16-11-127.1 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school
o § 16-11-127.1(a)(3)(B) specifies that a “school safety zone” includes any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or other institution of postsecondary education
Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes; written approval by college authority Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• In any building or on real property owned by or leased to any public college, or university, or other post-secondary education
Locations Prohibited
• Buildings or property used for athletic events • Student housing, to include, but not limited to fraternity and
sorority houses
100
• Preschool or childcare space located within such buildings or real property
• Any room or space being used for classes related to a college or career academy or other specialized schools as specified in § 20-4-37 (programs in which secondary education students participate)
• Any room or space used by high school or dual enrollment students
• Staff, faculty, staff, or administrative offices where disciplinary procedures are conducted
Signage Requirements
• Only for elementary and secondary schools
Criminal Offenses • Violation by any license holder; misdemeanor
Permit Requirements
• Yes; § 16-11-129
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes, permit required Issue Category • Shall-issue state State Preemption • Partial; § 16-11-173. Local government has limited authority to
regulate firearms IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Idaho. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Idaho Code § 18-3309 and titled
“Authority of Governing Boards of Public Colleges and Universities Regarding Firearms.”
Although the law allows administrators at IHEs to prescribe regulations, this authority does not
extend to the “otherwise lawful possession, carrying or transporting of firearms or ammunition
by any licensed person” (Idaho Code § 18-3309 [2]). The results of coding are presented in Table
19.
101
Table 19
Idaho Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Idaho
Codes Code: Title 18; Chapter 33 / § 18-3309 Stand Alone Statute • Yes; § 18-3309 Authority of Governing Boards of Public
Colleges and Universities Regarding Firearms Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • No Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted • Implied in all areas except those expressly prohibited
o Permitted on right-of-way appurtenant to prohibited areas and within vehicles in the parking lots within prohibited facilities
• Off-campus housing or publicly accessible grounds or right-of-way appurtenant to the building, including parking lots within the building
Locations Prohibited
• Within student dormitory or residence halls • Within any building of public entertainment facility, provided
the proper signages are conspicuously posted at each point of public ingress
• A public entertainment facility is described as an arena, stadium, amphitheater, auditorium, theater, or similar facility with seating capacity of at least 1,000 persons that is owned by a public college or university
Signage Requirements
• At each public point of ingress of public entertainment facilities
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements
• Yes; § 18-3302K Issuance of Enhanced Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons
Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus Issue Category • Permit-not-required State Preemption • Yes; § 18-3302J Preemption of Firearms Regulations IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
102
Kansas. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within a concealed carry statute
titled “Concealed handguns in public buildings and public areas thereof; when prohibited; public
buildings exempted” (Kan. Stat. § 75-7c20). The law allows administrators at IHEs to establish
exempt buildings, but they must send notice to the attorney general explaining the exemption.
The statute prohibited campus carry until July 1, 2017, permitting it afterward in all areas except
buildings with adequate security measures that are conspicuously indicated as such (Kan. Stat. §
75-7c24). The results of coding are displayed in Table 20.
Table 20
Kansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Kansas
Codes Chapter 75 of the Kansas Personal & Family Protection Act/Statute: § 75-7c20, Concealed handguns in public buildings and public areas thereof; when prohibited; public buildings exempted; definitions
Stand Alone Statute
• No—Embedded in concealed carry statute
Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • All concealed permit holders Locations Permitted
• All areas except buildings with adequate security measures and are conspicuously posted
Locations Prohibited
• Within all state and municipal building with adequate security measures and are conspicuously posted as prohibiting concealed carry
Signage Requirements
• Yes—Prohibitions must be posted on buildings having adequate security measures
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class A Misdemeanor (§ 21-6302) Permit Requirements
• No. Generally, concealed carry in the state does not require a permit
Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus Issue Category • Permit-not-required State Preemption • Yes; Chapter 166 IHE Employee Requirements
• No agency may prohibit an employee from concealed carry at the employee’s workplace unless the workplace has adequate security
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
103
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Notice must be sent to the attorney general stating why the IHE is exempting a specific area from campus carry
Mississippi. This state’s campus carry statutory provisions are extremely vague, so
administrators from its IHEs requested an opinion from the attorney general’s office. On
January 5, 2012, Deputy Attorney General Mike Lanford sent an opinion to Hank Bounds, the
state’s Commissioner of Higher Education declaring that any individual with a permit to carry a
firearm may campus carry (Miss. Attorney General’s Office, 2012). A second opinion, issued on
December 3, 2013, reinforced the earlier one and asserted that any individual with an enhanced
permit could concealed carry in areas “even where governmental entities have posted signage”
prohibiting firearms (Miss. Attorney General’s Office, 2013). Review of the University of
Mississippi’s Firearms Policy specifies the following prohibitions on concealed carry: all
academic and athletic facilities, residence halls, fraternity and sorority houses, campus recreation
centers, locations of ticketed events, and any area in which a class or lab is being conducted.
The results of coding are displayed in Table 21.
Table 21
Mississippi Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Mississippi
Codes Title 45; Chapter 9; § 45-9-101 License to carry stun gun, concealed pistol or revolver; license fees; exemptions; no license required to carry pistol or revolver in a purse, briefcase, fully enclosed case, etc.
Stand Alone Statute • No—embedded in § 45-9-101 Public Institutions • Not specified in the statute Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • All enhanced concealed permit holders Locations Permitted • Statute does not specify
o Attorney general’s opinion suggests that concealed carry is authorized within all campus facilities
Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify
104
o The University of Mississippi policy specifies prohibitions within all academic facilities, residential halls, fraternity and sorority houses, recreation centers, ticketed events, and campus labs
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements • Yes on campus Open Carry • Statute does not specify Concealed Carry • Yes. Issue Category • Permit-not-required (enhanced required for campus carry) State Preemption • Partial Preemption —§ 45-9-51—Certain ordinances
prohibited IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Oregon. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within Or. Stat. § 166.370,
“Possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility.” The law
allows for campus carry for all permit holders. However, Or. Stat. § 351.060 (1) and (2) grant
the State Board of Higher Education “broad authority” over its properties. Oregon IHE officials
have taken advantage of this authority and established policies prohibiting campus carry. In
2012, an Oregon Appellate Court ruled that school officials had exceeded their authority in doing
so, but Oregon IHEs continue to prohibit campus carry in buildings and at sporting events. A
permit holder can, however, walk across campus grounds with a concealed firearm. Table 22
displays the results from the coding.
105
Table 22
Oregon Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Oregon
Codes Volume 4; Chapter 166/§ 166.370, Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging a firearm at school
Stand Alone Statute • No—Embedded in § 166.370 Public Institutions • Yes; § 166.360 (9) Definitions (Public Building) Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • All concealed permit holders Locations Permitted • Statute does not specify
• Outside grounds and in vehicles by policy Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify
• Specified in school policy o Within all facilities and sporting events on campus
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Yes—Violation is a class C felony Permit Requirements • Yes; § 166.291, Issuance of concealed handgun license;
application; fees; liability Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus grounds
o IHE officials implemented a policy prohibiting within facilities and athletic events
Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Partial; § 166.170 State preemption IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Tennessee. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within its “Carrying weapons on
school property” statute (Tenn. Code § 39-17-1309). The statute is specific regarding who is
allowed to campus carry and where. The University of Tennessee (UT) campus carry policy
specifies that employees carrying on campus must notify campus police and that only full-time
staff and faculty may do so; part-time employees, students, visitors, lessees of UT property, and
106
employees of contractors working on UT property cannot. Concealed carry is allowed in a
vehicle in campus parking lots, classrooms, laboratories, and UT offices. The results of coding
are presented in Table 23.
Table 23 Tennessee Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where
Tennessee Codes Code: Chapter 39; Chapter 17; Part 3 / § 39-17-1309 Carrying
weapons on school property Stand Alone Statute • No—Embedded in § 39-17-1309 Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • No Who is Permitted • Full-time faculty and staff only Locations Permitted • All areas not prohibited Locations Prohibited • Stadiums, gymnasiums, and auditoriums when school-
sponsored events are in progress • In meetings regarding disciplinary matters • In meetings regarding tenure issues • A hospital or office where medical services are provided • Any location prohibited by state law
Signage Requirements
Criminal Offenses • Class B misdemeanor if statute violated Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Yes; § 39-17-1314, Preemption of local regulation of
firearms, ammunition, and knives—Actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer—Party adversely affected by local regulation
IHE Employee Requirements
• Must have permit
Immunity for Employees
• No—Unless the employee is carrying a handgun as part of their job duties. Otherwise, carrying is a personal choice
Immunity for IHE • IHE assumes no liability Reporting Requirements
• Yes—Written notification to campus police
107
Texas. This state’s campus carry law was codified at Tex. Stat. § 411.2031, Section (d)
of which gives school administrators the authority to develop a policy prohibiting campus carry
in dormitories and residential areas and to designate other gun-free areas after consulting with
students, staff, and faculty. Results of coding are displayed in Table 24.
Table 24
Texas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Texas
Codes Code: Title 4; Subtitle B; Chapter 411/§ 411.2031 Carrying of handguns by license holders on certain campuses
Stand Alone Statute • Yes Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • Any license holder Locations Permitted • School has authority to develop policy. However, the state
may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus – areas permitted may be different from school to school
Locations Prohibited • School has authority to develop policy but cannot generally prohibit campus carry
Signage Requirements
• Notice must be given regarding prohibited areas
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Partial—Local government has limited authority under Home
Rule IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Schools must report to the state legislature no later than September 1 of each even-numbered year regarding the implementation of the statute and reasons for the rules developed by any IHE
108
Utah. This state’s campus carry law was codified at Utah Code § 76-10-515.5, titled
“Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short barreled shotgun on or about school
premises; penalties.” The statute permits campus carry at public and private IHEs. However,
Utah Code § 53B-3-103, titled “Power of board to adopt rules and regulations,” gives the Board
of Regents of the Utah System of Higher Education authority to enact regulations governing the
conduct of university and college students, faculty, and employees. The board may enact
minimal rules governing firearms on campus but generally may not prohibit campus carry (Utah
Code § 53B-3-103). The results of coding are displayed in Table 25.
Table 25
Utah Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Utah
Codes Code: Title 76; Chapter 10; Part 5/76-10-515.5, Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short barreled shotgun on or about school premises; penalties Utah Code § 53B-3-103, Power of board to adopt rules and regulations
Stand Alone Statute • Yes Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • Anyone who has a permit Locations Permitted • All locations except hearing rooms
• Permitted in dorms; however, a resident may request for roommates who are not licensed to carry a concealed firearm
Locations Prohibited • Rooms designated for hearings and hearings must be set for reasonable times
Signage Requirements
• Notification in writing of prohibitions for hearing rooms
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class B Misdemeanor Permit Requirement • Yes
o Must be 21 and complete firearms instruction course from the NRA or Department of Public Safety
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue
109
State Preemption • Yes IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Wisconsin. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within its “License to carry a
concealed weapon statute” (Wis. Stat. § 175.60). The law generally prohibits concealed carry in
specific areas, but IHEs are not among the areas listed (Wis. Stat. § 175.60 (16)(a)1-8).
Interestingly, the University of Wisconsin System (UWS) has the authority to promulgate rules
and to codify them into Wisconsin Administrative Code, and it has done so with a rule
specifying that “no person may carry, possess or use any dangerous weapon on university lands
or in university buildings or facilities, except with the written approval of the chief
administrative officer or for law enforcement purpose” (UWS 18.10 (3)). As such, the only
locations where campus carry is permitted are outside on campus grounds and within vehicles
parked on campus property. The coded results of the statute are displayed in Table 26.
Table 26
Wisconsin Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Wisconsin
Codes Statute: Chapter 175/§ 175.60 (16) License to carry a concealed weapon
Stand Alone Statute • No. Embedded in § 175.60; § 941.235; Administrative Code 18.10 (3)
Public Institutions • Yes; campus grounds and vehicle only Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • Any qualified person Locations Permitted • Campus grounds and vehicles only Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify. § 941.235 (2)(e) allows a licensee to
concealed carry within any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state
110
• University of Wisconsin System has codified an administrative rule prohibiting firearms within any university buildings and facilities (UWS 18.10 (3))
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class A Misdemeanor Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • Yes Concealed Carry • No Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Yes; § 66.0409 (2) IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Patterns Identified in the Statutory Analysis
The final analysis included pattern coding to determine emergent themes from the
constructs of each of the 11 states’ campus carry statutory schemes. The results from this coding
process were unsurprising, in that the various statutory campus carry schemes differed
considerably. Thus, six were vague in defining the areas in which campus carry was permitted.
The following consistencies, however, were common to all of the statutory schemes:
• requirement for some form of permit or license from the state for campus carry;
• classification as either a shall-issue or permit-not-required state regarding concealed or
open carry;
• preemption of the regulation of firearms and ammunition, though some states do give
local governments and the boards of regents of IHEs limited authority to promulgate
firearms regulations;
111
• permission of concealed carry on campus grounds and within vehicles parked on campus
grounds; and
• prohibition on open carry.
Areas prohibited. Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas, then, are the states
with statutes that specify where campus carry is permitted. Most of the statutes prohibit
concealed carry of firearms in student dormitories and residence halls, sporting events and
athletic facilities, and rooms or office space designated for disciplinary and tenure discussions.
Again, the details, such as signage requirements, differed from state to state. Furthermore,
Texas’s campus carry law required school administrators to consult with students, faculty, and
staff before designating an area as a “gun free zones” (Tex. Stat. § 411.2031). Utah’s statute
allows campus carry within dormitories and residence halls (though a student in Utah may
request for a roommate who does not hold a concealed carry permit).
Analysis and Themes Identified in the Qualitative Survey Questions
Question 31 of the survey asked the respondents to “Provide a brief explanation as to
how you believe your budget will be impacted.” Fifteen of the 22 (68%) answered the question,
and their responses were analyzed through a cycle of descriptive coding and frequency analysis.
Sixty percent of the respondents were of the opinion that campus carry legislation would impose
a cost burden on them. The largest anticipated expenses related to the hiring of more personnel,
conversion of unarmed security forces to sworn law enforcement forces and paying local law
enforcement to maintain a larger presence on campus. Also mentioned were expenses associated
with training and equipment. Table 27 presents the codes and examples of these responses.
Table 27
Responses to Survey Question 31: Budgetary Impacts Code Responses to Survey Question 31
112
Increased Budget • “Will affect payroll budgets.” • “If we have to convert, personnel costs will increase.” • “Hiring more officers.” • “Additional costs contracting services with the local PD.” • “…major expansion of the ‘Police Services Contract . . . to 4x” • “Increased calls for people with guns.” • “If passed, will go to armed officers which will increase payroll.”
Negative Impact • “Police Dept. is viewed as a necessary evil that hasn’t seen funding increases for over 20 years. . .. I do not see new legislation of this sort changing that fact.”
• “…our budget will be negatively impacted in that I’m certain there will be no provisions for increased budgets with the change in gun laws.”
No Impact • “Fiscally neutral.” • “I don’t believe the budget will be impacted.”
Training and Equipment Costs
• “…costs for more training” • “we will need to provide a system allowing firearms storage for
students.” • “We may have to purchase more equipment to improve
monitoring/surveillance of vulnerable areas of the campus.” • “…metal detectors at sporting events and such.”
Question 32 of the survey asked the respondents, “What statutory elements or provisions
would you recommend to the Legislature to aid them in developing reasonable and rational
campus carry law?” Sixteen of the 22 (73%) answered the question. The same method was used
that was used for Question 31, involving a cycle of descriptive coding and frequency analysis.
Codes similar to those used for the statutory QCA were applied to the responses. Surprisingly,
none of the respondents addressed “who should be permitted” to carry on campus, nor did any
address the locations where campus carry should be “permitted or prohibited” on campus.
Instead, the respondents commented primarily on “permitting requirements.”
The survey results indicated that most of the respondents (86%) opposed open carry on
campus but that only half opposed concealed carry. Based on the analysis of the responses to
113
Question 32, concealed campus carry may be deemed acceptable if adequate training is required
before individuals receive concealed carry permits, as can be seen in Table 28.
Table 28
Responses to Survey Question 32: Acceptable Elements or Provisions for Campus Carry Codes Response to Survey Question 32
Statutory Elements or Provisions
• “I don’t believe campus carry law is rational.” • “The presence of firearms . . . could serve to significantly dampen
the fundamental free and open exchange of ideas.” • “Permit and registration required at the campus.” • “Don’t feel there are any provisions that would make it
reasonable and rational.” • “None.” • “I do not believe any citizen who is legally authorized to carry a
firearm (openly or concealed) should be prevented from doing so on a university campus.”
• “Neither open nor concealed carry belong in an academic environment.”
• “A law that will allow the president of the school to determine areas where campus carry will be allowed/prohibited.
• “Enact a Campus Special Police Officer statute along the lines of North Carolina’s Private Police Act.”
Who is Permitted? • No responses addressed this. Locations Permitted? • No responses addressed this. Locations Prohibited? • No responses addressed this. Permit Requirements • “…annual demonstration of enhanced qualification and decision
• “…making courses similar to what is required for law enforcement.”
• “…there should be an increase in the amount of training required by each person who carries.”
• “Orientation course designed to familiarize the individuals carrying with expectations on how to respond to incidents.”
• “If passed, more comprehensive training to allow those who carry.”
• “…requirements for a permit should require the proof of additional training or require more training.”
• “…that persons with certain level of training would be permitted to carry on campuses, churches, etc. vs the general concealed carry in public.”
• “Fifty hours of firearms training on the range and 20 hours of classroom training for anyone who would carry on campus.”
• “Real training standards, testing and proficiency requirements for people applying for a permit.”
114
• “…require a qualification course much like the law enforcement one and many more hours of training”
Open Carry • “…no campus environment is conducive to open carry laws.” • “Open carry restricted to law enforcement”
Concealed Carry • “…concealed carry authorized if properly licensed”
• “Weapons must be concealed” Mental Health • “The current lack of funding to address mental health issues,
substance abuse and other student stressors need to be addressed. Adding guns to an unstable environment is not the answer.”
Themes and Patterns Identified from the Converged Statutory and Survey Data
When the analyses of the quantitative survey and the QCA were juxtaposed, certain
themes and patterns emerged that are discussed in the following subsections.
Strong opposition to open campus carry. Eighty-six percent of the respondents
opposed the open carry of firearms on their campuses. This result is consistent with the QCA of
the 11 states’ campus carry statutes, none of which allows open carry on campus. Even the
permit-not-required states, which generally allow both open and concealed in public areas
without a permit, require some form of permit for campus carry. Mississippi, for example,
requires only an application to show that a citizen meets the minimal requirements, but no
training, for open and concealed carry, but an “enhanced permit” for campus carry—though the
“enhanced” designation is something of an overstatement, since it only means that the holder has
attended an eight-hour training course.
Moderate opposition to concealed campus carry. Half of the respondents opposed
concealed carry on their campuses, though quantitative testing of the variables did confirm a
statistically significant difference between greater support for concealed carry over open carry.
The implication is that Florida’s campus public safety directors may be more accepting of
concealed campus carry—again provided that certain conditions, such as the requirement for
115
more stringent training to receive a concealed carry permit, are met (Question 32). As discussed,
Florida recently passed legislation enabling certain staff members at public elementary and
secondary schools to carry a concealed firearm on campus (S.B. 7026, 2018).
Permit or licensing requirement for campus carry. All 11 campus carry states impose
permitting or licensing requirements, though these requirements differ considerably from across
jurisdictions. Thus, some statutes are specific as to the requirements and others are vague. In
responding to Question 32 of the survey, the respondents focused on permitting requirements,
many being of the opinion that they should be more stringent than was currently the case. Some
of the responses were specific, such as “50 hours of firearms training on the range and 20 hours
of classroom training for anyone who would carry on campus.”
Additional findings. Although many of the statutes examined from the 11 campus carry
states varied in specificity or vagueness, some states were very explicit on areas of prohibition
that can be viewed as thematic. Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas all specify that
Campus Carry is prohibited in student dorms and other university-owned housing, within athletic
facilities, especially during an athletic event, and in rooms or office spaces designated as hearing
rooms for disciplinary and tenure discussions. Colorado State University’s Code of Conduct
Manual also specifies that firearms are prohibited within student housing areas.
Summary of QCA
The QCA of the 11 states’ campus carry statutes revealed recurrent themes as well as
insights that may assist Florida lawmakers in their deliberations over campus carry legislation.
These themes emerged over a series of holistic, provisional, and pattern coding cycles and were
reinforced when converged with data from the quantitative survey. This is one of the strengths
of the mixed-method approach adopted for this study. The themes included strong opposition to
116
open campus carry, moderate opposition to concealed campus carry, and concern regarding
permitting requirements. Additional themes that may be helpful in the development of campus
carry policy form part of the discussion of the study as a whole in the next, concluding chapter.
117
Chapter 5: Discussion
The right to bear arms . . . does not and never will overpower the individual’s right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
—Florence Yared (Willingham, 2018)
Florence Yared is a spokesperson for the #Never Again movement and a survivor of the
Parkland, Florida massacre. The survivors of that shooting and other advocates from the
“#NeverAgain” movement seem to have pierced through the decades-old, stalemated discussion
of gun control as no other group was able to do before (Gomez, 2018). This movement forced
legislative action on gun control in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C. (Gomez, 2018). In
Florida, campus carry proposals for public IHEs, a number of which have come up since 2011,
have been unsuccessful in both the House and Senate (Cook, 2014). On March 9, 2018,
however, Governor Rick Scott signed into law the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Public Safety Act (S.B. 7026). Under this statute, certain school staff members are permitted to
carry concealed firearms on the campuses of public elementary and secondary schools in Florida.
Passage of this bill raises the question of whether a similar one will be proposed in the 2019
session of the Florida Legislature regarding public IHEs.
The Parkland massacre and the signing of S.B. 7026 are sure to renew the urgency of the
call for future campus carry legislation pertaining to public IHEs in Florida and across the
country. The purpose of this final chapter is to explain and discuss the results of this study as a
whole. This work stands to provide useful information for legislators and administrators of IHEs
as they attempt to shape public policy regarding firearms on campus.
118
Summary of Problem and Purpose Statements
As noted, proposals to allow firearms on the campuses of colleges and universities in the
United States have been the subject of fierce national debate since the 2007 Virginia Tech
massacre (Bennett, Kraft, & Grubb, 2012; Birnbaum, 2013; Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, &
Cavanaugh, 2012; Morse, Sisneros, Perez, & Sponsler, 2016; Patten, Thomas, & Wada, 2013).
Further, while campus carry proposals in Florida have so far failed, legislators and pro-gun
advocates have vowed to continue the fight for open and concealed carry on the campuses of the
state’s public IHEs (Nielson, 2017a). Despite the debate, however, considerable uncertainty
remains regarding, for example, how campuses without armed security forces are to respond to
incidents involving firearms. Also uncertain are the potential budgetary impacts associated with
increased security measures, additional training and equipment, and converting unarmed forces
to armed ones.
The purpose of this study was, accordingly, twofold. First, the perceptions and attitudes
of campus public safety directors were assessed regarding the impact of firearms on campus
safety, campus crime, their responses to incidents involving firearms, and the potential budgetary
impacts just mentioned. The second aim was to identify common patterns and recurrent themes
among existing state campus carry statutes that could assist the Florida Legislature in developing
a reasonable campus carry law.
Campus safety, crime, and security are important factors for students and their families to
consider when they are choosing an IHE (Education Corner, 2018; College Atlas, 2017). Simply
put, “Campus safety and security is an important feature of postsecondary education” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018). Because campus public safety directors are directly
responsible for campus safety and crime, they represent an important source of information and
119
guidance regarding these issues, and their opinions were assessed by means of a survey
instrument.
Summary of the Law and Policy Review
The review of law and policy governing campus carry in the United Stated provided
context and highlighted the importance of this study. This review took into account the
concealed carry of firearms in the United States, relevant firearms-related statutes and
constitutional provisions, significant federal and state court cases, state campus carry laws, and
campus carry proposals for the 2017 and 2018 sessions of the Florida Legislature.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia allow some form of concealed carry in public
(Cornell, 2017). Following recent legislation and litigation, states can now be classified in terms
of their requirements for concealed carry as either may-issue, shall-issue, or permit-not-required
(Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2017; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012).
Florida is a shall-issue state, which means that the state is required to issue a concealed carry
permit to any applicant who meets the minimum statutory requirements (§ 790.06 Fla. Stat.).
Among the various constitutional provisions and statutes that govern firearms regulations
in Florida, a state preemption law designates the state legislature as the only legislative body in
the state with the authority to regulate firearms and ammunition (§ 790.33 Fla. Stat.). Pro-carry
advocates have argued, so far unsuccessfully, that Florida’s preemption law prohibits
administrators of IHEs from promulgating rules that prohibit campus carry. The other state
statutes relevant to campus carry legislation are the Concealed Carry of Firearms law (§ 790.06
Fla. Stat.) and the Justifiable Use of Force or “Stand Your Ground” law (§ 776.012 Fla. Stat.).
The latter is relevant because it could be invoked as a defense in a campus-related gun incident.
The current prohibition against campus carry is embedded in Fla. Stat. § 790.06 (12)(a)13.
120
Previous legislative proposals simply removed section (12)(a)13 from the statute without further
verbiage or direction; had one of them passed, it would have been vague, providing no guidance
for IHEs in implementing campus carry policy.
Two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and
McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, changed the landscape regarding the meaning and application of
the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before these decisions, a majority of U.S. case
law involving the “right to keep and bear arms” derived from state court systems, and state
courts had consistently held that the “right to keep and bear arms” was connected with the duties
of a state militia (Cornell, 2017; Meltzer, 2014). The Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and
McDonald conclusively established Second Amendment guarantees unconnected to service in a
state militia. However, the court also upheld such long-standing state prohibitions as laws
forbidding firearms in sensitive places, including schools and government buildings.
Two Florida appellate court cases are also relevant to campus carry in the state. In
Florida Carry, Inc. & Alexandria Lainez v. University of North Florida, John Delaney (Fla. 1st
DCA 2013) (en banc) and Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, Bernie Machen (Fla 1st
DCA 2015), the Florida First DCA upheld Florida’s statutory prohibition of firearms within
college and university-owned facilities and housing. The First DCA did rule, however, that
firearms may be stored, secured, and maintained within vehicles on the campuses of public IHEs
in Florida.
Currently, 11 states allow for some form of concealed campus carry through legislation
and court rulings (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017). As has been seen,
legislators in Florida introduced three bills specific to campus carry during the 2017 legislative
session (FL S.B. 140, 2017; FL S.B. 622, 2017; FL H.B. 6005, 2017), none of which passed out
121
of their respective legislative committees and subcommittees. Early in the 2018 Florida
legislative session, Senator Greg Steube placed campus carry proposals on the back burner in
response to indications that they would be unlikely to pass out of committee (Turner, 2017b).
Then, the Parkland massacre took place, while the legislature was in mid-session, and less than a
month later the state House and Senate both passed S.B. 7026 and presented it to the governor,
who did not hesitate to sign it.
One provision of S.B. 7026, better known as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Public Safety Act, relates to the creation of the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program. Under this
program, county sheriffs are empowered to appoint volunteer school employees as armed school
guardians to serve as security on campus in the event of an active assailant incident. The law
stipulates that, in order to qualify as a school guardian, an individual must possess a valid
concealed carry permit and receive additional comprehensive training in firearms proficiency
and safety. Some have wondered whether passage of this bill has opened the door for campus
carry at Florida’s IHEs.
Summary of the Literature Review
A review of the literature helped to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of this
seemingly intransigent topic. The focus was on three dimensions of campus carry: legal and
scholarly assessments of the Second Amendment; empirical, quantitative studies of the
perceptions of students, staff, and faculty regarding guns on campus, campus safety, and campus
crime; and campus shooting incidents, in particular those involving active shooters.
The Second Amendment is central to, and serves as the focal point for, arguments both
for and against campus carry. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions clearly
established that an individual has the right to “keep and bear arms” for self-protection, but the
122
court has also left room for longstanding state regulations under certain conditions. Furthermore,
legal debate continues regarding whether the holdings in Heller and McDonald extend beyond
the home (Meltzer, 2014).
The body of empirical research regarding campus carry has been growing steadily since
2008. Most of the quantitative survey studies have indicated that those directly affected by
campus carry legislation—students, faculty, and staff—oppose such legislation or would not
carry a firearm on campus even if doing so lawfully (Bartula & Bowen, 2015; Shepperd et al.,
2017, Shepperd et al., 2018; Spratt, 2015, Thompson et al., 2013). Moreover, some studies have
looked for but been unable to find any statistically significant differences in campus crime rates
between pro-carry and prohibitive campuses (Jensen, 2015).
Looking beyond the Second Amendment, some pro-carry advocates have argued that
allowing campus carry would prevent or limit active-shooter incidents (Webster et al., 2016).
According to a DOJ/FBI (2013) study, there were in the period from 2000 to 2013, 160 active-
shooter incidents in the United States for an average of 11.4 per year, with nearly 500 killed and
more than 550 wounded; there was also an increasing trend in the latter years of the study,
especially after 2008. Of these incidents, 70% occurred in either a commerce/business location
(73) or an educational environment (39). A few years later, the DOJ/FBI (2017) published a
supplement to the 2013 report to include the period from 2000 to 2016; in the latter two years,
four active-shooter incidents resulted in 81 deaths and 82 wounded (DOJ, 2017). Since the
publication of the supplement, another four active-shooter have resulted in 106 deaths and some
540 wounded (Crosby, 2017; Fleshler & Zhu, 2018; Montgomery et al., 2017; Witt, 2018).
Cannon (2016) reported that casualties from gun violence on college campuses increased
several fold from 2001 to 2016 and connected the increase with greater availability of firearms.
123
States that experienced the most shooting incidents on or close to college campuses are
Tennessee (14), California (14), Virginia (13), Georgia (13), North Carolina (11), and Florida
(11).
Active-shooter and other incidents of gun violence have, then, been increasing on the
campuses of IHEs. Providing students, faculty, and staff with opportunities to confront and end
potential active-shooter and other shooting incidents on campus is one of the rationales that
advocates of campus carry use in arguing for campus carry legislation. The research, however,
suggests that more guns on campus do not necessarily mean less violence or crime (Jensen,
2015; Webster et al., 2016).
Summary of Research Methodology
This study utilized a convergent parallel mixed-methodology approach. This design
involves converging or merging quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive
analysis of research problems (Creswell, 2013). The present study included a quantitative survey
to measure the perceptions and attitudes of campus public safety directors at public IHEs in
Florida. The web-based data collection and analysis platform Qualtrics was used to administer
the surveys and collect the data. Once data collection was completed, the information was
exported into Microsoft Excel and XLSAT for further analysis to determine statistical values in
the relationships among the variables. Qualitative data were also collected from open-ended
survey questions that asked the respondents’ professional opinions regarding campus carry
legislation and its potential budgetary impacts. Data were analyzed utilizing qualitative content
analysis (QCA).
QCA procedures were also used to analyze campus carry statutes from the 11 states
identified in the literature review. Word frequency counts served to identify patterns in the data
124
for coding. The coding process allowed for the “interpretation of the context associated with the
use of the word phrase” (Hsiegh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1285).
The purpose of the content analysis of the statutes was to identify commonalities and
recurrent themes among the campus carry statutes. The results from the statutory analyses were
also merged with those from the content analysis of the responses to the qualitative survey
questions. The target population for this study included the campus public safety directors at the
40 public IHEs in Florida, meaning that a non-probability purposive sampling methodology was
employed. This methodology was appropriate because these professionals served as the primary
sources of data for this study, along with the 11 states’ campus carry statutes.
Summary of Research Results
Summary of Quantitative Results
Description of the participants. Forty surveys were distributed to campus public safety
directors at IHEs throughout Florida for this study. Twenty-two useable responses (55%) were
received by the end of the third week of the survey period. Forty-six percent of the respondents
were from schools with student populations between 10,001 and 20,000, and 27% from schools
with student populations of more than 20,000. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents had more
than 20 years of experience as a campus public safety director or law enforcement administrator.
Forty-six percent of the respondents reported that their agencies consisted entirely of sworn law
enforcement officers, 32% that their agencies were hybrids (mixtures of sworn law enforcement
and non-sworn, unarmed officers), and 18% that their campus security forces consisted entirely
of non-sworn and unarmed officials. Finally, 46% reported working at a college or university in
a suburban environment and another 46% reported working in an urban environment.
125
Support for and opposition to open and concealed carry. The analysis of the data
revealed that 86% of the respondents opposed the open carry of firearms on their campuses but
only 50% opposed the concealed carry. A two-tailed Fisher’s exact test for independence
confirmed that the difference in support for concealed as opposed to open carry was statistically
significant. On the other hand, a paired t-test revealed no statistically significant difference
among the respondents in terms of supporting or opposing concealed campus carry. These
findings imply that campus public safety directors may be more accepting of concealed than
open campus carry.
Perceived impact of open carry on campus safety and crime. Survey Questions 2-9
asked the respondents whether they thought that allowing open carry by “any person,” “students
only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” would make their campuses safer and reduce campus crime.
Most of the respondents were of the opinion that open carry would not make their campuses
safer (77% and higher) or reduce campus crime (82% and higher) irrespective of who was
allowed to carry, and Friedman’s ANOVA tests confirmed this result. It is, however, noteworthy
that 23% of respondents were neutral (“neither agreed nor disagreed”) regarding the notion that
open carry by “faculty only” or “staff only” would make their campuses safer. One respondent
did indicate that allowing anyone to open carry on campus would reduce campus crime.
Perceived impact of concealed carry on campus safety and crime. Questions 11-14
made the same inquiry but with respect to concealed carry. Most respondents were of the
opinion that allowing “any person” (73%) or “students only” (77%) to concealed carry would not
make their campuses safer; 41% were neutral (“neither agreed nor disagreed”) for “faculty only”
and 36% were neutral for “staff only”; and 14% “agreed” that allowing “faculty only” or “staff
only” to concealed carry would make their campuses safer. None of the respondents indicated
126
that allowing “students only” to concealed carry would make their campuses safer, but 23% were
neutral on the issue.
Questions 15-18 asked about the effect of concealed carry on campus crime. All but one
of the 22 respondents answered the question regarding concealed carry on campus for “staff
only” and “faculty only.” Seventy-seven percent did not think that allowing “any person” to
concealed carry on campus would reduce campus crime; 73% did not think that allowing
“students only” to concealed carry would reduce campus crime; 29% were neutral (“neither
agreed nor disagreed”) for “faculty only”; and 43% were neutral for “staff only.”
Friedman’s ANOVA tests revealed statistically significant support among campus public
safety directors for the notion that concealed carry would make their campuses safer and reduce
campus crime with respect to the individuals allowed to carry. These differences were primarily
due to the respondents’ greater agreement with concealed carry for “faculty only” and “staff
only”—as opposed to “any person” and “students only”— in both cases.
Responses before and after the Parkland mass-shooting incident. The web-based
survey was distributed from February 7-28, 2018, in the middle of which period the massacre at
the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida occurred, on February 14.
Sixty-eight of the respondents (16) had replied before the incident, and the remaining 32% (6)
did so afterward. Of the former group, 40% supported concealed carry on their campuses,
whereas only 14% of the latter group did. Again, none of the respondents supported open carry.
Results of the Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)
A QCA of the statutes was conducted in order to identify any patterns or themes among
the 11 state statutes that currently allow campus carry, namely Arkansas, Oregon, Colorado,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, and Wisconsin.
127
Patterns and themes in the analysis of the statutes. After a series of holistic,
provisional, and pattern coding of the state statutes, it was found that all states
• required some form of state permit or license from the state to campus carry,
• could be defined as either shall-issue or permit-not-required states,
• preempted the regulation of firearms and ammunition (though some do give boards of
regents for IHEs and local governments limited authority to regulate firearms),
• allowed the carrying of concealed firearms, at least, on outdoor areas of campus grounds
and within vehicles parked on campus grounds, and
• prohibited the open carry of firearms on campus.
Areas prohibited. The campus carry statutes of Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee,
and Texas specify areas where the practice is prohibited. Most of the statutes prohibited firearms
within student dormitories and residence halls, at sporting events and in athletic facilities, and
spaces designated for disciplinary or tenure discussions. Such details as notifications and
signage designating prohibited areas differed from state to state. In the case of Texas, school
administrators were required to consult with students, faculty, and staff before designating
certain areas as “gun free zones” (Tex. Stat. § 411.2031). Utah allows campus carry within
dormitories and residence halls (though a student in Utah may request for a roommate who does
not hold a concealed carry permit).
The QCA on Question 31, which asked respondents’ opinions about the impact of
campus carry legislation on their budgets, involved descriptive coding and frequency analysis.
Fifteen of the 22 respondents (68%) answered the question, 60% expressing the opinion that
campus carry legislation would increase their expenses, specifically to support the hiring of more
personnel, contracting with local law enforcement agencies to project a greater presence on
128
campus, converting of unarmed security forces to sworn law enforcement, and additional training
and equipment.
Question 32, which asked for respondents’ recommendations to the Florida Legislature
for drafting a reasonable campus carry law, was similarly subjected to similar coding. Sixteen of
the 22 survey respondents (73%) answered the question, but none addressed either “who should
be permitted” to carry on campus or the locations where it should be “permitted or prohibited.”
Rather, most commented about “permitting requirements.” The QCA of these responses
suggests that concealed campus carry may be acceptable to campus security professionals
provided that the requirements for obtaining a state concealed carry permit are made more
stringent in terms of the comprehensiveness and frequency of specialized training.
Discussion of the Results and Policy Implications
The literature makes clear that campus carry remains a contentious public policy issue in
the United States. In Florida, recent mass-shooting incidents have moved proposed campus
carry legislation to the front of the legislative agenda. Within seven days of the Parkland
shootings, the legislature introduced a bill allowing designated public elementary and secondary
school staff members to concealed carry on campus, and less than a month later, the governor
signed it into law. Administrators for IHEs in Florida are carefully observing the legislative
environment in anticipation of a campus carry bill.
The objective of this study was to answer the proposed research questions in order to
provide the Florida Legislature with information that can be of use in determining the best
campus carry policy for the state’s citizens and visitors. As with most controversial issues,
elected officials must balance politics, emotions and constitutional rights, in this case, the right
129
of citizens to bear arms for personal protection. At the same time, social movements, such as
“#NeverAgain,” have organized rallies across the country (Zornick, 2018).
Most of the IHE campus carry-related studies reviewed in the literature reported that
students, staff, and faculty felt relatively safe on their campuses (Shepperd et al., 2017, 2018;
Spratt, 2015; Thompson et al., 2013). Further, while one study (Jensen, 2015) found crime rates
on pro-carry campuses to be slightly lower than those on prohibitive campuses, the differences
were not statistically significant. In some respects, then, the controversy surrounding campus
carry may be more about Second Amendment rights than about campus safety and crime.
The findings presented here largely mirror those of previous campus carry-related
research, including recent studies in Florida (Shepperd et al., 2017, 2018). This literature has
consistently shown most students, staff, and faculty to be opposed to campus carry. What
distinguishes the present study is the specific focus on the perceptions and attitudes of campus
public safety directors in Florida. Since this survey population was small and selective, data
collection was limited; 40 surveys were distributed, and data from 22 respondents (55%) were
received and analyzed. The significance of this population is that campus public safety officials
are directly responsible for campus safety and crime and should therefore be particularly
knowledgeable about it. Moreover, campus public safety directors will be directly impacted by
any policy changes and responsible for implementing any campus carry statutes, and their
budgets are likely to be impacted by any such developments.
Answers to the Research Questions
Research Question 1: Do campus public safety directors at Florida’s public colleges
and universities support public colleges and universities support campus carry legislation?
According to the quantitative data collected and analyzed here, the answer is an overwhelming
130
“no” for open carry. Thus 86% of the respondents opposed it and 14% percent were neutral. On
the other hand, only 50% of the respondents opposed concealed carry, 18% were neutral, and
32% supported it. Analysis of the data revealed statistically significant support for concealed
campus carry as opposed to open campus carry. Based on these findings, the answer to this
research question regarding concealed (as opposed to open) campus carry is “possibly” or “it
depends.” The qualitative responses to Question 32 on the survey suggest that campus public
safety directors may be more accepting of concealed campus carry, again provided that the
process of obtaining a concealed carry permit becomes more stringent.
Research Question 1a. What are the perceptions and attitudes of these professionals
regarding both the open and concealed carry of firearms on campus in relation to safety
and crime on campus? None of the respondents believed that the open carry of firearms would
improve safety on their campuses, but one (5%) asserted that it might reduce campus crime.
This latter response is perhaps explicable in terms of social control models (Akers & Sellers,
2009); from this perspective, a specific social control, in this case open carry, will prevent a
specific behavior, in this case criminal misconduct on campus. Regarding concealed carry on
campus, relatively small numbers of the respondents were of the opinion that this policy would
improve campus safety when firearms were in the hands of “staff only” (9%), “faculty only”
(4%), or “any person” (5%). Interestingly, significant numbers of respondents were neutral
regarding the notion that concealed carry would improve campus safety with firearms in the
hands of “faculty only” (41%) or “staff only” (36%). The answer to this sub-question, then, was
also ambiguous.
Research Question 1b. Would campus public safety directors be more receptive to
campus carry by one group (i.e., any person or specifically students, faculty, or staff) over
131
others at their IHEs? Data collected and analyzed to answer Research Question 1a also
answered 1b. Since a majority of the respondents (86%) opposed open carry and none supported
it, the answer to this question is again “no” for open carry. On the other hand, 32% of the
respondents supported concealed campus carry. The results of a Friedman’s ANOVA test
revealed statistically significant support for “faculty only” and “staff only” as opposed to “any
person” or “students only” in regard to the notion that concealed carry would make their
campuses safer and reduce crime. Thus, the answer to 1b regarding concealed campus carry is
“yes.” The respondents showed greater support for concealed campus carry by “faculty only”
and “staff only” than for “any person” or “students only.”
Research Question 1c. What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts
of campus carry on campus public safety departments? The QCA served to answer this
research question. According to the responses, the largest potential budgetary impact would be
the expenses of hiring additional personnel to deal with calls for service related to campus carry,
of converting unarmed security forces to a sworn law enforcement, of increasing the local law
enforcement presence on campus, and of training and equipment. Only 2 of the 15 respondents
were of the opinion that campus carry would not impact their budgets.
Research Question 2. Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state
statutes that provide for campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting
reasonable campus carry legislation? The QCA also served to answer this research question.
The common themes and patterns among the statutes were unremarkable, though the laws did
differ considerably from state to state. This lack of consistency limits the usefulness of the
evidence from the statutes for establishing model policies or best practices for campus carry.
132
Nevertheless, some recurrent themes did emerge when statutory data were analyzed and
converged with the findings from the quantitative data.
Interestingly, these recurrent themes are applicable to the current situation in Florida.
Like all of the campus carry states, for example, Florida requires concealed carry permits, is a
“shall-issue” state, has enacted preemption legislation regarding the regulation of firearms and
ammunition, allows concealed carry within vehicles on campus property (by judicial decision),
and prohibits the open carry of firearms on campuses. The statutes of some states (Arkansas,
Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas) were very specific about who and where with respect to
campus carry.
Implications of the Findings
The findings presented here suggest that, if the requisite legislation is passed in Florida,
concealed carry by faculty and staff is likely to be more favorable to the state’s campus public
safety directors than allowing students or the general population to carry concealed weapons on
campus. The campus carry statute in Tennessee is a model in this regard, for it authorizes only
full-time faculty and staff who have been issued concealed carry permits to campus carry at the
state’s public IHEs. Again, the qualitative responses to Question 32 on the survey (asking for
recommendations for a reasonable carry law) indicated that concealed campus carry is likely to
be more acceptable than open carry to campus public safety directors provided that the process
and training requirements for obtaining a state concealed carry permit are made more stringent.
Summary of Limitations
In part, this study relied on a quantitative survey that was distributed to campus public
safety directors at all of Florida’s public IHEs. Often, however, administrators delegate the
completion of such surveys to subordinates. There is therefore concern—which represents a
133
potential limitation of the study—that the individuals who actually filled out the surveys may
have lacked the breadth of administrative and budgetary experience necessary to provide
informed responses. On the other hand, even these notional subordinates may in fact have had
the desired training and experience given the environments in which they worked. Nevertheless,
in order to mitigate this potential limitation, the web-based surveys were sent directly to the
email addresses of the campus public safety directors at Florida’s public IHEs.
Another potential limitation concerns the political and emotional intensity of the
discourse surrounding campus carry. Thus, one campus police chief at a major university in
Florida declined to participate in the survey for this study owing to the sensitive nature of the
topic. Indeed, such sensitivity may even have induced college and university officials to
discourage their campus public safety directors from responding to such surveys, thereby
decreasing the response rate.
The Parkland mass-shooting incident created a third limitation, for, as discussed in detail
in this and previous chapters, it occurred in the midst of the data collection. This incident may
have influenced survey responses and therefore compromised the replicability and internal
validity of this portion of the study. For despite the fact that this tragic incident occurred at a
high school, such an event can easily be imagined in the context of an IHE.
Recommendations for Future Research
The limitations identified in this study represent a starting point for future research into
campus carry in Florida. Replication of the present study could be done so as to address issues
relating to the generalizability of the data. Specifically, because the number of campus public
safety directors in Florida is limited (40 at present), subsequent research could include surveys of
campus security officers of various ranks, in particular those most likely to confront an incident
134
involving firearms on campus. Such an approach would increase the sample size and therefore
the amount of data available for analysis as well as providing a greater diversity of perspectives
on campus carry policy. Nevertheless, as indicated, campus public safety officials are the most
knowledgeable individuals when it comes to safety and crime on their various campuses.
One of the goals of this research project was to identify commonalities and patterns in
existing state campus carry statues that could inform the Florida Legislature’s attempts to
establish a reasonable campus carry policy. As it happens, the content analysis of the statutes of
the 11 states that currently permit campus carry identified recurrent themes that are consistent
with the present situation in Florida. An obvious next step would be to perform a content
analysis of the actual campus carry policies of IHEs within campus carry states in order to
identify model policy and best practices. Specifically, a QCA of several such policies stands to
help fill in aspects of campus carry policies that have tended to lack clarity, in particular where
firearms are permitted and who is permitted to carry them. Furthermore, the policies of IHEs are
likely to be less political than the statutory law and more closely tied to specific concerns about
safety and crime on campus. As was found in this study, the frequently vague state legislation
has often required clarifying material in the form of campus policies, administrative rules,
legislative history, and court rulings to establish its meaning.
Another avenue for future study is a comparison of crime rates and other statistics within
a single state that has recently adopted a pro-campus carry policy (Jensen, 2015). Idaho, for
example, became a campus carry state in 2013, so sufficient time has passed for a comparative
analysis of crime rates four years before and four years after the policy’s implementation.
Additionally, other statistics could be examined to determine any impacts of campus carry in
terms of enrollment numbers or demographics or perceptions of campus safety.
135
Finally, further research is needed into the fact that, while quantitative studies since the
2007 mass-shooting at Virginia Tech have clearly shown that most students, faculty, and staff at
IHEs oppose campus carry (Bartula & Bowen, 2015; Bennet, Kraft, & Grubb, 2012; Patten,
Thomas, & Wada, 2013; Shepperd et al., 2017, 2018; Spratt, 2015, Thompson et al., 2013),
legislators, including those in Florida, continue to push for the policy. An informative
qualitative study could thus be built around interviews of current and former legislators in order
to assess their reasons for supporting campus carry legislation and explain the gap between the
apparent desire of those most affected by campus carry and those with the power to impose it.
Conclusion
A safe and secure environment for learning is a fundamental requirement for any IHE
(Spratt, 2015), and campus carry continues to be the subject of heated debate in the context of
campus safety and crime. Advocates for the policy emphasize individuals’ Second Amendment
right to bear arms for self-protection, while opponents argue that allowing guns on campus may
increase campus violence and adversely impact the learning environment (LaPoint, 2010; Jensen,
2015). What is certain is the intractable nature of the discourse that has been associated with
campus carry.
Florida has been on the threshold of becoming a campus carry state, with several
legislative proposals having been introduced in recent years, only to die in committee. The
threshold may have been breached, however, with the passage of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School Public Safety Act on March 9, 2018, less than a month after the massacre at the
school that gave the Act its name. It is thought that passage of this Act may open the door for
campus carry proposals for IHEs in the upcoming 2019 Florida Legislative session, and that
these proposals may succeed where others have failed. Thus, the gun rights group Florida Carry
136
has already sent letters to House Speaker Richard Corcoran and Senate President Joe Negron
advocating for campus carry legislation (Bousquet, 2018a).
The findings presented here represent actionable information that the Florida Legislature
can use in developing a statewide campus carry policy. Based on these findings, it appears that
concealed campus carry legislation can receive the support of campus public safety directors
under certain conditions, in particular when the policy applies to only faculty and/or staff,
excluding students or the general population.
Florida legislators should also scrutinize the statutory schemes that have been enacted in
other states, in particular Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas owing to the
specificity of these states’ laws regarding where campus carry is permitted. Florida is, like these
states, a preemption state, meaning that its legislature is designated as the only state legislative
body that can regulate firearms and ammunition. Vague provisions, though, would likely lead to
inconsistent interpretations of a campus carry statute and, in turn, to inconsistent policies from
campus to campus.
The legislature should also consider the training requirements established under Florida
S.B. 7026 when considering campus carry at IHEs. As has been seen, the results of this study
suggest that campus public safety directors support stringent training requirements for concealed
carry permits. Thus, one possible framework for such an approach would be the creation of an
“enhanced permit” that includes the additional training mandated in S.B. 7026.
Whether campus carry contributes to or detracts from campus safety, then, has yet to be
seen. This study, like previous campus carry-related studies, has no panacea to offer for the
problems faced by campus security professionals. What it does provide is empirical information
that contributes to the body of research regarding campus carry that is available to policymakers
137
as they consider the various issues relating to guns on campus. As should be clear by now,
individuals’ constitutional right to bear arms and their right to feel safe are often in conflict. For
it could be argued that this latter right is also enshrined in the Constitution, in such phrases as
“insure domestic Tranquility,” “promoting the common defense,” “securing the Blessings of
Liberty” and “promoting the general Welfare” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution). The question
of which rights outweigh other rights is the source of this public policy dilemma.
138
References
Akers, R. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, (7)2. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34324955/AKERS__Ronald_L._199
1.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1520345341&Sign
ature=oam4bZh%2Bwtc%2Fhd5V5SMYH2ITUmc%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSelf-
Control_as_a_General_Theory_of_Crim.pdf
Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior
& Human Performance, (4)2, 142-175. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(69)90004-X
Alter, C. (2018). The school shooting generation has had enough. Time. Retrieved from
http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/
Alvarez, L., & Perez-Pena, R. (2016, June 12). Orlando gunman attacks gay nightclub, leaving
50 dead. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting.html
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-322 (2017). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=00JAA3ZTU0NTIzYy0zZDEyLTRhYmQtY
mRmMS1iMWIxNDgxYWMxZTQKAFBvZENhdGFsb2cubRW4ifTiwi5vLw6cI1uX&c
rid=84986da4-ce69-49b4-a4a9-57b2195a96cb
Armed Campuses. (2016). States allowing guns on campus. Retrieved from
http://www.armedcampuses.org/state-laws/
139
Arnolds, C., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: an
empirical assessment of Alderfer’s ERG theory. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, (13)4, 697-719. Retrieved from
http://iptde.boisestate.edu/filedepository.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/a5e3
7417e7845b368725777300421b1a/$file/arnolds.pdf
Auslen, M. (2015, August 7). Bills to allow guns on campus revived for 2016 legislative session.
Miami Herald. Retrieved from:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article30427719.html
Balnaves. M., & Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to quantitative research methods: An
investigative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bartula, A., & Bowen, K. (2015). University and college official’s perceptions of open carry on
college campus. Justice Policy Journal, 12(2), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_open_carry_college_campus_-
_fall_2015.pdf
Bennet, K., Kraft, J., & Grubb, D. (2012). University faculty attitudes towards guns on campus.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23(3), 336-355.
Birnbaum, R. (2013). Ready, fire, aim: The college campus gun fight. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 45(5), 6-14. doi: 10.1080/00091383.812462
Blair, J., & Schweit, K. (2014). A study of active shooter incidents, 2000-2013. Texas State
University & Federal Bureau of Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington
D.C. 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
Bouffard, J., Nobles, M., Wells, W., Cavanaugh, M. (2012). How many more guns?
140
Estimating the effect of allowing licensed concealed handguns on a college campus.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(2), 316-343.
Bousquet, S. (2018a, February 16). Florida carry wants Legislature to allow guns in classrooms.
Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/16/florida-carry-wants-
legislature-to-allow-guns-in-classrooms/
Bousquet, S. (2018b, February 27). Florida legislators advance bill arming teachers over
objection of Parkland parents. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-
politics/article202360759.html
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cannon, A. (2016). Aiming at students: The college gun violence epidemic. Citizens Crime
Commission of New York. Retrieved from
http://www.nycrimecommission.org/pdfs/CCC-Aiming-At-Students-College-Shootings-
Oct2016.pdf
Cavanaugh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nursing Research,
4, 5-16. Retrieved from https://journals.rcni.com/doi/abs/10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.5.c5869
College Atlas. (2018). 10 factors to consider when choosing a college. Retrieved from
https://www.collegeatlas.org/factors-choosing-a-college.html
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-105.5 (2013). Retrieved from
141
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=0345494EJAA5ZjE0MDIyYy1kNzZkLTRk
NzktYTkxMS04YmJhNjBlNWUwYzYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2e4CaPI4cak6laXLCWyLB
O9&crid=ee949e1a-51b2-4b37-980c-25cf3438dc66
Colorado State University. (2018). Student code of conduct. Retrieved from
https://www.csupueblo.edu/student-affairs/_doc/student-code-of-conduct.pdf
Cook, J. (2014, December 10). Fla. Lawmaker wants guns allowed on campus. USA Today.
Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/10/campus-
concealed-carry-permits/20204037/
Cornell, S. (2017). The right to keep and carry arms in Anglo-American law: Preserving
liberty and keeping the peace. Law and Contemporary Problems, 80, 11-54.
Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol80/iss2/2
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Creswell J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Crime. (2000). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Crosby, R. (2017, December 20). FBI chief says report on Las Vegas shooting expected by
anniversary. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/fbi-chief-says-report-on-las-vegas-
shooting-expected-by-anniversary/
Dale Lee Norman v. State of Florida, No. SC15-650 (Fla. 2017).
DeBrabander, F. (2015, March 19). Campus carry vs. faculty rights. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/19/essay-movement-allow-guns-
142
campuses-violates-academic-freedom
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Education Corner. (2018). Factors to consider when choosing a college or university. Retrieved
from https://www.educationcorner.com/factors-choosing-a-college.html
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62, 107-115.
Everytown for Gun Safety. (2018). State firearms preemption laws. Retrieved from
https://everytownresearch.org/fact-sheet-preemption-laws/
Ewing, M. (2017, April). Campus carry: Movement to allow guns on college grounds,
explained. The Trace. Retrieved from
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/04/campus-carry-movement-to-allow-guns-on-college-
grounds-explained/
Fanning, E. (2005). Formatting a paper-based survey questionnaire: Best practices. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(12). Retrieved from
/LWP6420.20317.201725/LWP6420.20317.201725_ImportedContent_20161222105740/
LWP6420.20651.201625_ImportedContent_20151222105043/LWP6420.20880.201525_
ImportedContent_20141220110205/Fanning.pdf
Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/160940690600500107
Fla. Const. art I, § 8.
Fla. Legis. HB-6005. Reg. Sess. (2017). Retrieved from
143
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/06005
Fla. Legis. HB-7101. Reg. Sess. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/07101
Fla. Legis. SB-140. Reg. Sess. (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0140
Fla. Legis. SB-274. Reg. Sess. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/274/BillText/Filed/PDF
Fla. Legis. SB-622. Reg. Sess. (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/00622
Fla. Legis. SB-7026. Reg. Sess. (2018) Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/07026/?Tab=BillText
Fla. Stat. § 776.012 (2005). Retrieved from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/776.012
Fla. Stat. § 790.001 (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/790.001
Fla. Stat. § 790.06 (1987). Retrieved from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/790.06
Fla. Stat. § 790.053 (1987). Retrieved from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/790.053
Fla. Stat. § 790.115 (2006). Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/790.115
Fla. Stat. § 790.33 (1987). Retrieved from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/Chapter790.33
144
Flesher, D, & Zhu, Y. (2018, March 9) Timeline: How the Stoneman Douglas High School
Shooting unfolded. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/sfl-florida-
school-shooting-timeline-20180223-htmlstory.html
Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, Bernie Machen, Case No. 1D14-4614
(Fla 1st DCA 2015).
Florida Carry, Inc. & Alexandria Lainez v. University of North Florida, John Delaney,
133 So. 3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (en banc).
Florida Chamber of Commerce. (2017). What is the constitution revision commission?
Retrieved from http://www.flchamber.com/what-is-the-constitutional-revision-
commission/
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2017). License holder profile report.
Retrieved from http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download
/7500/118857/cw_holders.pdf
Florida Memory State Library and Archives of Florida. (n.d.). Florida’s early constitutions.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Retrieved from
https://www.floridamemory.com/Collections/Constitution/
Florida Office of Governor. (2018, March 9). Gov. Scott signs the Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School Act [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.flgov.com/2018/03/09/gov-rick-scott-signs-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-
school-public-safety-act/
Florida Police Chiefs Association. (2016). University/education chiefs committee.
Retrieved from https://fpca.com/committees/
145
Fredericks, B. (2018, February 14). 17 killed in Florida high school shooting, one of deadliest in
history. The New York Post. Retrieved from
https://nypost.com/2018/02/14/17-killed-in-florida-high-school-shooting-one-of-
deadliest-in-history/
Glover, S., & Sidner, S. (2018, January 18). Las Vegas shooting: Unsealed documents reveal
new details. CNN. Retrieved from
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/us/las-vegas-shooting-documents-unsealed/index.html
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-127.1 (2017). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=00JAAzZDgzNzU2ZC05MDA0LTRmMDIt
YjkzMS0xOGY3MjE3OWNlODIKAFBvZENhdGFsb2fcIFfJnJ2IC8XZi1AYM4Ne&cri
d=44614467-1adc-4fe2-9eb2-f18a3c17caff
Gottfredson M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VuWrexznC7sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq
=thematic+analysis+vs+content+analysis&ots=Ycy2E_Fi1Q&sig=l_DP6xazKhbNdxX_
odGEB6Mb6c#v=onepage&q=thematic%20analysis%20vs%20content%20analysis&f=
false
Hardy, M. (2016). States that allow concealed carry. American Concealed. Retrieved from
https://americanconcealed.com/articles/second-amendment/states-that-allow-concealed-
carry/
146
Healy, J. (2009). Statistics: A tool for social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
Hedlund-de Witt, N. (2013). An overview and guide to qualitative data analysis for integral
researchers, version 1. Integral Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/9864164/Coding_An_Overview_and_Guide_to_Qualitative_D
ata_Analysis_for_Integral_Researchers
Herod, A. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites, praxis, positionality, validity,
and the cult of a leader. Geoforum, 30, 313-327.
Herrera, C., & Sherman, A. (2017, June 5). Officers mishandled response to Fort Lauderdale
airport shooting, report says, leading to chaos. Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article154497524.html
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Holmes, A. (2014, March). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its
influence and place in research. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260421552_Researcher_positionality_a_consid
eration_of_its
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, (15)9, 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
Idaho Code § 18-3309 (2016). Retrieved from
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH33/SECT18-3309/
Intravia, J. (2009). The roles of social bonds, personality, and rational decision-making: An
147
empirical investigation into Hirschi’s “new” control theory. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd
Jackson, A. & Gould, K. (2017, April 27). 10 states allow guns on college campuses and 16
more are considering it. Business Insider. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/states-that-allow-guns-on-college-campuses-2017-4
Jensen, D. (2015). The impact of campus concealed firearms policies on part I index crimes.
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (No.
1680592782)
Joffe, H., & Yardley, L. (2004). Content and thematic analysis. In D. F. Marks & L. Yardley
(Eds.), Research methods for clinical & health psychology (pp. 56-68). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-7c20 (2014). Retrieved from
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/statute/075_000_0000_chapter/075_007c_0000_artic
le/
Kennedy, J. (2018, March 1). Gov. Rick Scott opposed to arming teachers. Herald Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180301/gov-rick-scott-opposed-
to-arming-teachers
Kiely, E. (2015). The Oregon shooting and gun-free zones. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/the-oregon-shooting-and-gun-free-zones/
King, L. (2015, October 6). Poll: Floridians don’t want guns on college campuses. News-
Press.com. Retrieved from http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2015/10/06/florida-
guns-umpqua-community-college-shootings-concealed-carry/73475698/
148
Klotter, J., & Kanovitz, J. (1991). Constitutional Law (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson
Publishing Company.
Kopel, D. (2012). The great gun control war of the twentieth century—and its lessons for
gun laws today. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 39(5) 1520-1611.
LaPoint, L. (2010). The up and down battle for concealed carry at public universities. Journal of
Student Affairs 19, 16-23. Retrieved from http://www.sahe.colostate.edu
Larrabee, B. (2015, October 8). Survey: Floridians oppose guns on campus. The St. Augustine
Record. Retrieved from http://staugustine.com/news/florida-news/2015-10-08/survey-
floridians-oppose-guns-campus#
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (n.d.). Concealed weapons permitting. Retrieved from
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/firearms-in-public-places/concealed-
weapons-permitting/
Lee, J. C. (2015). Exploring college student’s perceptions of college gun violence: A meta-
analysis (Doctoral project, paper 19, California State University, Fresno). Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_doctoral/19
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521). Cornell Law School.
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521
Mangan, K. (2015, October 15). A university debates how to carry out divisive guns-on-campus
law. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-
University-Debates-How-to/233770
Maslow, A. (1943). A dynamic theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-
396.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
149
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 791 (2010).
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Meier, R. (1982). Perspectives on the concept of social control. Annual Review of Sociology,
8, 35-55. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable2945987
Meltzer, J. (2013). Open carry for all: Heller and our nineteenth century Second Amendment.
The Yale Law Journal, 123, 1486-1530.
Miles, B., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Miss. Code Ann. § 45-9-101 (2016). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=00JAAzNzhjOTYxNC0wZjRkLTQzNzAtYj
JlYS1jNjExZWYxZGFhMGYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2cMlW40w5iIH7toHnTBIEP0&crid=
4fb2c58c-22a6-45ad-858e-90ebc8f92709
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-7 (2016). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=00JAAzNzhjOTYxNC0wZjRkLTQzNzAtYj
JlYS1jNjExZWYxZGFhMGYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2cMlW40w5iIH7toHnTBIEP0&crid=
4fb2c58c-22a6-45ad-858e-90ebc8f92709
Mississippi Attorney General. (2013). City ordinance prohibiting the carrying of firearms.
Opinions Division, Jackson, MS: Ricky Luke, Assistant Attorney General.
Retrieved from
http://www.ago.state.ms.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Opinion-to-Clarify-Gun-
Carry.pdf
Mississippi Attorney General. (2012). Firearms and permits on campus. Opinions
150
Division. Jackson, MS: Mike Langford, Deputy Attorney General.
Montgomery, D., Mele, C., & Fernandez, M. (2017, November 5). Gunman kills at least 26 in
attack on rural Texas church. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html
Morse, A., Sisneros, L., Perez, Z., & Sponsler, B. (2016). Guns on campus: The architecture and
momentum of state policy action. National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators, Research and Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ECS_NASPA_GunsOnCampus.pdf
National Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.). Mass casualty shootings. Retrieved from
https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_MassSh
ootings_508.pdf
National Conference of State Legislators. (2017). Guns on campus: Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx
Nielson, A. (2017a, April 17). End of the road for open carry, campus carry—at least for now.
Sunshine State News. Retrieved from http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/end-road-
near-open-carry-campus-carry-least-now
Nielson, A. (2016b, October 18). More than half of Floridians approve guns in schools.
Sunshine State News. Retrieved from http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/
more-half-floridians-approve-guns-schools
Nielson, A. (2017c, March 2). Poll shows majority of Floridians oppose campus carry.
Sunshine State News. Retrieved from http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/poll
majority-floridians-oppose-campus-carry
Noonan, J. H., & Varva, M. C. (2007). Crimes in schools and colleges: A study of offenders and
151
arrestees reported via national incident-based reporting system data. The Card Report.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations. Retrieved from
http://ucr.fbi.giov/nibrs/crime-in-schools-and-colleges-pdf
Nye, I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance
of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.
Or. Rev. Stat. (2015). Retrieved from
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors166.html
Oregon University System. (2012). Governance and policy: Policy on firearms. Retrieved from
http://policy.oregonstate.edu/policy/firearms
Patten, M. (2014). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (9th ed.).
Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Patten, R., Thomas, M., & Wada, J. (2013). Packing heat: Attitudes regarding concealed
weapons on college campuses. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 551-569.
Patton, Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, (2nd ed.). London, UK:
SAGE Publications.
Reiss, A. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American
Psychological Review, 16, 196-207.
Roll, N. (2017, July 17). Gun left in bathroom as campus carry hits Kansas. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/07/17/gun-left-
bathroom-campus-carry-hits-kansas?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
Sanburn, J. (2015, October 1). These are all the college campus shootings in 2015. Time
152
Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com/4058669/northern-arizona-university-
school-shootings-2015/
Schmidt, M., & Perez-Pena, R. (2015, December 4). F.B.I. treating San Bernardino attack as
terrorism case. New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html
Schutt, R. (2015). Investigating the social world. The Process and Practice of Research (8th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Shepperd, J., Pogge, G., Losee, J., Lipsey, N., Redford, L. (2017). Gun attitudes on campus:
United and divided by safety needs. Psychology Department, University of Florida.
Shepperd, J., Pogge, G., Losee, J., Lipsey, N., Redford, L. (2018). The anticipated consequences
of legalizing guns on college campuses. Psychology Department, University of Florida.
Simon, M. (2011). Assumptions, limitations and delimitations. Dissertation and Scholarly
Research. Retrieved from http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/AssumptionslimitationsdelimitationsX.pdf
Smith, D. (1995). Criminology for social work. Hampshire, UK: McMillan.
Somashekhar, S., & Horton, A. (2017, December 27). After Texas church massacre, cities sue
Pentagon for failing to report criminals to FBI gun database. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/27/cities-
sue-pentagon-for-failing-to-report-criminals-to-fbi-gun-
database/?utm_term=.acabca6496e8
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Practices, principles and processes. In J. Ritchie
& J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social sciences students
and researchers (1st ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
153
Spratt, J. (2015). Revealing the concealed: An examination of college students’ perceptions of
personal and campus safety regarding concealed handguns on campus. (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (No. 1678904779).
State of Florida. (n.d.). Listing of colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://www.stateofflorida.com/colleges-and-universities.aspx
Taylor, C. (2001). The relationship between social control and self-control: Tracing Hirschi’s
criminological career. Theoretical Criminology, (5)3, 369-388. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1362480601005003004
Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-17-1309 (2016). Retrieved from
https://advance.lexis.com/container?config=014CJAA5ZGVhZjA3NS02MmMzLTRlZW
QtOGJjNC00YzQ1MmZlNzc2YWYKAFBvZENhdGFsb2e9zYpNUjTRaIWVfyrur9ud
&crid=0b6a5688-8880-47e8-aea0-d01bfd2be52f
Tex. Code Ann. § 411.2031 (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411
Thompson, A., Price J., Dake, J, & Teeple, K. (2013) Faculty perceptions and practices
regarding carrying concealed handguns on university campuses. Journal of Community
Health, 38, 366-373.
Tompkins, R. (2005). Organization theory and public management. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning.
Turner, J. (2017a, May 06). ‘Stand your ground’ change passes in late session compromise.
Miami Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article149032779.html
Turner, J. (2017b, November 15). Campus, open-carry gun bills could be in trouble for 2018
154
Session. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-florida-gun-bills-
20171115-story.html
United States Department of Education. (2017). Campus security. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/print/admins/lead/safety/campus.html
United States Department of Justice. (2013). A study of active shooter incidents in the United
States between 2000 and 2013. Texas State University and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
United States Department of Justice. (2017). Active shooter incidents in the United States from
2000-2016. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooter_incidents_2001-2016.pdf/view
U.S. Const. amend. II.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
U.S. Const. pmbl.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Gun control-states and requirements for
concealed carry permits vary across the nation. (GAO Publication No. GAO-12-717).
Retrieved from http://www/gao.gov/assets/600/59552.pdf
Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-105.5 (2014). Retrieved from
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter10/76-10-S505.5.html?v=C76-10-
S505.5_1800010118000101
Vaismoradi, M., Tutunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences
Journal, 15(3), 398-405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
155
Vasek, B. (2014). Rethinking the Nevada campus protection act: Future challenges and reaching
legislative compromise. Nevada Law Journal, 15(1), 389-430. Retrieved from
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1581&context+nlj
Webster, D., Donohue III, J., Klaveras, L., Crifasi, C., Vernick, J., Jernigan, D.,…McGinty, E.
(2016). Firearms on college campuses: Research evidence & policy implications.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Retrieved from
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-
policy-and-research/_pdfs/GunsOnCampus.pdf
Wis. Stat. § 175.60 (2017). Retrieved from
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/175/60
Whaba, M., & Birdwell, L. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need
hierarchy. Organization Behavior & Human Performance, 15, 212-240.
Retrieved from http://larrybridwell.com/Maslo.pdf
Wiatrowski, M., Griswold, D., & Roberts, M. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency.
American Sociological Association, (46)5, 525-541. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094936
Willingham, A. (2018, February 21). Some of the most powerful quotes from the #NeverAgain
rallies. CNN. Retrieved from
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/neveragain-parkland-shooting-rallies-quotes-
trnd/index.html
Willingham, A., & Ahmed, S. (2017, November 6). Mass shootings in America are a serious
problem—and these 9 charts show just why. CNN. Retrieved from
156
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-
graphs-trnd/index.html
Witt, E. (2017). Calling b.s. in Parkland, Florida. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/three-days-in-parkland-florida
Zornick, G. (2018, April 3). How the “Never Again” movement is disrupting gun politics.
The Nation. Retrieved from:
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-neveragain-movement-is-disrupting-gun-
politics/
157
APPENDIX A Greetings Public Safety Professional, My name is Joel Bolante and I am a retired law enforcement executive who served over 34 years in the Northeast Florida region. I am currently conducting doctoral research regarding the open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of public colleges and universities in the State of Florida. Campus carry is a very important policy issue that Florida law-makers have been deliberating over the past few years. Your position as a campus public safety director/administrator will be directly impacted should such legislation pass. Since campus public safety directors are responsible for campus safety, campus crime conditions, and emergency responses that may include firearms, your perspectives regarding campus carry legislation are extremely important. I am asking for your help in furthering my research by participating in the survey attached to this email. Participation is voluntary and all participants will remain confidential. I understand that the topic of campus carry is very controversial and political. To ensure your confidentiality and anonymity, I will be using the electronic survey platform Qualtrics. All identifiers, such as email addresses and IP addresses, will be stripped and unavailable to anyone, including the researcher. I will have access only to the data. Qualtric’s security statement can be obtained at https://www.qualtrics.com/security-statement/. An “Informed Consent Form” will appear as a link on the first page of the survey. This form will further describe confidentiality procedures to ensure your privacy and anonymity. The form can also be accessed here: Irb approved informed consent In closing, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation for your service in making our campuses safer for all. It is my hope that my research will inform law-makers regarding the impacts of campus carry legislation. If you have any questions regarding the survey, I can be reached at [email protected] Please click at this link to take the survey: https://neu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0BNHj6V5AlsBno1 Thank you for your participation and stay safe! Respectfully, Joel S. Bolante Retired Undersheriff FBI National Academy – 195th Session (1998) Southern Police Institute, University of Louisville – 90th AOC (1993) Doctoral Candidate Northeastern University
IRB# CPS17-11-14
Approved: 12/19/17 Expiration Date: 12/18/18
158
APPENDIX B
159
APPENDIX C
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
APPENDIX D
List of Public Colleges and Universities in Florida
Universities
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Tallahassee
Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton
Florida Gulf Coast University Ft. Myers
Florida International University Miami
Florida State University Tallahassee
University of Central Florida Orlando
University of Florida Gainesville
University of North Florida Jacksonville
University of South Florida Tampa
University of South Florida Sarasota Sarasota
University of West Florida Pensacola
State Colleges / Community Colleges
Paso-Hernando Community College New Port Richey
New College of Florida Sarasota
Lake-Sumter State College Leesburg
Eastern Florida State College Cocoa
Broward College Ft. Lauderdale
College of Central Florida Ocala
Chipola College Marianna
Daytona State College Daytona Beach
167
Florida State College at Jacksonville Jacksonville
Florida Keys Community College Key West
Gulf Coast State College Panama City
Hillsborough Community College Tampa
Indian River State College Fort Pierce
Florida Gateway College Lake City
Florida Southwestern State College Fort Meyers
Miami-Dade College Miami
North Florida Community College Madison
Northwest Florida College Niceville
Palm Beach State College Lake Worth
Pensacola State College Pensacola
Polk State College Winter Haven
Santa Fe College Gainesville
Seminole State College Sanford
South Florida State College Avon Park
St. Johns River State College Palatka
St. Petersburg College St. Petersburg
State College of Florida Bradenton
Tallahassee Community College Tallahassee
Valencia College Orlando
