There is a lot of misinformation swirling around Senate Bill 176. I want to take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions.
For those who may not know, SB 176 would, for the most part, simply synch University of Alaska policy to the reality already "on the ground."
Make no mistake: Firearms always generate controversy. Many are concerned with public safety. I understand that. The testimony from president of the university and the students is much appreciated.
But the compelling interest of public safety needs to be properly balanced with the bedrock, constitutional rights guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution.
What happens when that young woman out there needs her firearm to defend herself against an attacker who outweighs her by 120 pounds? What happens when a vulnerable individual is attacked by a pack of predators?
Sophie Sergie was murdered in Bartlett Hall on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus in 1993. She died via gunshot (evidence that the university's "no gun policy" doesn't work). Would the scenario been different if Ms. Sergie qualified for lawful concealed carry?
SB 176 Provides Protection
So, how did we come to this place?
I was struck by a December 21, 2012, article from KUAC titled "Despite Policy, Weapons Still Appear on University Campus." The author interviews Sean McGee, the chief of police at UAF. A portion of the article got my attention:
In 1995, the UA Board of Regents established a policy that does not allow anyone to carry concealed guns, knives and explosives on to University property, inside University buildings and classrooms off campus or at University sanctioned events. But Chief McGee says Alaska's conceal and carry laws may keep him from enforcing that policy. "As the police chief and as a resident here in the state of Alaska, I think there's probably a greater number of firearms on campus than any of us really know about. It's just that these people aren't using their firearms to commit criminal acts," admits McGee. (Emphasis added)
This reality mirrors what I've heard from people across the state.
As a result, with the assistance of Hans Rodvik, a University of Alaska Anchorage student, SB 176 was drafted.
I believe the sharpened focus of SB 176 (with an emphasis on concealed carry) is a reasonable "least restrict alternative" of not one, but two bedrock, constitutionally protected fundamental rights called into question when dealing with concealed carry: The right to keep and bear arms and the right to privacy.
Why are these fundamental rights? Because they are specifically protected in the Alaska Constitution.
The right to keep and bear arms is clearly stated in Article I, Section 19: "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
In addition, via Article I, Section 22, Alaska is one of the few states with an express right to privacy embedded in its Constitution: "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section."
Since we're dealing with two fundamental rights we look to case law interpretation to see what the university is required to do if they want to place restrictions on those rights. In State v. Planned Parenthood 171 P.3d 577, 582 (Alaska 2007) the court stated, that when dealing with fundamental rights, restrictions "can only survive review if it advances a compelling state interest using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest."
So, how does this apply to the university system? If the university is going to restrict concealed carry (which is a restriction of the right to keep and bear arms and the right to privacy) then there must be a "compelling state interest" and it must be done using the "least restrictive means" possible.
Does the university have a "compelling state interest"?
Yes. No one doubts that protection of the students, facility and staff is a compelling state interest.
But the analysis does not end there. The next question is whether a lawful concealed carry restriction is the "least restrictive means" possible.
Is the current University of Alaska policy the "least restrictive means" possible?
No. There are firearms that can, technically, remain on campus, but only under certain conditions (such as being placed in a vehicle or in a university storage facility).
However, overall, despite state law and the express language of the Alaska Constitution, a student is generally prohibited from carrying a lawful concealed firearm in most university locations.
But, as admitted by Chief McGee, that policy just doesn't work.
That's why SB 176 was brought forward.
Do I believe SB 176 will withstand a constitutional "strict scrutiny analysis"?
Yes.
To put things in perspective, in 2004 the Utah Legislature passed a law allowing concealed carry on state property, including university property.
The university challenged the law, but the Utah Supreme Court upheld it.
I believe a similar scenario would occur with SB 176. Why? Because the University of Alaska will not be able to meet the burden to show that they are operating under the least restrictive alternative when restricting the right to keep and bear arms and the right to privacy.
SB 176, despite representations by opponents, has gone through a stringent constitutional analysis, while balancing the interests of public safety. The burden is on the University to coherently explain why they can restrict individual fundamental rights, contrary to Alaska precedent.
Emotional arguments, fantasy scenarios, and "scare tactics" should not satisfy the public seeking answers from the university.
Sen. John Coghill is the Alaska Senate Majority Leader and represents the North Pole/Fairbanks area in District A.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.