Our View - Sunday

Risky regent gun decision
Regents snub student for emotion

   Members of the University of Colorado board of regents didn't want to hear it. Eric Mote, a spokesman for the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs chapter, showed up at a regents meeting Wednesday to pitch the case for reversing the regents' longstanding rule that precludes students from carrying weapons on any CU campus.

   By all reports, Mote failed the diplomacy test. He showed up in a defensive mode, proclaiming: "You have disarmed us; that means our safety now lies in your hands. As far as I know, the board has done nothing or very little to address this issue since the Virginia Tech massacre."

   That wasn't a good approach, as it turned out. Regent Steven Ludwig, an Aurora Democrat, said: "If you seek to change the policy of this board, I would strongly suggest you find some rhetoric that is based on sound logic rather than inflammatory statements. I'd be hard-pressed to ever support conceal and carry." Ludwig told The Gazette that students accused regents of "breaking the law" with the gun ban.

   Even a supporter of concealed carry, Johnstown Republican Regent Tom Lucero, rejected Mote's plea, saying: "I admire your enthusiasm. I do support conceal and carry, but I think Regent Ludwig hit on a key theme. I know there are valuable resources out there that can provide statistical data and information instead of coming in front of the board with inflammatory rhetoric."

   Mote's demeanor may have been inappropriate. It's difficult to believe that Ludwig or any other member of the board supports the gun ban with the intent of placing students in danger's way.

   The problem with the regents' reaction, however, is that the "infiammatory rhetoric" is based in truth. This is an era in which violent, angry malcontents occasionally lash out by seeking crowds of victims in gun-free zones. Citizens with concealed carry permits are adults who have taken the time and spent the money to prepare for the unlikely possibility of coming under attack. Rules that disarm them clearly put students at risk.

   Like universities and public schools, churches have become favorite targets of random action shooters. Pastors, however, have adopted security measures that include, in some instances, urging parishioners to obtain weapons training and concealed carry permits.

   It's indisputable that gun-free zones are playgrounds for murderous gunmen. The examples are nearly endless: Columbine massacre, Pearl, Miss., school massacre; Virginia Tech massacre; Omaha mall massacre; University of Northern Illinois massacre; Cleveland public school massacre; Louisiana Technical College massacre; Nickel Mines, Penn., school massacre; etc.

   School shootings involving two or more victims have become so common they barely make the news any more. Nearly all locations of massacres have one common trait: they're gun-free zones.

   A survey of felons by the national Institute of Justice found that 74 percent agree that "one reasons burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot during the crime." That's because nobody has declared houses "gun-free zones." Thirty-four percent of felons said they had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." But not in "gun-free" zones. A full 70 percent knew a criminal colleague who had been "scared off," "shot at," "wounded" or "captured," by a victim with a gun. Victims with guns never lurk in "gun-free" zones.

   Human Events magazine reports that a survey of 23,113 police chiefs and sheriffs found that 62 percent believe "a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime."

   Israel, weary of school shootings, began requiring teachers to arm themselves in the 1970s. The policy ended school shootings, because the schools are no longer gun-free zones.

   Yes, students should have given the regents a litany of anecdotal and statistical evidence to support their case. But regents should tell us just what they believe their campus gun ban might possibly achieve. Do they believe a dangerous criminal might obey it, choosing not to kill in order to avoid the misdemeanor of violating a gun ban? It would be great to hear the logic behind this ban.

   With all due respect, Regent Lucero, as a conceal-and-carry supporter you must know about the data you mentioned. You had the authority to raise this as an issue for serious discussion and debate, and you should have. Though the student presentation fell ffat, this is a matter of public safety. It shouldn't be reduced to a polemical parlor game.

   It's unfortunately that Mote and other students didn't give the regents some of the volumes of nearly irrefutable anecdotal and statistical evidence that indicate how concealed weapons save lives. Clearly they do. It's equally unfortunate that regents were so quick to dismiss a reasonable request, despite the amateurish presentation. One can only hope they won't have reason to regret the risky decision.

Shield law crucial to Scrutiny

   When Congress returns from vacation in September, the Senate should take up the Free Flow of Information Act, which most people term a federal shield law for journalists.

   A shield law simply provides that a reporter or other journalist who has promised conffdentiality to a source cannot be required by a grand jury or a court to reveal sources, or turn over notebooks and other information. Some 31 states have shield laws, including Colorado, but there is no shield law at the federal level. This is a significant deterrent to aggressive investigative reporting. Over the past four years more than 40 reporters have been threatened with contempt charges or jail time for protecting their conffdential sources, and a few have had to pay ffnes or serve time in jail, according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors,

   Last week, the FBI admitted it had collected phone records of four reporters working in Indonesia for U.S. newspapers in ways that violated Justice Department policies. A shield law would be a deterrent to such investigative overreach.

   To be sure, readers are best served when journalists use identified sources whenever possible. But confidential sources or whistleblowers can be essential to uncovering scandals and abuses of power. Recent stories about conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center and financial shenanigans at Enron, for example, would probably never have been written without confidential sources.

   The House passed a limited federal shield law last fall by an overwhelming 398-21 vote. However, President Bush, citing national security concerns, has said he would veto such a bill, and the Senate has been reluctant to consider it unless it has a veto-proof majority.

   The bill the Senate would consider has been modified to address all the legitimate concerns. The shield would not apply if the information a journalist has could prevent an act of terrorism or other significant harm to national security, if a court acquiring that information could prevent death or bodily harm, or if a journalist is eyewitness to a crime.

   The shield law would not conflne the privilege to "official" journalists but would apply to anyone who regularly gathers information with the intent of disseminating it to the public. So bloggers, pamphleteers and even ordinary citizens doing investigative work to uncover abuse or push reforms would be protected.