Testimony before the Senate
As many of you know I was invited to testify today before the Washington State Senate Committee on Higher Education concerning two bills relating to concealed carry. The oral testimony was cut to only one minute, which was barely time to give our name and affiliations, and briefly state for or against. However we did get to provide full written testimony to each of the bills. I thought some of you might want to glance at them. These were actually the drafts, the final version being slightly cleaned up, but you'll get the idea.
On the way home from the hearing I was called by USA Today and gave a 20-30 minute phone interview about the event, and about Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in general. Overall it was a hell of a day. 8-)
Kristin
*****************************************************8
SB 6841
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Kristin Guttormsen from Longview. I am here representing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus as their Regional Director for the West. We oppose this bill for a number of reasons within three general categories: Logical, Ethical, and Emotional.
Logically this bill will have no positive effect. This bill is not aimed at those who would otherwise be committing a crime. Instead it criminalizes an otherwise lawful behavior - that of carrying a concealed weapon within the confines of existing law. There is an old axom: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Nowhere has concealed carry caused crime. Never has there been any demonstrated correlation between concealed carry and increased crime. In fact the opposite has been shown to be true in a number of studies. There is no logical need for this bill.
The bill has two primary impacts: to make concealed carry illegal on post-secondary campuses and to require a mental health check of those who violate the new law (for doing something that was not unlawful before). Through the use of the Washington Administrative Code colleges and universities have already implemented prohibitions against concealed carry on most Washington campuses. This law merely criminalizes something that is already prohibited, and therefore not done. Furthermore this law imposes restrictions upon private institutions, again without need or cause.
The mental health check is likewise illogical. Under RCW 9.94A.505 a judge may already order mental evaluation for someone committing a crime when it is likely to have been a factor in the commission of that crime. This bill usurps judicial authority and is otherwise redundant. Furthermore the bill claims authority in part from RCW 71.34, however this is impossible. RCW 71.34 deals with evaluations for minors, who are incapable of obtaining concealed weapons permits.
For these, and other, reasons the bill is wholly illogical. An illogical bill can only cast derision upon those who pursue it, or implement it, and this leads us to the second objection - that of ethics.
We, the citizens of Washington, look to our officials to effectively perform the duties of the offices we elected them to. In the case of lawmakers we expect them to make meaningful legislation to accomplish goals. When we observe meaningless legislation being debated, or worse still, when bad legislation becomes a law only to be challenged on its faults, the people lose their respect for their representatives, and even their faith in their government. In this case we have established that there is no logical benefit of this bill, and moreover we question the ethical impact of such legislation.
Nationally, as well as locally, there is growing support for reasonable gun rights. We have seen this most recently in Washington with proposed increases in our concealed carry reciprocity with other states. Given that there is already proven support for individual gun rights, specifically concealed carry rights, any efforts to act in opposition are not only wasteful of our time and resources, but ethically questionable and can not help but reduce overall political efficacy of the people.
Furthermore this committee should be concerning itself with filtering out bills that have little, if any, chance of becoming law. Given the obvious faults of this bill and the existing political and citizen opposition to it and similar legislation, we must seriously question rather this bill merits the investiture of time and government resources, and thereby ultimately taxpayer dollars. With the pending Supreme Court case concerning the Second Amendment, as well as other judicial precedents concerning our individual rights, this committee should also carefully consider rather a bill such as this will lead to eventual challenge and removal, and the associated costs of such actions. All of these considerations will reflect upon the public view of the ethics of our elected officials.
I don’t mean to bring this down to a pure numbers discussion, with no regard for the emotional attachment. Those who support this bill have used emotions, namely their fear, to tell you why this bill is needed. I am here to inform the committee that they are not the only ones who fear. I, and others with me, fear being helpless to stand against violence should this bill proceed. Fear is hardly the only emotion involved here however. There is also anger, and sorrow.
Immediately after turning twenty I enlisted in the United States Navy to serve my country during the first Gulf War. After being honorably discharged I spent the next ten years working in the security field where I was required to carry a firearm in defense of myself, and the lives and property of others. Over that time I have taken on a number of additional responsibilities including becoming a Community Emergency Response Team coordinator, a First-Aid and CPR instructor for the Red Cross, a concerned parent, and now a future teacher. In all of these roles I have been trained, tested, and investigated; and won the approval of my professors; peers; and the city, county, state, and even federal governments. I have been trusted to defend the country; trusted with the health, safety, and security of my community; and trusted to defend the very lives of those around me. Soon I will be entrusted to care for and educate your children. I have never asked for thanks, nor compensation. Now I come before you to ask a simple question:
Who are you to tell me that I am not responsible enough to carry a firearm at school that I carry everywhere else anyway in accordance with your own rules and laws? How can you claim to be a better judge of my trustworthiness than the federal government who entrusted me with the protection of this nation? With what limited vision do you choose to turn a blind eye to my service and dedication to my country and community by restricting where I will be allowed the God-given right to defend my own life? If I appear angry and saddened by this, it’s because I am, but I am not the only one. I represent a group, more than ten-thousand strong who are equally dedicated and equally outraged. With no disrespect intended, how dare you.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kristin R. Guttormsen
Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
***************************************************************
SB 6860
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Kristin Guttormsen from Longview. I am here representing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus as their Regional Director for the West. We support this bill for a number of reasons within three general categories: Logical, Ethical, and Emotional.
We know from numerous studies that concealed carry in no way increases crime, or accidental shootings. Since 2006 Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry on all public campuses and have not yet had an incident. Statistics from numerous states and organizations show that a concealed license holder is five times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes - a number which makes concealed permit holders even safer than law enforcement personnel. Because of this, there is no danger in enacting this legislation.
We know that when persons are allowed to carry personal defense weapons they are able to prevent crimes against themselves, and those around them. The number of lawful uses of firearms in this country is between many hundreds of thousands and 2.5 million annually, depending on which source you believe. Whatever the final number it is at least an order of magnitude greater than negative events involving firearms. This means that this legislation could provide an avenue of defense for those that have otherwise been defenseless.
We have been defenseless up until now because individual schools in Washington are enacting their own rules regarding concealed carry and firearms. We believe that this is an ethical issue for the committee to consider.
To have a lesser public body, that of an individual public school, enact rules that are in direct opposition to established laws and constitutional protections (both federal and state), is a corruption of our system of government. The people vote for our elected officials to make the laws of our land. To entrust this responsibility to those who have no voter oversight inhibits democracy.
There is also the question of equality. Right now there are no standard rules regarding the carrying of firearms on post-secondary campuses. This allows for potential inequalities which could bring damaging litigation, to say nothing of unsafe conditions. We feel that this legislation would establish consistent rules across all school property, while upholding the rights of lawful citizens.
This state has already demonstrated its willingness to embrace positive, reasonable gun rights legislation, such as the recent reciprocity agreement. Continued positive actions by our elected officials will have a positive effect upon the citizens of Washington as our feelings of political efficacy are increased while renewing our faith in the purpose and potential of our government.
That faith will have very real emotional impacts as well. Finally we, the students of Washington, will be able to feel safe as we pursue our goals and dreams. We will not only feel empowered as voters, but personally empowered to take an active role in our own safety.
The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus formed in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. I spent my thirty-fifth birthday not in celebration, but in sorrow as I watched the names of the wounded and dead scroll across my screen. As a future teacher I could not help but feel terrified by the possibility that those could someday be my kids. As a parent I felt helpless to do anything to protect my child as she is entrusted each day to a group of remote individuals devoid of personal empowerment by the very government which has sworn to protect them, but so far failed.
We ask the committee to hear our pleas and enact this legislation. Give us the power to do whatever we can, whatever we have spent our lives being trained to do, to prevent us ever sharing the fate of those who died that day, or those who stood helpless by and will carry the memories of their dead friends and co-workers forever. We beg you not for our narrow special interest, but for our very lives.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kristin R. Guttormsen
Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
On the way home from the hearing I was called by USA Today and gave a 20-30 minute phone interview about the event, and about Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in general. Overall it was a hell of a day. 8-)
Kristin
*****************************************************8
SB 6841
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Kristin Guttormsen from Longview. I am here representing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus as their Regional Director for the West. We oppose this bill for a number of reasons within three general categories: Logical, Ethical, and Emotional.
Logically this bill will have no positive effect. This bill is not aimed at those who would otherwise be committing a crime. Instead it criminalizes an otherwise lawful behavior - that of carrying a concealed weapon within the confines of existing law. There is an old axom: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Nowhere has concealed carry caused crime. Never has there been any demonstrated correlation between concealed carry and increased crime. In fact the opposite has been shown to be true in a number of studies. There is no logical need for this bill.
The bill has two primary impacts: to make concealed carry illegal on post-secondary campuses and to require a mental health check of those who violate the new law (for doing something that was not unlawful before). Through the use of the Washington Administrative Code colleges and universities have already implemented prohibitions against concealed carry on most Washington campuses. This law merely criminalizes something that is already prohibited, and therefore not done. Furthermore this law imposes restrictions upon private institutions, again without need or cause.
The mental health check is likewise illogical. Under RCW 9.94A.505 a judge may already order mental evaluation for someone committing a crime when it is likely to have been a factor in the commission of that crime. This bill usurps judicial authority and is otherwise redundant. Furthermore the bill claims authority in part from RCW 71.34, however this is impossible. RCW 71.34 deals with evaluations for minors, who are incapable of obtaining concealed weapons permits.
For these, and other, reasons the bill is wholly illogical. An illogical bill can only cast derision upon those who pursue it, or implement it, and this leads us to the second objection - that of ethics.
We, the citizens of Washington, look to our officials to effectively perform the duties of the offices we elected them to. In the case of lawmakers we expect them to make meaningful legislation to accomplish goals. When we observe meaningless legislation being debated, or worse still, when bad legislation becomes a law only to be challenged on its faults, the people lose their respect for their representatives, and even their faith in their government. In this case we have established that there is no logical benefit of this bill, and moreover we question the ethical impact of such legislation.
Nationally, as well as locally, there is growing support for reasonable gun rights. We have seen this most recently in Washington with proposed increases in our concealed carry reciprocity with other states. Given that there is already proven support for individual gun rights, specifically concealed carry rights, any efforts to act in opposition are not only wasteful of our time and resources, but ethically questionable and can not help but reduce overall political efficacy of the people.
Furthermore this committee should be concerning itself with filtering out bills that have little, if any, chance of becoming law. Given the obvious faults of this bill and the existing political and citizen opposition to it and similar legislation, we must seriously question rather this bill merits the investiture of time and government resources, and thereby ultimately taxpayer dollars. With the pending Supreme Court case concerning the Second Amendment, as well as other judicial precedents concerning our individual rights, this committee should also carefully consider rather a bill such as this will lead to eventual challenge and removal, and the associated costs of such actions. All of these considerations will reflect upon the public view of the ethics of our elected officials.
I don’t mean to bring this down to a pure numbers discussion, with no regard for the emotional attachment. Those who support this bill have used emotions, namely their fear, to tell you why this bill is needed. I am here to inform the committee that they are not the only ones who fear. I, and others with me, fear being helpless to stand against violence should this bill proceed. Fear is hardly the only emotion involved here however. There is also anger, and sorrow.
Immediately after turning twenty I enlisted in the United States Navy to serve my country during the first Gulf War. After being honorably discharged I spent the next ten years working in the security field where I was required to carry a firearm in defense of myself, and the lives and property of others. Over that time I have taken on a number of additional responsibilities including becoming a Community Emergency Response Team coordinator, a First-Aid and CPR instructor for the Red Cross, a concerned parent, and now a future teacher. In all of these roles I have been trained, tested, and investigated; and won the approval of my professors; peers; and the city, county, state, and even federal governments. I have been trusted to defend the country; trusted with the health, safety, and security of my community; and trusted to defend the very lives of those around me. Soon I will be entrusted to care for and educate your children. I have never asked for thanks, nor compensation. Now I come before you to ask a simple question:
Who are you to tell me that I am not responsible enough to carry a firearm at school that I carry everywhere else anyway in accordance with your own rules and laws? How can you claim to be a better judge of my trustworthiness than the federal government who entrusted me with the protection of this nation? With what limited vision do you choose to turn a blind eye to my service and dedication to my country and community by restricting where I will be allowed the God-given right to defend my own life? If I appear angry and saddened by this, it’s because I am, but I am not the only one. I represent a group, more than ten-thousand strong who are equally dedicated and equally outraged. With no disrespect intended, how dare you.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kristin R. Guttormsen
Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
***************************************************************
SB 6860
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Kristin Guttormsen from Longview. I am here representing Students for Concealed Carry on Campus as their Regional Director for the West. We support this bill for a number of reasons within three general categories: Logical, Ethical, and Emotional.
We know from numerous studies that concealed carry in no way increases crime, or accidental shootings. Since 2006 Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry on all public campuses and have not yet had an incident. Statistics from numerous states and organizations show that a concealed license holder is five times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes - a number which makes concealed permit holders even safer than law enforcement personnel. Because of this, there is no danger in enacting this legislation.
We know that when persons are allowed to carry personal defense weapons they are able to prevent crimes against themselves, and those around them. The number of lawful uses of firearms in this country is between many hundreds of thousands and 2.5 million annually, depending on which source you believe. Whatever the final number it is at least an order of magnitude greater than negative events involving firearms. This means that this legislation could provide an avenue of defense for those that have otherwise been defenseless.
We have been defenseless up until now because individual schools in Washington are enacting their own rules regarding concealed carry and firearms. We believe that this is an ethical issue for the committee to consider.
To have a lesser public body, that of an individual public school, enact rules that are in direct opposition to established laws and constitutional protections (both federal and state), is a corruption of our system of government. The people vote for our elected officials to make the laws of our land. To entrust this responsibility to those who have no voter oversight inhibits democracy.
There is also the question of equality. Right now there are no standard rules regarding the carrying of firearms on post-secondary campuses. This allows for potential inequalities which could bring damaging litigation, to say nothing of unsafe conditions. We feel that this legislation would establish consistent rules across all school property, while upholding the rights of lawful citizens.
This state has already demonstrated its willingness to embrace positive, reasonable gun rights legislation, such as the recent reciprocity agreement. Continued positive actions by our elected officials will have a positive effect upon the citizens of Washington as our feelings of political efficacy are increased while renewing our faith in the purpose and potential of our government.
That faith will have very real emotional impacts as well. Finally we, the students of Washington, will be able to feel safe as we pursue our goals and dreams. We will not only feel empowered as voters, but personally empowered to take an active role in our own safety.
The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus formed in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. I spent my thirty-fifth birthday not in celebration, but in sorrow as I watched the names of the wounded and dead scroll across my screen. As a future teacher I could not help but feel terrified by the possibility that those could someday be my kids. As a parent I felt helpless to do anything to protect my child as she is entrusted each day to a group of remote individuals devoid of personal empowerment by the very government which has sworn to protect them, but so far failed.
We ask the committee to hear our pleas and enact this legislation. Give us the power to do whatever we can, whatever we have spent our lives being trained to do, to prevent us ever sharing the fate of those who died that day, or those who stood helpless by and will carry the memories of their dead friends and co-workers forever. We beg you not for our narrow special interest, but for our very lives.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kristin R. Guttormsen
Regional Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus