 |
California lawmakers are considering a bill that would give domestic violence victims the legal right to carry a concealed weapon on schools and college campuses.
AB 2340, introduced by James Gallagher in early February, would allow victims who have a protective order and hold a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds.
“These are students, parents and teachers who should not be subject to a felony when they conceal carry on a campus that they have a right to be on,” said Gallagher, who represents the third Assembly District that encompasses parts of the Sacramento Valley.
Gallagher said that he believes victims have a right to protect themselves from their abusers and stalkers.
Background
On October 10, 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 707 which expanded on a previous law that made it illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or on a college campus without permission from school officials.
SB 707 also made it illegal to carry concealed weapons even with the proper training and permits onto school campuses.
This bill was supported by many but also met with opposition from advocates for gun rights like the National Rifle Association.
“SB 707 would lead to the unjust prosecution of otherwise law-abiding firearm owners. It is a solution in search of a problem,” the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said on its website before the bill was signed. “SB 707 is yet another misguided bill that only impacts law-abiding CCW permit holders while doing nothing to reduce crime.
Solving the problem
When women in Gallagher’s district heard about SB 707, they expressed strong concern for the safety of victims of domestic violence who often carry concealed weapons, said Joseph Zanze, legislative assistant for Gallagher.
“In response to these concerns, our bill was written in hopes of eliminating the danger SB 707 places on women of domestic violence,” Zanze said in an email.
When victims of domestic violence enter school or college campuses, he explained, they are left unprotected and their attacker can easily harm them.
“Every time a victim of domestic violence who has a protective order enters a campus they are in constant fear for their safety,” Zanze said. “If this bill passes, it will help limit the fear of domestic violence victims and keep them protected from any potential danger they may face.”
On March 29 Gallagher presented AB 2340 to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. People in favor and against the proposed bill expressed their opinions and the committee voted down the bill with a 4-3 vote.
When Gallagher presented the bill, he said waiting for permission from school officials would take valuable time from victims who need protection immediately.
“It’s not always easy to get permission from a superintendent and how long will that take,” Gallagher said.
For and against
Brandi Shurtz-Huffmaster, a Yuba City resident, spoke in favor at the committee meeting about a situation when she was being followed in a parking lot.
She said she left Target and was scanning her surroundings when she saw a man with a stun gun following her. Instead of “cowering and acting afraid,” she charged toward him. She put her hand to her hip as if to pull out a concealed weapon. She yelled at him and he ran away.
Shurtz-Huffmaster told the committee she was lucky because if that man had called her bluff, she could have been in a lot of trouble. She obtained a permit to carry a concealed firearm four years ago.
She said she told this anecdote to show that no one feeling threatened, including domestic violence victims, should be denied the right to protect themselves.
Roy Griffith of the California Rifle and Pistol Association said he worked in law enforcement for 32 years, and often people with restraining orders follow and recognize their prey’s weaknesses.
“When they are going to school or dropping someone off at school … those are the exact situations where they would take action, at their victim’s most vulnerable,” Griffith said.
Amanda Wilcox of the Brady Campaign spoke in opposition of the proposed bill.
“As a former school board member,” WIlcox told the committee, “I feel very strongly that each individual educational institution should be able to set their own parameters on who they allow on campus with a firearm.”
She also said she didn’t support AB 2340 because many rural counties are more lenient about issuing concealed weapons permits but whatever “is okay in Shasta County isn’t on a college campus like UC Berkeley or UCLA where you have many young students with depression issues and substance abuse issues.”
She ended by saying that she didn’t see any domestic violence prevention organizations there to support of the proposed bill and that she thought domestic violence victims could be more harmful to themselves if armed for protection.
Reaching a decision
Gallagher closed the committee hearing by saying that the proposed bill wasn’t meant to undermine SB 707 but to make it better. He then asked the committee to answer the question of whether or not domestic violence victims should have the right to protect themselves.
“On a college campus or where they work, do they have that right?” Gallagher said. “You can answer that with your vote.”
The committee voted down Gallagher’s AB 2340 on a 4-3 vote.
Gallagher later said in a press release that he was disappointed that the committee is so vehemently anti-gun that they would not even allow this common sense measure to protect victims’ rights.
The bill will be up for reconsideration later in April.
(Photo by Lucio Eastman (Free State Project - PorcFest 2009 - Open Carry) [CC BY 2.0])