security blunders

Texas lawmakers are expected this week to send along legislation for a full Senate vote that would permit students to carry concealed handguns on the state's college campuses. According to this Huffington Post article, Texas state senators appeared poised on March 22 to send the bill toward a final vote. I wrote about this bill in late February (see Guns at school: Texas bill would allow concealed weapons on campus) and pointed out that many educators oppose such legislation:

University of Texas President William Powers has opposed concealed handguns on campus, saying the mix of students, guns and campus parties is too volatile.

This bill would make Texas the second state after Utah to allow the carrying of concealed weapons on public post-secondary campuses. The bill would grant private universities discretion as to whether they allow guns on campus, but Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, has said he will try to amend the legislation to give public university officials the same choice, according to the article.

Something I hadn't picked up from previous discussions about this legislation was that applicants for a Texas concealed handgun license must be 21 years of age, which means that many students aren't eligible. Personally, I think an age restriction is a good thing considering how many drunken brawls I've witnessed involving college-age folks (who, by the way, aren't legally allowed to be consuming alcohol in the first place).

What do you think? Would college campuses be safer if students were allowed to carry concealed weapons?

I recently blogged about legislation headed to the Oklahoma House that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on university and college campuses. Not long before that, I wrote about similar legislation coming out of Texas.

Apparently, there are more than a dozen states considering legislation that would allow professors and students to bring loaded guns into their classrooms, according to this article from CNN.

The article is written by Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and professor of international relations at George Washington University and the author of several books, including "Security First" and "New Common Ground."

He said there is an inherent problem with this kind of approach to guns:
The drafters of these bills seem to have an image of peaceful students, bent over their books, suddenly attacked by gunslingers who materialize from nowhere. They ignore that students can and do shoot people on campus.

He argues that there aren't (and probably won't ever be) measures to ensure that mentally unstable people don't have access to guns:

And if it were ever created, I expect the National Rifle Association and various state legislatures would strenuously oppose submitting millions of students and professors, or anyone else, to such a test before they could purchase a firearm.

And there's also the issue of allowing students, specifically, to carry weapons. I may be generalizing here, but I'm pretty sure college students tend to drink more than other age groups, and, it's my fair opinion that alcohol and guns just don't mix (although don't get me wrong, I love beer camp, I mean, deer camp just as much as the next New Englander). So, I think he has a good point, the student body is a typically volatile group of people:

Worse, long before anyone storms into a classroom, some students will use their guns -- when their anger boils over, when they have one drink too many or their girlfriend makes out with someone else -- to shoot someone.

His argument is to make guns less accessible, not more. After all, he writes: "Nobody can kill 16 people from a clock tower with a knife."

What do you think? Would allowing students to carry guns make campuses more or less safe? What about campus security? Would it be more difficult to secure a campus knowing students may be carrying weapons?

In less than two weeks, Amtrak will start allowing passengers to check unloaded firearms inside their bags, lifting a ban that was in put in place after Sept. 11, 2001.

All rifles, shotguns, handguns and pistols aboard must be locked in a hard-sided container and travelers must have a reservation for the weapon at least 24 hours before a departure, according to this article. The option to check bags does not exist at all stations and firearms can only be carried on to trains that offer it. The ban of firearms on trains was lifted last December and goes in to affect December 15th.

I wrote an article about an amendment that would permit passengers to check firearms back in September 2009 and in that piece one of the major concerns was that Amtrak didn't have the infrastructure in place to comply with such legislation:

“Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak has no system in place for a uniform system of screening for weapons or exact regulations regarding firearms,” wrote Thomas Carper, chairman of the board for Amtrak. “At Amtrak, baggage cars may be more easily accessed by a passenger or third party at any stop along the train route. Amtrak trains have no separate and secure cargo as airplanes do and our baggage cars are not alarmed.”

Well, apparently Amtrak has the systems it needs now:
"We believe we have taken the necessary steps-revised reservation system, modified baggage cars and stations to secure the firearms, and trained employees- to ensure firearms can safely and securely travel in checked baggage," said Amtrak Spokesman, Steve Kulm.

In a recent USA Today article, Kulm said that the company spent $2 million on staff training, modifying the reservation system and installing secure storage in 142 baggage cars to accommodate the guns.

As you might recall, the Department of Homeland Security has made a big push to boost security measures in the nation's public transit arena because it considers public transportation to be highly vulnerable to terrorism.

While there are certainly concerns about having adequate measures in place to secure these firearms, it does seem reasonable that people should be able to transport firearms on trains just like on airplanes. What do you think? Does this new rule pose a security threat to passengers?

The Texas State Capitol officially increased its security measures on May 21, installing metal detectors and screening people entering the building, but in Texas, all screening measures are not created equal, according to the Associated Press:

Officials are creating one line for the masses, one line for lawmakers and their staffs and then a separate procedure for concealed handgun license holders. The general public has to get scanned at the entrances. State officials and gun toting citizenry do not.

I know Texans love their guns, but come on, that's not really fair. The policy is based on the fact that those holding conceal-carry permits have already undergone background checks and training and, according to the state, do not pose a threat. But some out there are a little skeptical about this logic.

"If you’re planning on perpetrating something in the state capitol, you should simply get a concealed handgun license and show your gun on the way in," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It’s just ludicrous."

While licensed gun owners do undergo an electronic scan of their permit to make sure it's up-to-date, some regulars in the building don't think it's fair that gun owners get to bypass security:

For frequent visitors of the capitol, including lobbyists, journalists and political activists, getting the permit just to get in faster is becoming an alternative to waiting behind tourists.

"I’m thinking about it," said lobbyist Bill Miller, who spends most of his life walking in, out and around the capitol when the Legislature is in session. "I mean, I don’t want to wait in line. If that’s the way you do the deal, I’ll be happy to get the permit. I won’t be carrying any weapons."

But then again, state budgets are tight. A little bump in revenue from conceal-carry permits certainly wouldn't hurt.

Guns have been everywhere in the news lately. No sooner had I posted a blog about the Supreme Court considering overturning a 28-year-old handgun ban in Chicago, than I read this article about Starbucks allowing handguns in its stores. I posted a Tweet about how permitting customers to enter its stores with handguns doesn't seem like a very sound security program, and got at least one Tweet response basically accusing me of wanting to take away people's second amendment rights (that Tweet has since disappeared, so you'll just have to take my word for it).

First of all, I don't think private corporations restricting people from carrying weapons inside their facility is unconstitutional, I think it's smart. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, obviously, but private corporations have the right to keep guns out of their facilities. Frankly, I would think this kind of change in policy would strike fear in the hearts of security practitioners. And I'm surprised more of you aren't willing to talk about it. I've put out at least 12 phone calls on this issue and have only gotten one "spokesperson" to comment. (If you'd like to comment, please send me an email: LStelter@securitydirectornews.com or call me: 207.846.0600 x227)

And then this morning, one of the top stories of the day is the shooting of two Pentagon police officers. Granted, shootings happen every day, but do we really think the solution is to allow and encourage more people to carry weapons?

I'm not sure if this article is amusing or just pathetic, but apparently the agency that is charged with our national security has a hard time keeping tabs on its own weapons.

Agents and officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported that 289 of their handguns, shotguns or automatic rifles had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008

Actually, that didn't seem too bad to me, especially over the course of three years, but I found some of the ways that officers lost weapons to be fairly amusing. Apparently, weapons were left in places ranging from fast-food restaurant restrooms to bowling alleys to clothing stores.

I can just imagine how some of those conversations went down:

Boss: Where's your weapon, officer?
Officer: Um, I can't find it.
Boss: What do you mean you can't find it?
Officer: Well, I went bowling with the kids last night and must have left my gun on the scoring table because it was really interfering with my follow through.
Boss: Well, these things happen. Go get yourself another one.

I think that's funny (although it could be due to the cold medicine), but DHS isn't laughing.

"Although some reported losses were beyond the officers' control, most losses occurred because officers did not properly secure firearms," said DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner in a 23-page report dated Jan. 25. "The Department of Homeland Security, through its components, did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms."

But this issue apparently isn't just relegated to DHS.

While the report was embarrassing for DHS, other unidentified federal law enforcement agencies fared worse. Skinner said the Justice Department and the Government Accountability Office, Congress's audit arm, found similar problems among 18 agencies assessed between 2003 and 2007.

I'm guessing a lot of these folks are military or former law enforcement officers (or at least have been trained and certified to carry guns) so they should know how to keep track of their weapons, right? Perhaps it is true that those government jobs make you soft.

Legislators in Michigan are trying to amend a law that categorizes college campuses as a 'no-carry zone" to instead allow concealed weapon permit holder to carry guns on college campuses, reported the Daily Telegram.

Here's the nuts and bolts of it:
Senate Bill 747, sponsored by Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, would remove college campuses from the no-carry zones for concealed weapons, allowing people with CCW permits to carry a weapon at a Michigan college or university campus.

Richardville is quoted as saying that because of the increase in violent crimes on college campuses in recent years, individuals should be allowed to protect themselves. I may not have a lot of support on this one, but I'm of the opinion that bringing more guns on campus only increases the chance of a gun-related incident. I don't know a lot about the specific training required to get a concealed weapon permit, but I doubt it involves a very thorough psychiatric evaluation. Unstable people come in all forms, professional or not. Am I wrong?

And while I think it's dangerous to have weapons in any educational setting this isn't nearly as dangerous as the Texas law last year that allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons in a K-12 school. Yikes. Kindergarteners are pretty savvy little creatures. You never know what they might find in your desk drawer.

The long debated issue about whether registered gun owners should be allowed to bring guns on college campuses has reached the Texas legislature, reported the Brownsville Herald. I know Texas has a thing for guns, but I bet if you ask the security director of Virginia Tech, the answer would an unwaivering no. After all, Seung-Hui Cho, the student who killed 32 people in 2007 was a licensed gun owner.

The argument for guns on campus always seems a little counterintuitive to me. Here's a quote from the article:

Proponents of the bill view it as a way to preserve gun owners' rights while promoting safety on campus, arguing that if students or staff on campus had weapons, they would have a better chance defending themselves against a Virginia Tech-style shooting.

I've never talked to a college security director who promotes guns on campus, but I bet there are some out there. (If you're one them you should share your opinion with me, it could be a great story). Although guns can certainly provide protection and security (or a sense of these anyway) I don't think I'd feel comfortable knowing the guy next to me at the library who's strung out from days of cramming, too much caffeine and not enough sleep could be packing heat.