Picture this scenario: It’s a little after 3 on a Friday afternoon in political science class at State University – the last class of the day. In the back row, a disgruntled student named Carl is restless in his seat. He isn’t interested in today’s lecture – which he considers nothing more than liberal propaganda – and he can’t make himself sit still.
At 3:17 p.m., Carl has had enough. He stands up slowly, pulls out the Glock 9 pistol he had concealed in his jacket pocket and starts shooting at his fellow students. As bullets fly around the room and people run for cover, another student named Jamaal ducks behind a desk, pulls out his semi-automatic weapon and starts shooting back at Carl.
As the firefight continues, a campus policeman hears the shots and rushes into the room. The first person he sees is Jamaal, the good guy, with a gun in his hand, firing off round after round, so he shoots him dead. Carl, the bad guy, turns to his right, shoots the cop, and continues killing students until everyone is either wounded or dead. Then he blows out his brain with one last shot.
Could this actually happen?
Sadly, yes, under the new campus carry law passed by the West Virginia Legislature’s super majority Republicans and signed by the Republican governor.
As reported in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the Campus Self-Defense Act would allow a person who holds a concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed pistol or revolver at institutions of higher education. Supporters of the bill say it increases individual rights and has the potential to make campuses safer by deterring mass shootings and placing legally armed citizens in positions to potentially stop active shooters.
(Those “legally armed citizens” include good guy shooters like Jamaal in the hypothetical scenario I described above.)
“If you have a hardened facility, in other words, if you have people who are able to defend themselves,” said Delegate Bill Ridenour, R-Jefferson, “then the chances of somebody trying to do a school shooting, trying to do a terrorist operation, are going to be vastly reduced.”
Opponents decried the “good guy with a gun” argument, contending that the bill will make campuses less safe. They also argue that the legislation could have unintended consequences, including increasing gun accidents and related injuries, creating a toxic and fearful learning environment, and contributing to a growing mental health crisis for college students.
(For “unintended consequences,” see the scenario above.)
Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, said he believes the bill also would stifle freedom of expression and speech on the state’s college campuses. “Are you going to attend a controversial speaker series if you know guns are everywhere?” Fluharty asked. “Are you going to participate, as a student, in controversial subject matter if you know guns are everywhere? We’ve become so obsessed with gun culture, we’ve now started the gun curriculum here in West Virginia, where students will be worried day-in and day-out who’s packing heat?”
The governor is expected to sign the bill. Only time will tell what effect this new law has on college enrollment in the state, and how long it will be before the first “unintended consequence” hits the national media.
So is campus carry a good idea? You be the judge.
Religious freedom act
Here’s another piece of frightening legislation making its way through the Legislature. House Bill 3042 – the Religious Freedom Act – passed the House of Delegates by 86-12 and is headed toward the Senate, where Republicans hold a 31-3 majority.
This bill should more appropriately be called the “Making It Legal to Discriminate Act,” because that’s precisely what it does. By providing the cloak of religion to almost everything, it makes it legal to discriminate against gays, transgender individuals, non-Christians, minorities and virtually anybody who is not a white evangelical Christian conservative Republican.
In its simplest form, the bill says that “no state action may burden a person’s exercise of freedom of religion.” That’s funny, because I thought we already had that protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The hidden objective, according to opponents of the bill, is to make it legal to strike down local nondiscrimination laws and to create situations where religion is used as cover to refuse services to certain groups of West Virginians. There also is concern that the bill could be used to strike down immunization laws.
“It’s about Morgantown’s nondiscrimination ordinance that we’re very proud of,” said Delegate Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, in opposing the law. “This bill is also about medical care. What if a gay man comes in for an HIV pill? Can they refuse to fulfill that prescription? If there’s a rape victim, can they be denied emergency birth control? Or can a pregnant woman who is miscarrying be denied an abortion, even though it’s the safest medical alternative, because it goes against that doctor’s religious views?”
Supporters of the bill say it provides a guide for the courts in handling these issues. That’s just what we need ... more politically appointed judges making determinations best left to doctors, educators and other qualified professionals.
(For proof of judicial activism, see Court, U.S. Supreme.)
Personal income tax
You’ve probably read or heard about the effort to reduce or eliminate a number of taxes in the state, including the personal income tax. See if you can guess who benefits most from a reduction in personal income tax? (If you said “the people with the greatest incomes,” congratulations. Get yourself a pepperoni bun. I’ll buy.) And who is the person with the greatest income in West Virginia? Why, it’s our governor, I believe. Well played, Gov. Hutt. You’re gonna get yourself a big tax break.
Now tell me how we’re going to replace 25% of the state’s revenue once these taxes are eliminated. I’ll wait.
Forward into the past
And finally, here’s one you might not have heard about. While West Virginia ranks 50th in the nation as the least healthy state, the House of Delegates has approved a bill that would allow indoor smoking areas at certain resort areas and gaming facilities at existing historic resort hotels like the Greenbrier. More smoking, yeah, that’s exactly what we need.
(A special mention of the Greenbrier, owned by the governor. What a coincidence.)
HB 3341 would allow what the bill calls “cigar bars” — indoor areas designated for smoking not just cigars but other tobacco purchased on the premises or elsewhere.
“This bill is mainly for the benefit of old, rich white guys,” Delegate Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, said. “I’m more concerned about the people that are working for those rich white guys. They’re going to have to breathe in secondhand smoke for eight-hour shifts, 10-hour shifts.”
And with that, West Virginia continues its unrelenting journey forward into the past.
