S.A. Rejects Resolution 17
March 7, 2008 - 1:00amOver the past year, a wave of student violence has washed over college campuses across America, leaving dozens dead and thousands devastated. In response to these developments, members of the Student Assembly and the Cornell College Republicans sponsored Resolution 17 for concealed carry of weapons on campus, which failed to pass at yesterday’s S.A. meeting.
The resolution called for S.A. President C.J. Slicklen ’09 to ask the administration to do what it can to change New York State’s gun law.
Sign Language: Students hold up signs protesting Resolution 17 at the Student Assembly meeting in the Straight yesterday.
Current New York State law stipulates that citizens are not allowed to conceal and carry guns on college campuses. However, citizens over 21 years old may conceal and carry guns on public property.
Debate on Resolution 17 originally started last week, but was subsequently tabled until yesterday’s meeting to give S.A. members more time to develop their arguments on both sides of the issue and come up with adequate support for their arguments. However, not everyone was enthusiastic about revisiting the issue.
“I think [the College Republicans] are taking a very extreme position on a matter that is clearly of a sensitive nature. They need to take more time to look over New York State laws and familiarize themselves with that, and had they bothered to do that before bringing forth this resolution, we would not be sitting here today looking it over,” said S.A. representative Rebecca Stein ’10, a member of the College Republicans.
Discussion quickly became heated and at times passionate as the S.A. and the community exchanged views. Both sides claimed statistical backing and produced reasons, but the general sentiment of the meeting, and of the student body, was that concealed carry is unnecessary and unfit for Cornell.
“I have overheard many groups talking about this randomly, and I have not heard one group of people talking about it, supporting it. As the LGBTQ liaison, I have polled my constituency on this resolution and not one person supported it. I do not think it is responsible to pass this resolution,” said Ashley McGovern ’08.
McGovern’s sentiments were quickly echoed by representatives from almost all segments of the student body, most of whom were firmly against the resolution. Perhaps most critical of the resolution was Elan Greenberg ’08, a representative at-large and the former president of the S.A, who denounced it as one of the most illogical resolutions presented to the S.A. in recent memory, and that it has done more harm than good to the cause of concealed carry.
Among the few who supported Resolution 17 was William Lane ’10.
“What I do not hear a lot of are hard numbers to back up evidence of the correlation between increasing gun prevalence and increasing crime. We should allow ourselves the right to defend ourselves, because liberty exercised properly is its own best defense,” Lane said.
At times, the position of the proponents of the resolution seemed untenable, but their primary message remained clear: to uphold every citizen’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
“People can bring guns onto campus illegally, but if someone wants to follow the law legally, they cannot. Our main points are the protection of our constitutional rights and fighting for people who want to follow the law,” said Salem ’08, an S.A. representative at-large and chair of the Cornell College Republicans. “Do we want Cornell to become an institution that usurps our constitutional rights one at a time? I think the answer for me and many Ivy League students is no, even if Cornell has the right to do so.”
The proponents of the resolution examined the issue from various angles and argued that concealed carry would benefit faculty and staff the most.
“Obtaining a permit [to carry] requires a lot of waiting time and money. On top of that, you have to be at least 21 before you can start the process, eliminating ¾ of our undergraduate student body. So people who are most likely to benefit from this resolution are faculty members and staff, allowing them to feel safe in the lecture halls,” said Rachel Quigley ’09, a member of the College Republicans.
However, in the end, the will of the majority prevailed and the resolution was voted down by a vote of 3-14-1.
“I think the discussion was very respectful on both sides. Both issues were addressed fully and the decision ultimately made was in the best interest of the students,” said S.A. Representative Chris Basil ’10.
The resolution was originally sponsored by Mark Coombs ’08, director of elections and a Sun columnist, and Salem.
Constitutional Rights
I'm wondering how the students would react if say the college decided to take away their freedom of speech.
They are taking the rights away and like little sheep you are going right along with it.
God forbid, when the next massacre happens, just pray that the police are on campus because you've put a big bullseye on your backs
What they have done
The students, with the help of New York, have indeed painted a bulls-eye on their back. I don't think that is the major significance of the vote. School shootings are very rare events so they will likely duck that bullet.
The real significance of the vote is that the students have declined to assume the burdens of Liberty. They have chosen to remain children a little longer.
Thanks goodness for vigorous debate and common sense
Amazing that students smart enough to gain admission to Cornell could be foolish enough to think that guns will protect them--on campus or anywhere else. The debate conducted in the SA served the Cornell community by highlighting the larger debate about firearms in this country. Those who think that rights are protected only when deadly force provides that protection know little about the rights of Americans. Common sense has prevailed on the Hill, and Cornell is a better place today for this.
"Those who think that rights
"Those who think that rights are protected only when deadly force provides that protection know little about the rights of Americans."
The Founding Fathers disagreed:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster, Federalist 26
As Steve's quote amply
As Steve's quote amply demonstrates, the Second Amendment was crafted so that citizens are given the military means to depose a corrupt government shall protest fail. With that in mind, I have two things to say:
1) Does anyone seriously think the Second Amendment is capable of its intended guarantee nowadays? If our government is/becomes corrupt, I would argue that citizens armed with guns alone have no chance of overthrowing it given institutional protections and the sheer firepower the government now possesses compared to the government of yore. It seems to me that 2nd Amendment arguments are based on an impotent "guarantee".
2) Even if it held any potency, the Second Amendment was crafted to allow the People, as the intended self-determined Sovereign, to fight despotic governmental agents; since when was it intended for the People to fire amongst itself?
2b) Along this line, is it worth having a highly salient gun presence on campus, when students are often not in the most rational of mindsets? (aka, drunk, high, running on energy drinks, depressed, suicidal and in other altered mental states) I would say the risk of weapons usage increases with high salient gun availability on campus and would in fact promote a shooting here.
"If our government
"If our government is/becomes corrupt, I would argue that citizens armed with guns alone have no chance of overthrowing it given institutional protections and the sheer firepower the government now possesses compared to the government of yore"
It becomes harder to institute a police state if the people you are policing are themselves armed. You would be able to put up a fight if the police came to capture and you were armed. You would stand no chance without a gun.
"since when was it intended for the People to fire amongst itself?"
To regulate the degree of gun usage as you suggest would be impossible without banning guns altogether. This would leave guns in the hands of the police and the criminals.
"Along this line, is it worth having a highly salient gun presence on campus, when students are often not in the most rational of mindsets?"
These students that you assume are not in the most rational of mindsets can already theoretically carry concealed weapons off campus anyway (if they are actually stable enough to get approved in the first place) and even if they aren't, they would probably be able to buy a gun illegally anyway. If this were really an issue, then such shootings would already be happening, just off campus. The people who would perpetuate this violence you expect if we allow permit holders to carry on campus would commit their acts regardless of whether weapons were banned on campus or not. At least by allowing the responsible gun owners to carry concealed on campus might either deter such shootings or allow the armed students to stop the crazed killer before they kill too many people.
Historical Counterargument
"I would argue that citizens armed with guns alone have no chance of overthrowing it given institutional protections and the sheer firepower the government now possesses compared to the government of yore. It seems to me that 2nd Amendment arguments are based on an impotent "guarantee"."
The resistance power of an armed populace has been proven as recently as World War II. The ZOB, a Jewish militant group living in the ghettos of Warsaw and armed with nothing more than a handful of small arms and grenades, held off two thousand Nazi Wehrmacht troops armed with machine guns, tanks, and all the other trimmings of a full army for about a month (for comparison's sake, roughly half as long as it took the Nazis to steamroll through France). As it turned out, not one ZOB fighter went to the concentration camps, and many escaped to find freedom elsewhere. That's a modern-day example of how an armed populace, even one woefully unequipped, can still stem the tide of oppression with relative effectiveness.
On a side note, I have to agree with the comments made regarding the author's editorializing-- I saw the events unfold, and there was a good amount of evidence brought forth by both those for and against the resolution, everything from gun control expert testimony to the statements of a CUPD officer to numbers tying gun ownership to crime decreases. You'd think both sides were full of hot air and empty sentiment from this authorship.
Umm..
"At times, the position of the proponents of the resolution seemed untenable, but their primary message remained clear: to uphold every citizen’s Second Amendment right to bear arms."
I'm not for concealed carry by any means, but this little bit of editorializing bothered me. To WHOM did the position of the proponents seem untenable? Not surely to the author of the piece?
Inaccuracy:
The article above states that the goal of Resolution 17 was to "ask the administration to do what it can to change New York State’s gun law" which if the author had read the resolution, was not what we were asking for.
The sponsors of this resolution are very aware of NY State law and the illegality of permitting concealed carry on campuses. What we were asking is that Skorton and the University Assembly re-examine the language in the Campus Code of Conduct so that should this NY State law ever change, the University would not be standing in the way of law-abiding American citizens from taking advantage of their Second Amendment rights.
Second Amendment
I regards to the Second Amendment and the regulation of firearms, I believe in a strict constructionist view. What were the "arms" of the time of the drafting of the Constitution? We ought to be able to own and carry, concealed or unconcealed, as many flintlock muskets and pistols as we like.
I guess speech made by web
I guess speech made by web posting, blogging, typed on a typewriter, on a computer, or a speech made with a microphone would not be protected either.
I challenge everyone who thinks there is no benefit in guns for self defense to put a sign in your front where everyone can see it... "Gun Free House." Then you'll be safer.