1 THE OPEN AND CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN FLORIDA: PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTORS A doctoral dissertation presented by Joel S. Bolante To the Graduate Faculty of the Doctor of Law and Policy Program at Northeastern University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Law and Policy Under the supervision of Dr. Kimberly Larson, Dr. James D. Sewell, Second Reader College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts June 2018
167
Embed
The open and concealed carry of firearms at public colleges and …cj... · 2019-02-13 · The open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of institutions of higher education
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
THE OPEN AND CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS AT PUBLIC COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES IN FLORIDA: PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF CAMPUS
PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTORS
A doctoral dissertation presented by
Joel S. Bolante
To the Graduate Faculty of the Doctor of Law and Policy Program at Northeastern University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Law and Policy
Under the supervision of Dr. Kimberly Larson, Dr. James D. Sewell, Second Reader
College of Professional Studies
Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts
June 2018
2
Ó Joel S. Bolante, 2018
3
DEDICATION
The road to success is filled with women pushing their husbands along.
—Lord Thomas DeWar
I dedicate this work to my wonderful wife, Linda, for her unwavering support, love, and
encouragement and for pushing me through this long and hard road. You have already put up
with and pushed me along an unyielding law enforcement career spanning more than 34 years;
and more recently, you have continued to love, support, and encourage me during the long hours
that I have spent away from you completing my course work and research project. My
professional and academic accomplishments could not have been achieved without you. You are
the rock in my life and the rock for our family. Thank you for always being there; I will always
love you.
To my brother Marvin, who, I lost while going through this journey—you are terribly
missed by our family. There is not a day that goes by without thoughts of you. You will forever
be in my heart, as I will never forget the fond and fun times we had growing up. I just wish we
had stayed better connected as we became busy adults trying to make something of ourselves in
this world. Take care, brother; you will never be forgotten.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My experiences in law enforcement and in academia have sparked my interest in campus
carry. It is my hope that I will have the opportunity to continue researching this important public
policy issue. This research project is the product of an enormous academic and personal
undertaking, and there are many individuals whom I would like to thank for helping me through
this endeavor.
To my adviser, Dr. Kim Larson, thank you for your guidance throughout this whole
process and for encouraging me to take on more than I thought I could do. I appreciate the
confidence that you have instilled in me to complete this research project. To Dr. Jim Sewell,
thank you for your willingness to serve as my second-reader and for your many years of law
enforcement service to the citizens of Florida. Your advice, counsel, and expertise in my area of
study was extremely beneficial. I also appreciated your timely responses in making
recommendations to improve my research. To Dr. Nancy Pawlyshyn, thanks for the ride on the
high-speed rail that you put us on from the 2017 summer quarter to our final quarter in 2018. If
not for you, I am sure that many of us would not have finished with our research projects. I
appreciate your lessons, guidance, advice, and steadfast expectations on our assignments. You
are the one that truly set us up for success.
To Professor Dan Urman, thanks for your tutelage on our legal system. I always looked
forward to your classes. I also want to thank you for the guidance and the advice that you
unselfishly provided to me and other members of our cohort on our research projects.
Furthermore, the trip to Washington D.C. was awesome. Finally, many thanks to Dr. Steven
Bird for taking the time out of your busy schedule to assist me with my data analysis; your
expertise in this area was certainly impressive.
5
To my fellow cohort members Dianne Davis and T.J. Swenson, thanks for allowing me to
be a part of your awesome peer team. You have both been encouraging and inspiring. You two
helped me to become a better student. I could not have survived this program without your
support and friendship, which I will always cherish.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. William Proctor at Flagler College in St. Augustine,
Florida. Not only did you encourage me to get my doctorate, but you also gave me the
opportunity and support to attend my classes and conduct my research, and I am eternally
grateful.
6
ABSTRACT
The open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of institutions of higher education
(IHEs) has been the subject of intense debate throughout the country. In Florida, legislators have
been considering campus carry legislation for public IHEs since 2011. The purpose of this study
was to explore the perceptions and attitudes of the campus public safety directors at the 40 public
IHEs in Florida. Campus public safety directors are arguably the most knowledgeable
individuals when it comes to campus safety and crime. Additionally, a statutory analysis was
conducted to analyze statutes from states that permit campus carry in order to identify themes
and patterns. This mixed-method research design included a quantitative survey of campus
public safety directors and a qualitative content analysis (QCA) of the statutes from the states
that allow campus carry. The results of the survey found that 86% of the responding campus
public safety directors opposed the open carry of firearms on campus, while 50% opposed and
32% supported the concealed carry of firearms on campus. Furthermore, concealed campus
carry was more acceptable for faculty and staff than for students or any person at large on
campus. The QCA revealed that only 5 of the 11 statutory schemes examined addressed
specifics regarding who can carry and locations on campus where firearms are permitted. The
remaining statutes were vague, requiring other sources, such as the opinions of attorneys general,
legislative proposals, or legislative history, for clarification. The results of the quantitative and
qualitative analyses supported campus carry statutory schemes similar to that in force in
Tennessee, which authorizes only full-time faculty and staff to carry firearms at IHEs.
Keywords: campus carry, open carry, concealed carry, concealed firearms, active-shooter
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction 14
Background and Context 14
Problem and Purpose Statement 19
Law and Policy Context 20
Concealed Carry of Firearms in the United States 20
Florida Constitution and Relevant Statutes 21
Significant Court Cases 24
States with Campus Carry Laws 28
Campus Carry Proposals for the 2017 and 2018 Legislative Sessions 30
Research Questions 33
Theoretical Framework 34
Definitions of Key Terminology 38
Assumptions 40
Limitations 41
Rationale and Significance 42
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
Analysis of the Second Amendment 43
Empirical Studies on Campus Carry 45
Quantitative Surveys 46
Examination of Secondary Data 48
Review of Active-Shooter and Other Campus Shooting Incidents 50
Chapter Summary 54
8
Chapter 3: Methodology 57
Research Approach and Design 58
Variables 60
Positionality/Reflexivity 61
Participants 63
Recruitment and Outreach Procedures 63
Instrumentation 64
Data Analysis Plan 64
Reliability and Threats to Validity 69
Chapter Summary 70
Chapter 4: Results 72
Quantitative Analysis 72
Description of Participants 73
Support for Open and Concealed carry 75
Perceived Impact of Open Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime 76
Perceived Impact Concealed Carry on Campus Safety and Campus Crime 77
Statistical Testing 79
Additional Results 84
Qualitative Content Analysis 91
Description of Data 91
Results of QCA Analysis 94
Patterns Identified in the Statutory Analysis 110
Analysis and Themes Identified in the Qualitative Survey Questions 111
9
Themes and Patterns from the Converged Statutory and Survey Data 114
Summary of QCA 115
Chapter 5: Discussion 117
Summary of Problem and Purpose Statements 118
Summary of Law and Policy Review 119
Summary of Literature Review 121
Summary of Research Methodology 123
Summary of Research Results 124
Discussion of the Results and Policy Implications 128
Answers to the Research Questions 129
Summary of Limitations 132
Recommendations for Future Research 133
Conclusion 135
References 138
Appendix A. Introductory Email for Quantitative Survey 157
Appendix B. Informed Consent Form 158
Appendix C. Survey Instrument 159
Appendix D. List of Public Colleges and Universities in Florida 166
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2007 to 2012 50
Table 2. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2015 to 2016 51
Table 3. Mass Killing-Shooting Incidents, 2017 to 2018 51
Table 4. Initial Predetermined Code Book 67
Table 5. Qualitative Content Data Analysis Methodology 68
Table 6. School and Enforcement Characteristics of Survey Respondents 74
Table 7. Support for Open Carry versus Support for Concealed Carry 81
Table 8. Role of Open Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” 81
Table 9. Role of Open Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” 82 Table 10. Role of Concealed Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” 82
Table 11. Role of Concealed Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” 83 Table 12. Summary of Statistics – Chi-Square Test 84
Table 13. Description of Data Sets for QCA 93
Table 14. Initial Analysis of Campus Carry Statutory Data 95
Table 15. Emergent Codes Developed from Second Cycle of Coding 96
Table 16. Arkansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 97
Table 17. Colorado Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 98
Table 18. Georgia Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 99
Table 19. Idaho Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 101
Table 20. Kansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 102
Table 21. Mississippi Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 103
Table 22. Oregon Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 105
11
Table 23. Tennessee Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 106
Table 24. Texas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 107
Table 25. Utah Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 108
Table 26. Wisconsin Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where 109
Table 27. Responses to Survey Question 31: Budgetary Impacts 111
Table 28. Responses to Survey Question 32: Acceptable Elements or Provisions for
Campus Carry 113
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Support for Concealed Carry and Open Carry 75
Figure 2. Will Open Carry Help Make My Campus Safer? 76
Figure 3. Will Open Carry Help Reduce Campus Crime? 77
Figure 4. Will Concealed Carry Help Make My Campus Safer? 78
Figure 5. Will Concealed Carry Help Reduce Campus Crime? 79
Figure 6. Support for Concealed Carry on My Campus 80
Figure 7. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Campus Size 86
Figure 8. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Campus Size 86
Figure 9. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Agency Characteristics 87
Figure 10. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Agency Characteristics 87
Figure 11. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers 88
Figure 12. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by Number of Officers 88
Figure 13. Open Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by School Geographic Setting 89
Figure 14. Concealed Campus Carry Support / Non-Support by School Geographic 89
Figure 15. Pre and Post Parkland Responses 90
13
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CCW Carrying Concealed Weapons
FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
DCA District Court of Appeals
HB House Bill
IHE Institution of Higher Education
NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System
NRA National Rifle Association
QCA Qualitative Content Analysis
RTC Right To Carry
SCCC Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
SGFS Students for Gun Free Schools
SB Senate Bill
UCR Uniform Crime Reporting
14
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background and Context
The concealed or open carry of firearms on the campuses (campus carry) of institutions
of higher education (IHEs) in the United States has been the subject of fierce national debate
since the massacre that claimed the lives of 32 students, staff, and members of the faculty at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or Virginia Tech, in 2007 (Bennett, Kraft, &
Clarke, 2006), as word frequency counts are used to identify patterns in the data for coding. The
coding process allows for the “interpretation of the context associated with the use of the word
phrase” (Hsiegh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1285). QCA was thus deemed the appropriate
methodology to answer the following research questions:
60
1c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry on
campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable
campus carry legislation?
The purpose of the content analysis of the statutes was to identify commonalities and
recurrent themes. These results were also merged with those from the content analysis of the
qualitative survey questions.
Variables
Variables embody constructs that researchers seek to define and measure. In the words
of Balnaves and Caputi (2001), “the basic aim of any quantitative research is to investigate how
variables interact with each other” (p. 46). Independent variables are those expected to cause
change in other variables. Dependent variables are those influenced by the independent variables
(Schutt, 2015).
The independent variable for the quantitative portion of this mixed-method study was the
introduction of campus carry policy into the environment of Florida’s public IHEs. The
respondents’ years of experience and their political ideologies served as moderating variables
that could alter the strength or direction of the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. Other demographic data, such as whether a given campus public safety
agency consisted of armed or unarmed security, its size, and its geographic setting, were also
viewed as moderating variables.
The dependent variables included perceptions of campus safety and crime and responses
to campus calls involving firearms. I defined the concept of campus safety as “being free from
61
fear or harm” or the condition in which individuals experience “no concerns or fear of being
victimized by another person” while on campus. For this study, campus crime was defined as
any violation of the criminal laws of the State of Florida or the United States. Additional
variables included “any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” and “staff only.” A Likert-type
scale was used to measure responses to a series of questions and statements regarding campus
carry score as either “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither disagree or agree,” “agree,” or
“strongly agree.”
The datasets for the qualitative portion of this mixed-methods study included, first, two
open-ended questions on the survey and, second, the campus carry statutes from the 11 states
identified in the literature review. The open-ended survey questions asked the respondents for
their professional opinions both on the potential budgetary impacts of campus carry legislation
and on acceptable statutory elements or provisions that could assist the legislature in developing
reasonable campus carry law.
Positionality/Reflexivity
Positionality involves the acknowledgement that researchers are part of the social
worlds that they research and that, therefore, their views, values, and beliefs may influence
the design, execution, and interpretation of their research (Holmes, 2014). A positionality
statement helps others to appreciate the researcher’s views, values, and beliefs as they relate
to a given study. Such statements are important because, in the social sciences, there can be
many answers, or truths, to a given problem, even one that may seem easy to solve (Holmes,
2014).
I was a law enforcement officer for almost 35 years, retiring in 2015. I worked in a
range of different positions, from corrections, uniform street patrol, special weapons and
62
tactics (SWAT), narcotics and organized crime, criminal investigations, drug-related
homicides, to internal affairs; my final years were spent in an administrative capacity.
Throughout my career, I was required to demonstrate proficiency with various types of
firearms at least twice per year. I was also exposed to devastating effects of firearms. I am
keen on both the benefits and consequences of gun possession and ownership. Thirteen years
before retiring from law enforcement, I began teaching as an adjunct instructor in the Public
Administration Program at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida. Seven months after my
retirement from law enforcement, I assumed a full-time position at the college assisting the
Chancellor with administrative duties and teaching in the public administration program.
Because of my experiences in law enforcement, the issue of campus carry is of great interest
to me. I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-protection, but I also
believe in gun owner responsibility. In my view, individuals can be held accountable for their
responsibilities only through well-conceived regulations.
In considering my topic, I believe that I qualify as an insider as described by Holmes
(2014). My law enforcement experience and current position have helped to shape my
viewpoint, both as a person who carries a firearm and as one who now works on the campus
of an IHE. When first considering this project, I sought to remain neutral on the issue of
campus carry and to let my research findings speak for themselves, considering this the only
way to ensure objectivity and keep my biases in check. However, as my research progressed,
I felt compelled to take a position. Doing so does not disqualify me as a researcher, provided
that I recognize my biases and that my work is ethical and trustworthy. Herod (1999)
suggested that positionality may change over time, which stands to reason as one gains more
experience and exposure to different points of view.
63
Participants
The aim of this study was, as discussed, to explore the perceptions of campus public
safety directors at public IHEs in Florida regarding proposed campus carry legislation. Since the
targeted population was selective, non-probability purposive sampling was employed. This
sampling methodology was appropriate because the targeted population served as the primary
data source for this study. The other source of qualitative data were the relevant statutes from
the 11 states that allow campus carry.
Campus public safety agencies in Florida consist of either sworn law enforcement,
unarmed security, non-sworn armed security, or some combination thereof. The website of the
Florida Police Chiefs Association (FPCA) provided the email addresses for the campus public
safety directors at Florida’s main IHEs. Email addresses for the remainder of the target
population were obtained through the websites of their various colleges. In total, 40 public
colleges and universities were identified in Florida (Appendix D).
Recruitment and Outreach Procedures
After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), I contacted the
participants for this study through an introductory email (Appendix A) which provided access to
the informed consent form (Appendix B). Respondents who read the form and agreed to take
part in this study were directed to the electronic survey instrument (Appendix C). Outreach
procedures were not necessary for the content analysis part of this study, for the statutes for
analysis were easily accessed from state websites and LexisNexis. As mentioned in previous
chapters, the quantitative survey was electronically distributed on February 7, 2018, and
reminders to complete it were sent to potential respondents on February 15 and 22. The survey
concluded at the end of the day on February 28, 2018.
64
Instrumentation
The electronic, web-based survey platform Qualtrics was utilized to collect data for this
research project. The survey instrument was structured in five sections following Fanning
(2005). The questions in Sections I and II focused on the respondents’ current perceptions of
and attitudes toward campus carry legislation and its potential impact on campus safety and
campus crime. Section III consisted of demographic questions, including the size of
respondents’ agencies, their years of experience in campus safety, and whether their agencies
consisted of sworn law enforcement or non-sworn public safety officers. Other questions in this
section asked about respondents’ political ideology and the geographic setting of their schools.
Section IV addressed the potential budgetary impacts of campus carry legislation, in part through
an open-ended question. Section V concluded the survey by inviting open comments and
suggestions regarding issues that lawmakers should consider when drafting campus carry
legislation so as to maximize its positive effects on campus safety and campus crime.
As already explained, the survey instrument used Likert-type scales to record whether
respondents strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed, or strongly
disagreed with statements regarding campus carry. Such scales are widely held to provide a
reasonably accurate gauge of the opinions and beliefs of respondents to surveys like this one
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).
Data Analysis Plan
Qualtrics provided descriptive statistics in terms of the demographic and background
characteristics of the respondents to the survey. Further descriptions included support or non-
support for open or concealed carry of firearms on campus. The data were then exported to
Microsoft Excel and XLSTAT for statistical testing. First, a paired t-test was used to identify
65
any differences between the two proportions retrieved from responses to Question 10 of the
survey. Specifically, this test was used to determine whether the respondents were more likely to
support (agree or strongly agree) or not to support (disagree or strongly disagree) concealed carry
on college and university campuses.
Second, a Fisher’s exact test for independence was used to evaluate a 2 x 2 factorial
contingency table regarding the respondents’ support for open as opposed to concealed carry on
campus. Specifically, this test analyzed data retrieved from Questions 1 and 10.
Third, Friedman’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to determine whether
1) the participants’ responses (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree,
agree, strongly agree) regarding support for “open carry legislation” differed when
they were asked whether firearms in the hands of (a) any person, (b) students only, (c)
faculty only, or (d) staff only would assist “in making my campus safer” (Questions
2-5);
2) their responses differed in the same respects “in helping reduce campus crime”
(Questions 6-9);
3) their responses regarding support for “concealed carry legislation” differed when
asked whether firearms in the hands of (a) any person, (b) students only, (c) faculty
only, or (d) staff only would assist “in making my campus safer” (Questions 11-14);
or
4) their responses differed in these same respects “in helping reduce campus crime”
(Questions 15-18).
Finally, a chi-square test was used to identify any statistically significant relationships
between political ideology and support for concealed campus carry (Question 26). In addition to
66
statistical testing, data from Questions 1-18 were analyzed descriptively in the terms just
mentioned (institution size, agency size, geographic setting of school, whether sworn law
enforcement or unarmed security, and years of experience).
For the other source of qualitative data, the state campus carry statutes, QCA was
conducted to identify commonalities and recurrent themes in combination with the qualitative
data obtained from Questions 31-32 on the survey. Following Elo and Kyngas (2008), the
following procedures for content analysis were employed:
• preparation, meaning immersion in the data in order to obtain a sense of the whole, select
the unit of analysis, and decide on the analysis of manifest or latent content;
• organizing, that is, open coding and creating categories, grouping codes under higher-
order headings, formulating a general description of the research topic by generating
categories and subcategories; and
• reporting, or describing the analyzing process and the results through models, conceptual
systems, conceptual maps or categories, and a storyline (p. 7).
QCA is appropriate when conducting exploratory work in an area about which relatively
little is known and for reporting commonalities among datasets (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The
data analysis process included identifying the units of analysis, meaning, and condensed
meaning, the code, and the categories or themes (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Statutory coding
frames were based on two major categories for analysis, the first to determine “who” would be
permitted to campus carry (students, staff, faculty, or any person) and whether open or concealed
carry or both would be permitted and the second to identify where campus carry would be
permitted.
67
Some states had embedded sections of their campus carry laws within larger statutory
schemes, while others had stand-alone campus carry statutes. Initially, then, the statutes were
coded holistically in this regard in order to allow for the separation of the campus carry data for
further analysis. The second cycle of coding, which was conducted after all of the campus carry
data had been grouped together, involved provisional identification of smaller meaning units
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Hendlund-de Witt, 2013) and included a deductive phase.
The third cycle involved pattern coding, in which the data were grouped into more meaningful
and parsimonious units of analysis (Hendlund-de Witt, 2013). The qualitative research
questions, law and policy review, and literature review served as guides for the development of a
predetermined codebook or “start list.” Table 4 presents the codes, definitions, and
purpose/outcomes for the start list.
Table 4
Initial Predetermined Codebook Code Definition Purpose/Outcomes Stand Alone Statute/Embedded Statutes
Campus carry statute was either stand alone or embedded within other statutory schemes.
Extract campus carry data that is embedded within larger statutory schemes for further analysis.
Type of Institution Private or public. To determine whether a campus carry statute pertains to private or public institutions or both.
Who is Permitted to Carry Any persons, students, staff, and faculty.
To determine who is statutorily authorized to campus carry.
Open/Concealed Open carry means carrying a firearm so that it is purposely in public view. Concealed carry means carrying a firearm out of public view.
To determine if open carry, concealed carry, or both are authorized.
Locations Permitted/Prohibited
Campus grounds, vehicles parked on campus grounds, classrooms, dining halls, dormitories or residence
To determine where campus carry is statutorily permitted.
68
halls, sporting events, stadiums, or any other IHE owned facility or property.
Signage/Notices Warning signs or notices either permitting or prohibiting firearms on campus.
To identify any statutory requirement for signage or notification regarding where campus carry is permitted or prohibited.
Permit Required/Not Required
Permit refers to a concealed carry permit or license.
To determine whether permitting or licensing is statutorily required for campus carry.
The start list allowed for further condensing of the data into smaller meaning units for
continued analysis. The same coding methodology was used for the data retrieved from
Questions 31 and 32 of the survey. Frequency and latent analyses identified categories and
Qualitative Content Data Analysis Methodology First Phase Second Phase Third Phase Fourth Phase Holistic Coding Cycle
Provisional Coding (repeat as necessary)
Pattern Coding Cycle Identifying Patterns and Themes
Holistic coding of raw data to extract campus carry data from larger statutory schemes, legislative proposals, and campus carry policies of colleges and universities.
Provisional coding using a “start list” to condense the data further and to identify any additional codes to apply for further analysis. Repeating the coding process for consistency and applying any emergent codes from previous coding.
Grouping data from previous coding cycles into a smaller number of sets, themes, or constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). Pattern coding further condenses data into more meaningful units of analysis.
Determine themes and patterns from the analysis of data.
69
The data were then converged in order to identify commonalities and recurrent themes
among the 11 states’ campus carry laws with respect to campus carry proposals introduced
during recent sessions of the Florida Legislature and suggestions communicated by the
respondents in the open-ended survey question regarding reasonable campus carry laws.
Reliability and Threats to Validity
Instruments used in a study are said to be reliable when they yield consistent results
(Patten, 2014). Assessing reliability is difficult when the variables being measured are
subjective, such as perceptions and attitudes, which can also change over time (Herod, 1999).
The reliability of this study could have been undermined if, as discussed earlier, respondents
delegated the task of filling out the survey to subordinates who did not possess the administrative
experience or perspectives that this study was designed to document. This threat was mitigated,
as has been seen, by sending the electronic survey directly to the email addresses of the targeted
individuals (rather than to the general email address of the campus public safety office).
Nevertheless, the possibility remains that someone other than the campus public safety director
completed one or more of the surveys. Even in such cases, however, the actual respondent may
have had the necessary training and experience, especially if he or she was a member of the
campus agency’s command staff.
Validity describes the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to
measure (Patten, 2014). For this study, perceptions and attitudes were measured in an attempt to
assess the relationships among several variables. Specifically, the perceptions and attitudes of
campus public safety directors at public IHEs in Florida were explored regarding the perceived
impact of firearms on campus safety, campus crime, public safety budgets, and responses to
campus calls for service involving firearms.
70
The electronic, web-based survey instrument described above was used to collect these
data, the ultimate goal having been to answer the research questions. The detailed informed
consent form (Appendix B) made clear that participation was voluntary and could cease at any
time, that confidentiality and anonymity would be maintained, and that there were minimal
potential risks (discomfort or annoyance) associated with the survey. As already discussed, the
internal validity, and replicability, of this study may have been affected by the Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting incident in Parkland, Florida, midway through the data
collection.
Regarding the QCA, these data were considered reliable because they were derived from
state statutes accessed through official state websites and LexisNexis. The validity of the coding
process and results was also tested by an independent peer researcher (Cavanaugh, 1997).
Chapter Summary
The open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of public IHEs continues to be
a pressing and controversial legislative issue throughout the United States. Although recent
campus carry bills in Florida have failed to pass, the policy’s advocates, including some
legislators, have vowed to continue the fight (Nielson, 2017a). In empirical studies, some
conducted in Florida, a clear majority of students, faculty, and staff at IHEs have either opposed
campus carry or indicated that they would not carry a firearm on campus even if the law so
Yes, all sworn 10 (45.5%) Hybrid, sworn and unarmed 7 (31.8%) No, all unarmed 4 (18.2%) No, all armed non-sworn 0 (0.0%) No Response 1 (4.5%) Number of Officers
1-10 officers 1 (4.5%) 11-20 officers 3 (13.6%) 21-30 officers 6 (27.3%) 31-40 officers 7 (31.8%) 41+ officers 4 (18.2%) No Response 1 (4.5%) Years of Experience
1-5 years 2 (9.1%) 6-10 years 3 (13.6%) 11-15 years 2 (9.1%) 16-20 years 2 (9.1%) 20+ years 13 (59.1%) Political Ideology
Conservative 12 (54.5%) Independent 8 (36.4%) Liberal 1 (4.5%) Rather not answer 1 (4.5%)
75
Table 6 (cont’d) School and Enforcement Characteristics of Survey Respondents No. (%) Responses N = 22 Geographic Setting
I Support the Concealed Carry of Firearms by Persons with Concealed Carry Permits on My Campus (N = 22)
81
Table 7
Support for Open and Concealed Carry Agree Disagree/Neutral Total
Open Carry 0 22 22
Concealed Carry 7 15 22
Total 7 37 44
The analysis found greater support for concealed carry than open carry, and this result
was statistically significant. Thirty-two percent of the campus public safety directors (7 of 22)
agreed to support concealed carry on campus and not one supported open carry on campus (p =
0.0089).
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 1. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for open carry legislation as a means to “make my campus safer”
(Questions 1-5), as can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8
Role of Open Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” Friedman's Test 1
Q (Observed Value) 5.71
Q (Critical Value) 7.815
Degrees of Freedom 3
p-value (one-tailed) 0.127
alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that open carry would “make
my campus safer” was at a one-tailed p = .127, indicating no statistically significant difference,
!" (3, N = 22) = 5.710, p > .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e., “any
person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”).
82
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 2. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for open carry legislation as a means to “reduce campus crime”
(Questions 6-9, as can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9
Role of Open Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” Friedman's ANOVA Test 2 Q (Observed Value) 3.686 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.297 alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that open carry would “reduce
campus crime” was at a one-tailed p = .297, indicating no statistically significant difference, !"
(3, N = 22) = 3.69, p > .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e., “any person,”
“students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”).
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 3. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for concealed carry legislation as a means to “make my campus
safer” (Questions 11-14), as can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10
Role of Concealed Carry in “Making My Campus Safer” Friedman's ANOVA Test 3 Q (Observed Value) 10.32 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.016 alpha 0.05
83
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that concealed carry would
“make my campus safer” was at a one-tailed p = .016, indicating a statistically significant
difference, !" (3, N = 22) = 10.32, p < .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry.
These differences were largely due to five respondents indicating greater agreement with
concealed carry for “faculty only” and “staff only” than “any person” and “students only” as a
means to “make my campus safer.”
Friedman’s ANOVA Test 4. A non-parametric Friedman’s ANOVA test using
Microsoft XLSTAT was conducted to determine whether the responses differed significantly
regarding the level of support for concealed carry legislation as a means to “reduce campus
crime” (Questions 15-18. Data from 20 (rather than 22) observations were tested, as one of the
respondents did not answer for “staff only” and another did not answer for “faculty only.” Table
11 summarizes the results from this test.
Table 11
Role of Concealed Carry in “Reducing Campus Crime” Friedman's ANOVA Test 4 Q (Observed Value) 9 Q (Critical Value) 7.815 Degrees of Freedom 3 p-value (one-tailed) 0.029 alpha 0.05
The results of this test revealed that support for the notion that concealed carry would
“reduce campus crime” was at a one-tailed p = .029, indicating a statistically significant
difference, !" (3, n = 20) = 9.0, p < .05, with respect to the individual allowed to carry (i.e.,
“any person,” “students only,” “faculty only,” or “staff only”). These differences were largely
due to the respondents again indicating greater agreement with concealed carry for “faculty
only” and “staff only” than for “any person” or “students only” in reducing campus crime.
84
Chi-square test. A Chi-square test was conducted using Microsoft Excel on responses to
Question 26, which asked about the participants’ political ideologies. Fifty-five percent (n = 12)
indicated being conservative, 36% (n = 8) independent, and 5% (n = 1) liberal; one responded
with “rather not answer.” Five of the 12 respondents identifying as conservative (42%)
supported (“agreed” or “strongly agreed”) concealed carry of firearms on their campuses by
individuals with concealed carry permits. One of the eight identifying as independent “agreed”
in supporting concealed carry by such individuals, as did the respondent who replied “rather not
answer.” One of those identifying as conservative and three of those identifying as independents
“neither agreed nor disagreed,” and four conservatives and four independents “strongly disagreed
and disagreed” with allowing concealed carry of firearms by persons with concealed carry
permits.
The chi-squared test revealed no statistically significant correlation (p = .125) regarding
support for concealed campus carry (or lack thereof) and the respondents’ political ideologies.
Table 12 provides a summary of the results.
Table 12
Summary of Statistics - Chi-Squared Test: Political Ideology / Support for Concealed Carry Support Concealed
Carry Do Not Support Concealed Carry
Marginal Row Totals
Conservative
5 (3.43) [0.72]
7 (8.57) [0.29]
12
Liberal/Independent
1 (2.57) [0.96]
8 (6.43) [0.38]
9
Marginal Column Totals
6
15
21 (Grand Total)
Note. The chi-squared statistic is 2.3528; p = .12506. This result is not significant at p < .05.
Additional Results
This section includes descriptions of the school and agency demographic data gathered
through the survey. There was not sufficient variability in the responses that provided the
85
demographic data to analyze the influence of these variables on support for open or concealed
carry policies. Accordingly, only the data regarding campus size, campus enforcement
characteristics, number of officers, geographic setting, and before and after the Parkland
shooting are described.
Campus size by student population. Question 19 asked the number of students on
respondents’ campuses. All respondents were also asked whether they supported open or
concealed carry of firearms on their campuses by persons who possess a concealed carry permit
(Questions 1 and 10). Ten of the 22 respondents (45%) worked on a campus with a student
population between 10,000 and 20,000 students, of whom 8 (80%) opposed the open carry of
firearms on their campuses; of the other two, one “strongly agreed” with open carry and one was
neutral. Half (n = 5) of the same respondents supported the concealed carry of firearms on their
campuses by individuals with concealed carry permits. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents
(n = 6) worked on campuses with more than 20,000 students, all of whom opposed open carry on
their campuses and only one supported concealed carry on their campuses by individuals with
concealed carry permits. The remainder of the respondents (n = 6) worked on campuses with a
student population below 10,000. One “strongly agreed” with concealed carry of firearms on
their campuses by individuals with concealed carry permits. Figures 7 and 8 represent all of the
responses graphically.
86
Figure 7. Support for open carry by campus size.
Figure 8. Support for concealed carry by campus size.
Characteristics of campus agency enforcement. Question 20 asked the respondents
whether their agencies consisted of either sworn law enforcement, non-sworn and unarmed
public safety officers, licensed unarmed security officers, or some combination of the various
types of officials (a hybrid agency). Forty-five percent (n = 10) reported that their agencies
consisted entirely of sworn law enforcement officers, 32% (n = 7) reported a combination of
sworn law enforcement and non-sworn, unarmed security, and 18% (n = 4) reported that their
agencies consisted entirely of non-sworn and unarmed security officers.
Concealed Carry on Campus Support / Non-Support by Geographic Setting (N = 22)
Rural Suburban Urban
90
who responded afterward (14%) supported concealed campus carry. None of the respondents
supported open carry. These responses are illustrated in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Responses before and after the Parkland incident. Summary of the Quantitative Analysis
The quantitative analysis revealed that 86% of the respondents (n = 19) did not support
the open carry of firearms on their campuses and the remaining 14% (n = 3) were neutral. Half
of the respondents (n = 11) opposed concealed carry, 32% (n = 7) supported it, and 18% (n = 4)
were neutral. Of the seven respondents who supported carrying concealed firearms, four
indicated that allowing either “any person,” “faculty only,” or “staff only” to do so would make
their campuses safer. None of the respondents indicated that allowing “students only” to
concealed carry would make their campus safer, nor did any indicate that concealed carry would
reduce campus crime, though more respondents were neutral with respect to “faculty only” or
“staff only” than to “any person” or “students only.” Only one respondent indicated that open
carry would reduce campus crime.
Although these data were limited, the statistical analysis did indicate significant
differences between the support for concealed as opposed to open carry, p = 0.0089. There was
also a statistically significant difference in the responses regarding support for concealed carry
6
1
9
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pre-Parkland Post Parkland
Pre and Post Parkland Support / Non-Support for Concealed Carry
Support Not Support
91
by “faculty only” and “staff only” and “making my campus safer” (p = 0.016) and “reducing
campus crime” (p = 0.029).
Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA)
The purpose of the QCA was to answer the following research questions 1c and 2, which
are reproduced here one more time for completeness and convenience:
1c) What would be the likely operational and budgetary impacts of campus carry on
campus public safety departments?
2) Are there common themes and patterns among the 11 state statutes that provide for
campus carry that could assist the Florida Legislature in drafting reasonable
campus carry legislation?
Statutes and other legislative documents collected for the QCA were retrieved from the
states’ legislative and executive office websites and through the LexisNexis database. The
campus carry policies of the various colleges and universities and their governing entities were
also collected and reviewed for context that could clear up the vagueness of some state statutes.
Thus, for example, the provision for campus carry in Kansas § 75-7c20 required clarification in
the form of a statement by the Kansas Board of Regents.
Description of the Data
The data examined for the QCA included state statutes, legislative proposals, legislative
history, a policy statement from an IHE governing board, opinions of attorneys general, and
campus carry policies from select IHEs. In total, 38 such documents were evaluated and
analyzed amounting to more than 660 pages of data (Table 13). As indicated, some of the
campus carry regulations were embedded within larger statutory schemes; thus, for example
92
Mississippi’s formed part of the state’s law governing licenses to carry stun guns and concealed
pistols or revolvers (Miss. Code § 45-9-101).
93
Table 13
Description of Data Sets for QCA State Data # of Pages Arkansas Statute § 5-73-306
Statute § 5-73-322 House Bill 1249 (2017)
14
Colorado Statute § 18-12-105.5 Statute § 18-12-214 Senate Bill 03-024 (2003) Legislative History of SB 03-024 Colo. State University Student Code of Conduct
50
Georgia Statute § 16-11-127.1 House Bill 280 (2017)
7
Idaho Statute § 18-33.3301-3325 Senate Bill 1254 (2014)
34
Kansas Kansas Personal & Family Protection Act Kansas Board of Regents Attorney General Opinion (2013) House Bill 2052 (2013)
54
Mississippi Statute § 97-37-7 Statute § 45-9-101 Legislative History of § 45-9-101 Attorney General Opinion (2012) Attorney General Opinion (2013) House Bill 506 (2012) House Bill 1083 (2018) University of Miss. Campus Carry Policy
55
Oregon Statutes Chapter 166 Oregon University System Governance Policy
57
Tennessee Statute § 39-17-1309 Senate Bill 2376 (2016) University of Tennessee Campus Carry Policy
Wisconsin Statute § 175.60 Senate Bill 93 (2012) University of Wisconsin Alumni Position
55
94
Results of the QCA Analysis
Holistic coding. The purpose of the initial analysis of the statutes of the 11 states was to
determine which were stand-alone and which were embedded within larger statutory schemes,
for which purpose holistic coding was used. This coding also assisted in organizing the data into
smaller meaning units for further analysis. Six statutes were found to be stand-alone and five
embedded, as can be seen in. Table 14.
95
Table 14
Initial Analysis of Campus Carry Statutory Data State Statute Stand
Alone Embedded
Arkansas § 5-73-22: Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building
x
Colorado § 18-12-105.5: Unlawful carrying a weapon; unlawful possession of weapons on school, college, or university grounds
x
Georgia § 16-11-127.1: Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school
x
Idaho § 18-3309: Authority of governing boards of public colleges and universities regarding firearms
x
Kansas § 75-7c20: Concealed handguns in public buildings and associated public areas; when prohibited; public buildings exempted; definitions
x
Mississippi § 45-9-101: License to carry stun gun or concealed pistol or revolver; license fees; exemptions; no license required to carry pistol or revolver in purse, briefcase, fully enclosed case, etc.
x
Oregon § 166.370: Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school
x
Tennessee § 39-17-1309 Carrying weapons on school property
x
Texas § 411.2031: Carrying of handguns by license holders on certain campuses
x
Utah § 76-10-515.5: Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short-barreled shotgun on or about school premises; penalties
x
Wisconsin § 175.60: License to carry a concealed weapon x
Provisional coding. After the first cycle of holistic coding, a second cycle of provisional
coding was applied to the data. The purpose of this coding cycle was to determine, based on the
statutory language, both who would be permitted to carry firearms, open or concealed, on
campus and where. A predetermined codebook or, to use the term introduced earlier, “start list”
96
was used for this coding cycle. Thanks to the second coding cycle, additional codes emerged
and were added to the codebook and applied to all datasets during the subsequent, third cycle of
coding. The emergent codes are represented in Table 15.
Table 15
Emergent Codes Developed from Second Cycle of Coding Code Definition Purpose/Outcome Criminal Penalties Identifies the level of offense
for violating the provisions of the statute.
Defines the seriousness of the penalties for violating the statute.
Issue Category Identifies whether the state is a “may-issue, shall-issue, or no-permit-required” state regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits.
Determines whether the state does not have to issue a permit or has discretionary authority to determine who may receive a concealed carry permit or whether they are mandated to issue the permit when all minimum qualifications are met.
State Preemption Means that the state legislature is the only legislative body in the state that can govern or regulate firearms and ammunition.
Determines whether local governments have the authority to decide campus carry regulations. Additionally, state preemption laws may prohibit administrators of IHEs from promulgating policies permitting or prohibiting campus carry.
IHE Employee Requirements Identifies employees of IHEs who are participating in campus carry.
Specifies requirements for employees of IHEs who are carrying a concealed firearm and their responsibilities.
Immunity Identifying who receives immunity from lawsuits regarding incidents of campus carry on school property.
Determines who receives statutory immunity from incidents arising on campus due to campus carry.
Reporting Requirements Specifies IHE requirements to submit reports to the legislature regarding campus carry.
Determines whether IHEs are required to report to the legislature when establishing prohibitions.
97
The following tables describe the results from the second and third cycles of provisional coding
by state, beginning with Arkansas.
Arkansas. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Ark. Code § 5-73-322 and
titled “Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building.” Arkansas
had one of the more detailed campus carry statutes governing campus carry. The results of
coding are shown in Table 16
Table 16
Arkansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Arkansas
Codes Code: Title 5; Subtitle 6; Chapter 73; Subchapter 3 / § 5-73-322 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Concealed handguns in a university, college, or community college building
Public Institutions • Mandatory Private Institutions • Optional
• Private institutions must make their policies clear Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• Within Facilities • On the grounds • In vehicles
Locations Prohibited
• College-operated student dormitories or residence halls • Location where official meetings occur within no more than 9
hours of a grievance or disciplinary meeting o 24-hour notice must be given o Notice posted on the doors of every entry way into and
including the meeting room o Room must be no larger than necessary to complete the
hearing Signage Requirements
• Private IHEs must post signage if prohibiting or allowing campus carry
Criminal Offenses • For violation of grievance and disciplinary meeting prohibitions Permit Requirements
• Permit required. o Course of up to 8 hours, no renewal required. o Offered at all training courses and concealed carry
training courses • Anyone receiving a permit may campus carry where permitted
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Arkansas is a shall-issue state
98
State Preemption • Yes - § 14-54-1411 (b)(1). However, the law gives local governments limited authority regulating the unsafe use of firearms
IHE Employee Requirements
• Campus carry by employees of IHEs is voluntary • Must be qualified through permit process
Immunity for Employees
• None o Employees taking action using their firearm while
working receive no liability protection from the IHE. Immunity for IHE • IHEs are immune from liability should a firearms incident
result in injury or loss of life o Exception: Campus law enforcement acting under the
color of their authority Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Colorado. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Colo. Stat. § 18-12-105.5 and
titled “Unlawful carrying a weapon—unlawful possession of weapons—school, college, or
university grounds.” The statute does not provide specific guidance regarding locations where
firearms are permitted, though Colorado State University’s Student Code of Conduct Manual
specifies that firearms are not permitted within any university housing. The results of coding are
shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Colorado Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Colorado
Codes Statute: Title 18; Article 12; Part 1 / §18-12-105.5 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Unlawful carrying a weapon; unlawful possession of weapons; school, college, or university grounds
Public Institutions • Mandatory with permit Private Institutions • Mandatory with permit Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• In a vehicle without a permit • Statute otherwise does not specify
Locations Prohibited
• Statute does not specify
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Campus carry without a permit is a Class 6 felony
99
Permit Requirements
• Specified under §18-12-214
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes, by permit only Issue Category • Shall-issue state State Preemption • Yes IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Georgia. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Ga. Code § 16-11-127.1 and
titled “Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other
transportation furnished by a school.” According to § 16-11-127.1 (a)(3)(B), a “school safety
zone” includes any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or
other institution of postsecondary education. The results of coding are shown in Table 18.
Table 18
Georgia Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Georgia
Codes Code: Title 16; Chapter 11; Article 4; Part 3 / § 16-11-127.1 Stand Alone Statute
• Yes—Carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school
o § 16-11-127.1(a)(3)(B) specifies that a “school safety zone” includes any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or other institution of postsecondary education
Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes; written approval by college authority Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted
• In any building or on real property owned by or leased to any public college, or university, or other post-secondary education
Locations Prohibited
• Buildings or property used for athletic events • Student housing, to include, but not limited to fraternity and
sorority houses
100
• Preschool or childcare space located within such buildings or real property
• Any room or space being used for classes related to a college or career academy or other specialized schools as specified in § 20-4-37 (programs in which secondary education students participate)
• Any room or space used by high school or dual enrollment students
• Staff, faculty, staff, or administrative offices where disciplinary procedures are conducted
Signage Requirements
• Only for elementary and secondary schools
Criminal Offenses • Violation by any license holder; misdemeanor
Permit Requirements
• Yes; § 16-11-129
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes, permit required Issue Category • Shall-issue state State Preemption • Partial; § 16-11-173. Local government has limited authority to
regulate firearms IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Idaho. This state’s campus carry law was codified in Idaho Code § 18-3309 and titled
“Authority of Governing Boards of Public Colleges and Universities Regarding Firearms.”
Although the law allows administrators at IHEs to prescribe regulations, this authority does not
extend to the “otherwise lawful possession, carrying or transporting of firearms or ammunition
by any licensed person” (Idaho Code § 18-3309 [2]). The results of coding are presented in Table
19.
101
Table 19
Idaho Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Idaho
Codes Code: Title 18; Chapter 33 / § 18-3309 Stand Alone Statute • Yes; § 18-3309 Authority of Governing Boards of Public
Colleges and Universities Regarding Firearms Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • No Who is Permitted • All concealed carry permit holders Locations Permitted • Implied in all areas except those expressly prohibited
o Permitted on right-of-way appurtenant to prohibited areas and within vehicles in the parking lots within prohibited facilities
• Off-campus housing or publicly accessible grounds or right-of-way appurtenant to the building, including parking lots within the building
Locations Prohibited
• Within student dormitory or residence halls • Within any building of public entertainment facility, provided
the proper signages are conspicuously posted at each point of public ingress
• A public entertainment facility is described as an arena, stadium, amphitheater, auditorium, theater, or similar facility with seating capacity of at least 1,000 persons that is owned by a public college or university
Signage Requirements
• At each public point of ingress of public entertainment facilities
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements
• Yes; § 18-3302K Issuance of Enhanced Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons
Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus Issue Category • Permit-not-required State Preemption • Yes; § 18-3302J Preemption of Firearms Regulations IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
102
Kansas. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within a concealed carry statute
titled “Concealed handguns in public buildings and public areas thereof; when prohibited; public
buildings exempted” (Kan. Stat. § 75-7c20). The law allows administrators at IHEs to establish
exempt buildings, but they must send notice to the attorney general explaining the exemption.
The statute prohibited campus carry until July 1, 2017, permitting it afterward in all areas except
buildings with adequate security measures that are conspicuously indicated as such (Kan. Stat. §
75-7c24). The results of coding are displayed in Table 20.
Table 20
Kansas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Kansas
Codes Chapter 75 of the Kansas Personal & Family Protection Act/Statute: § 75-7c20, Concealed handguns in public buildings and public areas thereof; when prohibited; public buildings exempted; definitions
Stand Alone Statute
• No—Embedded in concealed carry statute
Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • All concealed permit holders Locations Permitted
• All areas except buildings with adequate security measures and are conspicuously posted
Locations Prohibited
• Within all state and municipal building with adequate security measures and are conspicuously posted as prohibiting concealed carry
Signage Requirements
• Yes—Prohibitions must be posted on buildings having adequate security measures
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class A Misdemeanor (§ 21-6302) Permit Requirements
• No. Generally, concealed carry in the state does not require a permit
Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus Issue Category • Permit-not-required State Preemption • Yes; Chapter 166 IHE Employee Requirements
• No agency may prohibit an employee from concealed carry at the employee’s workplace unless the workplace has adequate security
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
103
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Notice must be sent to the attorney general stating why the IHE is exempting a specific area from campus carry
Mississippi. This state’s campus carry statutory provisions are extremely vague, so
administrators from its IHEs requested an opinion from the attorney general’s office. On
January 5, 2012, Deputy Attorney General Mike Lanford sent an opinion to Hank Bounds, the
state’s Commissioner of Higher Education declaring that any individual with a permit to carry a
firearm may campus carry (Miss. Attorney General’s Office, 2012). A second opinion, issued on
December 3, 2013, reinforced the earlier one and asserted that any individual with an enhanced
permit could concealed carry in areas “even where governmental entities have posted signage”
prohibiting firearms (Miss. Attorney General’s Office, 2013). Review of the University of
Mississippi’s Firearms Policy specifies the following prohibitions on concealed carry: all
academic and athletic facilities, residence halls, fraternity and sorority houses, campus recreation
centers, locations of ticketed events, and any area in which a class or lab is being conducted.
The results of coding are displayed in Table 21.
Table 21
Mississippi Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Mississippi
Codes Title 45; Chapter 9; § 45-9-101 License to carry stun gun, concealed pistol or revolver; license fees; exemptions; no license required to carry pistol or revolver in a purse, briefcase, fully enclosed case, etc.
Stand Alone Statute • No—embedded in § 45-9-101 Public Institutions • Not specified in the statute Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • All enhanced concealed permit holders Locations Permitted • Statute does not specify
o Attorney general’s opinion suggests that concealed carry is authorized within all campus facilities
Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify
104
o The University of Mississippi policy specifies prohibitions within all academic facilities, residential halls, fraternity and sorority houses, recreation centers, ticketed events, and campus labs
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements • Yes on campus Open Carry • Statute does not specify Concealed Carry • Yes. Issue Category • Permit-not-required (enhanced required for campus carry) State Preemption • Partial Preemption —§ 45-9-51—Certain ordinances
prohibited IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Oregon. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within Or. Stat. § 166.370,
“Possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility.” The law
allows for campus carry for all permit holders. However, Or. Stat. § 351.060 (1) and (2) grant
the State Board of Higher Education “broad authority” over its properties. Oregon IHE officials
have taken advantage of this authority and established policies prohibiting campus carry. In
2012, an Oregon Appellate Court ruled that school officials had exceeded their authority in doing
so, but Oregon IHEs continue to prohibit campus carry in buildings and at sporting events. A
permit holder can, however, walk across campus grounds with a concealed firearm. Table 22
displays the results from the coding.
105
Table 22
Oregon Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Oregon
Codes Volume 4; Chapter 166/§ 166.370, Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging a firearm at school
Stand Alone Statute • No—Embedded in § 166.370 Public Institutions • Yes; § 166.360 (9) Definitions (Public Building) Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • All concealed permit holders Locations Permitted • Statute does not specify
• Outside grounds and in vehicles by policy Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify
• Specified in school policy o Within all facilities and sporting events on campus
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Yes—Violation is a class C felony Permit Requirements • Yes; § 166.291, Issuance of concealed handgun license;
application; fees; liability Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes on campus grounds
o IHE officials implemented a policy prohibiting within facilities and athletic events
Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Partial; § 166.170 State preemption IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Tennessee. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within its “Carrying weapons on
school property” statute (Tenn. Code § 39-17-1309). The statute is specific regarding who is
allowed to campus carry and where. The University of Tennessee (UT) campus carry policy
specifies that employees carrying on campus must notify campus police and that only full-time
staff and faculty may do so; part-time employees, students, visitors, lessees of UT property, and
106
employees of contractors working on UT property cannot. Concealed carry is allowed in a
vehicle in campus parking lots, classrooms, laboratories, and UT offices. The results of coding
are presented in Table 23.
Table 23 Tennessee Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where
weapons on school property Stand Alone Statute • No—Embedded in § 39-17-1309 Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • No Who is Permitted • Full-time faculty and staff only Locations Permitted • All areas not prohibited Locations Prohibited • Stadiums, gymnasiums, and auditoriums when school-
sponsored events are in progress • In meetings regarding disciplinary matters • In meetings regarding tenure issues • A hospital or office where medical services are provided • Any location prohibited by state law
Signage Requirements
Criminal Offenses • Class B misdemeanor if statute violated Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Yes; § 39-17-1314, Preemption of local regulation of
firearms, ammunition, and knives—Actions against firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer—Party adversely affected by local regulation
IHE Employee Requirements
• Must have permit
Immunity for Employees
• No—Unless the employee is carrying a handgun as part of their job duties. Otherwise, carrying is a personal choice
Immunity for IHE • IHE assumes no liability Reporting Requirements
• Yes—Written notification to campus police
107
Texas. This state’s campus carry law was codified at Tex. Stat. § 411.2031, Section (d)
of which gives school administrators the authority to develop a policy prohibiting campus carry
in dormitories and residential areas and to designate other gun-free areas after consulting with
students, staff, and faculty. Results of coding are displayed in Table 24.
Table 24
Texas Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Texas
Codes Code: Title 4; Subtitle B; Chapter 411/§ 411.2031 Carrying of handguns by license holders on certain campuses
Stand Alone Statute • Yes Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • Any license holder Locations Permitted • School has authority to develop policy. However, the state
may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus – areas permitted may be different from school to school
Locations Prohibited • School has authority to develop policy but cannot generally prohibit campus carry
Signage Requirements
• Notice must be given regarding prohibited areas
Criminal Offenses • Statute does not specify Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • No on campus Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Partial—Local government has limited authority under Home
Rule IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Schools must report to the state legislature no later than September 1 of each even-numbered year regarding the implementation of the statute and reasons for the rules developed by any IHE
108
Utah. This state’s campus carry law was codified at Utah Code § 76-10-515.5, titled
“Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short barreled shotgun on or about school
premises; penalties.” The statute permits campus carry at public and private IHEs. However,
Utah Code § 53B-3-103, titled “Power of board to adopt rules and regulations,” gives the Board
of Regents of the Utah System of Higher Education authority to enact regulations governing the
conduct of university and college students, faculty, and employees. The board may enact
minimal rules governing firearms on campus but generally may not prohibit campus carry (Utah
Code § 53B-3-103). The results of coding are displayed in Table 25.
Table 25
Utah Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Utah
Codes Code: Title 76; Chapter 10; Part 5/76-10-515.5, Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or short barreled shotgun on or about school premises; penalties Utah Code § 53B-3-103, Power of board to adopt rules and regulations
Stand Alone Statute • Yes Public Institutions • Yes Private Institutions • Yes Who is Permitted • Anyone who has a permit Locations Permitted • All locations except hearing rooms
• Permitted in dorms; however, a resident may request for roommates who are not licensed to carry a concealed firearm
Locations Prohibited • Rooms designated for hearings and hearings must be set for reasonable times
Signage Requirements
• Notification in writing of prohibitions for hearing rooms
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class B Misdemeanor Permit Requirement • Yes
o Must be 21 and complete firearms instruction course from the NRA or Department of Public Safety
Open Carry • No Concealed Carry • Yes Issue Category • Shall-issue
109
State Preemption • Yes IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Wisconsin. This state’s campus carry law is embedded within its “License to carry a
concealed weapon statute” (Wis. Stat. § 175.60). The law generally prohibits concealed carry in
specific areas, but IHEs are not among the areas listed (Wis. Stat. § 175.60 (16)(a)1-8).
Interestingly, the University of Wisconsin System (UWS) has the authority to promulgate rules
and to codify them into Wisconsin Administrative Code, and it has done so with a rule
specifying that “no person may carry, possess or use any dangerous weapon on university lands
or in university buildings or facilities, except with the written approval of the chief
administrative officer or for law enforcement purpose” (UWS 18.10 (3)). As such, the only
locations where campus carry is permitted are outside on campus grounds and within vehicles
parked on campus property. The coded results of the statute are displayed in Table 26.
Table 26
Wisconsin Campus Carry Statute: Who is Allowed to Carry and Where Wisconsin
Codes Statute: Chapter 175/§ 175.60 (16) License to carry a concealed weapon
Stand Alone Statute • No. Embedded in § 175.60; § 941.235; Administrative Code 18.10 (3)
Public Institutions • Yes; campus grounds and vehicle only Private Institutions • Statute does not specify Who is Permitted • Any qualified person Locations Permitted • Campus grounds and vehicles only Locations Prohibited • Statute does not specify. § 941.235 (2)(e) allows a licensee to
concealed carry within any building owned or leased by the state or any political subdivision of the state
110
• University of Wisconsin System has codified an administrative rule prohibiting firearms within any university buildings and facilities (UWS 18.10 (3))
Signage Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Criminal Offenses • Yes; Class A Misdemeanor Permit Requirements • Yes Open Carry • Yes Concealed Carry • No Issue Category • Shall-issue State Preemption • Yes; § 66.0409 (2) IHE Employee Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for Employees
• Statute does not specify
Immunity for IHE • Statute does not specify Reporting Requirements
• Statute does not specify
Patterns Identified in the Statutory Analysis
The final analysis included pattern coding to determine emergent themes from the
constructs of each of the 11 states’ campus carry statutory schemes. The results from this coding
process were unsurprising, in that the various statutory campus carry schemes differed
considerably. Thus, six were vague in defining the areas in which campus carry was permitted.
The following consistencies, however, were common to all of the statutory schemes:
• requirement for some form of permit or license from the state for campus carry;
• classification as either a shall-issue or permit-not-required state regarding concealed or
open carry;
• preemption of the regulation of firearms and ammunition, though some states do give
local governments and the boards of regents of IHEs limited authority to promulgate
firearms regulations;
111
• permission of concealed carry on campus grounds and within vehicles parked on campus
grounds; and
• prohibition on open carry.
Areas prohibited. Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas, then, are the states
with statutes that specify where campus carry is permitted. Most of the statutes prohibit
concealed carry of firearms in student dormitories and residence halls, sporting events and
athletic facilities, and rooms or office space designated for disciplinary and tenure discussions.
Again, the details, such as signage requirements, differed from state to state. Furthermore,
Texas’s campus carry law required school administrators to consult with students, faculty, and
staff before designating an area as a “gun free zones” (Tex. Stat. § 411.2031). Utah’s statute
allows campus carry within dormitories and residence halls (though a student in Utah may
request for a roommate who does not hold a concealed carry permit).
Analysis and Themes Identified in the Qualitative Survey Questions
Question 31 of the survey asked the respondents to “Provide a brief explanation as to
how you believe your budget will be impacted.” Fifteen of the 22 (68%) answered the question,
and their responses were analyzed through a cycle of descriptive coding and frequency analysis.
Sixty percent of the respondents were of the opinion that campus carry legislation would impose
a cost burden on them. The largest anticipated expenses related to the hiring of more personnel,
conversion of unarmed security forces to sworn law enforcement forces and paying local law
enforcement to maintain a larger presence on campus. Also mentioned were expenses associated
with training and equipment. Table 27 presents the codes and examples of these responses.
Table 27
Responses to Survey Question 31: Budgetary Impacts Code Responses to Survey Question 31
112
Increased Budget • “Will affect payroll budgets.” • “If we have to convert, personnel costs will increase.” • “Hiring more officers.” • “Additional costs contracting services with the local PD.” • “…major expansion of the ‘Police Services Contract . . . to 4x” • “Increased calls for people with guns.” • “If passed, will go to armed officers which will increase payroll.”
Negative Impact • “Police Dept. is viewed as a necessary evil that hasn’t seen funding increases for over 20 years. . .. I do not see new legislation of this sort changing that fact.”
• “…our budget will be negatively impacted in that I’m certain there will be no provisions for increased budgets with the change in gun laws.”
No Impact • “Fiscally neutral.” • “I don’t believe the budget will be impacted.”
Training and Equipment Costs
• “…costs for more training” • “we will need to provide a system allowing firearms storage for
students.” • “We may have to purchase more equipment to improve
monitoring/surveillance of vulnerable areas of the campus.” • “…metal detectors at sporting events and such.”
Question 32 of the survey asked the respondents, “What statutory elements or provisions
would you recommend to the Legislature to aid them in developing reasonable and rational
campus carry law?” Sixteen of the 22 (73%) answered the question. The same method was used
that was used for Question 31, involving a cycle of descriptive coding and frequency analysis.
Codes similar to those used for the statutory QCA were applied to the responses. Surprisingly,
none of the respondents addressed “who should be permitted” to carry on campus, nor did any
address the locations where campus carry should be “permitted or prohibited” on campus.
Instead, the respondents commented primarily on “permitting requirements.”
The survey results indicated that most of the respondents (86%) opposed open carry on
campus but that only half opposed concealed carry. Based on the analysis of the responses to
113
Question 32, concealed campus carry may be deemed acceptable if adequate training is required
before individuals receive concealed carry permits, as can be seen in Table 28.
Table 28
Responses to Survey Question 32: Acceptable Elements or Provisions for Campus Carry Codes Response to Survey Question 32
Statutory Elements or Provisions
• “I don’t believe campus carry law is rational.” • “The presence of firearms . . . could serve to significantly dampen
the fundamental free and open exchange of ideas.” • “Permit and registration required at the campus.” • “Don’t feel there are any provisions that would make it
reasonable and rational.” • “None.” • “I do not believe any citizen who is legally authorized to carry a
firearm (openly or concealed) should be prevented from doing so on a university campus.”
• “Neither open nor concealed carry belong in an academic environment.”
• “A law that will allow the president of the school to determine areas where campus carry will be allowed/prohibited.
• “Enact a Campus Special Police Officer statute along the lines of North Carolina’s Private Police Act.”
Who is Permitted? • No responses addressed this. Locations Permitted? • No responses addressed this. Locations Prohibited? • No responses addressed this. Permit Requirements • “…annual demonstration of enhanced qualification and decision
• “…making courses similar to what is required for law enforcement.”
• “…there should be an increase in the amount of training required by each person who carries.”
• “Orientation course designed to familiarize the individuals carrying with expectations on how to respond to incidents.”
• “If passed, more comprehensive training to allow those who carry.”
• “…requirements for a permit should require the proof of additional training or require more training.”
• “…that persons with certain level of training would be permitted to carry on campuses, churches, etc. vs the general concealed carry in public.”
• “Fifty hours of firearms training on the range and 20 hours of classroom training for anyone who would carry on campus.”
• “Real training standards, testing and proficiency requirements for people applying for a permit.”
114
• “…require a qualification course much like the law enforcement one and many more hours of training”
Open Carry • “…no campus environment is conducive to open carry laws.” • “Open carry restricted to law enforcement”
Concealed Carry • “…concealed carry authorized if properly licensed”
• “Weapons must be concealed” Mental Health • “The current lack of funding to address mental health issues,
substance abuse and other student stressors need to be addressed. Adding guns to an unstable environment is not the answer.”
Themes and Patterns Identified from the Converged Statutory and Survey Data
When the analyses of the quantitative survey and the QCA were juxtaposed, certain
themes and patterns emerged that are discussed in the following subsections.
Strong opposition to open campus carry. Eighty-six percent of the respondents
opposed the open carry of firearms on their campuses. This result is consistent with the QCA of
the 11 states’ campus carry statutes, none of which allows open carry on campus. Even the
permit-not-required states, which generally allow both open and concealed in public areas
without a permit, require some form of permit for campus carry. Mississippi, for example,
requires only an application to show that a citizen meets the minimal requirements, but no
training, for open and concealed carry, but an “enhanced permit” for campus carry—though the
“enhanced” designation is something of an overstatement, since it only means that the holder has
attended an eight-hour training course.
Moderate opposition to concealed campus carry. Half of the respondents opposed
concealed carry on their campuses, though quantitative testing of the variables did confirm a
statistically significant difference between greater support for concealed carry over open carry.
The implication is that Florida’s campus public safety directors may be more accepting of
concealed campus carry—again provided that certain conditions, such as the requirement for
115
more stringent training to receive a concealed carry permit, are met (Question 32). As discussed,
Florida recently passed legislation enabling certain staff members at public elementary and
secondary schools to carry a concealed firearm on campus (S.B. 7026, 2018).
Permit or licensing requirement for campus carry. All 11 campus carry states impose
permitting or licensing requirements, though these requirements differ considerably from across
jurisdictions. Thus, some statutes are specific as to the requirements and others are vague. In
responding to Question 32 of the survey, the respondents focused on permitting requirements,
many being of the opinion that they should be more stringent than was currently the case. Some
of the responses were specific, such as “50 hours of firearms training on the range and 20 hours
of classroom training for anyone who would carry on campus.”
Additional findings. Although many of the statutes examined from the 11 campus carry
states varied in specificity or vagueness, some states were very explicit on areas of prohibition
that can be viewed as thematic. Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas all specify that
Campus Carry is prohibited in student dorms and other university-owned housing, within athletic
facilities, especially during an athletic event, and in rooms or office spaces designated as hearing
rooms for disciplinary and tenure discussions. Colorado State University’s Code of Conduct
Manual also specifies that firearms are prohibited within student housing areas.
Summary of QCA
The QCA of the 11 states’ campus carry statutes revealed recurrent themes as well as
insights that may assist Florida lawmakers in their deliberations over campus carry legislation.
These themes emerged over a series of holistic, provisional, and pattern coding cycles and were
reinforced when converged with data from the quantitative survey. This is one of the strengths
of the mixed-method approach adopted for this study. The themes included strong opposition to
116
open campus carry, moderate opposition to concealed campus carry, and concern regarding
permitting requirements. Additional themes that may be helpful in the development of campus
carry policy form part of the discussion of the study as a whole in the next, concluding chapter.
117
Chapter 5: Discussion
The right to bear arms . . . does not and never will overpower the individual’s right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
—Florence Yared (Willingham, 2018)
Florence Yared is a spokesperson for the #Never Again movement and a survivor of the
Parkland, Florida massacre. The survivors of that shooting and other advocates from the
“#NeverAgain” movement seem to have pierced through the decades-old, stalemated discussion
of gun control as no other group was able to do before (Gomez, 2018). This movement forced
legislative action on gun control in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C. (Gomez, 2018). In
Florida, campus carry proposals for public IHEs, a number of which have come up since 2011,
have been unsuccessful in both the House and Senate (Cook, 2014). On March 9, 2018,
however, Governor Rick Scott signed into law the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Public Safety Act (S.B. 7026). Under this statute, certain school staff members are permitted to
carry concealed firearms on the campuses of public elementary and secondary schools in Florida.
Passage of this bill raises the question of whether a similar one will be proposed in the 2019
session of the Florida Legislature regarding public IHEs.
The Parkland massacre and the signing of S.B. 7026 are sure to renew the urgency of the
call for future campus carry legislation pertaining to public IHEs in Florida and across the
country. The purpose of this final chapter is to explain and discuss the results of this study as a
whole. This work stands to provide useful information for legislators and administrators of IHEs
as they attempt to shape public policy regarding firearms on campus.
118
Summary of Problem and Purpose Statements
As noted, proposals to allow firearms on the campuses of colleges and universities in the
United States have been the subject of fierce national debate since the 2007 Virginia Tech
APPENDIX A Greetings Public Safety Professional, My name is Joel Bolante and I am a retired law enforcement executive who served over 34 years in the Northeast Florida region. I am currently conducting doctoral research regarding the open and concealed carry of firearms on the campuses of public colleges and universities in the State of Florida. Campus carry is a very important policy issue that Florida law-makers have been deliberating over the past few years. Your position as a campus public safety director/administrator will be directly impacted should such legislation pass. Since campus public safety directors are responsible for campus safety, campus crime conditions, and emergency responses that may include firearms, your perspectives regarding campus carry legislation are extremely important. I am asking for your help in furthering my research by participating in the survey attached to this email. Participation is voluntary and all participants will remain confidential. I understand that the topic of campus carry is very controversial and political. To ensure your confidentiality and anonymity, I will be using the electronic survey platform Qualtrics. All identifiers, such as email addresses and IP addresses, will be stripped and unavailable to anyone, including the researcher. I will have access only to the data. Qualtric’s security statement can be obtained at https://www.qualtrics.com/security-statement/. An “Informed Consent Form” will appear as a link on the first page of the survey. This form will further describe confidentiality procedures to ensure your privacy and anonymity. The form can also be accessed here: Irb approved informed consent In closing, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation for your service in making our campuses safer for all. It is my hope that my research will inform law-makers regarding the impacts of campus carry legislation. If you have any questions regarding the survey, I can be reached at [email protected] Please click at this link to take the survey: https://neu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0BNHj6V5AlsBno1 Thank you for your participation and stay safe! Respectfully, Joel S. Bolante Retired Undersheriff FBI National Academy – 195th Session (1998) Southern Police Institute, University of Louisville – 90th AOC (1993) Doctoral Candidate Northeastern University
IRB# CPS17-11-14
Approved: 12/19/17 Expiration Date: 12/18/18
158
APPENDIX B
159
APPENDIX C
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
APPENDIX D
List of Public Colleges and Universities in Florida
Universities
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Tallahassee
Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton
Florida Gulf Coast University Ft. Myers
Florida International University Miami
Florida State University Tallahassee
University of Central Florida Orlando
University of Florida Gainesville
University of North Florida Jacksonville
University of South Florida Tampa
University of South Florida Sarasota Sarasota
University of West Florida Pensacola
State Colleges / Community Colleges
Paso-Hernando Community College New Port Richey
New College of Florida Sarasota
Lake-Sumter State College Leesburg
Eastern Florida State College Cocoa
Broward College Ft. Lauderdale
College of Central Florida Ocala
Chipola College Marianna
Daytona State College Daytona Beach
167
Florida State College at Jacksonville Jacksonville