Senate Bill 1254, which received Senate approval Tuesday, is wrong for North Idaho College and is wrong for higher education campuses throughout the state. Why?

The NIC Board of Trustees, the governing boards of each of the other community colleges and each of the four-year institutions, as well as many law enforcement and municipal authorities have examined the proposed bill and have publicly opposed it. Why?

Idaho Code 18-3302J presently provides that ordinances regulating firearms "may not apply or affect ...the authority of ...the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges... to regulate in matters relating to firearms." Senate Bill 1254 seeks to change that.

Pursuant to the authority of I.C. 18-3302J, Idaho community colleges have established "no guns on campus" policies. These policies have been effective in stopping gun-related violence on Idaho campuses. There is no history of gun-related violence on Idaho campuses which would indicate that there needs to be a change in the existing policies.

Institutions of higher learning have traditionally provided an environment conducive to learning by ensuring a campus which is safe and secure for the students, faculty and all individuals on the campus. Campuses provide a wide array of facilities to enhance the learning experience, from classrooms, and student unions to auditoriums and open campus lawns and parks. There are day care centers for young children and there are high school students attending dual credit courses to obtain college level credit before high school graduation. Providing that no firearms may be brought onto the entire campus provides the colleges the ability to remove any and all firearms from the campus as their presence is made known and to regulate admission to the campus for those who refuse to comply with the policies.

If campus safety is an issue that needs addressing, it should be accomplished by the individual institutions with their own security solutions and policies, not by opening the campus to firearms on a statewide basis.

It would be wrong to assume that those who support this bill are in some way insincere or unconcerned with campus safety and simply want to urge Second Amendment issues using college campuses. Clearly there are many concerned citizens who feel that some level of guns on campus is necessary to enhance campus safety. While a debate over campus safety should include the concept of citizens carrying guns, Senate Bill 1254 is a bad start of that debate and is poorly constructed to enhance campus safety.

Senate Bill 1254 is reportedly patterned after legislation being promoted by the National Rifle Association. There are many bad provisions in Senate Bill 1254, but here are a few of the more prominent ones which will limit the ability of colleges to provide campus safety.

The bill provides that two classes of gun carriers may carry guns on campus. One class is described in I.C. 18-3302H as "qualified retired law enforcement officers." The other is described in I.C. 18-3302K as "enhanced concealed weapons" license holders.

Providing an exemption for qualified retired law enforcement may actually make some sense. When we examine the statutory requirements to qualify as a retired law enforcement officer we find that applicants: (1) must have retired in good standing; (2) before retirement they must have been authorized to engage in the prevention, detection or prosecution of violations of the law and had statutory powers of arrest; (3) before retirement they must have been employed in law enforcement for 15 years; (4) during the most recent 12 month period they must have met, at their own expense, the standards for training and qualifications in this state as required by the sheriff. These include fingerprinting and records checking for criminal conduct and mental health records as well as proficiency training; (5) they cannot be chronically under the influence of alcohol; (6) they must have a current identification from the agency from which the individual retired. Initial and renewed licenses are valid for one year.

Confronting hostile and stressful situations with a firearm is a responsibility for which law enforcement trains and conditions its officers on a regular and ongoing basis. These licensing provisions help ensure that a retired law enforcement officer is almost as well prepared for the proper use of his or her weapon as an active officer.

The same level of preparation is not required by the so-called "enhanced concealed weapons" statute. The only background qualifications are fingerprinting and a records check, including mental health records. The training and preparation on how and when to shoot is limited to a"qualifying hand gun course" of eight hours duration which includes safe use, self-defense principles and live fire training using at least 98 rounds of ammunition. Rather than the license being valid for one year as for the retired law enforcement officer, the enhanced weapon license is valid for five years with five-year renewals.

Clearly, the initial conditioning, training, and practice, and the subsequent regular training required of both active and retired law enforcement personnel provides many safeguards to maximize the effective control of hostile situations. The enhanced weapons permit does not address these critical issues. Almost anyone who does not have a felony or mental health record can apply for and obtain an enhanced permit. The only real "enhanced" provision over the regular concealed weapons permit is that one must shoot 95 rounds. Knowing how to pull the trigger is much different than being thoroughly trained on why and when to use the deadly force of firing a weapon.

The issuance of the enhanced permit for five years while the more highly trained and conditioned retired law enforcement permit is only for one year makes no sense. Indeed the provisions seem to be upside down. The better trained and conditioned individual's right to carry is reviewed more often than the less qualified - very strange.

Other provisions of Senate Bill 1254 dramatically limit the college's ability to monitor and respond to potential violence on campus. The bill, taken in conjunction with other statutes, prohibits the college from requiring registering firearms addressed by the statute, with campus security. The privacy provisions will likely impact any other policy which the college may deem necessary to provide protection to its students and faculty regarding such firearms. When the firing of weapons starts, how is responding security and law enforcement to know where the problem is?

Curiously, the Bill distinguishes between where, on campus, one can or cannot carry the allowed concealed weapons. One cannot be prohibited from carrying such concealed weapons in a classroom, on the campus grounds, in the Student Union and in any stadium, auditorium or entertainment building with a building capacity of 999 or less. One can be prohibited from carrying such a licensed weapon in a dormitory or other place of public entertainment with a building capacity of 1,000 or more. The distinction of these various venues, as to where one cannot be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon does not appear to have any logic or reason. More critically, these irrational distinctions construct a very difficult situation for campus security and police to control.

Senate Bill 1254 does not enhance campus safety. Indeed it provides for the development of campus situations that NIC has been successful in avoiding by allowing NO GUNS ON CAMPUS.

Campus security will be greatly hindered by the provisions of this bill. Please help us avoid the dangers of this bill and pursue provisions which will realistically enhance campus safety for all who venture there. If you are as concerned about this bill as the elected officials who have the responsibility to provide for campus safety, please write, call or otherwise notify your representatives right away. Your voice counts.

Ken Howard is an attorney and chairman of the North Idaho College Board of Trustees.