Gun Rights Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Teachers Could Carry Guns In W.Va. Classrooms Under Bill

A bill under discussion in the West Virginia House of Delegates would allow teachers to carry guns on school property if they complete a state-mandated training.

Teachers could soon be authorized to carry firearms in West Virginia classrooms, provided that they complete state-mandated training.

The House Judiciary Committee reviewed House Bill 4299 on Wednesday. The bill would create a position in schools known as a school protection officer.

The position would be a secondary role available to any school administrator, support personnel or elementary or secondary school teacher. These individuals would have to complete security and firearm safety training and could then receive authorization to bring a gun to school.

The bill received majority support from committee members, but only after more than an hour of impassioned debate.

Proponents of the bill said it would provide immediate support to school staff when students face the risk of an active shooter.

Under the bill, “we won’t have teachers, as in one instance, laying her body over top of her students,” said Del. Laura Kimble, R-Harrison, who sponsored the bill.

“Instead, she will have something to defend herself,” she said. “That’s why I’m a sponsor of this bill.”

Kimble also said it reaffirmed the state’s concealed carry law, which allows residents over age 21 to carry a firearm in public without a license.

Currently, West Virginia residents including teachers are prohibited from bringing guns onto school property, regardless of whether they have a permit for it.

Under the bill, teachers would be required to keep their firearm within their “personal control while that firearm or device is on school property.”

Critics of the bill, however, expressed doubts that increasing the number of guns in West Virginia schools would reduce gun-related injuries or deaths.

Del. Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, noted that the bill would create a new armed position in addition to other armed roles like prevention resource officers and school resource officers.

He added that another pending bill, House Bill 4851, would allow school security officers to carry firearms on school property.

“So, there’ll be four different types of people with guns in the schools?” he asked.

Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, expressed concern over a potential limit on training for school protection officers in the bill. The text of the bill states that school protection officers must complete “initial instruction and training that shall not exceed 24 hours.”

Also during the meeting, Del. Geoff Foster, R-Putnam, proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required school districts to designate an eligible school employee to serve as a school protection officer.

Counsel and committee members expressed concern that this would contradict the voluntary nature of the position, as established under the bill. Ultimately, Foster withdrew his amendment.

After extensive debate, a majority of committee members voted in favor of the bill, sending it to the House floor with the recommendation that it pass.

Shepherd University Invites Discussion On Response To Campus Carry Law

Shepherd University in the Eastern Panhandle is encouraging conversations with its students and faculty on how to deal with a new state law allowing concealed weapons on campus.

Senate Bill 10, popularly known as the campus carry bill, takes effect July 1, 2024.

As part of the school’s preparations, a closed-door discussion was organized where the school’s community could discuss their thoughts or concerns.

The Stubblefield Institute, an organization that encourages political discussion on campus, helped organize a panel made up of faculty, students, campus police and other school officials.

Executive Director Ashley Horst said it’s a way to encourage open dialogue without debates turning into arguments.

“It’s intimidating to a lot of people who might have questions about the legislation or really about any controversial topic,” Horst said. “So our role at the Institute is to foster that conversation.”

The panel was organized in tandem with the creation of a campus task force. It’s meant to take in input from groups like these to help better prevent shootings from happening on campus.

“We knew that this was going to be a sensitive topic on campus,” Horst said. “And we knew that we could be of assistance in facilitating these conversations.”

Many of the panelists moderating the event are part of this task force. That includes Joshua Stout, assistant professor at the school’s department of sociology, criminology and criminal justice. He helped discuss some of the research on policies across the nation in states that had already enacted campus carry laws, and how that could inform campus decisions moving forward.

“We’re specifically looking at the ways that we can help to ensure that there isn’t an increase in violence on campus, or that there isn’t an increase in suicide or sexual assault,” Stout said.

Stout said the current research on these laws in states that have enacted them has shown neither an increase nor decrease in violent crime on campuses. But he also pointed out criminology research at large does point to an increase of violent crimes alongside more accessibility to firearms.

“It’s kind of that next logical step, right?” Stout said. “Even though there hasn’t been enough longitudinal data on college campuses, if we look at criminology and criminal justice research in general, it’s not hard to kind of make that connection.”

Fellow panelist and Director of Counseling Services Wendy Baracka is concerned about the law from a mental health perspective. An increase of firearms on campus could lead to more suicides among students struggling with mental health problems.

“Self-directed violence or suicide risk is something that is very prevalent on college campuses,” Baracka said. “And there’s a direct connection between access to lethal means and the potential for completed suicides.”

Others in attendance were concerned with the logistics of the new law. Money for new facilities to accommodate things like gun storage is an issue, but there’s also concerns about how safety guidelines would be implemented from students opposed to the new law, like Allison Sawicki.

“We were talking about where the guns are going to be stored,” Sawicki said. “If our roommates were gonna know [if a roommate was carrying], or do the police officers on campus have to know that that person is carrying?”

Other students in support of the law, like Genevieve Blodgett, are worried about separation in the dorms. One idea that was floated during talks was only allowing one residence hall to have firearm storage.

“We’re concerned that they might give us the worst dorm or that they may not give proper funding to put storage facilities everywhere, so that even though we’re allowed to carry, we’re unable to carry in all the buildings where people are populated,” Blodgett said.

Blodgett and Sawicki are roommates and friends with differing views on campus carry. Both of them are engaged in the process to make sure their peers can feel at ease.

“We want to make sure that everyone feels safe and comfortable with the bill,” Blodgett said. “Both sides, just making sure that everyone realizes what it entails and how to keep everyone safe while having some of these measures in place.”

There are plans to have further discussions about how the school will implement campus safety guidelines before the law goes into place. That includes a similar discussion when new students arrive in the fall. Stout is also planning on creating surveys and focus groups for his research on campus.

Until then, the campus carry task force at Shepherd University is looking at ways to build trust and community as preventative measures so potential incidents of gun violence won’t happen.

“We’re all going to have more of that social trust in one another,” Stout said. “But we’ll also have that social capital and resources that if something is of concern, we already have that established relationship and rapport, where we can talk with each other.”

Morrisey, Other State AGs Set To File Lawsuit Relating To Pistol Brace Regulation

Patrick Morrisey is one of more than 20 attorneys general set to file a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They look to overturn a January rule regulating stabilizing braces and similar accessories for pistols.

Stabilizing braces attach to ends of pistols, using velcro to attach around the forearm.

The ATF argues these accessories would effectively transform pistols into short-barreled rifles, which are regulated more strictly than handguns through extra taxation, registration and background checks.

The agency said pistols modified with braces should be treated the same way, saying short-barreled rifles have the power of longer guns but are easier to conceal.

“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago,” ATF Director Steven Dettelbach said in a Jan. 13 statement announcing the rule, called Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces. “In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns.”

Morrisey decried the rule as federal overreach during a live streamed conference Thursday afternoon, calling it a “completely nonsensical regulation.” He also argued these braces are meant to increase accuracy and prevent recoil, touting those who would otherwise have more trouble carrying firearms as examples.

“We should not be making it harder for senior citizens and people with disabilities — and many disabled veterans — to defend themselves,” Morrisey said.

The rule went into effect Jan. 31 when it was published in the Federal Register. The lawsuit challenging it is set to be filed in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Western Division.

Gun Safety Compromise Could Be Finished This Week, Manchin Says

Manchin says at least 10 Republicans have agreed to the deal. That clears a path for it to advance in the Senate as long as all 50 Democrats support it.

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin says lawmakers have reached an agreement on gun safety. It follows last month’s deadly shooting at an elementary school in Texas.

Manchin says at least 10 Republicans have agreed to the deal. That clears a path for it to advance in the Senate as long as all 50 Democrats support it.

“We’re not finished with this right now,” he said. “There will be a lot of input from a lot of different people, but I think we’re going to get something done. Hopefully, maybe as early as this week.”

The proposal is less ambitious than a bill the House of Representatives passed mostly along party lines. It doesn’t include stronger background checks, age limits or a ban on assault-style weapons.

It provides incentives to states to prevent people from getting guns who shouldn’t have them, but doesn’t require it. It also provides more mental health resources to schools and communities.

One Republican who so far has not signed on: West Virginia’s other senator, Shelley Moore Capito.

Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey forged a compromise bill on background checks after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut almost a decade ago.

The Manchin-Toomey compromise failed to attract enough votes in both parties to overcome a Senate filibuster. Toomey, who’s retiring at the end of the year, supports the current effort.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Reinforcing Gun Rights Clears West Virginia Senate

The West Virginia Senate has adopted a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent counties and municipalities from passing legislation concerning firearms, ammunition or accessories that conflicts with or is more restrictive than state law.

As Senate Joint Resolution 1 headed for a vote Wednesday, lawmakers debated the idea of balancing the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms with public safety. That conversation kicked off as Senate Judiciary Chair Charles Trump, R-Morgan, explained an amendment he had offered to the resolution.

Trump told fellow senators that the measure had seen changes since leaving his committee that brought about concerns.

He said the introduced version of Senate Joint Resolution 1 — which was reinstated by the Finance Committee last week — could prohibit any kind of restriction of firearms in the state, including anything passed by the Legislature.

Lawmakers adopted Trump’s amendment, pulling back from a version of the resolution he called “too broad.”

While speaking on the floor, Sen. William Ihlenfeld, D-Ohio, acknowledged that he would likely be the only person to oppose Senate Joint Resolution 1. He argued that, while he supports the Second Amendment, localities have different needs in terms of regulating firearms when it comes to public safety.

“Martinsburg is different than Matewan. There’s a lot that goes on over in the Eastern Panhandle that doesn’t happen in any other part of the state. There is the influence of Baltimore and the D.C. metro area that kind of floods over into that part of the state that’s much different than the rural parts of West Virginia,” Ihlenfeld said. “Weirton is different than Welch — and I hate to take away the ability of local officials to address issues of public safety.”

Sen. Robert Karnes, R-Randolph, spoke in favor of the resolution. He called the right to bear arms “a basic human right.”

“A local community simply does not have — in any reading of the natural rights of man — the ability to restrict those rights,” Karnes said. “So this is a good approach to say we are not going to allow local communities to infringe on human rights and to restate that in our Constitution.”

In closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1, Trump said local control is necessary on many issues, but not when it comes to constitutional rights.

“It is the same as the right of free speech, the right of the free press, the right to practice religion of a person’s choosing,” Trump said. “On none of those, Mr. President, would I think it would ever be appropriate to have a city or a county have the ability to pass an ordinance to restrict the right.”

Lawmakers in the upper chamber adopted Senate Joint Resolution 1 Wednesday on a 33-1 vote, with Ihlenfeld the only vote in opposition.

With Wednesday known as “Crossover Day,” the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 1 came just ahead of a strict legislative deadline for bills and joint resolutions to clear their chamber of origin.

As a proposed state constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1 requires a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House before being placed on the ballot in November 2022 for the general public to ratify the change to the West Virginia Constitution.

In The Wake Of Two U.S. Mass Shootings, West Virginia Senate Committee Advances Four Gun Rights Proposals

Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 12:30 a.m.

Following two mass shootings in the United States in the past week, a West Virginia Senate committee tackled an agenda focused exclusively on guns.

During a Tuesday meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, lawmakers advanced four pieces of legislation related to reinforcing the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and other aspects of gun rights.

Last week, a gunman killed eight people — six of whom were women of Asian descent — in and around Atlanta, Georgia. On Monday, 10 people were killed, including a police officer, when a gunman opened fire inside of a Boulder, Colorado grocery store.

President Joe Biden called Tuesday for Congress to act in the wake of those shootings, urging lawmakers to pass bans on automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Over the course of Tuesday’s hour-plus meeting, lawmakers on the West Virginia Senate’s Judiciary Committee made no mention of the recent acts of gun violence in the nation.

Committee members spent most of their time considering Senate Joint Resolution 1, a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict localities from enacting regulations on guns that would be more strict than state code.

The measure, if approved by the Legislature and, later, the voting public, would add to the West Virginia Constitution to limit local regulation of firearms ammunition, and firearms accessories.

As a joint resolution, the proposal would require a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House before going to a vote of the general public in November 2022.

Sen. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, moved to postpone consideration of the resolution indefinitely and effectively kill the measure. That motion failed on a voice vote.

“A constitutional amendment is just superfluous in this instance,” Romano said as he asked for the proposed constitutional amendment to be reformed into a bill.

But Senate Judiciary Chair Charles Trump, R-Morgan, ruled Romano’s second motion was not germane.

Art Thomm, who told the committee he represents the “hundreds of thousands of NRA members” in West Virginia, answered questions from members about the resolution. He used Virginia as an example of a state passing gun control legislation in recent years and said this proposal would prevent any such legislation from being enacted here.

“The state of Virginia, for example, has always been a very, very gun-friendly state until most recently,” Thomm said. “Now, they’re passing every anti-gun law that they can salivate to get to the podium — they’re doing it. And I believe what this is seeking to do is to ensure that that never happens here in the state of West Virginia.”

Sen. Mike Caputo, D-Marion spoke against Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Caputo noted that recent changes to Virginia’s gun laws focused on allowing school boards to ban guns on school property, increasing the time state police would have to complete a background check, among other proposals he deemed as “reasonable.”

“I’m not anti-gun. I own guns and come from a family of hunters,” Caputo said. “But I do think sometimes reasonable measures must be taken. If these are the things we are looking to prevent, I can’t be a part of that.”

Sen. Rupie Phillips, R-Logan, told committee members he supported the proposed constitutional amendment.

“On election night, when the governor got control of the House and Senate in Virginia, he made some very hard comments about going after the guns,” Phillips said. “So, I think this is a very good opportunity for us to, again, stand our ground for our Second Amendment rights.”

Senate Joint Resolution 1 passed the committee on a voice vote.

The committee also originated and advanced a concurrent resolution that urges congress and the president to “protect the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

In addition, lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 458, which would prevent the suspension or limitation of firearms or ammunition sales during a state of emergency declared by the federal or state government. Senate Bill 419 — which synchronizes state and federal code to allow antique firearms to be possessed by those who are otherwise not permitted to possess a firearm — also cleared the committee Tuesday.

All three of those proposals quickly passed the committee with little to no discussion.

Following Tuesday’s meeting, Trump told West Virginia Public Broadcasting the decision to run the gun rights legislation Tuesday in the aftermath of recent mass shootings was purely coincidental and that it hinged on looming legislative deadlines.

“Anytime there’s a loss of life, it’s a great tragedy. But we have a 60-day session and we’re in the final third of it now,” Trump said. “We’re actually in the last week when we can consider Senate bills in the Senate. So, if we don’t consider them this week, they’re lost.”

The last day for each chamber to consider a bill in its house of origin is Wednesday, March 31. The regular session ends Saturday, April 10 at midnight.

This story has been updated to reflect the committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 1.