Weapon policy worth battle to JMU

House Editorial

Who cares if weapons are allowed on campus?

Obviously JMU does, which is seen in the latest decision to defend itself in court over the matter.
Keezeltown resident Dave Briggman, who occasionally visits campus, filed a lawsuit against JMU’s no-weapon’s policy nearly three weeks ago. His claim: He has a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon, whether he is attending a Sunday church service or sauntering down Bluestone Drive.

And while Briggman has a few strong hands holding him up — those of the Founding Fathers — JMU’s bold action to detest his stance is admirable for its cause.

The university is going out on a limb to publicly show that student safety is a vital concern — even more so than Second Amendment rights. By going to court, JMU also is taking a chance by putting this case out in the mounds of public opinion.

Keep in mind what it means to live in the Shenandoah Valley — an area where National Rifle Association-loving game hunters flock to Wal-mart for camouflage gear and gawk over the latest and greatest guns on the market. Many locals are going to support any kind of weapon freedom.

It’s going to be a tough fight.

But the importance is that JMU is willing to take up this fight with hopes to set a precedent for other universities. Student Body President Tom Culligan and freshman senator Sara Lunsford aren’t the only ones looking to secure student safety.

JMU easily could have settled this dispute out of court, which would be a quieter — and possibly cheaper — way to move on. Blue Ridge Community College did it this way when Briggman chose to carry a gun to class in March 2003. The college’s policy was challenged by Briggman, and it ended up allowing handguns after settling the issue through the attorney general’s office, not the courthouse.

Obviously, quiet didn’t work for Blue Ridge.

Now that court dockets have JMU’s defense set in place, media will be picking it up, the community will become involved and people will be talking. JMU is turning this case into something important.

The attorney general’s office opinion given to Briggman is an indicator of a likely outcome in JMU’s case. The office decided Blue Ridge didn’t have legal grounds to ban Briggman from carrying a concealed handgun. If the court opts for a similar ruling with JMU on Oct. 20, the university will need the public support to appeal the decision or take the issue to the Virginia General Assembly.