Home » Campus » Allowing concealed carry at Ohio State ‘not under consideration’

Allowing concealed carry at Ohio State ‘not under consideration’

An open-carrying protester speaks with a WOSU reporter while walking past The 'Shoe on Dec. 5.Credit: Nick Roll | Campus Editor

An open-carrying protester speaks with a WOSU reporter while walking past The ‘Shoe on Dec. 5. Credit: Nick Roll | Campus Editor

Provisions stemming from House Bill 48 were signed into law earlier this week by Gov. John Kasich, and would allow for public universities in Ohio to opt in to allow concealed carry on their campuses. Ohio State, however, isn’t likely to budge on its existing policy, which prohibits concealed carry.

Amending OSU’s policy would have to come from the university’s Board of Trustees, said OSU spokesman Chris Davey, and there aren’t plans to do change it.

“The policy enacted by the Board of Trustees is that concealed firearms are prohibited on Ohio State’s campus, and that remains the policy,” Davey said. “It’s not under consideration.”

University President Michael Drake spoke out against the concealed carry provisions during a November segment of WOSU’s “All Sides with Ann Fischer.”

None of my colleagues or myself think that’s a good idea,” Drake told the NPR affiliate.

While the legislation was still pending, students from both sides of the aisle testified at the Ohio Statehouse regarding the new law, with OSU’s College Democrats siding against it. Members of OSU’s Buckeyes for Concealed Carry argued for it, though they were against the provision leaving universities able to choose not to opt in. That provision, and OSU’s position against the policy, leave Buckeyes for Concealed Carry blocked for now.

Students weren’t the only ones coming out in favor of expanded concealed carry, however.

At the beginning of the month, a group of pro-gun rights activists walked through campus, legally carrying firearms openly. The march came, intentionally, a week after an attack on Ohio State’s campus was carried out with a knife and car by Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a third-year in logistics management. The attack resulted in Artan’s death and about a dozen people being sent to the hospital.

The tactic of walking through campus while carrying openly, however, was divisive, leaving students and faculty with different reactions after seeing the armed group stroll through campus. Though the concealed-carry legislation has now passed, the impasse surrounding gun policy on college campuses remains.


  1. Big surprise. University administrator from California is opposed to students and staff exercising their Constitutional rights. It’s a shame that people are not permitted to defend themselves in 2016.

  2. Guns do not increase safety, they diminish it. That is what the scientific research shows. Kasich’s decision is purely political. If having guns everywhere improved safety, it would have happened decades ago.

    Brian M., who posted above, has been mislead by the pro-gun lobby and does not understand our nation’s Constitution. In 2008, the Heller decision changed the meaning of the Second Amendment and created an individual right to possess firearms in the home for self defense. In that decision conservative justice Scallia wrote:

    “[…] nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” pp 54-55

    OSU Class of 1980
    Professor at Virginia Tech.

    • The supreme court does not have the power to change someones rights or even interpret the bill of rights because there is nothing up for interpretation. Our rights enumerated in the constitution are not given to us by the constitution, we are born with them. Where are you from if I may ask? Because I am from a horrible neighborhood where I watched my best friend get shot to death. I have also been shot myself but still support every human beings right to bear arms.

      • The Supreme Court does interpret what is in the Constitution. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Roe v Wade are all examples. In the case of the Second Amendment, in 2008 a 5-4 majority declared the existence of an individual right to own guns for self defense in the home in the Heller vs DC decision. Before then, this was primarily viewed as a collective right.

        Do you think that having more guns in your neighborhood would make people safer?

        I am a professor at Virginia Tech. Of the 32 people killed on 4/16/07, in what remains the worst shooting at a US university, two were friends (and colleagues) and 14 were students in my department.

        • 1) No matter how the Supreme Court “interprets” the constitution it is clear to me and hundreds of millions of Americans, that the 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing the right of the people (citizens of the US) to keep and bear arms. This is why there were no federal laws regarding firearms for the first 143 years of our country.
          2) Yes, there are plenty of places around this country with very high rates of gun ownership that have very low rates of crime and are very safe.
          3) I assume that VT was a “gun free zone” on the day of the horrific attack. This did not prevent someone from taking a gun on the campus and killing people. It only prevented the law abiding citizens from their constitution rights to defend themselves because they followed the ill conceived law and left their guns at home.

          • Dear Mr/Ms (Anonymous) US Citizen,

            It does not matter what is clear to you and millions of Americans regarding how the Supreme Court interprets any aspect of the Constitution. That is not how it works. As I mentioned, the Second Amendment has traditionally (until 8 years ago) been interpreted as a collective right. The grammatical subject of this one-sentence amendment is “a well-regulated militia.” This was pointed out in the Heller case but Scalia chose to invent another reading of the sentence.

            In general, more guns results in more gun deaths. That is true in the US and around the world.

            The NRA myth of the “gun-free zone” is used fool people. It works frequently. Having guns increases the likelihood of people dying from guns.

        • I’m curious in Jan 2006 a campus carry bill was presented. The schools lobbied strongly against it and when it failed; Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

          Months later the worst shooting massacre to ever occur took place on the safe campus.

          Do you ever feel a smidge of a measure of culpability knowing that you were part of a collective that enabled the shooter to kill and wound as many unarmed staff and students?

          Do you ever consider your perceptions are incorrect? Do you conduct an honest investigation or simply ignore that which does not support your biased opinions?

          I suspect we know the answer….

        • Richard Shyrock, A new study by Crime Prevention Center has concluded since the 1950’s thru July 10, 2016 that 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones with just 1,6 percent of the shootings have occurred where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them. Maybe you should check your data and quit spewing non truths.

  3. Dr. Shryock is very keen on the “scientific research.” So keen he fails to cite any criminological studies. I would suggest he begin his journey by reading Dr. James Wright’s piece titled “Second thoughts on gun control.” It is old but most of it probably still applies, and it is a window into the mind of one of our foremost guns and violence criminologists–one who with his late colleague Dr. Peter Rossi began the first good research on guns and violence back in the seventies and eighties.
    I would next recommend Shryock read Wright’s 1995 piece, “Ten Essential Observations on Guns in America.” I doubt Shryock will be convinced he is out of his element with his “research” comments, but maybe this will put some doubt in his mind that this area is all that easy or obvious.
    I’ve been studying this area for years and my conclusion is that the number and types of weapons in society has little or nothing to do with the amount of violence in that society. Guns are only one variable in the mix; a variable I’m convinced is not as important as many think.
    As for “campus carry,” the many years we now have of legal campus carry in Utah and a few other places mirrors the results from the expansion of concealed carry in general: nothing much happens.
    I would urge Shryock to do a little more reading of the criminological literature before he describes what it says.
    Dr. Gary Kleck’s book, “Targeting Guns” would be next, particularly the chapter on the sad state of affairs in the public health literature’s “gun control studies.”
    Karl Spaulding
    OSU Pariah Laureate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.