This story ran last night, 10 February, 2008, on WLFI TV 18:

State Senators Consider Gun Legislation

Updated: Feb 10, 2008 07:30 PM EST

State Legislators recently considered a bill that would have drastically changed where people could legally carry a gun. The Senate bill was one vote short of passing on to the House.

It would have allowed people with a permit to carry a gun on any public property except courtrooms, airports, and jails. One place guns would have been allowed, is universities. Republican Senators Brandt Hershman and Ron Alting are both strong supporters of the right to bear arms, but had different votes on this bill.

"Obviously I support the right to bear arms I've been endorsed by the NRA ever since I joined the senate but regardless of that there's no way I could support this bill. The second part of the bill would have allowed college students, obviously 18 years and older which is the majority, to carry guns into our universitie," said Alting.

"I voted in favor of the bill for a couple of reasons, one I'm a pretty strong believer in the second amendment and secondly the data I've seen in years past has indicated that there's almost no crime that is being committed by people that legally possess firearms," said Hershman.

Supporters of this bill say in cases such as a school shooting, if more people had guns perhaps the gunman could have been stopped. "There has been cases where people who legally possess a firearm have been able to interrupt the commission of a crime and certainly I think that is a possibility," said Hershman.

Alting said, "I'm one that just doesn't buy that. I think that carrying handguns in lockers and backpacks and for students in our universities to have the potential 35 thousand guns in West Lafayette is just not good public policy and not a safe one at that."

Hershman says he does not think this legislation would mean more guns in class because he doubts most students have a gun permit. Alting says he knows he helped kill a bill many Republicans supported, but says he voted as a parent who wouldn't want to see guns in school.

http://www.wlfi.com/global/story.asp?s=7850814

State Senator Ron Alting told us that he supported the Second Amendment and that he supported our bills. He later, after voting against SB 356 and when I gave him the opportunity to express his reasons for doing so, expressed objection to high school seniors (with Licenses to Carry) being able to do so in a K-12 school (he also expressed, possibly as an afterthought, a lesser concern about college students carrying) and told me that if I was a parent of a 16 year old who has 18 year old friends, and if I had the opportunity to sit in his chair and hear all the testimony, I might have a different opinion.

Well, see, now, there's the trouble, because I DO have a teenage daughter who has older friends (always has), and while I was not sitting in Sen. Alting's chair, I was sitting in MY chair and thanks to the Internet, I was listening to every single word of testimony at the third reading (and vote) on SB 356. I also heard (and gave) testimony in committee. Senator Alting was not present for this; I don't know if he was listening to it in his office. However, at the third reading, I heard Sen. Nugent clearly and repeatedly promise his colleagues that if that oversight was not amended, he would not return the bill to the Senate for a future consideration and vote.

So, since Mr. Alting originally explained that his objection and the reason for his failure to support what he said he would was based on high school students (who at 18 are adults) carrying firearms legally in K-12 schools, and since I refuted that as well as asked him what the difference was between a college student lawfully and peaceably carrying his or her firearm on campus versus that same student lawfully and peaceably carrying at any other location, such as a store or even walking down the street, I was quite surprised to still hear him using that excuse.

Guns require action by people to be used for either good or evil, just as alcohol must be combined with a person to create a state of intoxication. We have state laws forbidding alcohol in the possession of anyone under 21, so if those laws worked, we would see no use of alcohol anywhere in the state, let alone at Purdue campus, by anyone under 21.

How about this, Senator Alting: For the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, I'll pay you ten dollars for every violent crime (homicide, rape, arson, battery, or armed robbery) committed in the state of Indiana by a holder of a License to Carry after you pay me five dollars for every report of alcoholic beverage possession or consumption by someone under 21. Do we have a deal?