Should Colleges Buy Ammo for Student Gun Clubs?

A controversy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill adds heat to the debate over firearms on campus.

Concealed-carry laws are not the only controversy to hit college campuses since the recent wave of mass shootings sparked a national debate about guns. Last week, the student congress of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill passed a bill making it harder for the school’s Tar Heel Rifle and Pistol Club to use student government funds to buy ammunition. The vote prompted a lawsuit within the school’s student supreme court, while the Young America’s Foundation, a national group promoting conservative politics on college campuses, charged that students with liberal views on guns had improperly targeted the gun club.

Some universities explicitly ban funding of both guns and ammunition, but the UNC student code (PDF) is mixed on the issue: It prohibits the use of student funds to purchase firearms (although they “may be rented or leased”), but it exempts ammo. In the wake of the Newtown massacre, that concerned Austin Root, the student representative who wrote the new bill, which puts tighter restrictions on student funding of ammo.

Some university gun clubs leave it up to students to foot the bill for their guns and ammo. At Ohio State University, which last weekend hosted the NCAA Division I rifle championship, the student pistol club is “primarily self-funded and does not purchase either firearms or ammunition using OSU funds due to the large amount of ammo we go through,” according to club treasurer Zak Baer. A new rifle and pistol club at the University of Maryland operates the same way. The Ohio State club, on the other hand, receives grant money from the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, which provides a total of $300,000 to help universities establish or grow their gun clubs but recommends that students purchase their own guns and ammo (PDF).

Kurt Mueller, PR director of Students for Concealed Carry, said he didn’t know of any university clubs buying ammo with student activity fees, a portion of which go into the coffer for student funds at UNC. “But if a college makes funds generally available for club expenses then it sounds okay to me,” he said. “Mere personal dislike is not sufficient basis to prevent people from engaging in law-abiding activity when they are not causing disruption to campus.”

 

The Young America’s Foundation insists that Root’s actions at UNC amount to “discrimination.” The group posted a Facebook conversation from last October in which Root wrote, “I don’t think [ammo is] an appropriate use of student funds.” Root counters that his goal was to comply with the student code with regard to funding, and to account for safety and liability concerns about the ammo. “It’s stored off-campus at someone’s house, and if someone breaks in and uses it for a mass shooting” people might consider those who approved the funds to be at fault, he explained. (Gun safety has long been a concern of members of the UNC student congress; in 2006, a bill was introduced to ban the funding of guns and ammo because they were said to “constitute a significant potential University liability.”)

That mass shooting hypothetical, said Grant Anastas-King, president of the Tar Heel Rifle and Pistol Club, “is a wild accusation made by these people that disagree with us that say some crazy person is going to come to campus and shoot us.” The rifle and pistol club, Anastas-King added, doesn’t use the assault weapons or high-capacity magazines commonly used by mass shooters. (Apparently that’s despite the semiautomatic rifle shown in the group’s logo.) Instead, he said, they use .22-caliber rifles and pistols and “promote gun education and gun safety before anyone goes out to the range,” where certified instructors offer additional safety training.

Anastas-King has sought ammo funds for his club from student congress for the past three years, but he declined to say how much ammo his group has used or how it was purchased.

Meanwhile, Root has received harassing messages, ostensibly from supporters of the gun club who dislike his bill. “Such disregard for the sanctity of the collegiate justice system will not be tolerated,” one anonymous email warned.


Does your state allow concealed guns on college campuses? Hover over an individual state for further details. (And read more here.)

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate