Intrastate and Interstate Influences on the Introduction and Enactment of Campus Carry Legislation, 2004–2016

Abstract

Using a data set that captures the introduction and enactment of “campus carry” bills between 2004 and 2016, we examined how the state policy adoption and diffusion framework explains the policy process related to allowing concealed weapons on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. Panel data logistic regression analyses revealed that active shooter incidents, the percentage of Republicans in state government, citizen political ideology, and policy diffusion influence the introduction of campus carry legislation. In addition, survival analysis showed that conservative citizen political ideology and anti-gun-control interests are positively related to the enactment of campus carry laws. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical analysis of the policy process related to campus carry legislation. It expands the empirical scope of higher education policy research by considering a social problem that, like free speech and transgender “bathroom bills,” is only indirectly related to student achievement but nevertheless a high priority for some state legislators. Importantly, the results underscore the importance of examining how the influences of state characteristics and interstate dynamics vary across stages of the policy process.

Concealed Carrying on Campus in the Post–Virginia Tech Era: Dimensions of State Regulation and Differences in Contexts of Influence Within Them

“…For example, because interpretation of state statutes and regulations is a subjective undertaking, others reviewing the same information we did might develop a different classification scheme than the one we developed. Furthermore, the results we obtained might be different had we approached how states regulate CCOC as an issue involving how they regulate higher education (see Johnson & Zhang, 2020) rather than how states regulate firearms. In addition, we are cognizant of the fact that because we are studying 50 states, the statistical analysis of the restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework we present may be limited empirically due to small cell sizes and the fact that some include zeroes.…”

“…The political winds were thus blowing toward restrictive gun regulation. Sloan and Fisher (2018) and Johnson and Zhang (2020) also showed that, since the 2010 Tea Party "wave election" when Republicans not only retook control of the U.S. House of Representatives but also dozens of state legislatures and governorships, the political winds changed direction toward relaxing restrictive gun regulations. Evidence for this is seen in the fact that multiple states have considered at least one piece of legislation since 2010 designed either to ease or abolish completely existing restrictions on CCOC (Sloan and Fisher, 2018).…”

“…The organizing framework we used was originally developed by Hearn et al (2017) who suggested that state adoption of regulations for higher education are correlated with certain intrastate contexts of influence, including socioeconomic, organizational, politico-institutional, and normative. While it is arguable that state regulation of CCOC is a component of state higher education regulation (see Johnson & Zhang, 2020), CCOC regulation is certainly a component of how states regulate firearms. Because state CCOC regulations directly or indirectly relate to how states govern postsecondary institutions (e.g., McLendon et al, 2006), we argue that Hearn et al's framework is both useful and adaptable for our purposes.…”

“…Further research in this area is warranted, given the level of media-related and scholarly interest relating to the presence of guns on college campuses. One suggestion for future research would be to track change in regulations of CCOC by state over time (e.g., state-year observations, see Johnson & Zhang, 2020). For example, one might choose the post-1990 period as this time frame covers the period during which the federal Clery Act (20 U.S.C.…”

Christmas Trees, Presidents, and Mass Shootings: Explaining Gun Purchases in the South and Non‐South

“…Our data span from January 1999 to May 2020 for a total of 12,850 state‐months. We recognize the limitations of our data given that sales at gun shows and sales conducted by unlicensed dealers do not undergo background check; however, we adopted the approach of other scholars who have utilized firearm background checks as proxies for gun sales (Butz, Fix, and Mitchell, 2015; Johnson and Zhang, 2020).…”