Yes, but these are things like "time, place, and manner" restrictions, because if I walk around with a bullhorn at 2:30 in the morning, I might bother people. In such a situation, the very act of speech itself is harmful to those around me, so we have some--very few--regulations.
Not true with carrying a weapon. Unlike speech, the very act of carrying a weapon--in and of itself--is harmless to those around me, and, as such, should not be subject to restriction.
If you want to pass laws that give severe penalties to those who use a weapon in the commission of a crime, fine. But don't restrict my right to carry a weapon, which, by itself, is completely harmless.
Keeping guns of campus is a place restriction. The type of weaponry could be construed as a manner restriction.
I understand this is a hotly contested issue with many sides. I also am saddened to see many FReepers condemning Brady law supporters for making political hay of this incident, and then turning around and trying to make political hay themselves.
My views may not be popular on this forum, but I feel obliged to say them and not posture. I don’t think the constitution really works. It has to be stretched and altered in order to reflect reality. I’m not sure if it was ever intended to really function—rather, it exists as a legitiming myth. A rationalist version of the divine right of kings.
A society is built on certain principles, that when taken literally and without moderation, spell the end of that civilization. The underlying principle of the USA is liberty; when liberty is taken to excess and becomes license (as unregulated weaponry would be, in my mind), then the damage done to the State is mortal.