Ugh. They pushed my pet peeve button, the "presumptively lawful" statement. I had to leave a comment.
For people who are supposed to be smart, you all sure are not so much.
What you want is for people to not come on campus and shoot other people.
Regulations forbidding the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens do not even come close to accomplishing that desire. In fact, if you take even 10 minutes to discover the one common factor among virtually all mass shootings, you will find the exact opposite, such rules actually facilitate this undesired behavior.
It is also quite disingenuous to quote from Heller:
“nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
...but then LEAVE OUT the equally critical part of the point, the footnote to that sentence which states:
"26. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."
Note the word PRESUMPTIVELY. That means that Scalia specifically stated that Heller DID NOT address whether such laws were Constitutional. Or not. The issue was simply not considered at all.
After Heller and McDonald have a few years to influence lower court decisions, we could very well find ourselves reading new opinions that do indeed severely restrict such laws which today are merely "presumptively lawful."
The sad thing about such dangerous opinions and policies that you support is that while you might "feel" safer in the short term, they most assuredly will end up getting real people killed.