My honest opinion, there shouldn't be very many gun free zones (they don't seem to work out too good) even if there is "gun highly unlikely zones".
I wouldn't have half as much problem if universities would have really strict gun rules but said that they are allowed.
Requirements could be:
KY CCDW (What a joke)
5 Professor recommendations
10 years drug/alcohol free
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm.
Meeting all of those would be tough but still doable. If a collage has these rules to carry a gun on campus no one will fault them for a lack of security.
You say that there shouldn't be many GFZs and then list a bunch of BS pre-conditions for carry on campus. Somehow I am hearing an echo from what all the other antis say - "reasonable restrictions" if I recall their term correctly. Let's look at your "reasonable restrictions":
KY CCDW (What a joke) - I have no knowledge about KY's CCDW, but wonder why you include it if you feel it, or having one. is a "joke".
5 Professor recommendations - Given the known liberal bias of college proffsors in general, and the anti-gun bias of most liberals, just how do you expect anyone to accumulate those five recommendations? Or is this just another "reasonable restriction" that is actually designed to prevent anybody from achieving the goal?
10 years drug/alcohol free - Lips that touch alcohol will never touch a gun? Really? Another zero-tolerance "reasonable restriction" imposed. What about those who are of legal drinking age? Do you really mean "drug free" or do you mean merely free from criminal use of drugs? And how would you document such a status as 10 years drug/alcohol free?
Evaluations every week by a psychiatrist - Just as soon as you make everyone else who regularly uses every other object capable of causing death or serious bodily injury to undergo the same. But maybe I'll just limit it to those who drive motor vehicles, seeing as they cause such a greater number of negligent deaths than do guns. By the way, were you aware that psychiatrists generally do not evaluate people for proclivities towards violence or criminality?* How are you going to fund this activity - or is the expense of it just another "reasonable restriction" you are going to impose?
$100,000+ in insurance if you do any damage - First, are you suggesting a mandatory insurance policy, similar to what many states require of licensed drivers? Second, please explain how you are going to get any insurance company to underwtite such a policy when they won't even do so for the exceedingly small number of folks who voluntarily seek such coverage? And you are aware that most insurance will not cover you for damages caused by illegal acts? So just how will this "reasonable restriction" be met?
A notarized letter that you are an upstanding citizen that will not wrongly hurt anyone with your firearm - Does this come from the psychiatrist above? You know, the psychiatrist who does not evaluate anyone for proclivities towards violence or criminality? What assurances will the author of the letter provide that their prognostication can be trusted? What liability will they bear if they guess wrong?
Of course you never expected anybody to be able to met any of, let alone all of your "reasonable restrictions". But you are a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Usually I end my posts with "stay safe". In this case I will not. If you cannot understand why, I invite you to contact me for a full explanation.