The state's highest court ruled Friday that the University of Utah has no right to ban guns on campus, rejecting the argument that prohibiting firearms is part of the school's power to control academic affairs...
But no one will be permitted to carry a gun anytime soon on the campus, home to more than 44,000 students, faculty and staff members. Friday's ruling resolved only the state issues involved in the matter; the case now goes back to U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City for litigation of federal constitutional issues.
The delay is welcome to Landon Smith and Minna Shim, U. students who say they support the ban, which has been in place for almost three decades.
"It scares the hell out of me," said Smith, a senior in communication. "I don't want some cowboy coming to class with a gun."
Shim, an undeclared freshman, said, "I don't feel a threat here now, but if there are concealed weapons around, I'd be afraid."
U. President Michael Young said he was disappointed by the decision.
"Universities across the country uniformly prohibit guns on campus," he said. "We hope that, following a review of this case in federal court, the issue will be resolved to uphold our long-standing policy of keeping firearms off campus."
The U. is arguing that any interference with its gun policy violates its right to academic freedom guaranteed by the First and 14th amendments.
I'm sorry, Landon and Minna, that your bigotry and enuresis aren't deemed sufficient justification to define the rights of free sovereign individuals who aren't pathetic, ignorant and immature.
I also love how "authorized journalists" Pamela Manson and Sheena McFarland somehow couldn't investigate deep enough into the subject to find some reasons why carrying a gun on campus might not be such a bad idea. I'm sure it's because no victimization ever occurs there...
But the real danger of this story isn't with the snivelers--it's with the legal approach employed by the university: Dueling amendments. We are truly living in the Bizarro world when the First and Fourteenth are seriously proposed as counterweights to the Second.
To say the least, it will be interesting to see what the District Court does with this.
Update: Stan shares his thoughts.
4 comments:
"It scares the hell out of me," said Smith, a senior in communication. "I don't want some cowboy coming to class with a gun."
They are truly scared of honest folks that carry. I grew up with cowboys, worked for cowboys, rode with cowboys, hunted with cowboys. Utah is full of cowboys. If I continued to work at the ranch, I would consider myself a cowboy.
People like that are precisely why the people of agriculture don't send their kids to college. They come back stupid. There is also immense prejudice from the academics who wouldn't last ten minutes in the wild, let alone understand what hard work is.
They fear the gun toting cowboy, a stereotype they only understand in movies. Yet these gun-toting rednecks and cowboys may save their lives one day. God have mercy.
"U. President Michael Young said he was disappointed by the decision.
'Universities across the country uniformly prohibit guns on campus,' he said."
Academia's "commitment to diversity" goes right out the window when it gets in the way of what they want, doesn't it? So much for them being people of principle. Diversity is important when they want something, and uniformity is important when they don't.
My right to be safe trumps his right to feel safe.
Off to federal court we go...
I'm dealing with a similar issue here at UNH, although we haven't gone as far as to file legal action...yet. Below is an excerpt from one of my blog entries that explains what I'm dealing with.
UNH is in violation of state law and state and federal constitutions.
Last year I found out that the University of New Hampshire has a policy that prohibits students and employees from possessing a firearm on campus without written permission from the chief of police. I did some research, and found out that according to RSA 159:26, the state retains sole authority to regulate firearms, and prohibits any political subdivision from making any ordinance or regulation concerning firearms or ammunition and which declares any such regulation to be null and void. Last month I wrote a letter to the chief of the university police explaining the law. I requested written permission to carry a firearm on campus so that until the policy is overturned, I could carry without fear of retribution. A few days ago he replied with the following:
“Re: UNH III.J. Firearms on Campus
Dear Mr. Logsdon:
Thank you for your electronic message dated January 30, 2006 to Deputy Chief Paul Kopreski of the University Police Department. The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I have denied your request pursuant to UNH Administrative Policy III.J.4 (“the firearms policy”) “to possess a weapon [and] ammunition on campus for instructional or other qualified purposes and in other special circumstances.”
The University of New Hampshire, Durham and Manchester campuses, is committed to providing a safe and secure learning and working environment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors. My understanding of the firearms policy is that it reflects a sensible view that firearms present a risk of injury that is qualitatively different in the campus setting than in other environments. As you know, the firearms policy prohibits the use and possession of all firearms on the core campus of the University of New Hampshire by everyone except law enforcement officers.
Although you correctly note that the firearms policy allows me to grant permission to an individual to possess a weapon or ammunition on campus under some circumstances, I find none of those circumstances present in the situation described in your message. First, your message does not state that you are presently teaching a class sponsored by an academic program on the Durham campus. While it may be possible for a firearms safety course to be offered on campus at some point in time, especially with the practical portion of the course at an off-campus firing range, it is highly unlikely that I would authorize anyone instructing such a course to possess firearms in all places and at all times while on the Durham campus
I am not persuaded that RSA 159:26 requires me to reach a different conclusion, and do not find that it nullifies the firearms policy for three reasons. First, the plain language of the statute applies to “political subdivisions” of the state, and I believe that term excludes institutions like the University. This understanding of the statute is reinforced by RSA 159:26, II, which declares contrary municipal regulations and ordinances null and void. Second, it appears that the legislative policy of this state is to create safe environments for education. See RSA ch. 193-D (Safe School Zones); RSA 193:13, III. (Any pupil who brings or possesses a firearm as defined in section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code in a safe school zone as defined in RSA 193-D:1 without written authorization from the superintendent or designee shall be expelled from school by the local school board for a period of not less than 12 months.). Although the University is not a “school” as described in the statutes, its enabling legislation is found in the same title of the statutory code, Title XV, as the provisions for safe schools and for mandatory expulsion of students who carry firearms. Given that similar safety concerns appear to be at work in both RSA 193:13, III and the University’s firearms policy, I do not find that the Legislature’s intent in enacting RSA 159:26 was to repeal the policy. Finally, RSA 159:26 only nullifies municipal ordinances and regulations enacted after the July 18, 2003. The firearms policy was adopted well before that date. Thus, even if the University were somehow to be classified as a “political subdivision,” its policy would survive the enactment of the statute.
The firearms policy provides that weapons may be stored on campus under my control or direction. My department stores guns for various members of the campus community on a case by case basis, and I would be happy to extend the same courtesy to you that I extend to other members of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Nicholas J. Halias
Chief of Police
University of New Hampshire Police Department”
When I shared the letter with some friends, Kevin pointed out that “Nothing has been offered to show what is "qualitatively different" about a campus setting than other environments.”;
“This conveniently ignores Section I, which says, "the state of New Hampshire shall have authority and jurisdiction over the sale, purchase, ownership, use, possession, transportation, licensing, permitting, taxation, or other matter pertaining to firearms, firearms components, ammunition, or firearms supplies in the state." The obvious intent is that only the state may regulate such things, and other governmental entities within the state may not.
Which brings up this point: if UNH is not a political subdivision, then by what authority does it have a police department and police chief? Can any group of citizens just create a police department? No, only government entities may do so.”;
“And yet, the lawful possession of a firearm in a safe school zone, and even within the school buildings and classrooms, is perfectly legal, even by students. The law requires expulsion for 12 months for students, but there is no criminal penalty, no criminal record, and no crime. And that's just for students: the safe school act, RSA 193-D:1, I
(e), criminalizes "Unlawful possession or sale of a firearm or other dangerous weapon under RSA 159."
All lawful possession is, well, lawful”;
“[He] ignored the broadly written law stating that only the state may regulate firearms, while also seeking unwritten inclusion into the narrowly crafted safe school act. The broad law somehow doesn't include them, while the narrow law must have meant to, even though it doesn't.”; and
“And it is a policy. It's not a law. It is not a violation of any law to possess a firearm on a UNH campus, and any attempt by the UNH police to intimidate lawful ownership constitutes deprivation of rights under color of law.”
Police officers frequently break the law and violate the rights of the public, but it is often difficult and self-destructive to take action against police officers or to go against their will because they can easily retaliate against anyone who stands up to them or points out their wrongdoing. Police officers frequently make false statements and take improper actions to protect police officers who break the law. I know there are some honest police officers out there, but they are either too scared or too apathetic to point out wrongdoing and corruption in their departments, and most are unwilling to take action to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of innocent Americans.
Definition of political subdivision in section VI of RSA 101:2
People who think that the prospect of someone exercising their rights is a scary thing sometimes make me nervous, so I think they should be banned. ;0)
Post a Comment