U of U likely has private directive concerning guns(UT)

standard.net ^ | 19 January, 2011 | David A. Jordan

[marktwain]

Josh Loftin's article on January 6 headlined "Two U of U officers put on leave over gun policy release" covers a current controversy about carrying firearms openly on the University campus. But Mr. Loftin's thesis is eclipsed by a more sinister issue. President Young's memorandum to his police appears to have been private, that is, the police had their directive, but the policy was not announced.

Let me see if I understand how the policy would affect a student who carries a gun. Our student doesn't know about President Young's memorandum, so he doesn't know the rule; in his concealed carry class he was told that he could carry his gun on campus. So he packs. Someone sees the gun, or just notices the bulge. The police are informed. Our student is confronted. If he cooperates he is cited, and his firearm is seized. If he doesn't cooperate he is arrested, and his firearm is seized. Either way, he has lost his gun, he faces a federal felony firearms violation, and he has lost his gun rights for life. Rumor will carry this idea to the ears of the campus population. No one will dare carry a gun on campus.

Should a population be controlled by selectively withholding information from them? Or is this idea unacceptable in a free society?

The two police officers who blew the whistle warned us of severe and permanent consequences for doing something which is supposed to be legal. By doing so they placed themselves among those who are willing to sacrifice personally for the good of their community.

[marktwain]

This reminds me of how the gun laws were enacted in England. Several secret directives were given to the police on how to issue gun licenses over the course of several decades. Gradually, the legitimacy of having a gun for self defense was eroded to nothing.

The directives were finally declassified in the 1990's as I recall from reading Joyce Lee Malcolm's book on the subject.