Skip to comments.Colleges find ways to foil pro-gun rulings(CO,VA,OR)
Posted on 03/11/2012 7:17:34 AM PDT by marktwain
DENVER Courts are ruling in favor of allowing those with concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns on campus, but universities are figuring out ways to keep the guns out.
Gun rights advocates recently notched major legal victories in Colorado and Oregon, with courts in both states agreeing that university policies banning firearms on campus must defer to state laws allowing permit holders to carry concealed handguns.
In response, however, university officials in Oregon and Virginia have enacted policies allowing concealed carry on campus but not in buildings, including classrooms, dormitories, event centers and dining halls.
The result is that permit holders may do little more than walk across campus with their handguns, an outcome that circumvents the intent of the court decisions, critics say.
Kurt Mueller, chief liaison for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, said the organization is considering whether to challenge the university policies in court.
We have enormous practical concerns about this, Mr. Mueller said. If youre a student, as a practical matter, what this means is you have to leave your handgun in your car. And a lot of states say you cant leave a handgun in your car, which means you have to leave it at home.
The Oregon Board of Higher Education lost the battle to keep its firearms ban in September, when the state Court of Appeals ruled that the states Concealed Carry Act took precedence over the universitys ban on firearms.
At the same time, the court ruled that the board has broad control over its property. At its March 2 meeting, the board voted to enact an Internal Policy on Firearms, which prohibits handguns in university buildings as well as at sports and entertainment events.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
i think private universities should have ability of bans in public place with the exception of dorms. an apt building can’t take away rights. public universities shouldn’t have ability of bans period. now cw should apply so if they prohibit sports stadiums as an example that should apply.
I would agree that private universities are a bit different than public universities...run by the state. A private university could ban beer or booze on the campus...banning certain clothing if they wanted to.
Walking to and from buildings or places like large shopping malls is the most likely time you will need your firearm.
I assume these progressives will provide a location to check your gun at the door.
"Everything said by Lenin in his "What is to be Done?" indicates that he was, like Sorel, absolutely convinced that only such a select vanguard elite was capable of success fully leading the proletarian masses to Marxist victory."
-- Marxism, Fascism,and Totalitarinism -- Chapters in the intellectual history of radicalism;page 126,
Don't need no Weatherman to see which way their Ivory Tower wind blws.
Universities are not entities unto themselves. In most cases they are substantially subsidized by the federal government. Even if they were not, can you imagine a university being permitted to decide that it would not feed African-Americans in its cafeteria?
Yet the same university will blatantly discriminate against whites in its admissions policy.
Universities will disregard the law concerning ROTC and recruitment on campus while they accept federal funds.
The very same university that will ban guns in the building may not discriminate against African Americans in its buildings merely because they are the universitie's buildings. Consider how explicit is the constitutional right to bear arms, far more explicit than the right to be treated without reference to your race by a quasi-private, quasi public institution such as a university, yet it is the less clear constitutional right which is vigorously enforced.
The Constitution does not cut out educational fiefdoms to be immune from the articles or the Bill of Rights.
He broke the university's rules that were effect at that time. Yet the schools want those same failed rules to apply today.
"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are .............. "
Hoping a ‘rights violated’ student defies the school ‘rule’ and has a huge/several Legal foundation/s to back him in court...one willing to sue EVERYONE involved for this and the retaliation against him/her sure to follow. Sue for as long as it takes to bury this BS once and for all.
Make them legally afraid to ignore the Second amendment
My position is that when a legal weapon is carried concealed and when display of that weapon is forbidden except under exigent circumstances, that weapon is a totally private matter, just exactly as carrying AIDs is.
No university would forbid carrying AIDs on campus even as they might support prohibitions about endangering others with it. The same logic must apply to legally concealed firearms.
Universities are the ruination of our country - bastions of socialism.
But only insofar as said private university is legally liable for providing security at any and all such locations on the campus.
And if a shooting occurs in a public location at a private university or college, that institution must be held liable for ALL damages.
Unless they set up metal detectors and try to impose other illegal searches, they can’t stop the good guys from carrying any more than they stop the nut cases. There are some good “pocket pieces” available that fit easily into a pocket and the pocket holsters pretty much make it look like you might have a wallet in your pocket. If you ever had to use it to protect yourself and/or others, nobody the wiser. If it comes down to it, I’d rather have the college come after a live me than to express condolences to a dead me...
The University rules fly in the face of the court rulings and have no legal authority.
Make them legally afraid to ignore the Second amendment
Who is going to put up the money for the pro-gun lawsuits?
Liberals, progressives or whatever name you choose to call them do donate to non profit organizations to do their bidding. Conservatives pay their own legal fees.
The Brady Corporation Foundation is a non-profit, non-stock corporation, established in 2005, which serves as Brady Corporation's primary vehicle for charitable ...
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit ...... In October 2010 the SPLC reported its endowment at $216.2 million
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-profit organization
The words non profit are common to the above.
On the pro gun side of the political issue is the NRA, the largest pro gun group. Contributions to NRA-ILA are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for Federal Income tax purposes.
The NRA Foundation grants provide essential program funding that ensures the availability of quality training and educational opportunities nationwide. Grants benefit programs such as youth education, law enforcement training, hunter education, conservation, firearms and marksmanship training and safety, and much more. I think donations to The NRA Foundation are tax deduct able, but better check with your tax person about that.
Who pays for the expensive legal fees for law suits? That I do not know. Perhaps someone on FR can enlighten us.
Pro gunners are up against groups like The Joyce Foundation (0bama served on the board of directors), The Brady Foundation and others including government agencies like ATF who are all about control.
A wise man once said "Pick your battles wisely and win the battles you can by next Friday, the funds are not unlimited".
My position is that when a legal weapon is carried concealed and when display of that weapon is forbidden except under exigent circumstances, that weapon is a totally private matter, just exactly as carrying AIDs is. No university would forbid carrying AIDs on campus even as they might support prohibitions about endangering others with it. The same logic must apply to legally concealed firearms.The difference is that people consciously choose whether or not to carry firearms, they don't consciously choose to engage in behavior that results in AIDS...
Over the years the changing demographics and culture have convinced many (liberals) that certain liberties aren't worth the risk as demonstrated by the few who abuse them (bangas, killas, thugs, etc.).
Yet, by current standards of violence the need for armed citizens is greater now than it was then. The utopian mastermind simply red-lines those parts of the Constitution they don't like (living document) and we proceed toward tyranny.
As Mark Levin says, liberalism cannot co-exist in a society with constitutional limits. Unmoored from the wisdom contained in our nation's charter we are adrift on powerful currents toward tyranny as we inevitably toss liberties overboard in an attempt to stay afloat. This can't end well.
The only solution is to re-attach a line to the rock-solid foundation that guarantees our freedom. At some point though, we may not have such a line available and fate won't be so kind to us.
Personally, I'd accept any person's reasonably demonstrated proficiency with a gun as sufficient evidence that no further restrictions be placed on their right to carry a gun- anywhere (with the possible exception being a courtroom where tensions by nature can run very high).
Those places with the strictest gun controls have demonstrated the fault in the logic of anti-gun types by racking up the highest body counts. New York and Chicago lead the country in both categories.
“The difference is that people consciously choose whether or not to carry firearms, they don’t consciously choose to engage in behavior that results in AIDS... “
Yes, mostly true, but for example, victims of sexual abuse may contract AIDS as a result of non-consential sexual contact. My proposal has nothing to do with how a person contracted AIDS. However, once infected, claims of “experts” aside, they still could be a health risk to others.
I think everyone have the same civil rights. We cannot extend any right to any one group that we don’t extend to any other group. If I carry AIDS in my pants, that is just as private a matter as when I carry a firearm in my pants.
I was trying to be sarcastic. Of course I think these efforts to suppress 2nd amendment rights are despicable.
There is a special place in hell for anyone who would deny anyone the use of self-defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.