Similar To Predator Law

So they “only” want to prevent guns in Dorms, Classrooms, Offices and Stadiums. Sounds a lot like the Sexual Predator laws. With so many areas being “off limits", such restrictions would effectively prevent guns in all areas of the campus, unless some sort of “gun check” booths are established. The gun toters would have to check their weapons at the door, so to speak. Question is, who would administer such a procedure?And how much would it cost? Answer: No one except the poilice are qualified to administer such, and the cost would not be low enough to make it a sound idea from a business sense.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 9:05 am EST on December 4, 2006

Norman Keul

Mr Kuel’s comments completely ignore what was said previously in this comment sequence. Rules against guns only prevent the law abiding people from bringing their weapons on campus. This makes them “fair game” for those who ignore the law and tote freely. I myself would have gladly used my concealed weapon to save others in the numerous shooting incidences that have occured on campus around the country over the years.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 9:30 am EST on December 4, 2006

stay on topic

Strangely enough all the above comments miss the actual dispute: whether the university has the power to enact rules banning guns. The wisdom of banning guns is irrelevant. In short: This is really an issue of state constitutional law nerdery.

Larry, at 10:30 am EST on December 4, 2006

Prof Ed,

1) University do not “control” all information sources. Students and faculty have access to the internet, libraries, and interlibrary loan. Students and faculty can listen to radios and have TVs. Heck, you can even read IHE.

2) Creating “propaganda mills” is an inevitable part of any organization. In the US we call it “public relations.” However, anyone can do it.

3) Whether there is a “right” to self defense is somewhat ambiguous. In most cases, self defense is a “defense” to a criminal charge. Unless one invokes a “necessity” defense, there is no “right” to carry a gun outside the context of the law as it stands. Strangely enough the defense of “necessity” exists in Cuban law, too. See http://www.ruleoflawandcuba.fsu.edu/law-penal-code.cfm Law 72, Title V, Ch, III, Art. 21.1 (section begins “Está exento de responsabilidad penal el que obra en legítima defensa de su persona o derecho”)

4) Universities generally have been pretty good about not monitoring internet communications. In fact, with a couple exceptions, universities have not monitored student or faculty communications. Universities have complied with lawful court orders, but I don’t suppose that you are talking about this.

Larry, at 11:45 am EST on December 4, 2006

abstention doctrines and firearms

Mr. Olson, Let me explain something procedurally here. The Federal court abstained from decision the issues, while the state courts worked out the state-law issues. The state court resolved the state law issues, and the university has decided not to pursue the litigation at the federal court. But, it could.

To take a quick guess at the University’ First Amendment Argument, it would likely go like this: Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957), guarantees a university may “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” By restricting the university’s ability to regulate firearms, the state has interfered with the university’s ability to decide HOW things shall be taught (i.e. with or without firearms.)

Second Amendment arguments are generally losers. Moreover, the resolution of who is “the state” by the state supreme court, forecloses the argument that the university has the ability to preserve its own militia (as opposed to the state’s) by eliminating personal firearms. Finally, since the state has chosen to give a wide birth to individual possession of firearms, and the university urges a narrow one, the “personal use” interpretation of the 2d wouldn’t help it.

Note: I am not taking a position on the 2d amendment, or the university’s possible positions. I have not thought about whether guns on campus are a good idea or not.

Larry, at 1:20 pm EST on December 4, 2006

Larry,

Just as Fidel Castro cannot control information sources outside Cuba, of course a university cannot control national press. The problem is that these institutions are not generally forthcoming about themselves, so the information, including raw data on sexual harassment, dangers to students and faculty has to often be pried out of them by lawyers with freedom of information forms. Without that federal clout, the information would be just as available as it is in a banana republic. How secretive are universities? A count of the number of freedom of information filings of substance to such institutions nationally could a fair indication.

Like others have expressed here, I sense that the university’s use of academic freedom to curtail an individual’s legal right— perhaps a “privilege"—but certainly nothing that can be entrusted to university bureaucrats is a stretch. The state, not the university, is the power that determines the concealed carry, make-my-day, etc. laws. For night classes at urban universities, the primary dangers are to the individuals who traverse the more hazardous areas in the activity of passing to and from an institution to attend and teach these classes. Such a ruling thus affects individuals in off-campus areas who have chosen to exercise their right/privilege and does not simply affect campus classrooms where dangers are indeed minimal, and the restriction originates with nonelected college officials.

I reiterate my position—those who cannot run a state institution in accord with established state/federal laws should be doing something else—perhaps running for elected office where they can legally try to enact on citizens what they aspire to enact from the privilege of holding a non-elected office.

Prof Ed, at 5:06 pm EST on December 4, 2006

Sorry, Craig, why is it on topic? The only thing reported on was the decision of the school not to pursue any federal remedies (or a petition to the Supreme Court, which would be denied, anyway.) This is about only one thing: the power of the University to write laws that conflict with certain statutes. Granted, I don’t have the insight that a licensed pundit does, but this has nothing to do with gun “rights” or the like. If the legislature had gone the other way (and it still might) individuals can still challenge the law on 2d amendment grounds, anyway. Perhaps you could cite to specific sections of the state supreme court opinion in order to fully explain what you are talking about.

By the way, kids, I sort of liked the vision of a university running its own “militia.” I am sure that all the girls whose fathers pay for their expensive cars would gladly do some drills at 5:00 a.m. in December.

Prof Ed., As a legal matter, “sexual harassment” is essentially a breach of contract by an employer with his employee, it is doubtful that any university can ever track the number of times that a person feels uncomfortable in the presence of his boss. At best, the only “raw” numbers that can be reported are based on “reports” which are nothing more than subjective impressions or political positions taken by individuals.

Moreover, ProfEd, the whole point of the story was that the school will not be pursuing its First Amendment argument. Therefore, the school is not arguing “academic freedom” in any sense of the word (apart from, perhaps a question of how the state constitution maps out the various organs of state government).

Finally, Prof Ed, as far as I, or anyone else can tell, the school is running itself in accord with all laws. There was a dispute as to what those laws mean. The court ultimately resolved it against the university. However, the fact that the university DID go to court is proof that the university is being run in accord with whatever laws you were referring to. Seeking declarations as to what the law means from a court is something that institutions do. It is a shame that more people don’t do this, but they prefer to be arrested and becoming felons.

Larry, at 4:25 am EST on December 5, 2006