Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Major Legal Win for Student for Concealed Carry on Campus

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:10 PM
Original message
Major Legal Win for Student for Concealed Carry on Campus
(posted w/o comment)
http://volokh.com/2010/04/15/major-legal-win-for-students-for-concealed-carry-on-campus/#comments

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado. Decided this morning by the Colorado Court of Appeals (a three-judge panel of Colorados intermediate appellate court). In brief: Colorados licensing statute for carrying a concealed handgun for lawful protection is explicitly preemptive. The University of Colorado bans concealed carry anyway, arguing that there is an implicit exception applicable to CU. The Mountain States Legal Foundation brings a suit on behalf of SCCC. The trial court dismisses for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals unanimously reverses the dismissal, and remands the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals holds that: 1. The statutory claim under the Concealed Carry Act should not have been dismissed, because there is no exemption for the University of Colorado. 2. The constitutional claim under the Colorado Constitutions right to arms provision should not have been dismissed; the proper standard of review, under Colorado case law, is reasonableness, which is a higher standard than rational basis. The Court of Appeals expresses no opinion on the merits of the constitutional claim.

Congratulations to MSLF attorney Jim Manley!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Insanity. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. How so? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. well, clearly it's insane
to let COLLEGE STUDENTs exercise constitutional rights ON campus

that would be terrible.

they are just college students. let big brother decide what's best for them

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Actually, no they don't.
They do believe that they have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Is this ruling based on UC being public? Can a private business ban CC (or any C) in its premises
in Colorado?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Yes....it is because it is a publicly owned property.
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 05:08 PM by virginia mountainman
Private property owners can ban guns...and the "no guns" on primary, and public high schools is a Federal law.

CSU, had ZERO AUTHORITY to do what they did...Now, those students that sued, and won...can now talk to CSU about damages. And CSU, better talk, and open their wallets...Now they have no defense for their illegal actions.

They where warned "not to poke the bear" they did it anyway...so now they get to deal with the claws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. What damages? (Other than legal fees?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. that is generally how these cases turn out..

Once the "point of law" is decided against them, then it will be time to pay the piper so to speak.. Punitive damages, lawyer fees, and so forth.

Their are consequences to stepping on civil rights. Sad thing is, it will be the Colorado Taxpayers that will shell out the bucks, these are the same ones that passed laws trying to prevent CSU from doing what they did in the first place. So, for the willfully arrogance of a few, the many will pay up.

This has been Standard Operating Procedure in civil rights cases for generations.

This happened in Seattle, when Nickles tried to ban guns in parks, it happened in DC when Heller was decided, and it is well on it's way to happen in Chicago...

Not to mention the many small towns around the US, that mess with people LEGALLY carrying arms..

You get one arrogant cop, with a "not in MY town" attituded....and you can easily hit the taxpayer jackpot, on that cop's willfully ignorance of the law.

Like this case...

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/norfolk-pay-15000-harborfest-gun-arrest-case
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. A private business (or school) could ban concealed carry.
There are certain things the school would be prevented doing as a landlord, and certain things the school would be prevented from doing as a public accommodation.

Whether a landlord can ban possession of firearms on properties they rent is different in different states, and case law is thin.

A business can ban concealed carry on it's premises, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Of the highest order.
Our Nation's gun worship is a mental illness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. if abiding by the constitution vis a vis RKBA = gun worship, then prochoice = abortion worship
that's your unassailable logic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Some people are all for civil rights- "...except for THOSE people".
They seem not to understand that if one accepts selling others' rights out because they don't care for them, sooner or later someone else will attempt to do the same to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. Sadly, a lot of people consider those want to exercise their rights sick.
I've always wondered what with them.

So, what's wrong with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
42. "Of the highest order"
Our nation's irrational fear and hatred of guns is a mental illness.

Fixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Guns do not belong on campus?
Can you explain why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Except, of course, in the hands of campus police and other LE officers
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. have you read the colorado constitution?
or at least the relevant section on which this case is based?

of course not

guns don't belong on campus, therefore rule of law and constitutional rights are irrelevant

fascinating legal logic

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. The "blood in the carrels" crowd don't have much left but sputtering outrage.
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 04:11 PM by friendly_iconoclast
The judge had a reply for people like them:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/23161698/detail.html

...Judge Robert Hawthorne wrote that the states Concealed Carry Act, which gives permit holders the right to carry a concealed weapon, also applies to universities.

The statutes plain language applies to all areas of the state and does not specify public universities in its list of exceptions, Hawthorne wrote. Had the legislature intended to exempt universities, it knew how to do so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Given that UC is public, the ruling seems to be defensible on the basis of the state's laws. But...
...what about private business? If I own a grocery shop in CO, can I refuse entry to people with guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shedevil69taz Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I suppose you could
but I would ask you this: How would you enforce that on your own property against someone carrying concealed that wanted to ignore your posted signage? Granted they would be breaking the law against tresspassing, but that's kind of what criminals by definition do too, ignore laws.

Would you simply press charges if you happen to find out after the fact, assuming you ever actually found out any specific person had carried into your business?

Would you install expensive metal detectors at the entrance and have people empty thier pockets and what not and go through airport style security proceedures? I wouldn't think that would be very good for business.

If you do nothing more than post signage those of us who legally carry concealed and have half a brain will simply avoid your business, instead of risking any possibility of breaking a law that might get our license revoked. If you strictly enforce your policy on everyone using more agressive means you'll end up driving away even more customers that don't want to put up with the hassle of the metal detector process including CCWers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. First, you have to know that they are indeed carrying a gun.
Concealed means that you don't see the gun.

Why are you afraid of LEGAL gun carry? Criminals are going to carry anyway. LEGAL permit holders are no threat to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. All CCW states that I know of..
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 05:41 PM by virginia mountainman
All private property owners have the ability to ban guns on their property, in their stores and whatnot..

But like the other poster said, the ONLY people a "no guns" sign will keep away, is the very ones you don't need to worry about.

I have actually walked up to a clothing store that was posted "no guns" and opened the door, and YELLED for my wife and kids to come on and leave..The manager asked why I did that and I told him, it was a CRIME for me to enter his store, and I was getting my family out of it.

He looked at me in a confused way, and I pointed at the "no guns" sign, and politely informed him that since I, could not "LEGALY" enter with my family, they could not be their without me.

He still had the deer in headlights look, as my wife apologized for leaving in such a rush, that they had not NOTICED the "no guns" sign.

We went to the very next store in the mall, and continued shopping...


Even that "no guns" sign, has very real negative consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Wow. You sure showed him, didn't you?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. No..I did not show him nothing..
I complied with law....My wife had a .45 in her purse, she is a CCW holder as well.


All I did was, comply with the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. I think your oh so righteous rugged individualist manly man real American tale of righteousness...
...is what came to be called in these here forums (and some others) a "bouncy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Condescending, much? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. i didn't realize that students advocating for civil rights was a manly man real american tale of
righteousness.

and since the rkba disproportionately will benefit women, who on a statistical basis, are more likely to be attacked by a man than vice versa and who are on average physically weaker, calling it a manly man thing is silly and counterfactual

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Ha. And people accuse ME of lacking reading comprehension.
That referred to the gentleman from VA's little shopping story, not the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. You HAD to ruin a perfectly good admission of error, hadn't you?
Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. it's like a goofus and gallant thang
or compare and contrast.

whatever grade school analogy is grokkable for ya.

hth

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
47. fwiw, in WA state it would not be a crime
any private place can have a no guns sign

but being present there with a gun is not a crime

it only becomes a crime if they ask you to leave and you refuse.

then it becomes trespass

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. sure.
Though you'll have a hell of a time frisking all of your customers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Yes, private property owners can set whatever rules they want. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. This thread seems out of place. Ooops -- now it doesn't. -nt
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 03:28 PM by Commie Pinko Dirtbag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Llewlladdwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. That didn't take long. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Try posting a sex thread, it'll take even less. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Good for them. Hope they win the next round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. It was a UNANIMOUS decision...
With lots of Colorado law, and constitutional backing....

In other words, it is rock solid, and CSU better back down, while they can.

O, to the judge that said they had no case...He just got pwned....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
41. Good news. Thanks for sharing it, paulsby N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
43. 16 April is the anniversary of the killings at Virginia Tech. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Is there supposed to be a point here? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. If only a few of those students had the ability to carry concealed
It might have turned out to be no worse than the incident at the School of the Appalachians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Every date on the calendar is the anniversary of something bad
And something good, and a lot of other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Feb 21st 2024, 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC