Originally Posted by Weblymkv
Originally posted by Bruxley
Few colleges and fewer Universities are private. The great majority of Universities are State Universities whether they have the word State in their titles or not. Further, State or private they are PUBLIC settings.
Universities and colleges are not sacrosanct places. they have no properties that make them inherently unique from office buildings, malls, apartment complexes, or amusement parks and few would argue those places should require special treatment when the right to carry (bear arms) is discussed. Colleges and Universities are only set apart because it has the premise of doing so has been accepted, no other reason. And please let's not pull the 'but the CHILDREN' plea, it is hollow in a virtually all adult environment.
And just like malls, apartment complexes, and amusement parks, they do have the right to prohibit firearms on their own property.
Point of clarification, I was addressing the assertion that 'above and beyond' training be required to carry on campus, not wether or not campuses do or don't have the right to restrict firearms.
For the record however I belive they do not. That is arguable based on if they are in fact private property. But even if they are, I would challenge the premise that private property that is open to the public
gives the owner the discretion of wether or not CODIFIED rights can be restricted.
State laws must be challenged and I believe that if challenge in the SCOTUS in it's current incarnation that the challenge would succeed. Scalia's own words in the Opinion of the Court in Heller v. DC could show a right to bear such arms in a public setting for self defense as he has expressed in that decision that 'bearing' arms in the event of confrontation is
in fact a right. Walking onto a university or college campus as a public place is not a contractual agreement to waive that right.
It could be argued that since it has been established by Heller v. DC as a right, just as freedom of speach and of the press are rights, the the right to bear
arms can no more be waived by de facto of entering a campus then the right to protest, pass out flyers expressing unpopular ideas, or distribution of newspapers can. Can a College or University use the fact that it is private property to seach your Dorm room and seize your property restricting your 4th Amendment right against such action? Can they tell you you can't say certain things or read certain publications? Clearly not. Then why accept that the defense of your own life be second to the predilictions of a board or faculty to gun bans?
(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
I see the decision specifically stating that the second amendment, just like the 1st and 4th are CODIFIED rights. It would be a strain to try and say a College or University campus is not a public setting.