In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gun debate at U. resurfaces
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Gun debate at U. resurfaces
School seeks a judgment; official wants suit removed
By Twila Van Leer
Deseret News staff writer
The University of Utah's gun battle has produced a new volley of court action with shots being fired from both sides. The U. has asked a federal judge to issue a summary judgment supporting the university's right to dictate gun policy on its campus and the Utah Attorney General's Office has asked that the suit be removed from the federal court's jurisdiction.
The "friendly" suit, filed originally in March, hopes to resolve an impasse between the university and the Attorney General's Office that came to the fore during the 2002 legislative session. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told Machen the university was in violation of state law by enforcing a total gun ban on U. premises. U. President J. Bernard Machen refused to budge, claiming the university has the right to do what is necessary to provide the best protection for an academic forum free from the potential threat of weapons.
The U.'s motion for summary judgement filed Thursday cites claims to First and 14th amendments. Utah's firearms and concealed weapons laws were enacted to apply to political subdivisions of the state and "were not intended to limit an institution's authority to promulgate internal operating policies," the motion says.
The motion also contains affidavits from 15 supporters of the U.'s right to ban guns on campus - even those carried by persons with legal permits. Among the supporters is Merrill J. Bateman, president of Brigham Young University, which is owned by the LDS Church. The BYU support, which tacitly implies the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for gun-free campuses, is considered important by U. backers.
The church's First Presidency issued a statement in May 1996 barring guns from its own properties but "has not felt it appropriate to broaden that statement," said Coke Newell, a church spokesman. During a 1999 citizen campaign to put "safe schools, safe churches" issues on the ballot, some church leaders lent support, but there was no general statement from the highest authorities on the subject.
Bateman said in his affidavit that a no-guns policy instituted in 1986 on BYU's campuses has promoted a "safe campus almost completely free of incidents involving the use of firearms." He said he knows of no instance in which there was a need for any person to carry a weapon at the Y. for purposes of self-protection and that the policy has allowed the school to pursue the core goal of academic freedom.
As a private institution, BYU does not fall under the attorney general's edict. Peggy Stock, former president of Utah's other private college, Westminster, also is among those who contributed affidavits supporting the U. request for judgment. Stock retired at the end of the 2001-02 academic year. She said in her affidavit that college campuses are places where there is a "sense of community where peaceful discourse and vigorous debate are core values of academic freedom. Firearms or weapons of any kind have no place here."
Others supporting the U. position included faculty and student body leaders and presidents of sister institutions in the Utah System of Higher Education. Dr. Matthew J. Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, also submitted data from several national studies in which he participated. The studies show a high correlation between guns on campus and violent incidents and that there is strong public sentiment against weapons on college campuses.
Pro-gun legislators tried to pressure the U. to change by threatening to cut by 50 percent the administrative budgets of any state entity not in compliance with the state gun permit law. That law that allows permitted gun carriers to take their weapons anywhere except for a few very specific places such as airports.
In its motion to dismiss the case from federal court, the attorney general's office claims that the court has no jurisdiction to decide the issues involved and that the U. is "neither self-governing nor autonomous and so has no authority to set a policy that is contrary to general state law."
Brent Burnett, the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, said that it probably will take a couple of months for Judge Dale Kimball to consider the opposing petitions. U. general counsel John Morris said the U. will refile in state court if the decision favors the attorney general's position.
"We felt the federal court was the right place for this suit," said Fred C. Esplin, vice president for university relations. The costs of the litigation, expected to be "in the area of $50,000" are not being financed through state appropriations, Morris said. A group of private attorneys, headed by Alan L. Sullivan, is handling the case for the U.
Morris said the university's claims of the right to set policy to protect its academic interests are rooted in legal protections in the Utah Constitution. Those historic rights allow the university autonomy in "determining academic and related issues," he said.
The attorney general's motion denies that the university has any authority that overrides the state's right to control firearms policy.
A whole body of legal precedence, included in the U's motion for summary judgment, supports the right of universities to have "academic freedom that protects them from outside interference," Morris said.
To his knowledge, the Utah situation is the first of its kind. The question of how far an institution of higher education can go in setting its own gun policies has not been raised anywhere else, Morris said.
E-MAIL: tvanleer@desnews.com
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405014666,00.html?
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
School seeks a judgment; official wants suit removed
By Twila Van Leer
Deseret News staff writer
The University of Utah's gun battle has produced a new volley of court action with shots being fired from both sides. The U. has asked a federal judge to issue a summary judgment supporting the university's right to dictate gun policy on its campus and the Utah Attorney General's Office has asked that the suit be removed from the federal court's jurisdiction.
The "friendly" suit, filed originally in March, hopes to resolve an impasse between the university and the Attorney General's Office that came to the fore during the 2002 legislative session. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told Machen the university was in violation of state law by enforcing a total gun ban on U. premises. U. President J. Bernard Machen refused to budge, claiming the university has the right to do what is necessary to provide the best protection for an academic forum free from the potential threat of weapons.
The U.'s motion for summary judgement filed Thursday cites claims to First and 14th amendments. Utah's firearms and concealed weapons laws were enacted to apply to political subdivisions of the state and "were not intended to limit an institution's authority to promulgate internal operating policies," the motion says.
The motion also contains affidavits from 15 supporters of the U.'s right to ban guns on campus - even those carried by persons with legal permits. Among the supporters is Merrill J. Bateman, president of Brigham Young University, which is owned by the LDS Church. The BYU support, which tacitly implies the support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for gun-free campuses, is considered important by U. backers.
The church's First Presidency issued a statement in May 1996 barring guns from its own properties but "has not felt it appropriate to broaden that statement," said Coke Newell, a church spokesman. During a 1999 citizen campaign to put "safe schools, safe churches" issues on the ballot, some church leaders lent support, but there was no general statement from the highest authorities on the subject.
Bateman said in his affidavit that a no-guns policy instituted in 1986 on BYU's campuses has promoted a "safe campus almost completely free of incidents involving the use of firearms." He said he knows of no instance in which there was a need for any person to carry a weapon at the Y. for purposes of self-protection and that the policy has allowed the school to pursue the core goal of academic freedom.
As a private institution, BYU does not fall under the attorney general's edict. Peggy Stock, former president of Utah's other private college, Westminster, also is among those who contributed affidavits supporting the U. request for judgment. Stock retired at the end of the 2001-02 academic year. She said in her affidavit that college campuses are places where there is a "sense of community where peaceful discourse and vigorous debate are core values of academic freedom. Firearms or weapons of any kind have no place here."
Others supporting the U. position included faculty and student body leaders and presidents of sister institutions in the Utah System of Higher Education. Dr. Matthew J. Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, also submitted data from several national studies in which he participated. The studies show a high correlation between guns on campus and violent incidents and that there is strong public sentiment against weapons on college campuses.
Pro-gun legislators tried to pressure the U. to change by threatening to cut by 50 percent the administrative budgets of any state entity not in compliance with the state gun permit law. That law that allows permitted gun carriers to take their weapons anywhere except for a few very specific places such as airports.
In its motion to dismiss the case from federal court, the attorney general's office claims that the court has no jurisdiction to decide the issues involved and that the U. is "neither self-governing nor autonomous and so has no authority to set a policy that is contrary to general state law."
Brent Burnett, the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, said that it probably will take a couple of months for Judge Dale Kimball to consider the opposing petitions. U. general counsel John Morris said the U. will refile in state court if the decision favors the attorney general's position.
"We felt the federal court was the right place for this suit," said Fred C. Esplin, vice president for university relations. The costs of the litigation, expected to be "in the area of $50,000" are not being financed through state appropriations, Morris said. A group of private attorneys, headed by Alan L. Sullivan, is handling the case for the U.
Morris said the university's claims of the right to set policy to protect its academic interests are rooted in legal protections in the Utah Constitution. Those historic rights allow the university autonomy in "determining academic and related issues," he said.
The attorney general's motion denies that the university has any authority that overrides the state's right to control firearms policy.
A whole body of legal precedence, included in the U's motion for summary judgment, supports the right of universities to have "academic freedom that protects them from outside interference," Morris said.
To his knowledge, the Utah situation is the first of its kind. The question of how far an institution of higher education can go in setting its own gun policies has not been raised anywhere else, Morris said.
E-MAIL: tvanleer@desnews.com
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405014666,00.html?
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Friday, June 28, 2002
BY DAN HARRIE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
The University of Utah has picked up a powerful ally in its battle to keep concealed handguns off its campus: LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University.
BYU President Merrill Bateman signed an affidavit, filed Thursday in federal court, in support of the U.'s gun position. With claimed membership of 70 percent of Utah residents, and close to 90 percent of the state's elected leaders, church backing of a campus gun ban could help shift the political dynamics of the fight.
A church spokesman did not return a phone message Thursday. Mormon officials previously have said guns have no place in schools or houses of worship, but the institution never has taken a formal position.
But the support of Bateman, who is a high-ranking official of the 11-million member church, may be the next best thing.
"I am aware of no situation or incident that has occurred on BYU's campus that could have been alleviated by the intervention of citizens armed with concealed weapons," Bateman, a member of the church's First Quorum of the Seventy, said in the sworn statement. "On the other hand, there have been situations where the presence of firearms, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would have complicated, escalated, and ultimately aggravated the situation or conflict."
BYU's policy, in place since 1986, is even stricter than the U.'s. It prohibits guns -- including concealed weapons -- carried by anyone on campus, including visitors. The U.'s gun ban, labeled illegal by legislators and state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, applies only to students, faculty and staff.
The "friendly lawsuit" was filed March 12 by U. President Bernie Machen against Shurtleff in order to get a court ruling on whether the U.'s policy is legal.
Fred Esplin, University of Utah spokesman, said affidavits from several college presidents, including Westminster College, Weber State, Snow and Idaho State, were collected to illustrate that firearms prohibitions are common on virtually all campuses inside and outside the state.
But BYU sticks out because of its ownership.
"We were pleased that BYU chose to have its voice heard on this issue," said Esplin. "If this case gets back to the political arena, I suspect it would add a new dimension to the discussion."
Opponents of the U. policy have been silent about BYU's gun ban, saying there is no comparison because one is state-owned and the other is private. But state Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville and sponsor of the state's concealed-weapons law, agreed the LDS school's involvement could carry some sway. "I think it would have a lot more political impact than legal," said Waddoups, who is pro-gun rights.
Noting that it was BYU and not the church directly supporting the lawsuit, he acknowledged that "very seldom do they [BYU officials] speak out of school. In fact, he [Bateman] probably had permission."
"It probably will change a few people's minds. I don't think it will change the outcome," said Waddoups.
The U.'s motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit repeats previously made arguments that its gun ban is essential to preserving academic freedom and safety of students, staff and faculty.
U. Police Chief Ben Lemmon filed an affidavit stating that in his 29 years of service, there have been a "relatively few" gun incidents on campus, including six suicides and four robberies. "I believe that the continued enforcement of the university's firearms policy is essential to maintaining order at the university and in promoting the mission of the university as an academic institution devoted to the free exchange of ideas," he said.
Shurtleff, in an opinion issued late last year, said the U.'s policy violated the state concealed-carry law that allows people with permits to pack guns "without restriction" except in narrowly defined secure facilities, such as airports, prisons and jails, courts and mental institutions.
While Shurtleff consented to a "friendly lawsuit" to settle the dispute, he filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the case based on claimed procedural errors that it was filed in the wrong court, and because the university lacks standing to sue because it has suffered no harm.
"Such an intrusion into the affairs of the state of Utah by a federal court is impermissible," Shurtleff said in the filing before Judge Dale Kimball.
The brief also argued the U. has no free-speech rights under the First Amendment that could be violated by the attorney general. "Government, as opposed to private expression, can control its own expression and that of its agents without violating First Amendment rights," it said.
Deputy Attorney General Ray Hintze said his office remains agreeable to having a court rule on the legality of the U.'s gun ban, but believes certain procedural matters must be resolved first.
"This is a Utah law issue and the ultimate authority on the Utah law is the Utah court," he said. "It's an issue that has to be dealt with. In good faith, we had to raise it."
Hintze said if the lawsuit is dismissed in federal court on procedural issues, the Attorney General's Office will help streamline its transfer to state court, where it belongs.
But that raises an interesting conflict-of-interest scenario. Much like the university, Utah's state courts are sparring with the Legislature over a recent law requiring court storage lockers for concealed weapons. Judges have refused to comply with the statute, arguing it would compromise security and violate separation-of-powers safeguards.
Hintze argued the court and university gun disputes are dissimilar. Besides, he said, "I may be naive, but I truly believe a judge would resolve a case like this on the merits of the issue without regard to the gun-locker issue."
dharrie@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/06282002/utah/749064.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Doesn't it anger you that the government you support through your tax dollars thinks that a non-flying government employee is more qualified than you to protect your aircraft and passengers from an on board terror attack? Doesn't it anger you that your union that you support with your dues agrees with this position? Don't you agree that the handful of pilots who will be selected for this 'compromise' program will be management pilots that rarely fly? This will effectively keep real security from ever reaching the cockpit.
Proposed Arm Pilot Bill - A Sham!
By CAPTAIN MARC FEIGENBLATT-Vice Chairman, APSA
Today, the House Aviation Subcommittee passed a revision to the originally proposed legislation which in essence is a sham. The provisions in this bill amount to nothing more than another cosmetic security measure. When this passes, our elected officials will be able to say they created a meaningful program for arming pilots. I encourage you to read the highlights at this link:"Compromise Would Let 250 Airline Pilots Carry Guns"
This trial program to arm 250 pilots has no time limits associated with it. 250 pilots is a joke. A 4 month study to see the result of an unintentional discharge - the underlying assumption being we're not competent to handle a firearm responsibly. Who are they kidding? (This same government apparently thought I was safe enough to carry a nuke - let alone issue me an ATP.) AND, after 2 years the TSA, the agency that nixed the program to begin with, can end the program.
We, APSA, have worked tirelessly to serve as a focal point for all of the unions to work together cooperatively to see this thing through. ALL, except for one, have been great supporters and allies, realizing that this is too important to us all to act as individuals or posture over. For the sake of unity I've been very reserved in my comments regarding our union leadership's "efforts" to get an armed pilot program, but there comes a point when a farce must be exposed.
ALPA's press release
"The safety and security of our aviation industry is reliant on redundancy in the system," said Woerth. "In light of the fact that our aviation security system is evolving and that redundancy has not yet been fully realized, ALPA worked closely with Representatives on the House Aviation Subcommittee to create this substitute amendment on an experimental program to allow highly trained airline pilots to carry firearms to defend the cockpit. We give this bipartisan compromise our full support, and we thank all the legislators involved for allowing this issue to go forward," Woerth added.
ALPA has been a reluctant partner from the start. ALPA's president "...Woerth,who told a Senate committee (September 20th) that pilots could not be "Sky King and Wyatt Earp at the same time." has quietly maintained his stance while bowing to membership pressure. It comes as no surprise that he is happy with the outcome; the others dedicated to this cause aren't afraid to call it what it is.
There is no doubt that the administration and the ATA put intense pressure on the House to back off. But that our own union, which is supposed to represent the will of the membership, was a willing contributor to this charade is inexcusable. The membership once forced Capt. Woerth to revise his statements, if not his position. We need to let him know what we think of his support for this hollow legislation
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/archive.php?aid=548
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878