CSU in crosshairs for gun suit
Lobbyists group takes aim at proposed weapons ban
by Kirsten Silveira
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
If the CSU System Board Of Governors sticks to its guns and approves a policy banning concealed weapons on campus, the university could have a $50,000 lawsuit coming down the barrel.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Second Amendment lobbyist group, is working with a local law firm to fight what RMGO Director Dudley Brown calls “a no brainer.”
“I’m still hoping (the university) will come to their senses,” legal counsel for RMGO Terry Ryan said, adding that the “aggressive” lobbyist group has a no-compromise policy when it comes to Second Amendment rights.
If, at its Feb. 23 meeting, the BOG approves the policy prohibiting concealed carry, Ryan said, he will be ready to file a complaint within days of the decision calling for the ban to be repealed.
The next step, he said, would be to apply for an injunction, which would halt all enforcement of the policy until the court ruled on the case.
The lawsuit started brewing in December following the BOG’s controversial demand that CSU President Tony Frank and CSU-Pueblo President Joe Garcia draft weapons policies enforcing a ban on concealed carry for each of their campuses.
The first draft of Frank’s policy, which has yet to be approved by his cabinet, would allow only police and members of the military to carry concealed weapons on campus.
The current draft mandates that any student, faculty or staff member caught in violation of the rule will face disciplinary action as outlined in the school’s conduct code.
As for campus guests or visitors, the draft states that any violators will be removed from campus and face possible trespassing charges.
But, throughout the heated debate over the legality of banning concealed carry at CSU, Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden has taken a firm stance that he will take no part in arresting or detaining valid permit holders violating any such ban.
In response to threat of lawsuit, CSU released an e-mail statement to the Collegian that said visitors in violation of the ban will be notified of the policy and asked to check his or her gun in with the CSU Police Department during his or her stay on campus.
Individuals who refuse to comply may be banned from campus, it says, but the statement makes no explicit mention of legal action against violators, a notable softening in language compared to the possible trespassing charges outlined in the current draft.
“CSU is playing chicken with groups who’ve played it many times before,” Brown said.
With budget cuts to Colorado’s higher education system looming, Brown said he’d like to know how the university will find the money to fight a lawsuit that he said he is positive it will lose.
“The law is already on our side,” Brown said. “Judges don’t really like a public entity writing a law.”
In its e-mail statement, CSU cites a state law that allows the university to “promulgate rules and regulations” that increase safety for the campus community and said creating and upholding a ban on concealed weapons falls under that law.
In an interview last week, however, Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said a different state statute that regulates gun control in public buildings requires specific criteria be met in order for a ban to be legal.
These criteria are:
1.Constant weapons checks at all buildings in the area where concealed carry is banned,
2. Every person using buildings in the said area must be screened, and
3. Security personnel have to hold the weapons of permit holders while said permit holder is in the restricted building.
CSU’s current policy draft meets none of those criteria.
Late last semester, CSU student government passed a bill endorsing the university’s current policy allowing concealed carry and presented it to the BOG.
Senator David Ambrose, who drafted the bill, said in an e-mail that the board ignored student interest by asking for a new weapons policy and said he supports any action against the ban.
“A concealed carry lawsuit will be the only way for students to have a voice since the Board of Governors treats us like second class citizens,” Ambrose said.
Although the BOG is scheduled to evaluate the policy at its Feb. 23 meeting in Pueblo, the university is open to community suggestions and feedback until Friday.
If the board approves a policy prohibiting concealed carry, “that’s kind of the trigger (for the lawsuit),” Ryan said.
Senior Reporter Kirsten Silveira can be reached at news@collegian.com.
Please be respectful to others when commenting on our comment board. Comments that are decided to be overly offensive, off topic, derrogatory or unnecessarily cruel in nature will be erased.
All fields are required. Your email address will not be published.
recently added comments
 |
Bol on Grillin' the Buffs (14) |
|
Dan the Ram on Grillin' the Buffs (14) |
|
Johnny the Buffalo on Grillin' the Buffs (14) |
| 03/11/2010 |
How do you Chatroulette? |
| 03/04/2010 |
Binary Boys: Tecnology does not hate you |
collegian on facebook
collegian on twitter
rss feeds
email newsletter
The comments posted on this board are monitored, but we can not be held responsible for what others say.
who cares
01-27-10
5:46 AM
I will just carry anyway. Im sure murderers will.
It's the Constitution, stupid!
01-27-10
8:45 AM
Thank God someone has the balls to do something about this ridiculous ban! I fully support and encourage the RMGO in its action and hope state lawmakers will back up their own tough talk regarding CSU’s ban on Constitutionally protected concealed weapons. Stick it to these fools who think they are above the law. And again, I call for the removal of all BOG members who initiated this illegal power grab, and ANY other administration member who continues to support it going forward. Call and write the RMGO and your state Senators to encourage them to follow through! Contact CSU’s administration and the BOG to let them know we will not allow them to take ANY of our Constitutional rights away from us! We are not second class citizens. We have the law on our side, and we WILL take this the distance.
Rex
01-27-10
9:36 AM
I am glad to see there will be litigation against the B.O.G.
Does anyone know where we can donate money that would go directly for the legal expenses to
fight the B.O.G.?
The three main reasons for the ban given by the B.O.G. are misguided.
1) Individuals with CCW don’t take their firearms to drinking parties.
2) Individuals with CCW don’t settle disputes by shooting other people.
3) Individuals with CCW don’t discharge their weopons by accident.
If any of the above actions would ever happen the CCW holder would take full responsiblity for his or her actions.
With freedom comes responsibility!
I guess the B.O.G. think they know what is best for other people. They don’t have the humility to
allow other people to take responsibility for their own security. If this policy passes and survives litigation the B.O.G. should be held liable for anyone who is injured or killed because they were denied the right to protect themselves or others.
Sullivan
01-27-10
10:03 AM
I could understand this if it was taking place at C.U. in the Peoples Republic of Boulder, but in Fort Collins
It makes no sense.
Just ponder the implication of scarce University funds being used to defend a moronic policy.
Chad
01-27-10
10:34 AM
This whole issue is interesting to me. I have friends who were on campus when the V-tech shooting happened. I don’t know a whole lot about it, but I wonder how far that would have gone given one or two of those kids were carrying a gun.
Sullivan
01-27-10
10:44 AM
It is hard to say if it would have made a difference or not. Bottom line is that it may have helped and certainly would not have hurt.
This is an old saying which applies here, “Never bring a knife to a gun fight.”
Arvensis
01-27-10
12:12 PM
This is getting out of control. There is no need to file a lawsuit or get huffy and puffy about this. By LAW, the BOG has no authority to make this decision, therefore it should be ignored. If it satisfies the irrational liberals on campus to believe that there are no guns on campus, all the better. They can feel secure, but law abiding citizens should go about their business and carry if they want – nobody will ever know unless an event develops where the just use of the firearm is necessary.
The sheriff said he will not enforce this and the infrastructure is not in place for the university to make the statute. Unconstitutional and unenforceable – go about your business people, I am not quaking in fear knowing that somebody on campus might be a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm. I trust you know how to handle it and I’m sure it won’t go off in your purse and shoot me in the hip.
J Anders
01-27-10
4:14 PM
Arvensis – your point is well taken, but misplaced. If any group or organization (whether a government body or otherwise) is able to enact “feel-good” laws or regulations that purport to restrict the rights of others, though the limitation may not have any teeth it is still wrong on many fronts:
1) to have normally law-abiding citizens consciously break the law under a tacit understanding that the law won’t be enforced is dangerous and mindless. While today the law may not be enforced, given time it will be.
2) this type of “feel-good” restriction would only guarantee the continued gradual numbing of the non-gun owning public to the blatant efforts of many to restrict the lawful ownership of firearms for recreational use and self protection. The more we turn a blind eye as institutions and governments try to infringe on ANY right (whether a firearms right or otherwise), the further the pendulum swings in the public debate on whether the right is really necessary or even a right at all. The more public opinion is allowed to swing against the notion that gun ownership and possession is not only normal, but beneficial, the faster the right is eroded and then lost.
3) complacency leads to tyranny. You cannot give up a right “on paper” without giving up the right – PERIOD!
RMGO fight this – fight it like hell. Let me know where I can donate.
Arvensis
01-27-10
6:12 PM
Good points J Anders. I support the cause.
It is my personal opinion that no person or authority has the right to tell me where, when, and by what means I may defend myself. Your comments made me realize that somewhere down the line, somebody decided that it was not legal to: purchase firearms without a background check, own fully automatic firearms, carry a concealed weapon with out a permit, etc. They have slowly stripped us of our rights.
I believe that this is a just battle, but the 2nd Amendment is what it is. As long as I am a citizen, it is my right. We are distracted by fighting something that we shouldn’t have to fight for. If good willed, capable people want to CC, they should simply do it! Remember though, with great freedom comes great responsibility. Who is the government to charge you fees and take your fingerprints to conceal your weapon? I guess though, with our dumbed-down society, people are too stupid to understand freedom and take responsibility for it.
Complacency may lead to tyranny, but so does compliance. Compliance to this corrupt, criminal system is what keeps the control grid in place.
In peace.
john smith
01-28-10
12:19 AM
Looks like I need join the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, I can’t believe the university is in such poor finical shape that they are going to lay off people, and at the same time defending university from the inevitable lawsuits, especially when there has never been a issue with a CCW holder ever at CSU, and so what if I do CCW what’s CSU going to do? They can’t put me in jail, and I will sue, BTW and another VP for diversity???? Where is all the $ coming from?
john smith
01-28-10
12:27 AM
Just joined the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, it’s only $30 but that a small price to pay inorder to help keep you rights as a U.S. citizen. Join now!
http://www.rmgo.org/
RMGOdirector
01-28-10
8:34 AM
If you want to contribute to this fight, just go to www.rmgo.org and click the Donate/Join button. You can designate the donation for CSU Fight
J Anders
01-28-10
9:45 AM
Thanks for the info RMGOdirector – going to sign up right now.
Keep up the fight.
Tony is an empty suit
01-28-10
11:37 AM
Here is an email sent out today, January 28, 2010, by CSU president Tony Frank, in response to a local resident’s letter to him criticizing the illegal move to ban concealed weapons on CSU’s campus.
Thanks for your e-mail. While I appreciate hearing from all those who are concerned about the rights and safety of our campus community, the Board of Governors has directed all its campus presidents to develop new weapons policies that include restrictions on concealed-carry. This is within the Board’s rights as CSU’s governing body, so we are moving forward with development of a policy and currently reviewing and considering feedback on the draft policy and implementation plans. The current draft isn’t breaking any new ground—it’s similar to the policies in place at nearly all other universities in the country and in the state of Colorado . But the feedback we’ve received from the campus community is helping us refine it so it will work for CSU.
Again, thanks for weighing in.
-tony
Dr. Tony Frank
President
J Anders
01-28-10
1:28 PM
Tony IS an empty suit – I got the same template response. RMGO – get that suit ready and strap in.
Craig Hawley
02-02-10
3:28 PM
Just another attempt by the liberal left to leave students defenseless and counting on the authorities to protect them.
We saw how that worked out in the Los Angeles riots over Rodney King.
Does anyone at CSU know who the only people were that survived the riots untouched along with their property?
Korean Grocers….
WHY?
Because they all had guns and stood on top of their stores roofs and told any one entering the property they would be shot.
Take away their guns and their stores would have been burned to the ground , and they would have been at the mercy of the mob….
FIGHT THIS BAN ABD HOSE LIBERAL BUFFOONS TRYING TI IMPLIMENT IT.
Also I would say if the ban is implemented , the very first person who had a carry permit to be assaulted or worse shoudl sue them for a 100 million for taking away their right to self defense.
Remember Obama is for gun control……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9X2VbhSH9o