Home ND News Mobile Forum Contact Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, September 17, 2008


University Of North Dakota Students Protesting Removal Of Self Defense Rights

In the wake of the massacre at Virgina Tech the University of North Dakota, understandably, instituted a new security policy that will allow students and faculty to be notified of an attack on campus through text messages, emails and phone calls.  But groups of students on campus are saying that it isn’t enough.

Here’s a television news report of the situation:

More from the Grand Forks Herald:

...Jae Baker, a senior majoring in accounting who started Females For Firearms on campus last October, criticized the new system Tuesday during a day she publicized her student group.

“I feel it’s another attempt at an illusion of proper security,” Baker said, citing the April 2007 case, in which a mad student shot to death 32 students on campus, then killed himself. Her group, assisted by Young Americans For Freedom, drew 32 chalk outlines on sidewalks across campus Tuesday to publicize the need for allowing students to bear arms.

The NotiFind system appears that it would be too little, too late, if the worst happened, Baker said. She has protested UND’s policy of banning all weapons on campus as a violation of her own right to defend herself, as well as to carry a gun.

“I can’t even have pepper spray in my purse,” she said. She knows of women who have been assaulted near campus and thinks UND needs to allow students, faculty and staff to carry weapons if they choose.

I think Baker and her group have a point.  A big reason why schools and universities are targets for crazies who want to go on a shooting spree is that they’re relatively unprotected.  It is impractical to have armed security guards cover every inch of massive university and school grounds at all hours of the day, so shooters know that if they time their attacks correctly they can rack up a big body count among a group of citizens they know won’t be able to defend themselves.

If you allow people their right to bear arms on campus that campus because less of an attractive target for a crazy.  And if said crazy does decide to try and shoot up the campus, he/she isn’t likely to be as successful.

But aside from common sense, I think some of UND’s anti-gun policies may actually be unconstitutional:

The new weapons checking policy, as of July, is extending the rule that no weapons are allowed to be kept in academic areas, offices and vehicles to include student apartments, Czapiewski said. His department has a climate-controlled storage space, with 24-hour access to students, staff and faculty, where shotguns, rifles, handguns, bows and knives can be kept. Mostly, it’s students who are hunters who use the storage space, he said, and the response has been positive, he said.

Students can’t keep firearms in their apartments?  Granted, the apartments are on campus, but the campus itself is owned by the public.  And these apartments are being rented to students as their residences.  By denying students the right to keep arms in their apartments UND is denying them the right to keep arms in their homes.

And I don’t think you can get more unconstitutional than that.

After the landmark Washington DC vs. Heller case a wise gun-rights proponent said that while the case was important, additional lawsuits would be required to ensure that the point was driven home across the nation.  I think UND, with its ban on guns in student apartments, is ripe for that.

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

I was at this protest and the Chief of Police came up in plain clothes and introduced himself as “Duane” and asked what they were doing.


“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” - H. L. Mencken

Arecibo on September 17, 2008 at 09:31 am

If students were allowed to have weapons on campus, sure enough many arguments that were settled by fights would be settled by gunfire and bloodshed.

ollie-B on September 17, 2008 at 09:37 am

If students were allowed to have weapons on campus, sure enough many arguments that were settled by fights would be settled by gunfire and bloodshed.

Oh really?  Is this how the vast majority people settle arguments outside of “gun free zones”?  I don’t recall seeing any news reports of mass carnage in areas outside of college campuses.

electnixon on September 17, 2008 at 09:43 am
Proof
Proof
17234 comments
Send a private message

If students were allowed to have weapons on campus, sure enough many arguments that were settled by fights would be settled by gunfire and bloodshed.

Any evidence? Any history of this? Anything other than your rather hollow assertion that it is true?

-“An armed society is a polite society” -R.A. Heinlein


Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Proof on September 17, 2008 at 09:47 am

By taking guns away they are putting people in danger because it becomes a gun free zone.


Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

goon on September 17, 2008 at 09:47 am
Proof
Proof
17234 comments
Send a private message

By taking guns away they are putting people in danger because it becomes a gun free zone.

I think I’ll skip getting rabies shots for the family pets. I’ll just put up “Rabies Free Zone” signs around my yard!


Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Proof on September 17, 2008 at 09:52 am

After the landmark Washington DC vs. Heller case a wise gun-rights proponent said that while the case was important, additional lawsuits would be required to ensure that the point was driven home across the nation.  I think UND, with its ban on guns in student apartments, is ripe for that.

Neh. The case would be too weak to waste the resources. The state-owned apartment question is too much of an unknown variable—you’d rather not have to make that argument. You don’t want to give dissenting judges ammunition to avoid the constitutionality question by simply finding that a state-owned school apartment is not a home. Better to wait for something better.


“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic on September 17, 2008 at 09:55 am

Question:
If these colleges get federal funds, wouldn’t they be subject to federal laws and regulations?

Should Schools / Universities be able to remove the right to bear arms?

This is not just about the ability to protect yourself from crazies with guns, but also there are alot of rapes and assaults that happen on college campuses.

If the colleges / unviversities cannot provide a safe haven for learning, then they should allow you to be able ot protect yourself then.


‘A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.’  - Thomas Jefferson.

sanity on September 17, 2008 at 10:10 am

Watashiwa,  “People” said the same thing would happen in Florida after they passed their version of Castle Defense.  NO such “gunfire and bloodshed” followed.  Same for other states that follow suit.  In fact, there was less “gunfire and bloodshed” except in the urban areas where there is “tolerance” of and for gangs and gang gunfire and bloodshed for one reason or another. 
In South Carolina, we have a similar law and crime has gone down with the exception of gangs killing each other and invading innocent civilians’ homes and harming them.

That is The Truth.  Not PC, just simply The Truth.


Communism is evil

Chief RZ on September 17, 2008 at 10:20 am

I don’t know if this is the college’s jurisdiction or not.  From North Dakota Century Code:

62.1-02-05. Possession of a firearm at a public gathering - Penalty - Application.
1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, “public gathering” includes athletic or
sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political
rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned parks where
hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or operated buildings.

...

3. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an ordinance
which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a
public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction
of the political subdivision.

Section 3 applies to “Political Subdivisions” which I doubt includes Universities.  So it seems to me, and this comes from the understanding I received with my concealed weapons training, that carrying a firearm anywhere on campus (including campus housing) is a distinct no-no as determined by state law.

Personally, I would rather be able to carry everywhere.  I’ve passed plenty of background tests repeatedly, having had a concealed weapons permit since the 1980’s.  But state law is state law.

Cf

Clint F on September 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

Here’s a link to the policy.

http://departments.und.edu/police/weapon.html

It doesn’t name pepper spray, but that can be seen as an offensive weapon.  It also seems to forget whose property the U actually is, and exactly how one can bring a weapon to safe storage legally is also unclear, as that safe storage would be, ahem, on the grounds of the university.

And yes, sadly the U. apparently feels that carry permit holders would pose a threat to people, just like Watashiwa.  That’s why it’s so safe in DC and Chicago, and so dangerous in Texas and Florida.  That’s why you always hear about someone going postal at the gun range, but never, say, at a post office or school where guns are not allowed.

Watashiwa, suggest that you modify your position to conform a little more with reality.

Bike Bubba on September 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
Rob
Rob
22120 comments
Send a private message

Neh. The case would be too weak to waste the resources. The state-owned apartment question is too much of an unknown variable—you’d rather not have to make that argument. You don’t want to give dissenting judges ammunition to avoid the constitutionality question by simply finding that a state-owned school apartment is not a home. Better to wait for something better.

I disagree.  The apartments may be owned by the state, but they’re rented by the students.  The NRA has had a good deal of success in getting the Department of the Interior to drop prohibitions on carrying guns in national parks.  Seems like this is a good issue as well.

The constitution says we have a right to keep and bear arms.  That should include arms in our residences.


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 17, 2008 at 11:31 am
Rob
Rob
22120 comments
Send a private message

Good point, Clint.  But I think the university is probably a special case given that students live there, in apartments and in dorms.


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 17, 2008 at 11:34 am

Rob,

I didn’t say that you had no argument, I said that it wouldn’t be an optimal test case for 2nd Amendment rights. Because ultimately, we do not want to waste resources trying to convince the judges to recognize dorms as private dwelling, we want to spend all of our resources arguing to incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the state (which, IMO, is the much more important issue).

Also, just to note, national parks are federal. There is no incorporation question there, so your cited case wouldn’t be helpful in the least here.


“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic on September 17, 2008 at 11:48 am
Rob
Rob
22120 comments
Send a private message

Hairy, I cited the parks case as an example of gun rights on publicly-owned property.  I think it’s pertinent from a discussion standpoint.  I don’t think my gun rights trump your right to not want guns on your private property, but if we’re talking about publicly-owned property I think all bets are off.

As for the rest, I don’t see why this needs to be a single-front war.


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 17, 2008 at 02:42 pm

Rob,

My comment was purely from a legal strategy perspective. In cases like this its better to fight a one-front war and cherry pick situations that most help you win the issue you’re going after (in this case incorporation of the 2nd against the states). If you don’t do that, you may lose your case on another issue (such as whether dorms are private property), and later, some dishonest Judge is going to argue this lost case against you as a reason to deny your next incorporation argument. That’s why orgs like the NRA and ACLU cherry pick their cases.


“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic on September 17, 2008 at 02:59 pm
Rob
Rob
22120 comments
Send a private message

I dunno, Hairy, I think it’s a pretty good case.

Heller confirmed an individual right to own firearms.  To my mind, the only way that right can be taken away or modified is either through due process (criminals, etc.) or the demonstration of conflicting rights (such as your property rights vs. my gun rights).

I have a hard time seeing the university, or any other public entity, making either of these arguments to support their denying the right to possess firearms in student apartments.

It’s an important issue, and one with a lot of significant ramifications.


The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob on September 17, 2008 at 03:15 pm

Rob,

The University doesn’t need to make that argument. If it was a private university, then banning guns is just private policy. Since it is a state university, then banning guns, at most, a state policy. Problem with that is Heller was a D.C. case.

D.C., as you know, is a Federal city subject to Federal laws. While the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, controls the Federal government, each Amendment of the Bill of Rights must be incorporated against the state, individually, via the 14th’s Due Process Clause in order to actually limit the State. Heller didn’t touch on incorporation because it dealt with Federal regulation in a Federal city. As of now, you still need to argue that the 2nd Amendment right granted in Heller should be incorporated against the states. Otherwise, the states (including the University), are free to limit your right to own a gun as much as they want and Heller doesn’t affect them.

So, with that in mind, the most important hurdle to overcome is incorporation, not whether dorms are private property.


“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic on September 17, 2008 at 03:26 pm

This is ND’s preemption law:

62.1-01-03. Limitation on authority of political subdivision regarding firearms. No political subdivision, including home rule cities or counties, may enact any ordinance relating to the purchase, sale, ownership, transfer of ownership, registration, or licensure of firearms and ammunition which is more restrictive than state law. All such existing ordinances are void.

It doesn’t say anything about ‘possession’ of firearms.

I’m not sure if “state owned” property is the same as “public” property but that’s the problem when lawyers make laws.  (ie: you can’t just walk into the federal mint even though it’s owned by the ‘guvmint’)


Dogs’ lives are too short.  Their only fault, really.  ~Agnes Sligh Turnbull

C. Y. on September 17, 2008 at 03:58 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you want to ignore a fellow commenter, download this.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.