Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Rumor of the Attorney General Advising Colleges and Universities on changed OC and CC law.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    At SLCC,
    I was just informed that if a student comes to the campus or class in an OC state, faculty is to call security (UHP) and state that it was a disturbance to the class. Doing this will or would cause the student to possibly be asked to leave the school for violating the Student Code of Conduct.

    Why not just educate people on the law!
    [img]/images/emoticons/cuss.gif[/img]

  2. #2
    Regular Member MichaelD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Murray, Utah, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    How is the AG involved?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Colleges and Universities have learned lessons about reacting without consulting there legal departments. Legal departments of Colleges and Universities do not advise without consulting the head legal department for the state. This is how the AG gets involved.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    chickenbroth wrote:
    At SLCC,
    I was just informed that if a student comes to the campus or class in an OC state, faculty is to call security (UHP) and state that it was a disturbance to the class. Doing this will or would cause the student to possibly be asked to leave the school for violating the Student Code of Conduct.

    Why not just educate people on the law!
    [img]/images/emoticons/cuss.gif[/img]
    Who is your source? How were you informed? In all honesty I doubt this is in anyway true. First off the SLCC has its own police force so why would they call UHP? UHP does not provide security for SLCC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murray, ,
    Posts
    99

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    First off the SLCC has its own police force so why would they call UHP? UHP does not provide security for SLCC.




    Wrong

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Still though..., Utah Code is clear, and it states:

    76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
    (1) A person may not possess any dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501, at a place that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1).
    (2) (a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B misdemeanor.
    (b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class A misdemeanor.
    (3) This section does not apply if:
    (a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704, 53-5-705, 76-10-511, or 76-10-523, or as otherwise authorized by law;
    (b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
    (c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
    (d) the possession is:
    (i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property;
    (ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by the school or used by the school to transport students; or
    (iii) at the person's place of business which is not located in the areas described in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iv).
    (4) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that may occur on or about school premises.

    76-10-523. Persons exempt from weapons laws.
    (1) This part and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, do not apply to any of the following:
    (a) a United States marshal;
    (b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
    (c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
    (d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
    (e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711;
    (f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as merchandise; or
    (g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is:
    (i) unloaded; and
    (ii) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501.
    (2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
    (a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704; or
    (b) by another state or county.



    Utah State Firearms Preemption reads:

    76-10-500. Uniform law.
    (1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
    (a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
    (b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
    (2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Yes, but you missed:

    76-9-106. Disrupting the operation of a school.
    (1) A person is guilty of disrupting the operation of a school if the person, after being asked to leave by a school official, remains on school property for the purpose of encouraging or creating an unreasonable and substantial disruption or risk of disruption of a class, activity, program, or other function of a public or private school.
    (2) For purposes of this section, "school property" includes property being used by a public or private school for a school function.
    (3) Disrupting the operation of a school is a class B misdemeanor.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    SLCC does not have its own police force. The director of Security is a current Department of Public Safety officer. They contract with Department of Public Safety to do onsite protection for most of there campuses. West Jordan covers the Jordan Campus, in all 911 calls but for security calls an UHP officer will respond.

    My source, to state that might cost me my job. Lets just say it was a Vice President at SLCC who was informed by their Legal Advisor.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    chickenbroth wrote:
    Legal departments of Colleges and Universities do not advise without consulting the head legal department for the state. This is how the AG gets involved.
    If this were really the case, U of U wouldn't have sued the AG over his legal opinion. I seriously doubt that AG Shurtleff would advise them to take this position.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    The disruption clause in the law is what I believe he was talking about. There is also a similar clause in the SLCC student code of conduct. Which for a student is a bigger head ache than the misdemeanor. Other than the lifetime record of a Misdemeanor.

    My opinion only. but thanks for your input.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    rpayne,
    but correct me if I am wrong but didn't the u of u lose that case?the timeline is different. that was then this is now.

    I can not speak for any of the other universities or institutions. I just stated what I was informed when asked what the proper procedure is to do if someone exercising there legal right to carry a firearm on their person and is visable, Permit or not?

  12. #12
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Yes, but you missed:

    76-9-106. Disrupting the operation of a school.
    (1) A person is guilty of disrupting the operation of a school if the person, after being asked to leave by a school official, remains on school property for the purpose of encouraging or creating an unreasonable and substantial disruption or risk of disruption of a class, activity, program, or other function of a public or private school.
    (2) For purposes of this section, "school property" includes property being used by a public or private school for a school function.
    (3) Disrupting the operation of a school is a class B misdemeanor.

    Note the part of the code that states:

    "...for the purpose of encouraging or creating and unreasonable and substantial disruption or risk of disruption...."

    This reminds me of the trespassing code in many ways. They can charge you, but it will be nearly impossible to prove intent. This code is written so that the prosecution has to prove that a person remained in class for the purpose quoted above. (76-2-101)

    In my opinion, causing a scene by asking somebody open carrying to leave, and then bringing in any type of enforcement entities, would cause a far more damaging and "substantial" disruption than just leaving the person alone ever would. People's reactions to unfounded fears these days is dumbfounding.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196

    Post imported post

    chickenbroth wrote:
    At SLCC,
    I was just informed that if a student comes to the campus or class in an OC state, faculty is to call security (UHP) and state that it was a disturbance to the class.
    Let them.

    They will have to prove that you are causing a disturbance. The fact that other people may be uncomfortable with your presence is NOT a disturbance, and you are not there for the purpose of causing a disturbance, you are there for a legitimate purpose.

    I would not want to be the trooper who had to take the stand and explain that the "disturbance" was actually other peoples' inappropriate reaction to your lawful activities.

    However, if you are taking classes there, check with the people in charge of security and see if you can't get them up to speed on this.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    GenkiSudo wrote:
    Rottie wrote:
    First off the SLCC has its own police force so why would they call UHP? UHP does not provide security for SLCC.




    Wrong
    It appears as though you are right about the change from SLCC campus police to various separate agencies for the campuses. I am unsure of when the change occurred but this has not always been the case as they did have their own department previously.

    That being said, I'd still like to see a credible source for this allegation such as press release, memo, etc. If the school has sought an opinion from the AG, It would be posted as an official opinion from the AG's office and would most likely be public record. As far as I know this has not happened. Absent any credible source, it is just rumor. I also have to side with rpyne on this one. The AGwent to court againstthe UofU over the right to carry firearms on campus and has stated himself with the most recent UVU incident that this is a grey area and needs to be cleared up by the legislature.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    chickenbroth wrote:
    ... I just stated what I was informed when asked what the proper procedure is to do if someone exercising there legal right to carry a firearm on their person and is visable, Permit or not?
    Who informed you? What was the context? Source please!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    This really is nothing new. There are two laws on the books that are being used against one another.

    It boils down to this. Yes, we have every right to OC on campus. We even have the AG on our side on that fact. However, there is another law in place that prevents people from creating a disturbance on a campus. Administrators are using this law to claim OC is a disturbance to the educational environment.

    As we saw with MajorNickmo at UVU, if he had not concealed, they were intent on taking administrative action against him.

    I am not advocating for the schools but this argument has taken place plenty of times. Each time someone posts all the statues and screams until they are blue in the face. Until it is clarified by statute, it will be an ongoing battle.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson circa 1776
    www.utahccwcarry.com

  17. #17
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Deepdiver36 wrote:
    This really is nothing new. There are two laws on the books that are being used against one another.

    It boils down to this. Yes, we have every right to OC on campus. We even have the AG on our side on that fact. However, there is another law in place that prevents people from creating a disturbance on a campus. Administrators are using this law to claim OC is a disturbance to the educational environment.

    As we saw with MajorNickmo at UVU, if he had not concealed, they were intent on taking administrative action against him.

    I am not advocating for the schools but this argument has taken place plenty of times. Each time someone posts all the statues and screams until they are blue in the face. Until it is clarified by statute, it will be an ongoing battle.
    I fail to see any gray areas with the way the statutes are written. The rhetoric seems pretty clear to me. Those who don't like the freedom the current laws provide for arms bearers are interpreting them in a biased manner in order to cause a disturbance and deter people from exercising them.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Sorry, double post.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    I fail to see any gray areas with the way the statutes are written.
    The "gray area" is whether or not open carry constitutes "disruption of school activities". Since disruption isn't defined in the law, and as far as I know there aren't any precedents that elucidate it, the universities have the wiggle room to claim their interpretation. In this case it really wouldn't do any good for the AG to weigh in with his opinion, because they'd just say "that's his opinion, but we think a court would agree with us."

    There are only two ways to resolve this: Either some student has to take it to court, or the legislature has to clarify the open carry is not disruptive.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    Deepdiver36 wrote:
    This really is nothing new. There are two laws on the books that are being used against one another.

    It boils down to this. Yes, we have every right to OC on campus. We even have the AG on our side on that fact. However, there is another law in place that prevents people from creating a disturbance on a campus. Administrators are using this law to claim OC is a disturbance to the educational environment.

    As we saw with MajorNickmo at UVU, if he had not concealed, they were intent on taking administrative action against him.

    I am not advocating for the schools but this argument has taken place plenty of times. Each time someone posts all the statues and screams until they are blue in the face. Until it is clarified by statute, it will be an ongoing battle.
    I fail to see any gray areas with the way the statutes are written. The rhetoric seems pretty clear to me. Those who don't like the freedom the current laws provide for arms bearers are interpreting them in a biased manner in order to cause a disturbance and deter people from exercising them.

    Kevin
    In a perfect world, the laws of the land would be black and white but as long as you have man, it can and will be interpreted differently. Thats why we have established many levels of courts to correct misinterpretation or mistakes of the others. Look at what man has done interpreting the bible. We go to wars and kill each other over it.

    Like divegeek said, it will take the courts or the legislators to clarify this matter.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson circa 1776
    www.utahccwcarry.com

  21. #21
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Maybe everyone is just missing my point. The law says clearly "for the purpose..." There has to be intent to satisfy the requirement of the statute. So, even if they interpret the law the way they want to, it still requires intent in order to be enforced. If the case were brought before a judge, they still have to prove that the student open carried and remained on campus for the sole purpose and intent of causing a disruption, according to the way it is currently written, and to satisfy the requirements of criminal conduct and responsibility (76-2-101), or the charge would be dropped. What is so unclear about that? If they are unable to show intent, then the charge should be thrown out.

    However, it is possible that a jacked up jury or biased judge could twist the interpretation around if they really wanted to. That is the part that is messed up the most in our justice system if you ask me. Biased interpretations can put innocent people behind bars or cause negative criminal history to be tacked onto their records when it ought not to be.

    Maybe the colleges should conduct a poll among their whole entire student bodies to see if the other students would consider open carry on their campuses a "disruptive" condition for them. This kind of feedback would help a lot in relieving the unfounded concerns of administrators and faculty. It may swing one way, or the other, but at least there would be factual information for them to base their attitudes on rather than personal disapproval of open carry on campus.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Utah_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kearns, Utah, USA
    Posts
    717

    Post imported post

    I have proof before I disclose the facts I need to speak with the correct people who have knowledge of what is happening.
    Zach
    8014487574
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    I fail to see any gray areas with the way the statutes are written.
    The "gray area" is whether or not open carry constitutes "disruption of school activities". Since disruption isn't defined in the law, and as far as I know there aren't any precedents that elucidate it, the universities have the wiggle room to claim their interpretation. In this case it really wouldn't do any good for the AG to weigh in with his opinion, because they'd just say "that's his opinion, but we think a court would agree with us."

    There are only two ways to resolve this: Either some student has to take it to court, or the legislature has to clarify the open carry is not disruptive.
    I think unarmed people are very disruptive. I also think that people with red shirts are disruptive. Can we kick all of those disruptive people out as well?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •