Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: CU to vote tomorrow on gun ban.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    They are holding the vote tomorrow......I might try and go to this as it's in one of the buildings where we also have office space.

    The University of Colorado regents will vote Friday morning on whether the school should continue its legal battle to keep guns off its campuses.

    A public comment period for the issue will begin at 10 a.m., prior to the board's vote. The board meeting will be held on the East Campus and Research Park, in the first-floor main conference room of 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder.

    In April, judges with the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a gun-rights group that sued CU and argued that a 1994 university policy banning concealed weapons violates state gun laws.

    CU leaders will meet with attorneys behind closed doors about the gun ban Thursday night, said CU system spokesman Ken McConnellogue.

    Friday's vote could prove to be a litmus test for Republican board members, who hold a 5-4 majority.

    Only two of the board's conservatives — regents Tom Lucero and Jim Geddes — have made strong statements in favor of lifting the ban to allow students and employees with concealed-carry permits to pack heat on CU's campuses.

    But, Geddes said last week that board autonomy might factor into his decision.


    Read more: CU regents to vote on gun ban Friday - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/cu%1Enews...#ixzz0rmi3FHcm
    DailyCamera.com



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    It seems that The University of Coloradomustlift the Firearms Ban as it pertains to their Universites.

    It would be only equitable to do so since The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that The Universities Policies concerning Firearms are Ultra Vires against Colorado Law.

    Colorado Law18-12-214 superceeds The University of Colorado Board.

    Any action by The University of Colorado Board that does not meet the Decision rendered by The Colorado Appeals Court is a blatant and unacceptable form of Conduct that should not be tolerated by Colorado, should The Board not act immediately to remove its Preempted Policy.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    I agree that the CU Regents really shouldn't have a choice here except to follow Colorado law as it was written in 2003, but you know how the educators typically handle these types of things, which suffice it to say is not well.

    I also believe that if CU appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court, they will lose.

    As the appeal court stated: If the Legislators had wanted an exemption for colleges, they would have written it into the law like they did for K-12.....

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    I also just heard through the grapevine that there will be CU police officers in attendance tomorrow.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    luv_jeeps wrote:
    I also believe that if CU appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court, they will lose.
    I wouldn't be so sure about that. Look at Denver OC ban. The legislative intent and plain wording clearly applies to Denver but the court ruled otherwise.

    CU is using basically the same argument Denver used...An organization (wrong word here) that is on par with the state and thus the state does not have power to define their rules.

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

    Post imported post

    Good..., then, in my Opinion, they need to be educated on Colorado Law as well!

    Neither the State of Colorado nor The Federal Government has precluded an Individual from bringing a Firearm onto the premises of a College or University.

    The Laws, in fact all of them, that disallow College Carry are products of The States.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    luv_jeeps wrote:
    I also believe that if CU appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court, they will lose.
    I wouldn't be so sure about that.* Look at Denver OC ban.* The legislative intent and plain wording clearly applies to Denver but the court ruled otherwise.

    CU is using basically the same argument Denver used...An organization (wrong word here) that is on par with the state and thus the state does not have power to define their rules.
    The Colorado Supreme Court never positively affirmed Denver's OC ban. What actually occurred was the court was deadlocked 3-3 because the 7th justice (Tracy Eid) worked on behalf of the state AG's office against Denver when the AG's office was fighting in the State District Court. She recused herself (which is proper) and as a result the court deadlocked. By Colorado Rules of Court procedure, it is merely an affirming of the decision by operation of law, which means the decision of Judge Meyers in 2004 only applied in Denver, no where else. Thus is the current state of the situation in Colorado.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Mr. Peterson, you're good!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Mr. Peterson, you're good!
    You sorta have to know this sort of thing when you're suing the City/County of Denver for refusing to issue non-resident licenses to carry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    The Colorado Supreme Court never positively affirmed Denver's OC ban. What actually occurred was the court was deadlocked 3-3 because the 7th justice (Tracy Eid) worked on behalf of the state AG's office against Denver when the AG's office was fighting in the State District Court. She recused herself (which is proper) and as a result the court deadlocked. By Colorado Rules of Court procedure, it is merely an affirming of the decision by operation of law, which means the decision of Judge Meyers in 2004 only applied in Denver, no where else. Thus is the current state of the situation in Colorado.
    I am aware of the 3-3 ruling and it's implications. Positive affirmation or not there was a ruling and Denver has a Supreme Court backed OC ban.

    My point is that the CU gun ban is not a lock with the SC.

    Thanks for the history lesson on Tracy Eid though.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Mr. Peterson, you're good!
    I concur.

    If the CU board attempts to prohibit the lawful carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens, whether they be students or otherwise, in, on, or around their campuses, I will gladly join and/or support any class-action lawsuit.

    Why? Because I'm graduate of Virginia Tech, and that massacre was PREVENTABLE, or at least gravely reduced, had one or more of the students been carrying.

    If the CU board can't figure this out, then they're clearly unable to think their way out of a paper bag, and should resign, en masse, as they're unfit leadership for an institution of higher learning.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    kingfish wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote: I am aware of the 3-3 ruling and it's implications. Positive affirmation or not there was a ruling and Denver has a Supreme Court backed OC ban.

    3-3 is not "Supreme Court backed". Another case could be run in state court and possibly win to overturn Denver's open carry ban. Denver could try suing the state again in state court and re-run the case all the way up, but they won't do that because they don't want to risk their open carry ban and their AWB getting tossed out with the bathwater, so they grit their teeth and begrudgingly issue CHL's, sometimes revoking illegally or going beyond their boundaries that are set for them in state law.

    Let's cross our fingers that CU's Board will make the right call.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    since9 wrote:
    cscitney87 wrote:
    Mr. Peterson, you're good!
    I concur.

    If the CU board attempts to prohibit the lawful carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens, whether they be students or otherwise, in, on, or around their campuses, I will gladly join and/or support any class-action lawsuit.

    Why? Because I'm graduate of Virginia Tech, and that massacre was PREVENTABLE, or at least gravely reduced, had one or more of the students been carrying.

    If the CU board can't figure this out, then they're clearly unable to think their way out of a paper bag, and should resign, en masse, as they're unfit leadership for an institution of higher learning.
    They are voting on whether or not to appeal the appellate court ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court. Not taking bets, but I think they're not going to go for it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    It is within my Opinion that Colorado does not fully Preempt Firearms Carry.

    Under Colorado Law, Colorado Code 18-12-105.6 only Preempts Car Carry, but Colorado Code 18-12-105.6 simply stops short of full-blown Preemption.

    As I understand it..., Denver holds itself to be equivalent to the State of Colorado based on The Colorado Constitutional Principle of 'Home-Rule Cities'.

    Therefore, Denver thinks that Colorado Law isonly relevant, when, and where, Denver seesit fit to be.

    Would someone please explain to me why Denver does not allow Open Carry, notwithstanding the fact that Colorado does not prohibitthe practice of Open Carry?



  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136
    I didn't get to post before the site went down for upgrades, but the Regents voted 5-4 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
    There was one Republican member from Grand Junction that crossed party lines and voted to appeal, otherwise it was right down party lines....

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Could this case have an effect the Denver decision? I would think it would but might require another round of lawsuits after the hopefully favorable decision.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    cscitney87 wrote:
    Why? Because I'm graduate of Virginia Tech, and that massacre was PREVENTABLE, or at least gravely reduced, had one or more of the students been carrying.
    I take a different tact with this. It doesn't matter if one or more of the students had been carrying. It doesn't matter if a thousand students were carrying. It doesn't matter if zero students were carrying. If just the THREAT of a large number of students carrying means a shooting spree would be cut REAL short, like before the shooter even gets one shot off, they ain't gonna even try, much less have to be taken down by "one or more students carrying".

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by luv_jeeps View Post
    I didn't get to post before the site went down for upgrades, but the Regents voted 5-4 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
    Good! When the Colorado Supreme Court upholds the Constitutionality of the governing CRS and throws down the un-Constitutionality of CU's pin-headed attempt to overthrow our nation's Constitution and replace it with their un-experienced, freedom-sapping pipe dream from academia, perhaps some other schools and states will sit up and take notice.

    There was one Republican member from Grand Junction that crossed party lines and voted to appeal, otherwise it was right down party lines....
    Who might that be? I'd be interested in knowing why. If it's because he has a solid belief that the Colorado Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's ruling, I'll vote for him! (if I can). If it's because he feels legal adults should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms simply because they're students, then I'll vote him out of office while aiding the campaign of his most-qualified competitor.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    I take a different tact with this. It doesn't matter if one or more of the students had been carrying. It doesn't matter if a thousand students were carrying. It doesn't matter if zero students were carrying. If just the THREAT of a large number of students carrying means a shooting spree would be cut REAL short, like before the shooter even gets one shot off, they ain't gonna even try, much less have to be taken down by "one or more students carrying".
    I disagree, for the simple reason that the term "suicide by cop" exists today. There are those who fully expect to get mowed down (or take their own life towards the end of the spree), but they're determined to exact their personal "revenge" on as many of the students and faculty as they can before that happens.

    In fact, nearly all school massacres have shared this theme. Carry among students will not be very much of a deterrent, if any. It'll simply be a means by which the crazed shooter can be put out of his misery before he killls more people, i.e. with the least loss of life among the sane, law-abiding students.

    Virginia Tech was a horrible tragedy! When I went to school there, the only rule was "no guns on campus." They had no jurisdiction over the 68% of students who lived off-campus (in town) from owning or carrying firearms. In fact, it was my three roommates, all of whom were firearms afficionados, and all of whom had firearms at our apartment, which first sparked my interest in guns (as an adult) in the first place.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by luv_jeeps View Post
    I didn't get to post before the site went down for upgrades, but the Regents voted 5-4 to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
    There was one Republican member from Grand Junction that crossed party lines and voted to appeal, otherwise it was right down party lines....
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Who might that be? I'd be interested in knowing why. If it's because he has a solid belief that the Colorado Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's ruling, I'll vote for him! (if I can). If it's because he feels legal adults should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms simply because they're students, then I'll vote him out of office while aiding the campaign of his most-qualified competitor.
    http://www.gazette.com/news/strong-1...uling-ban.html
    BOULDER The University of Colorado will fight to keep a gun ban on campus.

    University regents voted 5-4 Friday to appeal a ruling against the ban to the Colorado Supreme Court.

    Republican Tillie Bishop of Grand Junction voted with Democrats in favor of an appeal. He said he wanted to preserve the rights of regents to make rules for the university.

    All other Republicans on the board voted in favor of accepting a state appeals court ruling against the ban and allow students with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms.

    CU's student government reversed its previous stance and voted to endorse the gun ban on Thursday night following criticism from students.

    CU has until the end of the month to to file an appeal.

    ----------------
    It's hard to tell exactly what he meant, but I'm afraid that he still thinks that the university is above the law.

Posting Permissions

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