I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority.
There is the thing. What is a federal
"thing". Is there a federal law that says the marshals (or secret service) can create gun free zones? Federal policy? Internal department policy?
No doubt the feds have priority in how to manage federal facilities like post offices and military reservations. (I'll leave any discussion of the fact that the feds--ie congress controlled by east coast States--presumes to "own" 60% of my State and a similar amount of all other States west of the Kansas/Colorado State line in contradiction of the "equal footing" doctrine.)
But what proper authority do they have to over-ride State laws for management of State institutions? Or the operation of State police agencies?
As a side note, Justice Scalia spoke at Utah State University 6 or so years ago and did not have any unusual security during his speech. I wonder to what extend there is some heightened concern for security in the intervening period vs how much personal preferences of the Justices may factor into such things.
A month or so ago,
ome whiny private author was scheduled to speed at Utah State and cancelled when the university declined, per State law, to ban legally carried private guns. We figure it was mostly a PR stunt on her part.
Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?
It is exactly the same situation. And I believe in both cases there is a conflict with State law.
Now, to be clear, my
personal view is that State law ought to be updated to explicitly permit the creation of temporary gun free zones under the very limited circumstances of the secret service or federal marshals determining it necessary to the security of a protectee. The law should spell out appropriate limitations and protections for RKBA, including requiring appropriate storage for private guns carried to the venue.
I believe that the person of certain high profile government offices must be afforded extra security and protections. And a temporary gun free venue where real security is provided to all in attendance is a reasonable balance in my view. Others will doubtless castigate me as some kind of turncoat or state worshiper for holding this position. So be it.
It's just slightly more newsworthy in this instance because it's a university, and UT is one of only a handful of states that allow guns there anyway.
It isn't jus that we allow them, but we explicitly prevent the university administration from discriminating against the lawful possession of guns by either students, employees, or guests. Heaven knows the liberals who dominate acadamia would love to impose such discrimination if they could. That they fail to see the clear connection to the abhorrent racist policies of their predecessors is sad, but not surprising.
If Utah truly doesn't like it, the best way to avoid this is to not let them come. Indeed, I'd like to see a lot more snubbing of federal government by states. As a nation, we've completely forgotten which one was supposed to be more powerful.
"Utah" has very little ability to act as a monolith. Cleary the University community is thrilled to have her come and more than thrilled to have an excuse to ban guns however briefly. I'm thrilled to have her come. I simply note that we seem to have a conflict between what State law permits/requires and what may make good sense for security.
We could try to prevent the U or any other government entity not allowed to create such secure zones from hosting the Associate Justice. A private venue--including one of our private colleges--could host the speech and assist with the creation of a gun free security zone without any conflict with State law at all.
Again,
personally I think that is not a good PR move on our part even if we could pull it off. I believe we should use these rare, but generally good events, to modify State law appropriately.
And while I'm all for States asserting their authority, I don't think snubbing of individual government officials is the right way to go. We need more dialogue in this nation among those who don't agree with each other. I wish I could get every congressman, every federal judge, and every federal bureaucrat east of Colorado to come spend enough in Utah talking to us to come to some real understanding of what makes the Intermountain West a very different place to live than is the east coast. That would do the nation far more good than just snubbing someone who disagrees with me.
Charles
