Student Must Get Campus PD Approval for Gun License

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

May issue, I guess.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=302771

What about the AG Opinion stating that the Sheriff must have a good reason to deny?

 

[gsh341]

imported post

Last I knew, the Sheriff is the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the county, to include cities and universities. So what does it matter what the campus police thinks. The Sheriff is the last word on who does and who doesn't get a permit.

 

[thnycav]

imported post

A campus is consider private property and they can set restrictions as to firearms as a business can as well. If it is a State institution they fall under the jurisdiction of the State which is higher authority than the county.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

thnycav wrote:

A campus is consider private property and they can set restrictions as to firearms as a business can as well. If it is a State institution they fall under the jurisdiction of the State which is higher authority than the county.

Even though state law says where one may and may not carry?



Let us assume you are correct. That really has nothing to do with whether the Sheriff should issue the license, does it?

 

[thnycav]

imported post

I was just talking in general terms. Most states do use the county government to issue weapons permits. The point was a local Sheriff can not override a university ban on weapons.

 

[thnycav]

imported post

Sorry did not fully read the link, but there is a question is he a resident of the state or not? If he is a resident of the stateand knows he can not bring it on campus with him I really do not see any reason the university can or should be involved in the transaction at all.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

Last I knew, the Sheriff is the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the county, to include cities and universities. So what does it matter what the campus police thinks. The Sheriff is the last word on who does and who doesn't get a permit.

This is one of the issues we face in Alabama....while the sheriff does make the decision, many of them "overstep" their authority in making up additional requirements...ie, campus police interview prior to issue/renewal....they are simply not following the letter of the law and are, in fact, "making it up as they go"....this is the same reason that we get harrased for OC.
There is no such requirement in law and should have NO bearing on wheather a PL is issued/renewed.....same goes for the restrictions on the back of many counties "unrestricted" PLs.
IMHO, this is one of the main issues that we, as legally armed citizens, need to address.

 

[gsh341]

imported post

thnycav wrote:

A campus is consider private property and they can set restrictions as to firearms as a business can as well. If it is a State institution they fall under the jurisdiction of the State which is higher authority than the county.

1. A state university does fall under the jurisdiction of the state financially, but the university is within the county so the Sheriff has full authority both on and off campus. Even the FBI and Secret Service is outranked by the local Sheriff within that county. This is because he is the ONLY elected law enforcement officer in the county. (Actually, Sheriffs nationwide are all elected, so they as a group outrank every other law enforcement officer unless they are outside their repective counties.)This does not protect him from prosecution if he breaks the law himself, but no one can trump his legal authority.

2. The student in question is a citizen of the county, not the campus, so the campus police have no right to question him about whether or not he NEEDS a CCW. In fact, the campus police have no jurisdiction over a student once that student leaves campus property. And in case you hadn't read that far in the other thread, the student in question lives off campus.

This Sheriff is just looking for a reason to deny a CCW.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

A lawsuit attempting to enforce the "suitable person" component of that lawwill either win or shed enough light on the issue to get the legislature to change the law. This is a perfect thing for a local Alabama gun rights organization to get started on.

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

A lawsuit attempting to enforce the "suitable person" component of that lawwill either win or shed enough light on the issue to get the legislature to change the law. This is a perfect thing for a local Alabama gun rights organization to get started on.

While I agree that this is something that needs to be addressed, I don't feel that the laws need to be changed so much as LEOs should be forced to follow what we already have.....this seems to be the main issue IMHO

 

[apjonas]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

1. A state university does fall under the jurisdiction of the state financially, but the university is within the county so the Sheriff has full authority both on and off campus. Even the FBI and Secret Service is outranked by the local Sheriff within that county. This is because he is the ONLY elected law enforcement officer in the county. .........but no one can trump his legal authority.

Wanna bet? Situation: Sheriff is chasing criminal who runs into restricted area at Marshall Space Flight Center. Sheriff must stop and gain consent of federal law enforcement to enter. If he follows your advice, he will be disarmed and in federal custody in 1.3 seconds (exactly). Check out the Supremacy Clause.

Urban Legends are fun but don't always believe what you hear from Uncle Fred.

 

[gsh341]

imported post

Double post

 

[gsh341]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

gsh341 wrote:

1. A state university does fall under the jurisdiction of the state financially, but the university is within the county so the Sheriff has full authority both on and off campus. Even the FBI and Secret Service is outranked by the local Sheriff within that county. This is because he is the ONLY elected law enforcement officer in the county. .........but no one can trump his legal authority.

Wanna bet? Situation: Sheriff is chasing criminal who runs into restricted area at Marshall Space Flight Center. Sheriff must stop and gain consent of federal law enforcement to enter. If he follows your advice, he will be disarmed and in federal custody in 1.3 seconds (exactly). Check out the Supremacy Clause.

Urban Legends are fun but don't always believe what you hear from Uncle Fred.

If it would be so easy to detain the Sheriff, the Sheriff will not need to be detained as he will just ask for the criminal to be handed over. After all, the crook has already been caught by the security forces that would so easily detain the Sheriff.

Also, the FBI and other "national" police forces are not constitutional, as there is no provision allowing the Federal Government to create such police forces.

The Supremacy Clause merely states that Federallaw supersedes conflicting State and local law, NOT State and local law enforcement agencies.

If your view of the Supremacy Clause made Federal agenciesauthority greater than the Sheriffs, who could possibly hope to arrest a FBI agent that murdered a citizen? The FBI would merely have to state that it was acting in accordance with its authority and we, the citizens, would become powerless against the FBI, ATF, IRS or any otherFederal agency.

However, the Tenth Amendment states that those powers notdelegated to the Federal Government by the constitution are held by the States and the people. Since the Constitution does not specifically authorize a Federal police agency, the feds are trumped by the Sheriff, as he has been elected by the people to act as the chief law enforcement officer in his county.
[/quote][/quote]

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

gsh341 wrote:

1. A state university does fall under the jurisdiction of the state financially, but the university is within the county so the Sheriff has full authority both on and off campus. Even the FBI and Secret Service is outranked by the local Sheriff within that county. This is because he is the ONLY elected law enforcement officer in the county. .........but no one can trump his legal authority.

Wanna bet? Situation: Sheriff is chasing criminal who runs into restricted area at Marshall Space Flight Center. Sheriff must stop and gain consent of federal law enforcement to enter. If he follows your advice, he will be disarmed and in federal custody in 1.3 seconds (exactly). Check out the Supremacy Clause.

Urban Legends are fun but don't always believe what you hear from Uncle Fred.

That actually depends on the circumstances or even what crime has been commited. Would the sheriffs dept EVER be allowed to protect the President or any other high level VIP?.....have a bomb threat and see how fast the ATF will be in control......have a VIP kidnapping and see how unimportant the local sheriff becomes.
There is ALWAYS at least one person with the power to arrest a sheriff.

apjonas.....your comment here is not even relevant....Marshall SFC is FEDERAL PROPERTY not county property and therefor not under the jurisdiction of the sheriff.....and the Supremacy Clause deals with laws not LEOs.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

imported post

Comp-tech wrote:

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

A lawsuit attempting to enforce the "suitable person" component of that lawwill either win or shed enough light on the issue to get the legislature to change the law. This is a perfect thing for a local Alabama gun rights organization to get started on.

While I agree that this is something that needs to be addressed, I don't feel that the laws need to be changed so much as LEOs should be forced to follow what we already have.....this seems to be the main issue IMHO

Isn't that what would happen if such a lawsuit won? And, if you lost, then there is nothing to force them to follow, correct?

 

[gsh341]

imported post

Comp-tech,

If you read my post about the Sheriff's authority you will note that I did include the fact that a Sheriff can be arrested if he breaks the law.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

gsh341 wrote:

Comp-tech,

If you read my post about the Sheriff's authority you will note that I did include the fact that a Sheriff can be arrested if he breaks the law.

He can only be detained/arrested by a Higher than him Ranking LawEnforcement officer. If a civilian would try to arrest a Law Enforcement Officer it would be a Felony. Even dissarming a Law Enforcement Officer would be a Felony

 

[gsh341]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

gsh341 wrote:

Comp-tech,

If you read my post about the Sheriff's authority you will note that I did include the fact that a Sheriff can be arrested if he breaks the law.

He can only be detained/arrested by a Higher than him Ranking LawEnforcement officer. If a civilian would try to arrest a Law Enforcement Officer it would be a Felony. Even dissarming a Law Enforcement Officer would be a Felony

Once he breaks the law he has no further legal standing and is just another criminal, so any other Law Enforcement Officer can arrest him. If all else fails, the people can vote him out of office. That's the nature of being an elected official.

Consider it like this, the President is the leader of the country, but even he can be removed from power and sent to jail.In a highly unlikely scenario, ifthe president shot Hillary while he was in office (wouldn't that be nice?) you can bet he'd be going away for murder.

How could the Sheriff committing a crime be any different?

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

He can only be detained/arrested by a Higher than him Ranking LawEnforcement officer. If a civilian would try to arrest a Law Enforcement Officer it would be a Felony. Even dissarming a Law Enforcement Officer would be a Felony

Not in the case of an LEO/Sheriff commiting a crime....ie, if the officer were to try to make an unlawful arrest, the citizen is under no obligation to submit.

See.....
JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 SCOTUS
and.....
Morris v. State, Al Court of Appeals 342 So.2d 417

 

[Comp-tech]

imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

Comp-tech wrote:

Malum Prohibitum wrote:

A lawsuit attempting to enforce the "suitable person" component of that lawwill either win or shed enough light on the issue to get the legislature to change the law. This is a perfect thing for a local Alabama gun rights organization to get started on.

While I agree that this is something that needs to be addressed, I don't feel that the laws need to be changed so much as LEOs should be forced to follow what we already have.....this seems to be the main issue IMHO

Isn't that what would happen if such a lawsuit won? And, if you lost, then there is nothing to force them to follow, correct?

I was actually ageeing with your point......as much as I'd like to see changes, I can't afford the cost of such a lawsuit.
Maybe something usefull will come from Mr. Mathis and his attorney.