Here’s something you don’t see– a gun ban struck down on constitutional grounds, thoughbeit a state constitution:
“The Utah Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on guns at the University of Utah, saying campus officials cannot adopt a policy that runs counter to state law.”
Did I read that right? State institutions cannot enact policies in violation of the constitution? This is groundbreaking stuff (well, outside the issue of public funding for Maplethorpe or Piss Christ exhibits, et al, being claimed as “free speech” elsewhere).
Here is the pertinent language out of Utah, courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation:
Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
Take note that security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state are mentioned as the primary reason why the right to keep and bear arms should be protected. That blows the whole “Sporting Purposes” test concept all to hell, doesn’t it? But Utah reserves the right to define “lawful use”, like, I guess, not allowing shooting at your local community range at 03:00 for instance, without an effective sound suppressor. That makes sense.
And “…defense of…property”? There’s an obscure concept.
Now, if we could only get the several states to recognize the U.S. Constitution, it wouldn’t matter what any state constitution says about the keeping and bearing of arms (unless I am mistaken, the U.S. Constitution prevents, ostensibly, your home state legislature from banning newspapers, forcing Catholics to wear crucifix arm bands, for example, or reinstating slavery, but maybe someone could correct me on that).
The NRA linked to the story also, but had little to say about it as of this writing.