U of I response to campus carry

Via daughter Kim who is attending the University of Idaho we have this letter from the President:

March 27, 2014

To the University of Idaho Community,

As you may be aware, Senate Bill 1254 (commonly referred to as the “guns on campus bill”) was introduced in the Idaho Legislature in January. The University, our sister institutions, and the State Board of Education and Regents, opposed the bill; however, it passed and has been signed into law. The new law will allow citizens with an enhanced concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed weapon on university grounds and in buildings, except in university housing and in certain large public venues, such as events at the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center. The law does not take effect until July 1, 2014. Current University policies regarding weapons on campus remain in full force and effect until then.

The University of Idaho is fully committed to providing a safe, nurturing environment for living, learning, and teaching. As such, the continued safety of our university community remains paramount. In order to fully understand the implications of and implementation of this new law, I will name a task force made up of faculty, staff, students and law enforcement representatives who will assess the law, consult experts, and propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property. The end product of this process will be a comprehensive recommendation that will inform decision-making and ensure compliance with applicable law and policy in a manner that continues to promote a safe living, learning and teaching environment at University locations statewide.

If you would like to provide input into this process, please contact Matt Dorschel, Executive Director, Public Safety and Security at 885-7209 or by email at mdorschel@uidaho.edu.


Chuck Staben

I find it odd that they are going to “propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property”. The state of Idaho has preemption on firearms law. The state legislature just told the University what the policy is. And now this guy says he is going to come up with some other policy?

These people just don’t get it. They lost. Now they need to get over it.


14 thoughts on “U of I response to campus carry

  1. Sounds like they are trying to sneak in a clause in the Student Handbook or whatnot wherein you will not get in trouble criminally if you are caught carrying a firearm, but they reserve the right to boot your arse out of the school. Did the new legislation specifically forbid that?

    • They did not say anything about being able to boot somebody out because of firearms carry/ownership, but they also said that Idaho State Law was to entirely occupy the regulation of firearms, and took out the carveout that allowed the schools to make firearm regulations.

      I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like this took away all of the room for the school to write firearms related regulations, which would indicate that if they made an official policy saying “if you have guns, goodbye”, that would get struck down. I’m not sure if schools can eject people without formal policies to support their ejection, so maybe practically speaking, they could still have an unwritten policy and just not tell the person why. That seems unlikely to me, though. It is a public university.

  2. You never know. Maybe the policy will comprehensively say:

    Police, faculty, staff, and students on campus are to assume that somebody spotted or known to be carrying outside of prohibited areas (dorms, stadiums, whatever) is lawfully doing so, and thus shall not be detained or confronted in any way unless unlawful behavior is actually observed. Violators of this policy may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

    Think positive! 🙂

  3. “They lost. Now they need to get over it.”
    I love it when we can quote their fatuous statements back at them. This is similar to President Obama’s “I won” statement several years ago.

  4. The Chief of Police for the Port of Portland (a.k.a. the Portland Airport), Oregon, tried to write their own firearms policy, specifically as it regards carrying outside the “sterile areas” (a.k.a. beyond the TSA checkpoints). State pre-emption being what it is, he had no right or authority to do so. He was reminded of that fact by the Oregon Firearms Federation, and their attorney responded that basically, they didn’t care, the policies would stand. It didn’t have to get challenged in court; a state legislator got involved, got an opinion from “Legislative Counsel,” and after much back-and-forth, the Port of Portland rescinded its policy.

    If only all states could have pre-emption like Florida (and Pennsylvania, IIRC). Pre-emption with teeth, to actually impose punishments and fines on entities (other than private property owners) who craft restrictive firearms policy that state pre-emption should prevent and overrule.

    • NH has some pretty good preemption. One explicitly forbids towns from saying anything whatsoever about gun restrictions. Another forbids any modification to the concealed carry permit process, or the use of modified forms (for example, attempts to add a requirement for a photo or fingerprints). Yet another makes violators personally liable — being a town official is no excuse.

    • PA has preemption. But it has no teeth. There are quite a few locales, most notably Philly, which think the law doesn’t apply to them.
      We are trying to get some teeth (penalties) put into place.

  5. An opportunity to pay some “experts” with taxpayer/student money, no doubt. One “security consultant” (which the U of I had engaged previously) flew out from Vermont to testify against S1254 at the Senate hearing.

  6. Our Board of Regents (Univ of Alaska) and President are trying to stall our bill in the Finance Committee by claiming they will need 450K to hire a “security consultant” to assess what areas of the campus suddenly need security if the policy, which has had no legal teeth and thus could have provided no protection, is removed.

    Hopefully the Finance Comm will see that as a patent attempt to scuttle the law.

    Mike, don’t suppose you know the name of that “security consultant?” Might be interesting to see if it is the same guy. If we can show collusion between Universities that will undercut their “moral” stance.

    • Gary Margolis was the guy who testified in Idaho. He claimed in testimony that he had flown out on his own dime.

  7. Personally, I think it’s a crock that an adult can’t possess a firearm in their place of residence, so long as the landlord is the state.

    The University’s rules against firearm possession were broken pretty much constantly. And those that remain will still be violated almost constantly.
    Fortunately, the pantywaists can’t recognize when someone is carrying concealed. They have a mental picture of firearms that bears little resemblance to the reality.

    • Two recent cases about firearm possession in public housing have been in the news. San Francisco lost their attempt to disarm by “housing policy” the recipients of state-funded housing, and Delaware lost when trying to limit possession of firearms to within-apartments, and now must allow firearms in “common areas” of housing units as well.

      I’d think with these two precedents the U. of I. should proceed carefully, lest they get stomped by the first lawsuit to follow whatever policy they put in place.

  8. Who appoints the President of the University, and who can fire him? Time to send the pathetic elitist walking…

    • The State Board of Education, which in recent years has been stacked with Boise State loyalists.
      I wouldn’t expect relief from that quarter.

Comments are closed.