The Utah Supreme court:

In the decision, the court ruled a University of Utah policy prohibiting students, faculty and staff from carrying weapons on campus violated Utah’s Uniform Firearms Act. The law, enacted in 2004, prevents any state entity from creating a rule which in “any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property,” according to the ruling.

So what are the schools doing?

Paul Murphy, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, said the policies at both Weber State and USU raise legal concerns in light of the court’s recent ruling.

“Right now, the law is very clear that only the legislature can make laws concerning firearms,” Murphy said. “And if they [state schools] are out of sync with that, they will have to make changes.”

So far, however, USU and Weber State have no plans to permanently change their gun policies.

“I haven’t heard anything on our campus about making a change to this policy [prohibiting firearms],” said Travis Hampshire, a human resources generalist at Weber State. “I imagine if this was brought up to the president, they would look into it.”

“Look into it”? Yeah, right. They are going to do their best to ignore it and if necessary fight it every inch of the way. It’s just like 50 years ago with signs that said “no colored people allowed”. These bigots are defying the law, denying people their inalienable rights, and should be prosecuted, fined, and jailed under 18 USC 242.

For those of you who think Second Amendment cases can’t be won in court don’t forget that the U.S. Attorney Generals office has commented on the Second Amendment. They concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Of course we can’t “take this to bank” but in the right circumstances it can be very useful to help “cash in” on the overconfidence of the anti-gun bigots. Look around for an appropriate application.