Muzzling Ole Mizzou: Missouri Law Professor Challenges Ban On Guns On Campus

University_of_Missouri_sealBarondes-RoyceUniversity of Missouri associate professor of law Royce de R. Barondes has placed himself at the forefront of the gun rights debate with a lawsuit challenging the ban on guns on campuses in the state. The lawsuit follows the gunning down of history professor Ethan Schmidt on the Delta State University campus. Schmidt was unarmed and Barondes does not intend to go so easily, it appears.

Barondes has a concealed carry permit and reportedly “teaches a course on firearms law.”

At issue is Amendment 5 of the state constitution which was passed in 2014 and declares the right to keep and bear arms “unalienable” and imposes a “strict scrutiny” test for any prohibition against carrying guns for self-defense. That right is clearly in conflict with the University of Missouri bans on “the possession of firearms on university property . . . except in regularly approved programs or by university agents or employees in the line of duty.” Yet, a conflict does not mean that it is unconstitutional. The university could still prevail under a strict scrutiny analysis, though the test is the most difficult to satisfy.

220px-CriminologygunglockThe case could present some interesting factual and causal questions. Various states have allowed concealed carry on campuses. These include Utah (across the state), Colorado (at the two Colorado State University campuses — in Fort Collins and Pueblo and 14 Colorado community colleges), Mississippi, and Idaho. This will allow the challengers to cite no significant increase in violence as a counter argument to the rationale for the ban. The challengers have also cited studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center showing no causal connection between conceal carry and increased violence.

The universities could argue that the presence of guns is inimical to the environment of academic exchange, creating fears and anxiety for some students and faculty. The counter argument is that this is a constitutional right, like free speech, and that preference of some to bar the right is not sufficient to satisfy a strict scrutiny test.

Both sides will argue that they are fulfilling the motto of Ole Mizzou: Salus populi suprema lex esto (“Let the Welfare of the People be the Supreme Law”)

What do you think?

79 thoughts on “Muzzling Ole Mizzou: Missouri Law Professor Challenges Ban On Guns On Campus”

  1. Although I don’t carry a gun I surely feel better knowing that in the event I feel unsafe out in society at some future time, that I will not be arrested or raided and my guns confiscated. Oh that’s right the fascists are already doing that to people.

    The arguments in favor of gun control are ludicrous. It is a very bad idea that has yielded horrible consequences. Oh that’s right, that could never happen here. Ever heard of the normalcy syndrome. Many Americans are already afflicted.

  2. The obvious answer about having gun laws when criminals are just going to violate those laws to get guns?

    Why have any laws at all? Criminals are just going to break them anyway…

  3. My apologies; Yes, I’ve been to the airport since 9/11.

    Your turn, what’s the logic or reason in continuing to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens when it has proven to be absolutely ineffective in deterring those uninterested in the law?

  4. Olly, law-abiding citizens are routinely punished for the acts of criminals. Have you not been to the airport since 9/11? Give me a break. There are a thousand examples of restrictions on the rest of us based on the actions of a few. Bad fail.

  5. Sorry, Charlie. If the 2nd amendment is absolute, then there would never be a legitimate reason to deny anyone gun ownership. No domestic abuser exception, no potential threat exception. No harm to self or others exception. No “you can’t own a missile” exception. No, you’re a convicted felon exception.

    Obviously your argument fails, because all of these have been accepted at one level or another as legitimate reasons to deny gun ownership. Once you recognize that the “shall not be infringed” clause has ANY exception, you open the door to all sorts of infringement as decided by the courts and the Congress.

    OR are you really trying to argue that the right is absolute?

  6. hskiprob,

    Very good post! It reminds me of Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”. His term for what you wrote would be “legal plunder”.

  7. both will be arguing, “Let the Welfare of the People be the Supreme Law.”

    Whether most people know it or not this is the fundamental premise of communism. That the law should benefit the best interest of the majority” no matter how individuals are treated or their rights protected/usurped. That the public good is more important than individual rights. I will explain.

    As I’ve posted many times, who really knows what is in the best interest of the majority? How do you prove it. It cannot be proven than a public policy is in the best interest of the majority, except those that protect individual rights. No one even knows what is in their children’s best interest, much less the majorities. 2/3s of the people, don’t even appear to know what it in their own best interests. lol.

    What we do know are, what we call our individual rights. Our entire set of social contracts (our Declaration of Independence, the Confederations of States and the Constitution were all predicated on them with The Bill of rights enumerated many of them in an attempt to discourage government from usurping them. An attempt to restrain government. Amendment IX says that even those not enumerated in the Constitution, are retained by the people. We have failed miserably.

    We should be able to go out into the world, as long as we do not harm others or their property, which would of course also protect our air, our water and us from such things are excessive noise. What we own is called a property right and studies show the more a society protects property rights, the more prosperous the majority are in that community. It should be self evident, but just to explain. When property rights are protected, people can improve that property without the fear of others taking it from them. Article V. A property tax is of course a usurpation of property rights. We must acquiesce our rights to pay for public services such as schools and our courts. We must take property which is rightfully owned by one person and give it those it is not rightfully owned by. This is where the fun begins. We have one group saying we need more funding for public schools and we have the other groups saying well pay for it yourselves. Even though public education has historically been a disaster, we are now so entrenched and our teachers unions so powerful, that we are now stuck with a system that does not serve the best interest of the majority.

    Of course there are those that will say it does. Once again prove it. Prove to me that we are better off with public education than not. For every one argument one gives in favor of public education, one can provide two arguments showing the negative ramifications of it. We don’t like to talk about the negative aspects of public education but they are there whether we like it or not and they go from the tolerable to the
    very negative.

    As an example, we are forcing responsible people who only have children they can afford to pay from irresponsible people who have more children than they can afford. Remember that dropout and truancy rates are higher today than when public educations was started.

    Taxation takes money and property from those it belongs to gives it to those it doesn’t belong to, in the name of the so-called “public good”. To me it sounds like theft. Because life is unfair, let’s steal to make it more fair.

    We have been erroneously misled that there are things that government must do because people acting voluntarily will not or cannot do them. This has been a social meme going all the way back to the monarchs. We must lead you, because the majority are incapable of leading themselves because God told us so.

    We have acquiesced our rights to the tune of some 115 different taxes and regulatory fees. We of course see the negative ramifications, such as the massive lose of factories in our county, high U3 unemployment rates, high incarceration rates, and a military industrial complex that is larger then the next eleven countries combined, just to name a few.

    All in the name of the welfare of the Majority? Prove it.

    When a politician say they are going to fix all this without restoring the protections of property rights and telling us specially what taxes they are going to cut and what social programs they are going to repeal, they are lying.

    “An Unlimited Power to Tax, involves, necessarily, a Power to destroy” 17 U.S. 327

  8. stevegroen, Thank you. “Driving is a privilege” was hammered into me when I was 16 and learning how to drive. The fact that police can test you for drugs and alcohol w/o a warrant also proves driving is a privilege, and not a Constitutional right.

  9. We can all read the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

    The 2nd Amendment will tell us if bearing arms is Constitutional.


    2nd Amendment

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


    In fact, as we just read, it is legal and constitutional for citizens to keep and bear arms as the Framers stated that the right to bear arms “…shall not be infringed.”

    We’ve answered the question, can citizens bear arms.

    Funny. We didn’t need the Extreme Court to cavalierly “interpret” plain English for us.

    Uh oh! The psycho-babbling greenie libs won’t like that Constitution. It’s nothing like their Communist Manifesto.

    Funny. In Great Britain, they used to “draw and quarter” insurrectionist subversives and traitors.

    Next case.

  10. “Nick Spinelli”: “There is no Constitutional right to drive a car.”
    Since when? The high courts of several of the states and of the US have ruled that it is, subject, like some others of our rights, to reasonable regulation with a view to protect the public safety.

    1. Robby: You’re mixing fundamental rights with privileges. If you’ve got case law that states driving is a fundamental right, I’d like to see it. Obviously, it’s a state privilege or the DMV wouldn’t be able to deny you a driver’s license were you to fail the practical or written exam..

  11. phillyT,

    Not the Bible but the Rule of Law. I fully support your right to have whatever opinion you have of the Bible but the constitution is not to be undermined by unjust laws and executive fiat. It has a built in process to change what YOU believe the framers got wrong. It’s been done 27 times before and it’s ready for the 28th whenever you have the courage to test the will of the people. If the framers got it wrong then make the case. If you want to tell the people our government should be able to decide who has the right to defend themselves and how that defense is to be conducted then go for it. Because up to now you have not provided ANY logical or reasonable explanation as to why law-abiding citizens should be punished for the acts of criminals.

Comments are closed.