University 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.
The 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?
olly
As always, depends on who is involved. If it’s a black or hispanic person, it’s assumed to be legitimate (from the writings on here) ever heard of Fred Hampton?
There are certainly rules of engagement…. those rules are usually just twisted in favor of the person with power. And d. smith has stood as advocate to the person in power many of times.
“Law enforcement officers are the only class of people that have the ability to legitimately (under the law, however legitimate one considers that institution) kill us.”
Interesting. So we have actual guidelines for law enforcement that have NO rules of engagement? They strap on their weapon and can ‘legitimately’ kill anyone, no questions asked?
hahahaha yes olly the same bill of rights that was ratified by the “people”. people meaning white men owning large swaths of land. Remember other people were in the land politically claimed by the United States. Indentured servants, NATIVE AMERICANS (yes genocide occurred), African slaves, and women were not known as the “people”. So how do people claim it was legitimately given by the “people” when most “people” were not included? It’s interest in civil liberties for particular classes of people. No Cop hating here, that’s a tumultuous profession for sure, but consistency in application of a “principle” is the essence of principle itself. Law enforcement officers are the only class of people that have the ability to legitimately (under the law, however legitimate one considers that institution) kill us. Otherwise, unless in an act of self-defense, killing is a criminal act that negates another persons civil liberties. The deference given to law enforcement officers by D. Smith does not square with a love for civil liberties, but rather an interest and experience in supporting a certain class of persons.
“A person with power to act on behalf of the government (with a gun) telling us what we should think. Hahaha how could anyone think there is a legitimate interest in civil liberties for all???”
chipkellyshouldgoogleleibniz,
Are you talking about the same civil liberties documented in the Bill of Rights that were ratified by people “with power to act on behalf of the government”? Hardly an unreasonable expectation to have someone like Darren interested in civil liberties. Hate on cops all you want, they are far less likely to violate civil liberties than the general population.
Wasn’t Darren smith a cop?? Last time I checked that position has a broad (very broad) grant of immunity from any government prosecution…. Nobody should trust his articulations regarding government power when not disclosing his own interests.
A person with power to act on behalf of the government (with a gun) telling us what we should think. Hahaha how could anyone think there is a legitimate interest in civil liberties for all??? The same person who is willing to put others in cages for life??? Also, the shady statistics cited are mostly promulgated by law enforcement agencies and not harmonized with other reports and research.
Ultimately, this is the only valid point in the comment: “If we do not have full enjoyment of each of our civil rights, by freely allowing government to take away one, it will be only a matter of time before more are taken. We cannot allow this to happen.”
Yet, if a young minority is killed by a peer of yours this “principle” is not found in Mr. Smith’s lexicon. What instead happens is a rush to defend the broad grant of immunity already given to lethal law enforcement agencies. How to reconcile? Point to revelations of the Constitution. It’s a much more dangerous analysis than fundamental religions give, it’s a state religion and recent history shows us that this is much more fatal. (It wasn’t the Catholic Church that dropped the atomic bomb, but the heroic leaders invariably glorified on here.)
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” Col. Jeff Cooper
Good post Steve.
isaac,
Prove basic human nature has changed since the dawn of man and THEN you might have a point. We will always be working at fulfilling the vision of the founding fathers; becoming a “more perfect union”. We will take steps forward and backward but never forget our nature will always prevent ‘perfection’. I am unaware of anytime in human history that a disarmed citizenry wasn’t preyed upon by their own government and/or others not concerned with lawful conduct.
Let’s not forget that a gun isn’t a thinking intelligent moving being and can’t just jump up and shoot ya.
My guns sit around all day long, minding their own business. Their good guns, they never bother anyone or threatened anyone. Even when I have my gun on my hip, it has never hurt a fly.
People on the other hand do hurt others and kill others. Let’s not forget gun controls make us sitting ducks for the bad guys who have guns and want to duck hunt.
Facts speak for themselves, bad guys don’t like their victims to be armed, it makes their job harder.
Good for this professor. They want their right to gay weddings, healthcare and abortion but they don’t think it’s our right , to exercise our right, to own guns! BS!
Issac
Like vampires, they want your blood.
I see dead people…
Owning people was a right at one time.
Women didn’t have the right to vote at one time.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Daren
There have been atrocities and stupidities supported by the laws of countries, but usually they evolve out of it. They mature. They become more intelligent. America’s argument for guns is that they make ya feel safe, good, warm, whatever.
issac wrote: “America’s argument for guns is that they make ya feel safe, good, warm, whatever.”
It is not about “FEELING” safe. It is about being safe. If someone is shooting at your family and friends with a gun, you want to be able to protect your family and friends on equal ground by shooting back. When the government gives criminals all the rights, and empowers them with weapons none of the rest of us are allowed to have, that’s kind of dumb, don’t you think?
Like it or not, firearms possession is a civil right in the United States.
It is no different than freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right to peacefully assemble.
Transpose if you will the following. Under the present university rules only government agents may possess firearms unless in a manner approved by the university. Now transpose this with free speech–only the government may speak as it chooses and citizens are not, unless granted this permission by the university. Remember how many, including myself, objected so strongly when this began occurring on universities where free speech zones were enacted? Or students were robbed of their picket signs by a university professor?
If we do not have full enjoyment of each of our civil rights, by freely allowing government to take away one, it will be only a matter of time before more are taken. We cannot allow this to happen.
In the case of this lawsuit, I suspect the plaintiff will prevail ultimately. The statistics are very clear through out the United States that Concealed Pistol License holders commit vastly lower numbers of felony assaults than the population as a whole, or especially in the case of felons. I don’t believe the university will be able to argue a security need beyond the abstract. In fact, I don’t believe the courts will be willing to accept such blanket restrictions with no articulable evidence.
Darren Smith wrote: “If we do not have full enjoyment of each of our civil rights, by freely allowing government to take away one, it will be only a matter of time before more are taken. We cannot allow this to happen.”
I agree completely with Darren’s analysis. Not much else to say. 🙂
What Darren said with a couple of modifications in mind:
First, I don’t know that the professor will ultimately prevail because reasonable regulation will be a battleground in the Supreme Court. When the Peruta v. Gore case gets there from the Ninth Circuit, if ever, we’ll have a better indication about how the professor will fare in his case. And that segues into the other modification.
Second, while the current Court seems to equate the Second Amendment with any other fundamental right in terms of reasonable regulation under a strict constitutional scrutiny standard of review, it’s the only right within the Bill of Rights which specifically states “shall not be infringed.” With this language, I don’t know that regulation should be reviewed under the standard strict scrutiny but rather through an even more heightened constitutionality test. Even though I think reasonable regulation must be the rule (otherwise we’d see motorcycles driving by with Exocet missiles strapped to the sidecar), in my opinion the Court has short-changed this mandatory language by tossing it in with other fundamental rights in terms of the proper scrutiny.
I think it a safe assumption that the Second Amendment was drawn on the principle that even when life is rosy, it’s clearly not Utopia – there are some bad people out there who place no value on others’ lives – and, thus, the People should never be caught with their breeches down.
Mizzou at Columbia is known as a drunk place anyway.
I stayed for a while in Ferguson. That is a place where they need a local armed militia because the Governor held back his so called National Guard and let the looters and arsonists have free reign.
Any of you can read up on Missouri law and their constitutional provision on gun rights. The only way the University of Missoura could prevail in banning guns is if they pass a law legalizing drinking in every bldg owned by the schools and make them taverns. A tavern or bar can put up a sign denying persons who enter the right to carry. Easy solution.
I think if you don’t have a safe place outside to store the guns, you should be allowed to bring the guns to class.
I think the Ole Miz prof looks like an American Ninian Peckitt! Long lost cousins? 😉
This guy Weer’d Beard has a blog, and one of his things is to measure public safety using the metric of ‘gun death’. Just search his blog for ‘gun death’, and you will see a whole list of stories comparing people killed by other products. Read his reasoning, and you will gain a better insight into the way pro gun Americans think.
http://www.weerdworld.com/?s=gun+death
randyjet, Please provide your source for the black cop victim claim. And…how do you propose this daily password be distributed so as to only inform those who are lawfully carrying?
The main problem with guns on campus is the one that they ran into with the U of Texas tower shooter back in the 60s. EVERYBODY with a gun was out shooting back at the tower. That was to say the least CHAOS, and the poor cop who finally got the shooter had to dodge friendly fire as he did it. So I am in favor of that policy ONLY if gun holders are registered with the college police, they have a means of being IDed as a good guy, and there is a pass word changed daily so the cops on campus can get confirmation of their ID.
If you are an off duty black cop and have your gun out to make an arrest or enforce the law, you are most likely to be shot by your fellow officers. The stats are NINETY percent of the blue on blue shootings that are fatal have a black cop as the victim.
davidm2575
are professors not a major part of universities?? Last time I checked, the only reason universities can claim prestige is based on past students/faculty and current faculty.