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. Jason,
    Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I would also say that the Constitution is not the freaking bible, and if we can’t look around at the rest of the world and realize that our sacred founders may have gotten some things wrong, then we are in trouble. Of course, we are in real trouble because the know-nothings have taken over the Congress…

  2. The man responsible for killing Fred Hampton was States Attorney Edward Hanrahan, was appointed by the Mayor of Chicago and approved by LBJ.

    They raided the apartment of the Black Panthers leader because they possessed a cash of illegal weapons, according to reports.

    There was one shot fired by Mark Clark, the second BP in command whom was sitting in a chair with a shot gun at the door of the apartment guarding the place. However, they claimed the shot from that shot gun was made when Clark was shot in the head and supposedly died instantly and it caused his finger to pull the trigger.

    No matter what side you are on, in this matter, the bottom line is it should be acknowledged that this happened under an all democrat administration all the way up to the president.

    I find it hard to believe that a dead man can reactively pull a trigger of a shotgun after he is shot in the head. He had to of shot that prior to being killed. And that triggered the spray of bullets by the police during the raid. Which would justify their “rules of engagement” but why sit at a door with a shot gun if you aren’t guarding something. They were guarding an stash of illegal firearms and we all know Chicago has had the most stringent laws on the possessions of firearms in their city.

    If you Chipkellyshouldgo, have an issue with how this went down, perhaps you should start with the Liberal policies that allowed it to happen. Don’t blame the cops, they were just following orders. Too bad the black panther party doesn’t help with the black on black murders in that city but instead excoriate the people whom point that fact out, as a oxymoron to the black lives matter mantra.

  3. I read the comment above and conclude that all smokers should know that guns are quicker. And a gun does not poison those around you who have to breath the cancer in the air.

  4. One of the main reasons for the Second Amendment at the time it was drawn up and approved was not to help prevent crime, but to help deter the government from imposing tyranny on the citizens. Both are very legitimate reasons for it. Unfortunately, the government is becoming more tyrannical all the time, creating laws that limit or eliminate personal freedoms of the citizens in many ways. Ultimately, this will likely cause the citizenry to use their firearms to restore their freedoms, along with other rights the government is infringing upon.

    The deterrent of the Second Amendment has worked on foreign governments, too. During WWII, Japan did not try to invade the mainland of America because so many of its citizens owned guns. The Emperor feared that the American “militia” in addition to the regular military would cause too many Japanese deaths.

    And one more note: Arizona had a law requiring a permit for anyone who wanted to carry a gun concealed. The legislature repealed that law and now anyone (except felons) can carry a gun concealed in Arizona. Gun deaths and crimes did not rise, and in fact went down, much to the chagrin of the anti-gunners. I’d like to see a study of the statistics on how many crimes have been prevented by private citizens who owned a gun and used it to stop a crime, compared to crimes in which a gun was used to commit it. Washington D.C. has laws against residents owning hand guns, and they have the highest crime rate in the country. Arizona, and other states that have lenient gun laws, have some of the lowest crime rates. Makes you wonder if there isn’t some cause and effect at work there, doesn’t it?

  5. phillyT-
    I’ll let everyone else decide.

    From the Federalist Papers: “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

    Are you seriously saying that “well regulated” in that context means, “controlled” or “governed by rules” etc.?

    From the Journals of the Continental Congress: “That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence.”

    Were the Creek Indians formidable because they had better rules and regulations?

  6. Jason, you keep trying that silly definition over and over. I do not think it means what you think it means. Nor does anyone else.

  7. phillyT-
    Look up the word regulated in the dictionary, but don’t stop at the current definition. Contemporaneous documents show that they were not using regulated to mean controlled by laws or regulations.

    isaac-
    People use guns defensively all the time. I collect news stories about these incidents. And during the heyday of research on defensive gun uses (the early 90s), an academic frequently cited by pro gun control people conceded that there were more defensive uses than deaths. His favored estimate was an outlier among all the research at the time, one far far lower than all the other work.

  8. Love the argument that we need to enforce the laws already on the books, because the NRA and its mindless minions go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to enforce those laws.

    I’m sure you are right, Nick, that the true believers will never give up their guns or wake up to the facts about guns–that’s what true believers do. But like smokers, they will die off, shooting themselves and each others, or maybe just lucking out and making to old age. But somewhere along the line, America will wake up and see how far ahead the rest of the civilized world is. and we will run to catch up.

  9. Regarding insurance, many homeowners policies cover liability as long as there is no criminal intent.

  10. Steve

    “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.”

    The Second Amendment was drawn on the principle that….240+ years ago, right after a supposedly tyrannical government from across the ocean was tossed, when there was little to no police, when there was little to no standing army, when the US could have been invaded by half the countries of the world, Indians, moonshine, etc., when times were different.

    The US is no different than any other country. Except that it has yet to throw off the myths that are unique to it alone. What is telling is that the US is the only country that enjoys this daily threat that necessitates being not only armed but religiously so, and still has the highest per capita death toll by guns with next to no one being saved by all these armed vigilantes wandering about.

    Again, look outside of the box.

    1. Issac writes, “The Second Amendment was drawn on the principle that….240+ years ago, right after a supposedly tyrannical government from across the ocean was tossed, when there was little to no police, when there was little to no standing army, when the US could have been invaded by half the countries of the world, Indians, moonshine, etc., when times were different. . . . The US is no different than any other country. Except that it has yet to throw off the myths that are unique to it alone. What is telling is that the US is the only country that enjoys this daily threat that necessitates being not only armed but religiously so, and still has the highest per capita death toll by guns with next to no one being saved by all these armed vigilantes wandering about. . . . Again, look outside of the box.”

      Okay, I’ll look outside the box, and I’ll preface what I see by saying I understand many on this list will not agree with me, but most don’t read my stuff anyway.

      You state a tyrannical government was tossed 240 years ago. I look at what changed, and how we’re now the bully of the world after Gorbachev accepted compromise.

      In other words, I look for a tyrannical government now, and the first one I see is our own. I look and I see Citizens United as the straw that broke the camel’s back. Fascism won and the Ayn Rand idealists will continue to treat themselves to the sweat of my brow and my wallet.

      I look at the neoconservative/neoliberal jingoism coming out of the mouths of the current crate of presidential wannabes, none of whom is much different than the other. The front runner, Donald Trump, presents as Benito Mussolini with a comb over. All he needs is a balcony and a uniform above the peasantry below. Even Bernie Sanders hasn’t escaped pandering to Israel and its slaughter of Gaza. When asked at a Vermont town hall meeting yesterday about what he will do, Sanders said he had no answers and then redirected his comment to ISIS as the real problem in that region.

      I look and I see that the President, as all of his predecessors, operates outside constitutional or congressional authority under the guise of national security. He enters foreign sovereigns’ airspace at will with armed drones, he assassinates, and he risks it all in a showdown with Putin over Kiev and now Syria. He data-mines our personal communications for use against us on another day while we blissfully watch the Kardashians and await the next Super Bowl extravaganza and its Budweiser commercials. It’s so much fun to be ignorant.

      The US is the only country in the Americas which hasn’t been conquered or at least overtly overthrown by coup d’etat. The reason may very well be that we’ve been the only conqueror in the last century and a half. You say the US is no different than any other country. Do you mean it’s no different than any other imperialist empire? We’re certainly different than the innocents we’ve abused.

      I look at how we print valueless fiat money and back it not with gold but with the military-industrial complex, the search for WMD, and the war on terrorism. I look at how we’ve permitted private bankers to control loan rates. I look at how we’ve created trade agreements to destroy union members, their families, and entire cities like Detroit as nothing but marketplace widgets. I look at Volkswagen which found it economically efficient to commit fraud on the consumer until it’s caught. I look at the insane competition for wealth here,

      Then, I look at the distribution of wealth here, and I look at our historical discrimination of classes of people based on the morals of the plutocracy and its demagoguery through religion and the media. I look and cannot understand why the median family income in Australia is twice our own? I look at the immediate descendants of slave labor striving to achieve in a rigged game (oh, but there are Pell Grants!), while at the same time they’re implored to forget their grandparents were the chattel of the grandfather of a neighbor several houses down. I look at the meddling in our own neighbors’ affairs which we call the war on drugs.

      I look at the rate of prescribed narcotics and treatment in the US, the profit of the manufacturers, healthcare providers and insurers, along with the number of returning veterans of foreign wars and the costs of their well-deserved benefits.

      I look at the Weimar Republic of 1919 where guns were outlawed. I look at the economic story line there, too, where a wheel barrow full of money might buy a loaf of bread. I look 14 years later when another tyrannical government came to power, and to 1938 when firearms were completely deregulated. And I look and wonder, if it weren’t for six-million Russian dead along with our advance east, whether Great Britain wouldn’t be a German penal colony now.

      And then I wonder why the rate of homicide using a firearm is so high here compared to other industrialized nations. And, I realize ours isn’t really like any other country. It isn’t Oz, and it isn’t Disneyland where the Pirates of the Caribbean happily sing and drink their ration of grog.

      I look at all these things and I get the sense it’s the great inequities that play a larger role in crime, whether with a gun or otherwise, than one might think. We both know it’s not the gun. It’s much more complex than that.

  11. People seem to be putting words in my mouth today. Al O’Heem tried to on the NJ school thread. But, we discussed it civilly. To get a conceal carry for a handgun there should be, AND ARE training and proficiency requirements. Someone here once, maybe philly[?] proposed psych testing for any purchase of a firearm. I laughed and called it the shrink full employment act. Not too Orwellian there!! Should there be psych testing for car purchases, knives, fireworks. There is no Constitutional right to drive a car. There is to own a firearm.

    But philly’s rant is useful. You get a glimpse @ the mindset of people who hate the 2nd Amendment. Today has been educational. And why I’m thinking of it, make sure you vote for this educational blog. We have seen how liberals want the govt. to control all our freedoms. I used to be more liberal on guns, thinking there should be more stringent rules and regulations. But, I see the folks who just want a foot in the door so they can take away all firearms. philly was helpful in that regard. That WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

    Finally, there has been a law on the books for a long time that felons cannot possess firearms. It is one of the most under prosecuted laws in this country. Go after those mofo’s and leave us good, normal people alone. I think we can find consensus on felons not being able to possess. Unless we have some convicted felons commenting here?

  12. Having guns in your home is about FEELING safe, because as those pesky FACTS tell us, they absolutely do not actually MAKE you safer. The likelihood that you or someone you love will die from that very gun go up, the odds for women are far worse, the odds that one or more of your children will die in a dun-related accident go up, and on and on. Guns only make you FEEL safe. The rest of it is a lie.

    And I like the idea that Nick refers to. Let’s treat guns like automobiles. Everyone who wants one must have it registered, licensed, and insured. Regular testing for competency and if you lose your license you turn in your guns. Taggants in all ammo. Every sale registered. Every offender, every abuser, every at-risk psycho banned from the “road”. Great idea.

    And how convenient it is for every RWNJ to forget the “well regulated militia” part of the amendment–the part Scalia always says he has no idea what it means. Lying SOB.

  13. Olly

    Indeed, you make my point. You refuse to answer my question about Fred Hampton…. we are talking about specific cases under the law, not broad public policy… citing statistics of your kind are similar tactics employed by authors of this blog… Used for propaganda purposes to distract from the genuine issues.

  14. There are more auto related deaths annually than gun related deaths. How stupid would you 2nd Amendment haters sound if you blamed the auto deaths on autos, not the drivers. Well, you sound just as stupid blaming guns. You make efforts to prevent alcoholic drivers, inattentive drivers, reckless drivers from getting behind the wheel; understanding that in a free society bad people will drive. However, I have NEVER heard anyone pontificate on controlling access to autos from law abiding, responsible, drivers. But, every time this topic comes up those not intelligent enough to grasp the 2nd Amendment advocate controlling access to guns for good, law abiding people.

  15. So then not “legitimately”; More like, as legitimate as the black on black murders that regularly occur all across America and in far greater frequency. But let’s not mention that because it would ruin your narrative.

Comments are closed.