Separate but equal
To the back of the bus, ‘toter:
The University of Colorado Boulder and University of Colorado Colorado Springs are amending their student housing contracts, segregating students who possess a valid concealed-carry permit
Looks like they’re trying to get around the recent court ruling and give criminals a safe place to commit crimes.
August 19th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
From a civil rights point of view this sucks. But for those with CCW permits? I bet you there won’t be a single crime committed in the Gunnie Ghettos. Not one. Just too risky for the goblins of the world.
Plus everyone on the floor can get to the range together!
August 19th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
K, then. OC is what the kool kids are doing?
August 19th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Not that much of a crime deterrent, seems the students that have CCWs can’t have them in their rooms; they gotta check them in and out with the PO-leece:
POL-eece.
Looks like the UC system is setting itself up to get spanked again.
August 19th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
rickn8or, if that is right, it’ll be an enormous pain in the ass (as i’m sure it was intended to be).
the closest apartments they could be talking about are 0.6mi from the campus police, which is at the top of a rather large hill compared to any of the apartments in question.
August 19th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
This might actually be a step forward. Did the U of C Boulder ban all firearms in all of its housing before? If so, gun owners have just made inroads into college campuses.
August 19th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Sounds like the cool kids dorm, anyways.
August 20th, 2012 at 1:55 am
My old Alma mater has a new twist on this: Portland State University was told by the Oregon Court of Appeals that total State pre-emption meant the U couldn’t ban guns by regulation, so they are imposing a “contract” on all students and people who have business at the campus. In the contract, of course, you must agree not to carry. If you don’t agree, you can’t “do business” with the University. Only problem is, that’s a duress-contract, also called an “opt-in” contract, which is illegal under Oregon contract law.
August 20th, 2012 at 7:02 am
I don’t understand the problem. When I was in college, we all kept a gun in our rooms. Mine was a 12 gauge pump shotgun that I used for shooting ducks at a nearby lake, in season. My roomie kept a SMLE for deer hunting. We never had any problem with the guns and the administration turned a blind eye to things that weren’t a problem.
At any rate, were I a Dad with a daughter going to UC, I’d want her in the gunnie dorm.
August 20th, 2012 at 9:12 am
There is the consideration of not allowing people not eligible for carry permits access to firearms inside their rooms.
August 20th, 2012 at 9:15 am
Better than “Lock them up, show ID to get them”.
August 20th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Since the minimum age to OC in Colorado is 18, I can’t help but wonder how it is they will get around a discrimination lawsuit for not allowing those 18+ to ‘keep and bear’ their arms should they so choose?
Equal protection under the law and suchlike…
August 20th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Their whole point with segregating the CCWers in a separate dorm is to “out” them, to set the stage for harassment and discrimination by fellow-travelers in the student body, faculty and administration.
August 20th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
They are looking at a losing fight. You can’t contract away a fundamental right. If they are offering housing to students they can’t qualify it in this discriminatory way any more than HUD can for public housing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
“3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. … Pp. 56–64.”
August 20th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I say go ahead and let them have CCW dorms. And then note which dorms have crime and which don’t.
Sounds like a good experiment to me!
August 21st, 2012 at 7:26 am
For a truly onerous weapons policy in Colorado, look to “the little engineering school in the Rockies.” Those with a bad case of heebie-jeebies might consider sending their little ones there.