College Guide
Blog
You know what America’s college campuses need? More guns. In class. That’ll really improve things I bet. Very important to keep that privilege strong.
Apparently that represents the feelings (or at least the public position) of University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano, who indicated that professors don’t have the right to kick students out for bringing guns to class.
According to a piece by Brittany Anas in the Daily Camera DiStefano,
Notified the Boulder campus faculty Tuesday afternoon that professors “do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach” should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun under a concealed-carry permit.
And, DiStefano added, any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action.
Wait, why? The Supreme Court of Colorado overturned CU’s Boulder campus ban on guns earlier in the year, but that was an institutional prohibition in violation of Colorado’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act, which prohibits local governments from limiting the state’s permissive concealed-carry rights.
But why can’t college professors set their own rules? Students are legally allowed to chew gum and use personal electronic devices, walk around shirtless or smoke pot in the state of Colorado. But professors can and do prohibit these things routinely.
Facebook
Twitter
Alexander on August 23, 2012 9:20 PM:
Professors' classroom rules cannot trump US citizens' rights. The professors are employees of the private entity known as the college, and the college has allowed carry. Therefore, Carry is allowed, no matter how the professor feels.
Matthew VanUitert on August 23, 2012 9:30 PM:
Few things. First you call it a privilege to carry a weapon to defend yourself. If that's what you think it is you need to go back to Civics 101 and notice that it is actually a right. The second thing you need to look at is that you said students are allowed to chew gun. I'd proofread a little better were I you. Third thing is chewing gum, using personal electronic devices, walking around shirtless and smoking in pot distracts from the learning environment. A concealed weapon is CONCEALED YOU STUPID F*****G J****$$! No one knows it's there! It cannot, EVER disrupt class. Hell, it may even save the life of that professor someday.
So next time when you can't figure something out, like why publicly visible and possibly disruptive behaviors are banned from class while invisible and unknown behaviors are not, ask a grown up. Or you know... a five year old.
David on August 23, 2012 9:59 PM:
While I don't feel that the above poster's abrasiveness puts forth the best face for our cause, the queasiness over "classroom disruption" by concealed-carry permitholders is quite tiring, irrational, and generally exhibited by those with little-to-no experience with firearms or every-day concealed carry.
There will be the occasional tool that has not invested enough time, money, or attention in developing his concealed-carry gear, clothing, and routine, but for the most part, CCW'ers I've encountered are quite anal about finding the right holster, firearm, and wardrobe for the task, which is, again, expensive, time-consuming, and sometimes presents a daunting array of variables to vet.
Yet still, I would be willing to bet $1000.00 that were I carrying my PPS or J-Frame in the appropriate concealment holster - while attending a lecture with the author, no-one would be the wiser; there would be no stress, no disruption, life would go on, and no-one - including myself - would expend much mental energy on my piece.
Including the inexperienced Dr. Peterson.
Matthew VanUitert on August 23, 2012 10:11 PM:
Thank you David for expressing what I tried to get across in a much more civil manner. I usually try to frame my comments to be instructive and courteous. It has just been a rotten week. My apologies to the author for my abrasiveness and for ragging on his ability to proof read while I made a mistake of my own. (If you haven't found it, just ignore I said anything). But the line of distinction is still the same. A concealed carry holder, (a real one, not the tool David mentioned) will carry and no one will know. Hence, not disruptive to the learning environment. At all.
Jake on August 23, 2012 10:24 PM:
Mr. Luzer raises a good point at the end of the article:
"Students are legally allowed to chew gun (sic) and use personal electronic devices, walk around shirtless or smoke pot in the state of Colorado. But professors can and do prohibit these things routinely."
The line is drawn where one student's action disrupts the learning of another. As long as the gun is concealed and you are not causing a disruption with it then the professor has no cause to stop class or remove the student.
Vinnie Morris on August 23, 2012 10:26 PM:
Daniel, what you fail to consider is this right has been affirmed by several levels of court, after being codified into law by the state legislature, some say is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and is now university policy. So, if you don't mind violating your edicts as an obvious advocate for gun control; please tell me in which scenario you identified professors banning different behaviors in a classroom, was the professor not violating university policy and state law?
What you've failed to realize is you're blowing out of proportion the entire situation. Fewer than 1 percent of students on campus will carry concealed with the protection of law. Now, why is it the left doesn't seem to grasp there's no invisible force of goodness surrounding campuses. We have the right to carry concealed, some say it shouldn't even be a law, that EVERYONE has the right to carry as long as they have the right to keep and bear (felons, for instance, do not).
Grow a bit man, you're afraid of an inanimate object.
Will on August 24, 2012 5:36 AM:
Chewing gum is not a constitutional right. The right to defend oneself is. THAT is the difference. Whether the author or the professor agrees with this is irrelevant. The court has made a decision and it stands. What people need to understand is that some people cannot live with the thought of something bad happening and not being able to do something about it. I refuse to be a victim. I refuse to be helpless. It’s not in my nature to stand idly by while something terrible happens. I would be required to do what I can to stop violence, to help people, and to save lives by my own moral code. I choose to be prepared for the bad times in life. The worst possible fate I can imagine is for something like an active shooter to happen around me, and I won’t be prepared. If innocent lives are lost because I was unable to do something about it... well I just don't think I could live with myself. I couldn’t live with the guilt, knowing that there was something I could have done to prevent such a tragedy but didn’t, all because I wasn’t prepared. However, if I am unarmed because of some rule prohibiting me from carrying my firearm, and something happens, then the guilt is on whoever is responsible for that rule. Their negligent actions have failed to protect the innocent and they are just as culpable as if they'd watched a murder and failed to report it. For those that support gun control, don't you realize that your actions and choices have consequences that may be deadly for innocents? Don't you realize that you’re trying to take away the only thing that can stand between good people and those that would do us harm? I just don't understand how someone could morally make that choice.
Crissa on August 25, 2012 6:12 AM:
Carrying guns into someone else's space isn't a constitutional right.
Sorry. It isn't.
The constitution says that we shouldn't ban people from having them, this is true, but it in no way was meant to indicate you can terrorize people with it everywhere. If a professor knows you have a gun, and is upset by it, it has caused a disruption.
You have a constitutional right to speak - that doesn't mean you get to talk in class. You have a constitutional right to religion - that doesn't mean you get to disrupt class with your piety.
And you have a constitutional right to practice with your guns - but that doesn't mean you get to carry them everywhere.
The constitution does not and did not say your gun was 'a right to self protection'. Scalia made that crap up, and still only applied it to your own home. The constitution said it was a right so we would have a strong, regulated volunteer militia.
Sean Farquharson on August 25, 2012 11:54 AM:
Lets look at two very specific words and phrases: "Keep and Bear Arms" and "Concealed Carry Permit"
"Keep and Bear Arms" is a key here. Keep means to have. Bear means to carry, use and transport. Plain and simple-there is no way to lawyer around it, so quit trying.
"Concealed Carry Permit" is another key. Concealed meaning that it is obscured from view. You cannot see it, you cannot ask if someone has it (unless you are a badge carrying member of Law Enforcement), you shouldn't even know it is there if you are not the one carrying the weapon or close family. Carry referring to the mode it is worn in. "Permit" meaning licensed to do so. I disagree with the idea of permits for concealed carry- the second amendment makes it clear that "the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Before you start the "that applies to the National Guard because they're the militia!" let me tell you to shut mouth and engage ears.
In the days when we were British colonies, men had to be actual men. They had to build things, hunt, grow vegetables and fight to defend their homesteads and families. In issues that affected the community at large, or was bigger than one man to handle- a militia was raised to hunt bandits, marauding animals and raiding Natives. This was regulated by the local constable, sheriff, mayor or higher office. Men of adult age who were able of body were able to join when the militia needed to go deal with an issue. Thus the "well regulated militia" isn't the National Guard (they're one branch of it), nor is it the extremist nutjobs (they're just as dangerous as old time bandits and today's terrorists): its YOU.