View Full Version : CSU approves CCW Ban
As we have [/font]reported (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5327), the Colorado State University (CSU) System Board of Governors drafted a proposal that would prohibit firearms on all CSU campuses with exemptions for law enforcement, military and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC).On Tuesday, February 23, the Board of Governors approved the proposal. The final approved weapons policy can be found at http://csusystem.edu/pages/documents/CSUWeaponsPolicyFinalasof021710.pdf (http://csusystem.edu/pages/documents/CSUWeaponsPolicyFinalasof021710.pdf)
The Board of Governors drafted the policy knowing that it would violate the Colorado state firearm preemption law and the Colorado Uniform Shall-Issue Concealed Carry Law. Current state law strictly regulates the carry or transport of firearms on schools, colleges and universities.
Their vote against concealed carry and self-defense is unfortunate and disappointing. Please contact President Tony Frank TODAY by phone at 970-491-6211 or email [/font]presofc@colostate.edu (presofc@colostate.edu)[/font] and respectfully voice your disapproval with the Board of Governor's action.
my goofy letter
Mr Frank,
Thanks for opening up another place for criminals to freely kill rape and destroy our future youth.
By banning CC, every perp out there knows where to go to commit a crime or suicide while taking innocents with them.
If you were truly a proffessor or intelligent person you would already know this.
Another victory for crime at colleges.
If you read the actual policy, it is a violation of state law concerning concealed carry, particularly in vehicles. Expect a lawsuit and/or a judicial injunction against this.
Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden dissaproves of your submishinz
The Colorado State University Board of Governors voted unanimously Tuesday to place students at both of its campuses in harm’s way with a sweeping weapons ban law-abiding citizens will obey and criminals will ignore.
Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden, outraged by the ban, told The Gazette’s opinion department he will undermine it in the interest of student safety.
CSU-Fort Collins Police Chief Wendy Rich-Goldsmith, a relative newcomer to the campus, supports the ban.
“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”
Though each CSU campus has its own police department, Alderden issues all cops on the Fort Collins campus a deputy sheriff’s commission card. He also runs the county’s jail, which campus police use after making arrests.
Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.
“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.
Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.
At CSU-Fort Collins, the ban includes pepper spray, in quantities greater than an ounce, and Tasers.
“This ban, which is broad and encompassing, basically denies students at the Fort Collins campus any defensive capacity at all,” Alderden said. “It’s a weapons-free zone for law-abiding people, and it won’t do a single thing to keep armed criminals off of campus. It will only ensure them a lot of defenseless victims. The people who did this are lost in their own world of ideological liberalism. You would think people involved in academia would want to deal in data and experience, but this has been all about emotion.”
Alderden said he realized the sentiment against self-defense is based in emotion after speaking with a public school teacher who asked him to stop issuing concealment permits. He showed her data that prove concealed carry reduces crime. He told her concealed carry would help reduce violent crime in Fort Collins and the rest of Larimer County — a sentiment shared by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa and a growing number of ranking law enforcement officials regarding their own jurisdictions.
“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.
(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)
The student Senate of the Fort Collins campus opposed the ban by a 23-1 vote. That means CSU governors, and administrators who pushed for the ban, don’t seem to care what their customers think. The Student Senate at Pueblo approved the ban, only after administrators said “weapons” did not include Tasers or pepper spray.
“God forbid we have something like the tragedy at Virginia Tech at one of these campuses,” Alderden said, referring to a notorious shooting spree in which a lunatic wantonly killed for hours, while a gun ban ensured him no students or faculty would shoot back.
Alderden questions the legality of the ban, saying the legislature never discussed excluding college campuses when it passed a shall-issue concealed-carry law in 2003. The law requires county sheriff's to issue concealment permits to law-abiding residents without felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence records, or other other disqualifying conditions. Furthermore, he said students who ignore the ban won’t have legal problems if they don’t get caught.
“If it’s properly concealed, so that nobody sees the weapon, it probably won’t be a problem,” Alderden said.
In the event a concealed weapon is needed for defense of self or others, it would become evident to law enforcement. In that unlikely event, Alderden said, safety trumps legal concerns.
“They say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” Alderden said.
That’s the advice of a lawman with a record of reducing crime. The ban is the work of academic ideologues, who theorize about safety and crime. Hope and pray the academicians don’t find themselves begging forgiveness someday, in the wake of a horrible crime.
My letter:
Dear Mr Frank,
I have reviewed the final version of the weapons ban that you and your esteemed colleagues have drafted. Aside from being against the overwhelming wishes of the student body, as well as the opinions of prominent law enforcement officials, this policy is in direct violation of Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically CRS 18-12-201 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2718-12-201%27%5D) , which states :
(1) The general assembly finds that:
(a) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to the issuance of permits to carry concealed handguns and identification of areas of the state where it is lawful to carry concealed handguns;
(b) This inconsistency among jurisdictions creates public uncertainty regarding the areas of the state in which it is lawful to carry concealed handguns;
(c) Inconsistency results in the arbitrary and capricious denial of permits to carry concealed handguns based on the jurisdiction of residence rather than the qualifications for obtaining a permit;
(d) The criteria and procedures for the lawful carrying of concealed handguns historically has been regulated by state statute and should be consistent throughout the state to ensure the consistent implementation of state law; and
(e) It is necessary that the state occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed handguns since the issuance of a concealed handgun permit is based on a person's constitutional right of self-protection and there is a prevailing state interest in ensuring that no citizen is arbitrarily denied a concealed handgun permit and in ensuring that the laws controlling the use of the permit are consistent throughout the state.
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly hereby concludes that:
(a) The permitting and carrying of concealed handguns is a matter of statewide concern; and
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide uniform standards for issuing permits to carry concealed handguns for self-defense.
(3) In accordance with the findings and conclusions specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the general assembly hereby instructs each sheriff to implement and administer the provisions of this part 2. The general assembly does not delegate to the sheriffs the authority to regulate or restrict the issuance of permits provided for in this part 2 beyond the provisions of this part 2. An action or rule that encumbers the permit process by placing burdens on the applicant beyond those sworn statements and specified documents detailed in this part 2 or that creates restrictions beyond those specified in this part 2 is in conflict with the intent of this part 2 and is prohibited.
In addition, CRS 18-12-214 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2718-12-214%27%5D) specifically states the areas in which a lawfully issues permit is valid. I believe that the policy which you intend to implement is a clear violation of this section as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2718-12-214%27%5D)
(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law. A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2.
(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.
(2) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
(3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that:
(a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;
(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;
(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.
(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:
(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and
(c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.
(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.
(6) The provisions of this section apply to temporary emergency permits issued pursuant to section 18-12-209 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=18-12-209&sid=73c12f07.334cadc6.0.0#JD_18-12-209).
Source: L. 2003: Entire part added, p. 647, § 1, effective May 17.
Since CSU does not restrict access to the campuses via security checkpoints with metal detectors, the university cannot guarantee the safety of the student body from armed criminals that will disregard the policy. In my opinion, by depriving the students and faculty any means of self defense, the university may find itself culpable in litigation arising from a violent attack.
SA Friday
02-26-2010, 20:21
The students will have no choice but to make the decision as to risk carrying on campus or if caught being expelled from the college for violation. It won't matter the law is illegal. Expulsion is administrative (vs criminal) and based on whatever student code of conduct CSU has in place. The board knows this. Even if the student goes to court and wins, his chances of being expelled and pissing their hard work away is huge. The only recourse the student will have after expulsion is a civil suit. The chances a student would sue at this point is very low.
I have this exact dilemma at Metro right now. I don't carry. My wife has exact instructions what to do if something happens.
CSU's response to my email notifying them of my withdrawal from their university for their recent actions:
Thanks for your e-mail on the CSU System Board of Governors’ decision regarding campus weapons policies. As you might imagine, we have received a high volume of correspondence on this issue.
On December 4, 2009, the CSU System Board of Governors passed a resolution, which directed the presidents and chief executive officer of the three campuses to develop an appropriate weapons control policy at their respective institutions. Public comments were extremely helpful in formulating the draft policy adopted by the Board of Governors on February 23, 2010, bringing the CSU System in line with policies in place at nearly every other public university in Colorado and the United States. The CSU System campuses are directed to implement their respective weapons control policies on or before August 1, 2010.
While the Board has now made its decision and approved the policy, we still welcome you viewpoints on this issue. Even if you disagree with the Board’s position, please be assured that all e-mails are being reviewed. Thanks again for writing.
How many VA Techs have to happen before they open their minds?
I feel like someone has to actually stop an attack with their CCW in order for anyone to take a positive look at this.
While i am very upset with this new policy. i was considering transferring to CSU next year i am unsure weather i really want too now. [Rant2][Rant1] i will take my money else where or stay where i am now.
I received the same canned reply. It really makes me wonder WTF has to happen to wake these brain donors up to the reality of the situation: The Kampus Kops cannot and will not protect the students. They are merely there to investigate the carnage after the fact.
It is interesting because there HAVE been several documented gun crimes on gun free campuses by criminals. They KNOW that this won't change anything as far as gun crime goes. There have been no documented gun accidents involving legal carries that I'm aware of (There has to be some out there, not necessarily lethal though) yet they change the law anyway. Why?
The only explanation I can think of, is that people are afraid of being elected into a position and being considered a "Do nothing elected official" during their term. Personally, I think a "do nothing" politician is the BEST kind, and I understand that they don't see it that way. However, to pick doing something counterproductive to...anything really, just doesn't make sense to me. If this change isn't adding safety and isn't making money, what is the point?
I got the same email as you guys did.
It is interesting because there HAVE been several documented gun crimes on gun free campuses by criminals. They KNOW that this won't change anything as far as gun crime goes. There have been no documented gun accidents involving legal carries that I'm aware of (There has to be some out there, not necessarily lethal though) yet they change the law anyway. Why?
The only explanation I can think of, is that people are afraid of being elected into a position and being considered a "Do nothing elected official" during their term. Personally, I think a "do nothing" politician is the BEST kind, and I understand that they don't see it that way. However, to pick doing something counterproductive to...anything really, just doesn't make sense to me. If this change isn't adding safety and isn't making money, what is the point?
Exactly: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It does give them something else to charge some maniac with..." Mr Maniac, you are charged with 7 counts of Murder in the 1st degree, 14 counts of Attempted Murder in the 1st degree, and 1 count of 3rd degree Criminal Trespass..." [Bang]
Can you charge for criminal trespassing for something that boils down to just being internal policy? The school can't anyone for this. Literally the only thing that they can do is expel a currently enrolled student. So again, it is mind boggling that they'd even bother going through all this for a policy that will almost literally affect no one. Someone who isn't a student isn't going to give a crap. A student who wants to commit a school shooting CERTAINLY can't expect to go back to classes next semester. [ROFL1]
This must just be for the sake of the parents. Pretty nice of the school to go out of their way to pretend to protect all those legal adults for the worried parents out there.
* 3rd degree criminal trespass is the charge they use if you refuse to leave with your weapon when there is a posted "no guns" policy....
newracer
03-01-2010, 20:16
Exactly: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It does give them something else to charge some maniac with..." Mr Maniac, you are charged with 7 counts of Murder in the 1st degree, 14 counts of Attempted Murder in the 1st degree, and 1 count of 3rd degree Criminal Trespass..." [Bang]
Actually I don't think it even does that. When I heard the charges that we brought against the guy who shot the kids at the school there was not a charge for having a firearm at the school, just the attempted murder charges.
iamhunter
03-04-2010, 08:32
* 3rd degree criminal trespass is the charge they use if you refuse to leave with your weapon when there is a posted "no guns" policy....
They could TRY to charge you with it, but that fact is that the CSU board of directors has no legal authority.
They can try to act like this "Policy" is law all they want, but it's not.
The only way they can even enforce it is with the threat of expulsion, which seems an awful lot like coercion to me.
And I highly doubt any attempted criminal allegations would hold up in court.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.