Court sides those seeking guns on CU campus

[eerw]

Date: 4/15/2010 1:09 PM

BC-CO--Campus Gun Ban/138
Eds: APNewsNow. Will be led.
Court sides those seeking guns on CU campus

DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a a group seeking to allow students with concealed gun permits to carry their weapons on campus.

Gun rights organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus argued the 1994 CU policy banning concealed weapons from its campus violates state gun laws, particularly the Concealed Carry Act of 2003. The ruling revives a lawsuit that had been tossed out by a judge.

Attorney Jim Manley had argued that state law prohibits local governments from adopting laws limiting concealed carry rights. In a statement, Manley says the court vindicated the constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

CU officials say they're considering appealing the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

[Irving]

That's good to hear.

[newracer]

Very good news!!!!

[funkfool]

CU officials say they're considering appealing the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Yeah - because everyone knows that they have money flying out of their butts to WASTE on this frivolous suit... make 'em pay the other sides lawyer fees too.

[5.45x39]

Since I already typed this out, I figured why not post it here. A quick and dirty summary of the court of appeals' opinion:

Students filed suit against CU because CU banned possession of firearms on campus (except for "peace officers"...lulz). Students alleged this violated the Concealed Carry Act and the Colorado Constitution's RKBA clause. The trial court said the students failed to state a claim (i.e., even if everything they say in their complaint is taken as true, they still can't get any relief under the law) and dismissed their complaint. The trial court was in El Paso County, Judge Miller.

The Brady Center filed an amicus brief. That's where someone who isn't a party files a brief asking the court of appeals to rule a certain way. You can guess how they asked the court to rule.

The court of appeals reversed. With regard to the CCA, the court held that the CCA applies to all areas of the state except those specifically exempted, and CU was not an exempted area. I won't summarize CU's arguments and why the court of appeals rejected them.

With regard to the constitutional argument, the court of appeals again sided with the students. The court followed the "reasonable exercise" test used by the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that challenged Denver's assault weapons ban. Without getting into too much exposition as to constitutional law, CU asked the court of appeals to use an even looser test (the "rational basis" test, or as my con law professor called it, the "giggle test"). The "reasonable exercise" test is "whether challenged legislation is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power." The court held that challenges to laws based on Colorado's RKBA are reviewed under the "reasonable exercise" test rather than the "rational basis" test. (An even stricter test applies to "fundamental" or "personal" rights. The court of appeals didn't consider that test because it held that the Denver AWB decision by the Colorado Supreme Court required the "reasonable exercise" test.)

Notably, "at oral arguments, plaintiffs narrowed their constitutional claim’s scope to the ability to possess a firearm in a motor vehicle when traveling on or through a University of Colorado campus."

This could go up to the Colorado Supreme Court next. First, one of the parties will have to file for cert. If the Supremes take it, it could give them a chance to clarify which test applies (anti-gunners will want to loosen the standard and apply the "rational basis" test). They could also carve out an exception to the CCA for CU. Or they might not even take it.

Technically, the students haven't won their underlying claims. This decision just means they can move forward to actually litigate the case.

[SA Friday]

Wow. Read the court's opinion. I'm impressed.

[funkfool]

Since I already typed this out, I figured why not post it here. A quick and dirty summary of the court of appeals' opinion:

Thank you for that.