By
Shaun Moore
December 8, 2006
A recent Utah Supreme Court ruling could affect how universities around the country approach on-campus security.
In September the University of Utah lost a state battle over its ban of firearms on campus. Instead of pursuing their case in federal court, the University has decided to find a legislative resolution.
In 2001 Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff stated that the University’s ban violated state laws that bar state or local entities from enacting restrictions on access to firearms. The University of Utah sued in federal court, citing that forcing the school to lift the ban violated the school’s academic freedom.
The federal court requested the case first be heard in state court. After the ruling by the Utah Supreme Court, the University decided to pursue a legislative resolution that would clearly define the school’s autonomy.
The case has been closely watched by many university lawyers and police departments. Most schools do ban firearms on campus, including the UW.
“The University of Washington attorney general’s office looked at this case initially, and the circumstances in Utah are much different than the state of Washington,” said the UW Chief of Police Vicky Stormo.
According to Stormo, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) bans the use of firearms on campus. The WAC also gives the University the power to make its own decision when it comes to issues such as firearms on campus.
“Our policies are consistent with state law. Apparently, what Utah tried to do was not,” said UW spokesman Norm Arkans.
Whether or not a firearms ban actually reduces the number of incidents involving a firearm on campus is debatable, but officials at the UW believe it is necessary step to make sure students and faculty are safe.
“This is a learning institution, and there is really no need or cause to possess a weapon on campus,” Arkans said. “Not allowing guns on campus contributes to public safety and greatly reduces the risk of anything happening, accidental or otherwise.”
According to UW assistant police chief Ray Wittmier, there have only been three incidents involving a firearm reported in 2006. In each case no one was injured.
Despite the outcome in the case in Utah, the UW is content with its firearms policy and has no future plans to update it.
Reporter Shaun Moore: news@thedaily.washington.edu
7 Comments
#1 Jonathan Ng
on December 12, 2006 at 12:11 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
“This is a learning institution, and there is really no need or cause to possess a weapon on campus†That's the worst reasoning I have ever heard.
#2 Jon
on December 12, 2006 at 10:19 p.m.(Aurora, CO | Unverified Name)
Just like how the Gun Free School Zones prevented Columbine and all of the other school shootings back in the 1990s.
#3 Jonathan Ng
on December 13, 2006 at 12:39 a.m.(Issaquah, WA | Unverified Name)
We just got an email from the President today too,<br>
"This past weekend, a young man was shot in the neighborhood north of 45th
Street, where many of our students live. This was another terrible incident
in a series of senseless acts of violence this fall.
<br>
The rise in violent incidents in the neighborhood north of campus is
intolerable. Last month, two other people were shot by individuals who are
not affiliated with the UW and who view the area as a place populated by
young people who make easy prey. The University is deeply concerned about
the intrusion of violent elements into our community, especially where many
of our students and our University District neighbors reside."
#4 C.B.
on December 14, 2006 at 1:52 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
I agree how ironic it is these "gun free" zones seem to be the center of many massacres. It's also ironic how people say guns are the problem/dangerous, yet I've never heard of a "gun show massacre" where there are 1,000s of guns present in peoples hands.
I wish the university did not have a gun ban, because I would like to know the good guy next to me can protect my back as I would theirs if a bad guy, who ignores the laws anyway and can obtain a gun like one obtains marijuana, decides to make a situation. Maybe the bad guy will think twice.
On a final note, cops are never there in the seconds that count and people like Kim Jong-il & rapists are in favor of gun control.
#5 J
on December 14, 2006 at 8:08 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Giving up my shotgun, and requesting my family sell it; as they see fit (it is currently in a locked black case) has meant for me more than one sleepless night.
Being a fatter citizen and honoring traditions 'in Rome,' as it were, even if it were little more, than a bump in a very long tradition of gun ownership and use in my family (not all;) at least gives me the priveledge of saying that at some point, even if I HAVE engaged in a little, or maybe a lot of folly; what exactly is that I am willing to at least put my very existence at risk for; and when I think I know I will walk away singing a splendid tune, at least while I may or may not have stood for something, I did, as they say on another Island, "Give peace a chance;" that said, not being violent is what I think I feel, "Truely enough for me." This is not a dialogue
#6 J
on December 14, 2006 at 8:10 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
or even is truely enough for me. (I didn't learn to type until the young age of 31. Every now and then, this oldish dog misses a note, or howls in a wrongly direction. Shun me if you must. ja ja ja
#7 Tim
on December 15, 2006 at 5:47 p.m.(Fort Collins, CO | Unverified Name)
I think a lot of people don't realize that the problem is not guns or cars or what-have-ye...it's violent/stupid/sociopathic people with anything more dangerous than a string that are the problem. Responsible and reasonable people with the aforementioned items are generally harmless, and might even do some good, like stopping a robbery or being a designated driver.
Post a comment