[I just got this message from UAA Security:]Dear UAA Community,
I am writing to notify you about a protest that might occur sometime this week on all UA campuses. We expect it to be peaceful and hope that it will not disrupt any business; however, I do not want you to be surprised or unnecessarily alarmed. Your safety is paramount at UAA and sharing timely information is one of the most effective ways to reinforce this message and help one another remain safe.
You may have heard that at the recent Board of Regents’ meeting, an individual spoke against the University's policy regulating firearms. The individual suggested people will protest the policy by carrying firearms on campus in the near future. The intent of this e-mail is to share information with you about what to do should you see someone on University property with a firearm.
The University of Alaska has regulated the possession of firearms on University property since 1995. Except for students living in University housing or individuals storing firearms in a locked vehicle, University Regulations (Chapter 02.09) prohibit individuals from carrying a firearm on University property, or in offices, classrooms, or meeting space controlled by the university. Students living on campus may store firearms in University-owned secured storage maintained by University Police. Incidents of unauthorized firearms possession on property have been rare.
As always, if you see an individual, or a group of individuals, with firearms or any other weapon on campus, or if you feel unsafe, please alert University Police immediately by calling 786-1120. UAA will follow University Regulations concerning firearms and ask people with firearms to leave campus.
The University Administration, Campus Response Team, and the University Police are actively monitoring this situation and will respond to all instances of firearms on campus.
We care deeply about our campus community's safety at UAA. I hope you have a productive and successful Finals Week.
Sincerely,
Fran Ulmer
Chancellor
26 comments:
Nothing like a group of individuals loitering with firearms during finals week. Just what you need.
Way to go Fran! I am so bummed you are leaving UAA!
I'm rooting for common sense. I have nothing against guns, we own several, but a campus is not the place for this.
Yes,
http://cosmicnavellint.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html
$$
Too bad UAA fails to comply with AK statutory requirements for establishing restricted access areas.
Sec. 29.35.145
"(a) The authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state, and, except as specifically provided by statute, a municipality may not enact or enforce an ordinance regulating the possession, ownership, sale, transfer, use, carrying, transportation, licensing, taxation, or registration of firearms.
(b) Municipalities may enact and enforce ordinances...
(4) prohibiting the possession of firearms in the restricted access area of municipal government buildings; the municipal assembly shall post notice of the prohibition against possession of firearms at each entrance to the restricted access area.
(2) "restricted access area" means the area beyond a secure point where visitors are screened and does not include common areas of ingress and egress open to the general public."
I don't see any secure areas where visitors are screened. There is no provision in AK law whatsoever for the university to make its own special rules in violate of AK's statewide preemption, so it can at best claim to be a municipality (and follow the statute outlined above), or it can be its own thing and have no statutory authority to violate the State preemption statute.
UAA should:
1) Establish screening checkpoints at each entry/access point (may need to hire a few more campus cops).
2) Wait to be sued, be found in violation of state law, and be forced to comply with state law (i.e. drop their policy).
3) Wait to be sued and drop its policy rather than fight an expensive and pointless lawsuit.
4) Lobby law makers to craft an exemption to statewide preemption; a reasonable compromise that might actually be passed by the legislature would be to allow AK CCW permit holders to carry on campus.
Ain't it a riot to see the permanently and thoroughly insecure attempt to paint a picture of rationality and reason for themselves....
Despite the deluded claimant's assertions above, the State of Alaska has granted the University the power to regulate behavior on it's campus.
Further, there is no Alaska State law which prohibits the University from regulating guns on campus.
Utah is the only state in the nation that prohibits it's universities from implementing their own gun restrictions.
In Alaska, the University has the right to regulate guns on campus, and the law to back them up.
I do so hope they jail anyone who willfully and belligerently declares they are above the law.
A fine they can pay off won't be good enough, if they choose to break the law, jail them, and add contempt for the law to the charges.
..
The University of Alaska is a public entity; the Board of Regents and President are bound by oath to abide by the Constitution and laws of the State of Alaska. Their power is delegated by Statute and cannot be greater than its source.
Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 19 - Right to Keep and Bear Arms - “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.”
(note the "political subdivision" language)
Alaska Statutes 11.61.190-220 clearly list all areas prohibited to lawful carriers. The Legislature did not include the University system on that list, if they had intended to they presumably would have.
As noted above, Alaska Statute 29.35.145 on firearms preemption prevents political subsections (Municipalities) of the State from enacting regulations on firearms more restrictive than state law in publically accessible areas, such as the campuses of the University of Alaska. There is no logical reason to believe the public University can do what the municipalities in which its campuses are located cannot.
The University’s authority to enact its policies rests on AS 14.40.170 (b)(2); which only authorizes the Board to “adopt reasonable rules, orders, and plans with reasonable penalties for the good government of the university and for the regulation of the Board of Regents”.
Given the Constitution and statutes of the State of Alaska it does not seem that “reasonable” can be read to authorize the Board to completely deny a right of law-abiding citizens, student or not, at a public institution. In addition, it doesn’t seem “reasonable” for the penalty for obeying state law and responsibly exercising a fundamental right under the state Constitution in an institution of public education to rise to the level of denying an education to that student.
The University of Colorado recent lost on appeal an almost identical challenge to their policies with an almost identical fact pattern.
The Board of Regents of a public institution does not have the power, under their limited grant of authority, to blatantly violate fundamental statuatory and Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean you have a legal leg to stand on.
Oh, it's actually not illegal right now to carry on campus, the only penalty for violating Board policy is academic or administrative. Non-students and faculty can't be affected.
As carry is lawful and the campus is open to the law-abiding public (not private with the "right to refuse service") there may not even be grounds to actually charge carriers with trespassing if they refuse to leave when asked.
Trespass in Alaska requires "entering or remaining unlawfully", carry is lawful. Where's the trespass?
As long as you pretend to know all the statutes, and think you can cite all the statutes, perhaps you'd review the statutes which grant authority to the University.
It's no surprise you conveniently omit any reference, preferring instead to only provide statute references that 'appear' as though they may support your position.
And Matthew, laws granted to states, cities or, other entities quite often can, and quite often do, legally have more much more 'power' than the source granting such delegation of powers.
If you're statement were true, then no regulation could be any more restrictive than federal law.
And you know that's not even close to being true.
Save the hyperbole, you're not very good at it.
Why don't you move straight to advocating for sedition ? Your aim is to incite people to rebel against the authority of the state. Why pussy foot around ?
Can't bring yourself to follow through on your own convictions ? Can't follow your argument to it's logical end ?
..
Wow, project much? Why so angry? Where did I talk about secession and such?
I cited to the statutes that are on point, if you know of others to direct me to I'd be pleased to look at them.
As for the "no restriction less than Federal law". We live in a federal system, power is apportioned between Federal, state and local governments. As the University is a state school, created and governed by state statute, Federal law doesn't really apply. Not sure where that came from.
You are correct that there are cases where, within a given sphere of government, authority can be delegated to a subdivision of the state that is equal to statute.
In this case that didn't appear to happen. The state Constitution is binding on state law and state law is explicitly binding on political subdivisions of the state. The University has only such power as is directly delegated to it, what authority is not expressly delegated to them is thus denied them.
The Board of Regents statuatory grant of authority, as best I can find, is limited to what is "reasonable" for operation of the university. Nothing in it seems to allow them to contradict state law on weapons, particularly since the actual text of those statutes, and the state Constitution itself, forbid such preemption.
Again, if you can find a direct grant of authority under any statute that allows the University to contradict state law, please feel free to point it out.
The other issue is the sheer nonsensicality of the policy. Why would adult students and faculty who are safe and responsible off campus, who are allowed in most private and Municipal buildings without issue, suddenly become a problem by simply stepping off the sidewalk onto University property?
Alaska state statutes have expressly granted to the University the authority described in it's policies and regulations which enable the University to control and manage their land, buildings etc.
They've even been granted the authority to extend their control to University sponsored events which take place off of University owned facilities as long as they post prior public notice of their intent to exercise those same powers off of the boundaries of their facilities.
You may prefer to posit the University doesn't have the authority granted it by state statute, but you haven't proved that by talking about what 'appears' to you, or what 'seems' to you, to be one thing or another.
Limited imagination and incomplete appearances have a way of becoming less inviting if they're adopted without sufficient knowledge to confirm the mere appearance or over-simplified imaginative ruminations.
The statute that grants control and management is found in several instances within the body of the entire statute that you only cherry picked discreet incomplete subsections to suit your half-backed suppositions.
AS 14 contains much more express language than you've cited. What's more, the legislative intent behind the legislation itself has stood the test of the courts in several cases which have established the legal precedent for the legality of the University's authority.
And when you cite AS 14.40.170 (b)(2) specifically, and by itself, as if this small subsection could encompass the whole of AS 14, and in doing so could justify your own personal deduction you've arrived at, thinking your personal definition of what may or may not constitute reasonable rules, orders and plans, you've likely made the mistake of thinking you can craft definitions to suit your purpose.
You think you alone have the power to define the powers granted by the Legislature ?
You think you get to decide what is or is not reasonable, what a court of law will grant as reasonable ?
That's your argument. That's what you're pinning all your hopes on.
Be sure and let us know how that works out for you.
Like I said, if someone wants to defy the law, without first proving there is no such lawful authority, I hope they jail the miscreant.
If you really think you have a case, take it to the courts and see if you can do what no one else has been able to do.
See if you can get the courts to agree that you can define the limits of the statutory grant of authority to the University.
At the very least, cite some evidence, within the statutes or by referring to legal court precedent that you have something going for your argument more substantial than what you're offering so far, that argument that things 'seem' to you or 'appear' to you to be something or other.
If you look up at the sky at night it 'appears' the stars 'seem' to revolve around the earth.
See how far appearances might get you if you argue on appearances alone.
This other showboating doesn't impress me since you basically have no better argument than to express what appearances you wish to apply or what may seem to you to say one thing or another.
The University's authority granted to it by the Legislature has been tested in the courts several times, cite a precedent that lends support to your unsubstantiated claims.
You may think you know what is 'apparent', but you might very well find you're apparently' wrong.
Get your gun, head on out.
Just don't be calling for help when you want to make bail.
Reach into those deep pockets and be prepared to use your deep pockets to test out that deep thinking of yours. It can be very expensive to try the patience of the courts. The unprepared often pay a stiff penalty for their unpreparedness.
...
For all your talk of unsupported opinions there's a lot of aggressive bluster in your posts but a dearth of content.
I reread all of 14 and confirmed that 14.40.170 is the only portion that addresses the powers of the Board of Regents. Further I confirmed that 9(b)(1) is the only portion that addresses the Board's ability to make rules governing conduct on the University.
(for anyone interested: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folio.asp )
It'd be nice if you, rather than casting aspersions on my ability to read statutes, instead pointed out exactly what I have missed in either statute or extant case law that directly addresses the Board's authority to contradict a state law that explicitly does not allow for preemption.
I haven't found any precedent where the Board has faced that precise claim in Court. If you know of one, I'd much prefer being politely shown where I'm wrong rather than be insulted.
You appear to take this very personally and I have no idea why.
I've also not claimed I am "right" just that I believe my argument is, as best I understand, legally sound.
Considering the University of Colorado just had their almost identical no-carry policy overturned due to an almost identical argument with an almost identical set of statutes in place, I feel pretty confident that, if this does go to court the UA will also lose.
Again, it's not like this is a huge change, it would simply allow the same people to be responsible on campus as they are off, but without risking their educational future.
Why on Earth do you need a gun on campus? Are there bears running around? Wolves? What?
Has nothing to do with learning and JMO would hamper my learning to know the looney across the way carries! There have been countless school shooting across the country at schools/colleges...Anyone who carries on the campus arrested...
Maybe Matthew would like to argue about his grade with his prof with that nice big Ruger there in its holster, just to show the prof who's really in charge?
And he should know that once someone has been asked to leave someone's property and they do not leave, they are trespassing, and can indeed be arrested for trespass when they don't leave. As a private property manager, I had several people arrested for trespassing when they wouldn't leave. The property owner does not need to give a reason for asking the person to leave, either. A person can be asked to leave and be prohibited from re-entering any property for no reason at all.
More projection of violence by the enlightened...
I carry a gun most of the time, it never seems to play a part in any argument or negotiation in my life off campus. Why exactly would it on campus?
If you're the kind of person who can see threatening someone over a grade you might want to seek counseling.
Anyway...
You are correct that on private property you can ask people to leave and have them arrested for trespass if they don't.
As you know and I wrote, that is because there is no right for the public to enter or remain on private property except for lawful purposes. Further, those private places open to the public reserve the right to refuse service for a wide range of reasons, thus giving them a legal hook to expel persons from their property on threat of arrest (for trespass).
The University though is not "private property", it is a public institution that is open to the public (except for a few areas restricted even to most staff and students). They do not "reserve the right to refuse service" to law-abiding citizens.
As long as you do not violate an actual law (intoxicated in public by vagrants for example) the statute for trespass does not appear to apply.
Yes, I might be wrong and the Board would definitely disagree, but it is the law that matters, not their in-house policy. It will be interesting to see under what charges anyone asked to leave who refuses will be arrested to justify trespassing them. It will also be interesting to see whether they stick.
Can we have a moment of unity and agree spammers suck? =)
Sec. 14.40.170. Duties and powers of Board of Regents.
(a) The Board of Regents shall
(4) have the care, control, and management of
(A) all the real and personal property of the university; and
(B) land
Hard to say why you can't cite the pertinent bits of the statute.
Notice, unlike your quoted section, the pertinent section says the Regents shall perform the acts outlined. That means they are required by statute to administer and control what happens on their land.
As to the section you quote, (..you said it's 14.40.170 9(b)(1), right ? )
14.40.170.
(9) administer, manage, market, and promote a postsecondary education savings program, including the Alaska Higher Education Savings Trust under AS 14.40.802 and the Alaska advance college tuition savings fund under AS 14.40.803 - 14.40.817.
(b) The Board of Regents may
(1) adopt reasonable rules, orders, and plans with reasonable penalties for the good government of the university and for the regulation of the Board of Regents;
(2) determine and regulate the course of instruction in the university with the advice of the president;
(3) set student tuition and fees;
(4) receive university receipts and, subject to legislative appropriation, expend university receipts in accordance with AS 37.07 (Executive Budget Act).
...........
( 9) comes, matthew, before (b) and isn't a part of what's described under (b).
9 denotes what the University shall do about savings trusts and education funds, that is an addendum to part (a)
....
Part (b) says the Regents 'may'
(1) adopt reasonable rules, orders, and plans with reasonable penalties for the good government of the university and for the regulation of the Board of Regents;
(2) determine and regulate the course of instruction
(3) set tuition and fees
(4) receive and expend receipts
What you claim for what you call "14.40.170 - 9(b)(1) surely isn't all you think it might be, it's not even denoting the separation of part (a) from part (b), .....and it's most assuredly not the only place in statute that addresses the authority granted the Regents in governing conduct on campus.
That authority is not only granted, it's required in part (a).
In the end, you're still pushing only the idea that you get to define what's 'reasonable'.
continued,,,
Clearly the Regents are granted the authority to promulgate rules, your only hope is to challenge what may or may not be 'reasonable'.
Good luck, you haven't shown all that much reason yet, you keep parroting the argument of some other gun nut group, and trying to cite Alaska law to find similarities that you believe will match the gun nut cases brought elsewhere.
Reason, ? no. Not in the presentation of your so-called 'facts', and not in the argument that you get to define reasonable.
Mimicry ? .....yepper.
..
Half cocked probably applies more appropriately to you, than in most cases when the term is called to mind.
And matthew, the University isn't a municipality.
AS Sec. 14.40.040. General powers of the university.
There is created and established a corporation to be called the University of Alaska.
...
And matthew, in Heller, the Supreme court generally upheld the rule that 'reasonable' gun restrictions don't violate the Second Amendment.
Should a case or one like Colorado's get to the Supreme Court, the question may never be decided in the manner in which you're so sure of.
...
Oh, and matthew, that Colorado case you said is 'almost identical' ?
All the relief granted was the ability to carry a firearm in a motor vehicle when traveling on or through a University of Colorado campus."
(page 30 of the ruling)
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2010/09CA1230.pdf
Does that sound 'almost identical',
uh, no, not at all.
...
I've got a question for you, matthew ?
What do you have your gun for, ...think you're going to shoot me ? Do you conjure up visions of yourself being a hero and shooting the bad guys, saving the fair damsels and restoring 'the peace' ?
If you do get to carry your gun on campus, will you think you're any less insecure ?
..
I don't feel insecure anywhere, whatever gave you that idea?
I'm not sure what it is that makes you continually project onto me things I haven't said. If it matters, I carry a gun for the same reason I carry a first aid kit and have insurance. Things sometimes happen and it is good to be prepared, that's all.
Heller is irrelevent, although the Ninth Circuit seems pretty solid on it it hasn't been incorporated against the states yet by SCOTUS (that will be determined by McDonald this June/July either way) and this is a purely state matter regardless, state law and the state Constituion apply, why do you bring Heller up?
You misread the Colorado decision, there are two issues; one is transport throught the campus, which you note, the other is the larger issue of the university's ability to regulate carry on campus. But it's late and I'm not going to walk you through it.
As far as carry on the UA campus goes, I'm not mimicing anything or any one, this is law, not rocket science. Any reasonably educated person can read and interpret statute and case law.
Not sure why you feel the need to make personal attacks repeatedly. You seem very angry to me about an issue that in the end won't be decided by either of us. That's sad.
Anyway, you caught me, I made a typo between my first post and the follow up about the correct cite to 14. Good on ya.
The ability of the Univ. to manage its lands, in context (that means you read the whole section), appears to be talking about financial management. The portion I quoted about rules is the only one that talks about the Board actually making policy for the university as an educational facility.
The fact that the University is organized as a corporation is, again in context, for the apparent purpose of allowing it financially manage its land grants.
Anyway, you come across as a jerk and I have a rule about continuing to engage jerks. I've presented my position, supported by evidence for anyone to open mindedly review. We will see what happens and if I'm at all correct.
Try to chill out in the meantime. This is hardly life and death.
What ever gave me the idea you're insecure ?
You say you carry a gun with you all the time.
You say you carry a gun for the same reason you have a first aid kit and insurance ?
What caliber is your first aid kit ? How often do you take your insurance policy to the range to sight it in ?
If this is a purely state matter, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't enter into any argument you propose eh?
As to Colorado, the link for the decision was provided and it doesn't achieve what you say you're hoping to do here.
As to the mimicry, you also haven't initiated this circus, a local splinter of a national shadow group calling themselves the 2nd Amendment Task Foolery is fomenting this paranoia, and you're just following along and quoting their material with little comprehension of either the laws you're attempting to decipher, or the aim of the group you've attached yourself to.
Yes, Matthew, I did read the whole section, I did that before I started talking about it, (something you should have considered, you wouldn't have 'appeared' to know so little about what you thought you might have been talking about if you'd actually read the whole thing beforehand)
As it is, you've still only got your argument that something in the statutes 'appears' to you to support some preconception of yours.
I really don't have any care if you think I'm anything you want to call me, (though, it's hypocritical of you to demand others shouldn't do what you do yourself, ....but like most hypocrites, rules are for the 'other' people to abide by, right matthew ? )
It's not about life and death ?
What ?, you think your gun is like a video game ?
When people get shot it's just reality intruding on your fantasy ?
Yes, indeed, one more insecure gun nut with a fantasy.
freeper
..
Anybody know what this freeper dude's issues are? Wow this guy is chronically pissed off. And the whole world except him is insecure.
hey, sounds like little jimmy
Whines and moans, can't address any context.
Join the NRA's elite group, aka 'The Second Amendment Task Fools' and get your decoder ring, your 'insignia decal' window sticker, a shooter beanie, (with propellor), your secret 'insignia pin', (so the othr fools will know you're a fool too ), and your 'certificate of appreciation' from the NRA for joining their elite group of especially gullible fools.
So much for these fools telling everyone they are independent thinkers only interested in their personal freedoms and liberty. They're nothing but drones, indoctrinated by the NRA noise machine and then sent out blindly to do the work of their NRA masters.
Sheep, deluded, pliable sheep. Puppets who jump where and when they are told to jump. They are given their scripts to read, told what they're supposed to think, and they run right out to do the bidding of the NRA.
http://www.nrahq.org/GIVEJOINHELP/satf/index.asp
http://www.nrahq.org/givejoinhelp/satf/satf_benefits.asp
They've been fed an alternative reality by the NRA, and now that alternative reality is all they see. They think that alternative reality has replaced any other reality, that's what they've been told, and now they willingly believe only what they've been told by the NRA.
They'll even insist that the NRA alternative reality is all that 'seems apparent' to them........
The NRA claims their latest brainwashing project is a success, and I have to say it's been successful in producing delusions in any number of fools.
..
Phil, have you tried to post this on facebook?
I have tried 3 times and it disappears... I have tried posted the individual you tubes and that doesn't work either!
sorry the other on Max's
Anonymous April 28, 8:27:
Notice he also has voices in his head. What is the clinical term for a person who is pissed off all the time and has voices in his head?
Normally I am opposed to people not allowing people to carry firearms. But as this is a University, I suppose that the property manager can make the decisions on whether or not guns should be allowed.
Post a Comment