U President Bernie Machen will now fight in court to revive the campus gun ban lawmakers killed in the recently completed legislative session.
The U filed its “friendly lawsuit” against the attorney general’s office Tuesday claiming it has the right to ban students, faculty and staff from bringing concealed weapons to campus.
The fate of the ban, which legislators and the attorney general believe violates the state constitution, now rests in the hands of a U.S. district court judge.
The U has banned guns from campus since “at least 1977,” according to the suit. The state has also banned firearms on college campuses in the Utah Uniform Firearms Act, but lawmakers made an exception to that act when it drafted the concealed weapons legislation.
Those who successfully file for a permit have the right to bring it to classes, according to Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Shurtleff presented lawmakers with a formal opinion that called the U’s gun ban “unlawful.” He interprets the state constitution as saying no agency can create policy governing firearms unless lawmakers have granted them that right.
The U believes the Legislature has given them the right.
The suit states that neither the firearms act or the concealed weapons law “was intended to interfere with the university’s authority to govern itself by internal policies applicable only to students, faculty and staff.”
Visitors are allowed to bring concealed weapons on to campus.
One of the U’s arguments rests on the notion of academic freedom.
The suit gives three reasons that concealed weapons on campus would violate academic freedom. First, guns threaten free speech and the free exchange of ideas because students or teachers may become concerned about expressing views if someone may carry a concealed weapon. Second, the state’s attempt to compel the U to allow guns on campus violates the U’s ability to create an academic community. Third, firearms on campus would undermine the U’s institutional autonomy.
“I am not willing to sacrifice personal freedom and a constitutional freedom for a perceived academic freedom,” said Sen. Michael Waddoups, R Salt Lake, who sponsored the original concealed weapons law. “I believe those two freedoms will lead to academic freedom.”
Shurtleff agrees with Waddoups.
“There is no basis in fact for the academic freedom argument. The facts will show that policies like this one end up hurting people more than helping them,” he said. “If you have a policy like this, who is going to obey it? The good people, the good students. Do the criminals obey it? No.”
The U takes the stand that concealed weapons are a classroom hazard.
“It is commonly known that the presence of firearms?and especially concealed weapons?at the work place or in the classroom will significantly increase the risk of physical harm,” according to the suit.
Waddoups believes that is a statement “offered without foundation.”
During legislative hearings, Waddoups repeatedly said the U is flaunting state law.
“The message the U is sending to the state is that they are above the law. That is not a message we want our children to be receiving at institutions of higher learning,” he said.
Waddoups sponsored a bill that would cut the administrative budgets of state agency’s that flaunt the law by 50 percent. Many perceived it as an attack on Machen.
The state Senate approved the bill and the House voted it down by a margin of three votes.
Waddoups said the House defeated his bill because U lobbyists used “scare tactics,” but he plans to resubmit the bill next year. Still, he believes the “friendly lawsuit” is an appropriate way to end this debate.
“I think it is the right thing to do. It is a way to bring the issue to a head,” he said. “I just think it would be better handled without having spent taxpayer money on a lawsuit.”
Shurtleff has ordered the U not to use tax dollars on the suit. Machen plans to use interest from university investments to pay for the court battle, while Shurtleff said the cost to his office will “not be very expensive.”
To keep costs down, the two sides have agreed upon a set of facts, promised not to call witnesses or conduct depositions.
“This is simply, here is the case, would the judge please decide it,” Machen said.