ed_1

Missouri’s Republican-dominated legislature has pushed the RKBA ball forward as much or more than any other state in the union in recent years. Frequently over the vetoes of Democrat Governor Jay Nixon. Last year, a new law beefed up the state’s constitution in support of the Second Amendment, declaring that “the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories in defense of his home, person, family, property or ‘when lawfully summoned in aid of civil power’ cannot be questioned and is ‘unalienable.'”  . . .

As washingtontimes.com points out,

The law change made Missouri the second state in the nation, after Louisiana, to provide for so-called “strict scrutiny” of gun restrictions, which is the strongest level of protection.

Now that increased level of constitutional support for Show Me Staters’ gun rights is beginning to bear fruit.

A University of Missouri professor is filing a lawsuit against the school for prohibiting guns on campus, in what is aimed to be one of the first tests of the state’s newly amended constitution that provides for “strict scrutiny” of gun restrictions.

Royce de R. Barondes, who is an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, is challenging the campus’ policy that “the possession of firearms on university property is prohibited except in regularly approved programs or by university agents or employees in the line of duty.”

As the Times article points out, the spread of campus carry across the fruited plain is a thing. More states have or are in the process of changing their laws to allow campus carry, invariably over the strenuous objections of faculty and administrators.

Lawmakers in 14 states are currently pushing bills to allow concealed carry on a college or university, and in June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed his state legislature’s bill into law. Last year Missouri lawmakers passed a bill allowing specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses.

Next up in CoMo: the requisite blood-in-the-lecture-halls arguments against licensed, law-abiding adults exercising one of their civil rights in the hallowed halls of academe. But just as with virtually every other anti-2A argument the forces of civilian disarmament bleat to their willing stenographers in the media, they don’t have the facts on their side.

However, since the fall semester of 2006, Utah has allowed concealed carry on its nine public colleges, and one public technical college, with no uptick in gun-related violence.

In addition, concealed carry has been allowed on the two Colorado State University campuses — in Fort Collins and Pueblo — since 2003 and 14 Colorado community colleges since 2010. All Mississippi public colleges have allowed campus carry since 2011 and, as of last year, all Idaho public colleges have allowed it, with no major incidents.

Barondes, a concealed carry license holder, probably won’t be making many new friends in the Mizzou faculty lounge, but somehow we think he’ll get by just fine. In the mean time, we’ll be watching the progress of his suit and cheering him on from afar.

[h/t Dirk Diggler]

Recommended For You

25 Responses to Mizzou Law Prof Sues University Over Campus Carry Ban

  1. So you guys are falling for it. The truth is, there have been almost daily shootings in lecture halls, faculty lounges, and dormitories, but the NRA has been keeping it all a secret. Or something equally moronic. Wouldn’t you think they could at least come up with different wording for the same old claims, proven baseless in every example since 1987?

  2. In a completely off topic item that I hope will be addressed. What part of a break open or single shot firearm constitutes the firearm? That is, what part can not be purchased if you wanted to buy it piece by piece?

    • Still the receiver, as always. On a break action gun, that usually means the breech block, where the firing pin is. Most or nearly all of this type of gun prior to 1968 does not have a serial number at all, so no help there. They were super cheap guns made by the millions, they didn’t see a need to number them.

  3. it gets better. under the public policy exception to at will employment in Missouri, an employer may NOT terminate an employee for exercising a constitutional right, such as voting, jury duty, etc. Now that CCW is a fundamental right under Article I, sect 23 of the Mo Const, and state law already allows anyone to possess a loaded firearm in their vehicle, it is gonna be hard for employers to argue against employees possessing a firearm in their vehicle as long as they don’t carry it on the employers’ property. 🙂

      • Incorrect Larry. Sorry, but that law degree and practice thing is getting in my way.

        1) Before 2014, ANYONE could have a firearm in their vehicle in MO without a permit. That is by statute.
        2) In 2014, the constitution in MO was amended (section I, article 23) (right to keep/bear arms) to remove reference to concealed weapons not being justified and to expand the right to carry generally.
        3) Under MO law, unless you have a contract (ie, union), you are an employee at will. the statute says already that a firearm may be possessed in a vehicle and an employer may prohibit an employee, holding a concealed carry endorsement, from carrying. most employers misinterpret that to mean possession, but it means physical concealed carry (since elsewhere in Section 571, anyone can have a firearm in their car, it is a silly result to say people with permits cannot possess but those without can). Regardless, until the constitution was changed, you had the “right” to possess in your car, but could be terminated. Now, given that the right to keep / bear arms is a fundamental right, there is a real question as to whether you can be terminated at will for exercising such right and possessing a weapon in your vehicle, even if on an employer’s property.

  4. Royce de R. Barondes is a very well-credentialed business lawyer, not a 2A scholar or trial lawyer. He’s going to need a lot of help on this case.

  5. Isn’t interesting how this type of news is only found through channels like TTAG? Of course, washingtontimes.com is the source referenced here, and I am sure at least a local paper or two in MO carried the story. But, by and large, unless this case were to make it to say the Supreme Court, the media is pretty mute about this kind of pro-gun action. Considering the number of states who either have or are working on this kind of legislation (I live in OK and it is being argued for here), it seems to me that more would be covered by the media. I know; silly me. Meanwhile, good on Barondes and good on MO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *