Circuit Court Rules University of Missouri Can Remain a ‘Gun-Free’ Zone

Lonic Columns And Jesse Hall At The University Of Missouri

Bigstock

Back in 2015, we noted that University of Missouri law school professor Royce Barondes had sued the school over its no guns on campus policy. Barondes is (or was at the time) a concealed carry permit holder. Since the suit was filed, Missouri has become a constitutional carry state.

But as the Columbia Daily Tribune reports . . .

Circuit Judge Jeff Harris on Monday rejected the arguments of the last three state attorneys general — one Democrat and two Republicans — and upheld the University of Missouri’s ban on carrying concealed guns on campus.

The state-supported school prohibits guns on all four of its campuses. Barondes wanted to be able to carry his firearm to work or, barring that, secure it in his car while he’s there. That requires the permission of the University’s board of curators.

In his ruling, Harris hinted that his decision on the law may be different from his personal views.

“The question before the court is not whether the court would vote for or against the rule if the court were a member of the university’s Board of Curators,” Harris wrote.

This isn’t likely the end of the matter. Look for an appeal.

comments

  1. “Gun Free Zone” = Our children can continue to be shot down like fish in a barrel. This circuit court ruling can be equated to treason. How can the court possibly justify that our Constitution does not apply on school property? Especially after considering how that Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      E. David Quammen,

      The Courts are simply a branch of government. For well over 100 years now, our government is a law unto themselves. For well over 100 years, government exists for the sole good of government. Any overlap of government agenda that happens to be good for the working class is either happenstance or simply because it serves the purposes of government.

      1. Yeah, and then we see how that it was intended by the “father of the Constitution”, (as well as the Bill of Rights):

        If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.

        –James Madison, [U.S.] House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789.

        So much for our intended form of government, eh? And who do we have to blame for the treason? That’s right; We The People. For we are the ones that have permitted our governments to betray us on an ongoing basis. While our forefathers would have smashed them flat.

    2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      Let’s play a game of, *Let’s circumvent the US Constitutional- Bill of Rights! How about we go further and say that private entities can ignored the Bill of Rights all together…. Instead of just *gun free zones* , imagine if THEY decided to just grab you and subject you to a full stop and search of your person and property! Because THEY get to pick and chose what rights you have, what THEY Deem to be ‘acceptable’ on THEIR property! What if THEY decide to use an old British trick for forced employment! Such as , ‘impressment’ , bang you over the head and you wake up working in THEIR Lunch room! Maybe THEY’LL just decide to see if your a TRUMP support and subject you to a ‘Polygraph test’ ! Anything goes when you throw out our US Constitutional-Bill of Rights and suggest that no one NEEDS to follow it or protect it!

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Aaron Walker,

        You highlight the core problem when rights are arbitrary.

        I have never quite understood how private property owners have no “property right” to be accessory to murder of their guests but they do have a “property right” to prohibit their guests from being able to save their own lives — thus being a de facto accessory to a guest’s murder.

        1. avatar Sam Hill says:

          Because you have the right not to enter. Just as I as the owner or representative there of, have the right to deprive you of your rights as long as you are aware of that deprivation and agree to it by entering the property.

      2. Which is precisely what was intended to be cured by We The People’s Constitution:

        “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

  2. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    A disappointing ruling.

  3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Defund government colleges. President Eisenhower spoke about the dangers of govt school academy funding. At the same time when he warned about the military industrial complex.

    1. Indeed. Probably our last truly great and patriotic President.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      My understanding is that the legislature makes the laws not damned judges. The state legislature needs to correct this and pass another bill over ruling this activist judge and tell him to go f%@k off. Then if there is a problem, send in state police to enforce the law.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Ed Schrade,

        … if there is a problem, send in state police to enforce the law.

        You do realize that your proposal requires government to limit itself — something which governments inherently and almost universally never do.

        What you are hoping will happen is akin to hoping that a wife will tell her husband to NOT buy a beautiful $500 diamond pendant for her because they could use that money to replace their two year-old lawn mower. It just isn’t going to happen.

  4. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Disappointing, but is it a State supported school or a State owned school? If it is privately owned and State supported, it my be perfectly legal to prohibit firearms, just like any private property. If it is a State owned school, it would fall back to what the state law states about carrying on State property. I’m from Kentucky so am unfamiliar with Missouri Laws. It shouldn’t be too hard to look up and see what type of fight is ahead. Of course we just lost a pro-2A governor, so we have a whole new issue that is going to rise before us.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Randy,

      But your KY legislature remained red, correct? Not that ‘red’ implies safety for the 2A, only a bit more so than ‘blue’.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Says right in the article it’s state supported, otherwise there would probably be no issue

  5. avatar D says:

    We protect our money with guns.
    We protect our jewelry with guns.
    We protect our politicians with guns.
    We protect out schools with signs that say “No Guns”

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      D,

      Nicely framed perspective. I am going to ‘borrow’ it.

  6. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    Am I understanding the article correctly? Missouri is – by state law at the state level – a permitless/constitutional carry state. But the state-supported UOM can disregard that state-recognized right, according to this judge?

    Oh, that’s right. The judge is a Democrat.

    http://keepjudgejeffharris.com/about/

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Haz,

      Makes no sense unless it is a private school with public funding, as Randy points out, above. But if this is a public school on public land, then, I agree that the judges decision seems incongruous. I hope there will be an appeal. Never stop fighting back.

    2. A M assachusetts (sorry, I mean Missouri ! Saw similarities!) Judge! A Lefty activist from the Judicial bench! Like having a 19th century activist judge providing cover for slavery! How outrageous!

  7. Ready for a laugh? Here’s what a former U.S. Secretary of War had to state:

    Washington, D. C. Dec. 6.–While making no mention of his retirement from the cabinet at the middle of February, Elihu Root, secretary of war, in his annual report, just made to the president, takes occasion to express his “keen and grateful appreciation of the kindness, generous loyalty and sincere effort which, with rare exceptions have characterized the chiefs of bureaus.” The “rare exception” was the attitude of former Lieutenant General Miles. He says: “A country is fortunate which has such officers to rely upon in the time of need.

    The secretary makes a strong recommendation for a suitable appropriation with which to carry on target practice and says: “I know of nothing more important in preparing for war than teaching the young men of the country to shoot straight. It is especially important to the efficiency of our volunteer armies in the future. It is of no use to pay, equip, subsist, or transport a soldier to the battle field unless he can hit an enemy when he shoots at him. Two recent changes in conditions require that we should make continuous and active progress. One is the change of modern rifles which determines battles while the combatants are at great distances from each other, and which makes practice more necessary for good marksmanship than ever before. The other is the decline In the use of firearms among the greater part of our people. Formerly when our population was scattered and game was abundant in all parts of the country every house had its rifle or Its shotgun, and every boy learned to shoot them. Now it is probable that a majority of the young men in the thickly settled parts of the country have never fired a gun and would be quite harmless to an enemy until taught to shoot. The time to give that instruction is now. We ought not to wait until we are actually engaged in hostilities. When that times comes they will not wait for us to give the instructions.

    [The Stark County Democrat, Canton, Ohio, Tuesday, December 08, 1903. Vol. 70 No. 53. Pg. 7. Excerpted from the article: Root Roasts Miles On Eve Of His Retirement Former Lieutenant General “Rare Exception.” But Public Likes Him]

    Imagine what it would be like in our country if we had actually listened to men such as Mr. Root, instead of treasonous lie-berals?

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    This decision will be noted by those who are looking for the spotlight. The aurora shooter purposely chose a theatre with a no guns policy sign.

  9. avatar Tom Edwards says:

    Leaves them wide open for Shooters. Safe nobody can shoot back. Until we start working with Mental issues is going to get worse! Besides most shooters are Democrat or Democrat Connected! Take Democrats guns. When they say take our guns it is them needs to loose them.

  10. avatar Cowgirl says:

    So, that will be the next targeted school.

  11. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    This case was heard about 30 miles from my home. Disappointing, but not unexpected. I just received the 31 page decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Frankly I have not read it yet, but here is some initial points to consider:
    1. Missouri trail judges do not declare exiting law and laws and policies unconstitutional. Sorry, they just don’t.
    2. Judge Jeff Harris is a Missouri Democrat locally elected trial court judge. That means is is probably personally more conservative than most Republicans in larger urban states.
    3. He was first appointed by a nice but wishy washy Democrat governor, Jay Nixon. (Nixon is a really nice guy, I personally know him, Nixon, but he doesn’t go out on a limb for the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment).
    4. The case was tried in Boone County the third most liberal county in Missouri (not a jury).
    5. The media is reporting the Attorney General may have blown part of the case by not offering EVIDENCE that concealed carry reduces crime on campus (hard to prove).
    6. We might have had a better chance if campus carry was limited to permit carry (we now have permitless carry in most places.
    7. The Missouri Right to Bear Arms, Amendment 5 passed August 5, 2014 by 61%.
    8. The Missouri Supreme Court well may reverse this decision.
    9. REPEAT: Missouri trail judges do not declare exiting law and laws and policies unconstitutional.
    Standby for further information.

    1. avatar binder says:

      And you should know by now that TAG and 90% of the comments care little about ALL the facts. I kind of suspect something like this (and it was hinted at in TAG’s article). Thank you for the clarification. (Not that I suspect it is going to have much of an effect on the remaining comments)

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

        Nice to communicate with one of the ten percent! Or maybe three percent.
        Headline surfing and shallow thinking are epidemic and getting worse.
        The law professor and his lawyer dropped out of the case and the Missouri Attorney General took over.
        The MO AG is a Republican’t and appears to be just a politician although I give him credit for trying the case for University of Missouri employees rights.

        I think both plaintiffs blew it by not understanding 2A litigation. I don’t think they made a good enough record to win unless the Mo Supreme Court is really charitable (which they could be). I met the law professor and his lawyer and asked if the were getting help from the Second Amendment Foundation right after the case was filed. They seemed puzzled at my question. Go figure.

  12. avatar enuf says:

    The judge is incorrect. There is no more such a thing as a “Gun Free Zone” than there is such a thing as an “Assault Rifle”, so far as the common public perceptions define them. Neither actually exists, these are political terms of use, abuse and the building of partisan narratives.

    To have a “Zone” free of “Guns” you must first have people with guns who are constantly there and actively and with total success succeeding at keeping other persons with guns outside of the “Zone”.

    If there truly were a Gun Free Zone, it could only succeed by way of a great hypocrisy.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      There is such a thing as an assault rifle. It refers to a select fire (safe, semi, and full or burst selector on the fire control group) rifle in an intermediate caliber (5.56×45-7.62×39.) The purely fictional term you are looking for is “assault weapon,” which means whatever an anti-gun-owner politician wants a scary sounding term to mean at the moment.

      However, these days we’re faced with the horrifying trend of legacy media outright lying and calling semiautomatic rifles “assault rifles.” Legally that would be a synonym for “machine gun,” so they’re literally saying that every gun owner with a self-loading rifle is committing a felony. “Fake news” may have become a politicized term, but there’s no better term for this kind of enormous, bald-faced lie (except, perhaps, “propaganda.”)

  13. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    I hate to to say this but Trumps current plethora of Conservative Justices are not overturning anti-gun laws. They never have in the past either.

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

      It takes a LOT of time for the cases to come up.
      Can you give me some cases Trump judges have ruled on.

  14. Many thought that Miller never would have been overturned, but yet it did – about 70 years later.

  15. avatar Missouri_Mule Esquire Emeritus says:

    I always liked that part in US v. Miller (1938) that held that weapons suitable for military or militia use WERE the ones protected by the 2A. Miller is another example of a poorly developed fact record. Short barreled shotguns (SBS), sawed off shotguns make great trench and cavalry weapons, just nobody told the Supreme Court.

  16. Magnificent website. A lot of helpful information here.
    I’m sending it to a few friends ans also sharing in delicious.
    And naturally, thank you for your effort!

  17. avatar Namelessking says:

    I know this university, the guys and I skipped a lot of it. Then, of course, we looked at check over here for a website so that they could improve their grades at the university, because they almost merged. Here is just a review on grademiners where we ordered work

  18. avatar brenda shi says:

    good post

  19. avatar Jose Bouche says:

    I know this university, the guys and I skipped a lot of it. Then, of course, we looked at check over here for over here for a website so that they could improve their grades at the university because they almost merged. Here is just a review on grademiners where we ordered work

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email