Previous Post
Next Post


“My fundamental concern with both bills is this is our jurisdiction.” University of Arizona Board of Regents vice chairman Greg Patterson in Arizona Regents vote to oppose guns-on-campus bills [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Members are appointed by the Governor. Wiki with citation.
      “The Board of Regents is a constitutionally created body corporate.[1] It exists on a plane equivalent to that of the Legislature. Arizona universities have no independent legal existence but are extensions of the Board.”

      Another example of state run organization creating policy to circumvent law.

      • There have been some interesting battles between Governors, legislators and regents over the past couple of years. The board of regents at UT is trying to figure out how to limit campus carry as much as possible, knowing full well the legislature won’t hesitate to change the law to clarify their intent.

        • The board should tread lightly on their power to designate prohibited areas, otherwise the law could be changed striping their power to prohibit, all together.

          And it wouldn’t bother me one bit, in fact, I hope colleges start playing reindeer games and the result comes back to bite them on the a$$es.

  1. Actually since you are funded by the taxpayers, you are in their jurisdiction.

    The tax payers own you! You eat like this now!

    • FTW!

      The borrower is slave to the lender, mofo. Don’t like public rules, don’t take public funding.

      You don’t want to be told what to do, then as they say in country, “Don’t owe nobody nothin.”

      • “The borrower is slave to the lender, mofo.”

        Very true. Though I think you were making a little bit different point, I’ll take that ball and run with it a little bit.

        Apply that to making life’s choices regarding borrowing money from banks and look how fast folks jump on your butt for daring to not ‘fit in’ to the current model of ‘borrow as a way of life.’

        We can see how that thinking is promulgated. It’s demonstrated all around us, in government and other social institutions like education.

        There exists entire industries build on keeping people financially enslaved, and the ‘hook’ that enables them to exist (and from where they derive power) are built on the cultural principles of materialism and consumerism.

        I watched a documentary recently that explored the birth of this phenomenon around the 1930’s or so (at least in America). It was related to the idea of “manufactured need” in advertising and business.

        Some interesting discussion related to this here at TTAG a few days ago (and on-going, apparently):

        • Have you read “silent weapons for quiet wars”, DOD, Dapt of the Navy, ONI document, Operations Research Technical Manual TW-SW7905.1?
          You can find it here:

          I heartily recomend it for study of banking and money creation. It gets scrubbed off the internet regularily, but a search will usually turn it up elsewhere, usually without the illustrations tho. Or one can always obtain a print copy through FOIA from the Office of Naval Intelligence.

        • a bit of a teaser:
          “A silent weapon system operates upon data obtained from a docile public by legal (but not always lawful) force. ”

    • This is where I ask the university where is the fence, the border entry point, a military to protect their borders, and what are the visa requirements. I also mention that there is no longer appropriate for US police, military, and other emergency services to come to their rescue if they need it.

  2. Arizona, while having very favorable pro-2a laws, allows universities to decide whether or not to allow firearms on campus. There are no state laws banning it. However, (and no surprise) most public and private universities do not. A measure to make public thoroughfares through University grounds exempt from the University rules was defeated last year.

    Personally, if a private University wants to ban firearms on their property, I don’t have an issue. But the state funded universities should fall under general public firearm laws.

    • So the exemption was defeated. Does this mean a permitted CCW driving on a public thoroughfare can fined or arrested?

      • No. Universities cannot make LAW. It’s a silly posturing argument.

        The Universities want to be special snowflakes, but there is nothing to charge you with.

      • No, I think a more likely scenario that will come into play is if I was walking on the sidewalk open carrying. The University could theoretically ask you to be removed from the area and if you refused, could threaten you with charges of trespassing.

        Conceal Carry, no one should know anyways. I do it all the time passing through U of A or ASU campus’.

  3. This is what is so insidious about the Democratic/Progressive/Liberal/Socialist Tyrannists, they get into a position of public trust where they can make decisions that affect a lot of people, then impose their personal will and agenda through their decisions.

    This is how the Public Educational System got infiltrated from Grade School to College and is now turning-out the useful idiots the Democratic Socialist State needs to destroy the American Constitutional Republic.

  4. Liberalism (= progressiveism) is a mental disorder, and it will get us all killed.

    This guy (and like-minded regents) should be charged with felony arrogance.

  5. This is a particularly salient issue for me as I am currently sitting in an ASU classroom with an empty holster on my hip.

    • It’s a definite hassle. On the ASU polytechnic campus a good dozen of us at least, have firearms in locked cars because you can only carry to the parking lot.

  6. Their jurisdiction, huh? All uppity and sovereign now, are they? Tough talk from a guy whose flagship campus mascots are the adorabe Wilbur and Wilma Wildcat.

    Well then, next time, let ’em call the United Nations for help.

    After all, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a bunch of corrupt international bureaucrats with endless debate and a toothless resolution.

  7. “My fundamental concern with both bills is this is our jurisdiction.”

    I can clear that up for you. Your “jurisdiction” is exactly what the authorities you serve have delegated to you. If they say it’s *this* but not *that* you are SOL. You are agents of others, and stewards of the resources they have chosen to delegate to you, which can be revoked at any time, for any reason, or none.

    It’s pretty obvious, actually. You are not a government. You have no police powers. So, in that sense you have no “jurisdiction.” You are finding the overlords who appointed you, and pay for your sandbox somewhat less than cooperative, as they are clear that you exist on their patronage, and that they have delegated no police powers to you. They want one thing. They want another. And you think you get to choose. Because want it, doesn’t mean they have to give it to you. (You are free to propose yourselves as a government, or claim to yourselves police powers. That would be fun to watch.)

    It’s not that complicated.

    You are delegated certain, limited administrative authorities over the resources you control, “control” on behalf of the government that established and funds you. It ain’t yours.

    It’s worse than that. The state of which you are agents is itself an agent of its citizens. Whatever authority (and resources) it delegates to you, exists in its charge only as it was prior delegated to them. You are the object of patronage, twice removed.

    Pragmatically, I don’t think it’s useful to think of borrowed authority as “jurisdiction” when one is the object of patronage, twice. Limited, delegated “jurisdiction” is too subtle a notion for most people and conversations, as you have demonstrated. Better to think of yourselves as subcontractors. That’s not perfectly accurate, but less prone to error than your misunderstanding, and the errors of this construction are of lesser impact. Thinking like subcontractors will help keep you from shooting yourselves in the particular foot you are abusing at the moment, if you’ll pardon the apt metaphor.

    Abstractly, you may claim great “jurisdiction” as either the hand(s) of god(s)(*), or the agents of heaven on earth(**). In enacting this jurisdiction, however, you can have what others give you based on the strength of your message, or of course, what you can take which is just because you are righteous. This last makes you no different from any other self-absorbed tyrants on a mission from god(***). Some, however, have the decency to claim this authority outright, as you do not.

    Declaring that you are worried about your “jurisdiction” rather than your message, or your service, suggests you are more interested in the power that comes with being redeemers, than the actual redemption. You are educated people. You are doubtless well aware of this “mission from god seduces the saints” recurring so often it’s cliche. You might have heard of a door in Germany many years ago, for example.

    In the end, you have at best conditional jurisdiction – better termed “patronage” – you were delegated twice. And now you are bugged that one of your patronage layers is asserting that they should get what they want from you. (Work it out. You’re smart.)

    Any questions? (I’m here to help.)

    (*) Or secular, historical inevitability; development of society; or will and want of any given class, people or nation. Whatever passes for god for you.

    (**) Or the vanguard of the inevitable glorious revolution; or the called / chosen / first revealed-to; or the ubermensch, with the right to impose your will through your uber-ness. Whatever passes for righteous authority for you.

    (***) Consider “The Blues Brothers”, the movie, as an extended Burkean-conservative argument, dramatizing the consequences of context-free radical action. Address the themes of hubris, self-righteousness, naivete, grandiosity, and indifference to consequences from this perspective. For additional credit, contextualize this to address campus policies in these terms by analogy, particularly addressing gun rights.

Comments are closed.