PDA

View Full Version : Nordyke and UC campus residences...


paradox
04-20-2009, 5:00 PM
[13] Heller tells us that the Second Amendmentís guaran-
tee revolves around armed self-defense. If laws make such
self-defense impossible in the most crucial placeóthe home
óby rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Consti-
tution.

[14] But the Ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does
not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-
defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in
public places that are County property.


So, how do I go about suing the state of California to overturn the ban of firearms (or all "weapons" as the lease may be) inside on campus residences?

Background: my wife and I will be attending a UC next fall, me as a graduate student, her as an undergrad. We are considering the on campus graduate housing which are standard apartment buildings rather than dorms. The graduate apartments are on campus property, but are owned and operated by a private business. The lease and the law regarding firearms on school property all say "NO GUNS," but Heller and Nordyke say that guns in your home for self defense are constitutionally protected.

Does the CalGuns Foundation want to tango with the University of California? ;)

CA_Libertarian
04-20-2009, 10:34 PM
If you seriously want to challenge the law, you need to talk to an attorney. There's almost always one advertising on the forum, just scroll to the top/bottom and follow a link. If they can't help you, I'm sure they can direct you to the people that can.

Sobriquet
04-20-2009, 10:56 PM
Please tell me someone from CGF is PM'ing this fine gentleman... That sounds like a great test case considering the sensitive areas language of Nordyke.

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 11:01 PM
Please tell me someone from CGF is PM'ing this fine gentleman... That sounds like a great test case considering the sensitive areas language of Nordyke.

I believe in order for this to be the case he would have to actually live there. Otherwise he may not have standing.

KWA-S
04-21-2009, 1:56 AM
UCSB student here...interested in this post, was going to make a similar one but heres what I figured:

Theres four things that prevent you from owning a gun on a UC property.
1. State law: Its a felony to bring a weapon onto UC property
2. UC policy: UC may throw you out for bringing a weapon onto school propery
3. Rights of landlord: UC owns the dorms, so they can prohibit whats in them (similar to no pets, no overnight guests, etc)
4. Think of the children: This ones the kicker, because this is what you are going to hear the minute you try to challenge anything. "This will open up the path to school shootings" "This is a place of education, not violence" etc etc.

If you want to do anything, you'd first have to get rid of the state law, which is going to be just as difficult (more or less) as Safe School Zone. Right now, I advise to wait TWO WEEKS for the hubbub to cool off and to see Gene's game plan. It going to require a lot of other laws to be repealed before the ground is soft enough to delve into a UC, which they WILL ague to be a "sensitive area." Pretty much, it means don't be too hopeful...the litigation would take too long to set up before your wife gets her masters, most likely we wont see it until after I get my masters. (And I'm a first year.)

But of course, I'm not a lawyer or Gene or anybody, I'm just some guy who hangs around 2A forums a lot. Gene may think differently, but good luck getting a hold of him right now (hes either up to his ears in beer kegs or paperwork) for a while.

Sort of unrelated, but which UC? I attend SB. Various UCs may be more difficult to get to play ball (read: Berkeley)

Scarecrow Repair
04-21-2009, 5:39 AM
3. Rights of landlord: UC owns the dorms, so they can prohibit whats in them (similar to no pets, no overnight guests, etc)

I don't think this by itself matters. A private landlord can't ban you having guns in your home any more than they can give consent to a search and override your fourth amendment rights, or any other fundamental right. The only gun banning a private landlord can do is not allow your friends to bring registered assault weapons when they visit.

UC may have other specific laws, but you have already covered them in 1. 2 seems to be redundant.

paradox
04-21-2009, 5:51 AM
I believe in order for this to be the case he would have to actually live there. Otherwise he may not have standing.

Of course, but this is court we're talking about: it takes so long to do anything that a few months delay to gather forces and gain standing is nothing ;)

spareparts
04-21-2009, 6:28 AM
3. Rights of landlord: UC owns the dorms, so they can prohibit whats in them (similar to no pets, no overnight guests, etc)

In some cases the UC doesn't actually own or manage the housing buildings just the land they sit on. This is the case with graduate housing at UCI.

cineski
04-21-2009, 7:19 AM
Do you "live" in your campsite? Temporarily. You can CCW at your campsite because it is considered your home, even if temporarily.

I believe in order for this to be the case he would have to actually live there. Otherwise he may not have standing.

E Pluribus Unum
04-21-2009, 8:02 AM
Do you "live" in your campsite? Temporarily. You can CCW at your campsite because it is considered your home, even if temporarily.

No... you can CCW in your campsite because it is specifically codified in the statute.

paradox
04-21-2009, 8:20 AM
UCSB student here...interested in this post, was going to make a similar one but heres what I figured:

Theres four things that prevent you from owning a gun on a UC property.
1. State law: Its a felony to bring a weapon onto UC property

That would be Penal Code ß626.9:
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.
...

My thinking is that the law will be ruled as unconstitutional as applied to personal residences then the legislature will quickly try to patch things up by re-wording (c)(1) so that it is explicit that keeping firearms in on campus living facilities, but still restricting everything else.


2. UC policy: UC may throw you out for bringing a weapon onto school propery

Not if they have a court order telling them they can't.

3. Rights of landlord: UC owns the dorms, so they can prohibit whats in them (similar to no pets, no overnight guests, etc)

There is no constitutional right to pets or overnight guests.

Good luck having any landlord refusing to allow private prayer in their rental property.

4. Think of the children: This ones the kicker, because this is what you are going to hear the minute you try to challenge anything. "This will open up the path to school shootings" "This is a place of education, not violence" etc etc.

Which is why I think that trying to get CCW on campuses through the courts is probably a loser. Maybe in a happy, gun-friendly future we could get it through the legislature. But today, I think the low hanging fruit given the wording of Heller and Nordyke is to attack all bans of firearms in residence.

Sort of unrelated, but which UC? I attend SB. Various UCs may be more difficult to get to play ball (read: Berkeley)

Davis (though I'm a Gaucho Alum). I think that theatrically, it would be best to bring a suit with petitioners from all UCs and as many CSUs and Community Colleges with on campus living facilities. Legally though, I'm not sure it is necessary or beneficial.

hoffmang
04-21-2009, 5:17 PM
Gents,

I don't think the politics are yet ready to challenge on campus firearms bans. Repealing these are controversial even in gun friendly states.

The time to challenge these will come, but not soon.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 5:25 PM
^ Perhaps, but when it does happen in other states it will be demanded by those people coming to CA. The campus carry issue is huge in that the exposure to the idea of CCW will be as all new ideas to people on it. I think a lot of the reason why most places are in the single digit percentage for licenses is that people turn 21 and their routine is predetermined to exclude it for at least another year or two, so when they have the choice they're used to not taking the opportunity. Denial by delay works against gun ownership as a whole, no question about it, so there's more than likely a significant similar effect with CCW.

DDT
04-21-2009, 5:37 PM
^ Perhaps, but when it does happen in other states it will be demanded by those people coming to CA.

It depends on how it happens in gun friendly states. If legislatively it is a tool in the belt, if judicially it's summary judgment (in light of Nordyke)

KWA-S
04-22-2009, 2:36 AM
Paradox, thanks for responding to my posts with 626.9. I forgot what digit came after the decimal. Anyway...

The UC policy and the state law, I believe are two different laws. 626.9 is difficult to get rid of, and the courts may not necessarily force the UC's policy to change. Even without 626.9, the UC may still ban weapons on campus...they just couldn't throw you in jail for, say, UOCing in class, but they could expel you.

About the landlord bit: You shouldn't have any problems there then. This is the part where my ignorance comes through. My parents told me their rental contracts have always had a "NO GUNS" policy, but they are antis. I assumed that that means its perfectly legal. Do we have any case law that says it is illegal for a landlord to evict for 2A? I'm interested in reading that. Additionally, could landlord may just make it so hard for you to stay, that you would be forced to leave? (Example, double the rent as soon as legally possible)

On that cynical note, when was the last time anyone in California cared about 2A? (pre-Nordyke :clap:)

Interesting to note that if we get shall issue and court orders changing the UC no weapons policy, I can CCW here senior year. Although, I'd love to OC around campus too. Ahh, the stares...I can imagine them now. They'd be worse than those I got when I put a McCain sticker on my not-Apple computer.

badreligion
04-22-2009, 4:12 AM
Now that we have Heller telling us that the 2nd is an individual right and Nordyke telling us that the 2nd is incorperated could it be argued that the 2nd is a protected status and can't be discriminated against? Similar to anti-discrimination laws against race, religion, creed, etc.. With the school laws we have a 2 party system that says it is ok for the government to do something but not the people.

cousinkix1953
04-22-2009, 5:26 AM
Forget the lawsuit. Common sense tells me that a UC campus (public school) is a more sensitive area than the county fairgrounds. Alameda's gun show ban (on public property) was upheld on Monday. You lose.

Grad students are not required to live on campus; so find yourself a place in town. It's none of their business if you own guns on private property.

Guns are illegal on UC campuses thanks to the Mafia. One of their professional killers murdered a drug dealer in Santa Cruz during the early 80s. They burried him on the UCSC campus too. The dead man was executed with a silenced .45 caliber 1911/A1 pistol much like those used by the CIA and special forces. Committing a murder with an illegal handgun made that much easier to outlaw guns on all of the UC and CSU campuses...

KWA-S
04-22-2009, 6:01 AM
^But people do in fact live on UC campuses, unlike fairgrounds. Just because I live in a particular place doesn't mean I should not be allowed to defend myself. Hell, someone broke into my room at 2 oclock earlier this year. Not to mention all the Cho and the CCW and the preaching to the choir.

Either way, the general consensus of this thread seems to be that this will be one of the last things that can be milked out of Nordyke, up there with machine guns and SBR.

However, its fun to plan even if we know it aint happening. Iit would be nice to get the schools to acknowledge that since we have 262.9, they don't need their own antigun policies. Would be nice if I could buy rifles and just keep them locked up while I'm home.

paradox
04-22-2009, 6:56 AM
Gents,

I don't think the politics are yet ready to challenge on campus firearms bans. Repealing these are controversial even in gun friendly states.

The time to challenge these will come, but not soon.

-Gene


I see this move as a camel's nose under the tent.

Of course it will be next to impossible to get campus carry at this time, but having functional firearms in personal residences is now highly protected by case law.

I think legally, this tack is a winner.

And from a broader perspective, if firearms are allowed in campus residences and nothing bad happens (or even better, bad things are prevented), the fear factor will be lowered enough that campus carry might be seen as reasonable. This cultural shift might take a decade, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step....

paradox
04-22-2009, 7:03 AM
Forget the lawsuit. Common sense tells me that a UC campus (public school) is a more sensitive area than the county fairgrounds. Alameda's gun show ban (on public property) was upheld on Monday. You lose.

From my first post, quoted from the Nordyke decision:

"[13] Heller tells us that the Second Amendmentís guaran-
tee revolves around armed self-defense. If laws make such
self-defense impossible in the most crucial placeóthe home
óby rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Consti-
tution.

[14] But the Ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does
not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-
defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in
public places that are County property."

A private residence is not a public place.


Grad students are not required to live on campus; so find yourself a place in town. It's none of their business if you own guns on private property.

The on campus housing is cheaper, closer, and of higher quality. If I could have that and be able to increase freedom for California college students, I think that would be the bee's knees.

Stan_Humphries
04-22-2009, 7:23 AM
I'll wager that your decision to voluntarily live in on-campus housing (or if you are required to live there, your decision to voluntarily attend school) constitutes a waiver of your second amendment protection to own a gun in the home for defense.

It's similar to going to an airport or other government controlled facility where you wave certain constitutional protections by deciding to enter.

In addition, I think that the regent's decision to ban guns in on-campus housing (if it was he regents that did it) would pass even a strict scrutiny test as they have a compelling state interest (they would argue) to protect the campus and its facilities from gun violence, their rule is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and there are no less restrictive means to effect their demand for gun free housing.

cousinkix1953
04-22-2009, 8:02 AM
I'll wager that your decision to voluntarily live in on-campus housing (or if you are required to live there, your decision to voluntarily attend school) constitutes a waiver of your second amendment protection to own a gun in the home for defense.

It's similar to going to an airport or other government controlled facility where you wave certain constitutional protections by deciding to enter.

In addition, I think that the regent's decision to ban guns in on-campus housing (if it was he regents that did it) would pass even a strict scrutiny test as they have a compelling state interest (they would argue) to protect the campus and its facilities from gun violence, their rule is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and there are no less restrictive means to effect their demand for gun free housing.
The county fairgrounds and those ten UC campuses are PUBLIC property. State and local governments are free to ban guns in their dorms, just as I have the right to ban smoking in my own house. They aren't picking on you because you are a minority race or gay; so the federal housing regulations cannot help you either. Get used to living off campus if you want to own guns...

paradox
04-22-2009, 8:42 AM
The county fairgrounds and those ten UC campuses are PUBLIC property. State and local governments are free to ban guns in their dorms, just as I have the right to ban smoking in my own house.

Remind me again how that San Francisco ban on handguns in publicly owned housing went....

Flopper
04-22-2009, 9:03 AM
Remind me again how that San Francisco ban on handguns in publicly owned housing went....
excellent point!

to cousinkix1953:

this is a double standard. a landlord can't discriminate based on a hundred other variables, but on the one that is a RIGHT, he CAN???

hoffmang
04-22-2009, 3:16 PM
One can accept that the politics between public housing and public dorms are different, and that politics matter to winning legal cases, or not.

If not, and one does something about it, one will likely close the door on being able to eventually change the politics and the law.

I can guarantee you that quite a few UC housing regulations would not be able to be applied in Public Housing. Briefly glancing at UCLA's regs I see:

1. Must be in possession of photo ID.
2. Acceptable Computer Use policy.
3. Inspection.
4. Possession of "excessive" amounts of alcohol.

Bottom line is that it is not an apples to apples comparison.

-Gene

cousinkix1953
04-22-2009, 3:50 PM
excellent point!

to cousinkix1953:

this is a double standard. a landlord can't discriminate based on a hundred other variables, but on the one that is a RIGHT, he CAN???
It might be a double standard; but if they can ban a gun show at the county fairgrounds, they can get away with doing it at a state owned public school. The San Francisco settlement was with the federal government...

demnogis
04-22-2009, 4:02 PM
626.9 (h) and (i) make it a felony to bring a loaded or unloaded firearm onto campus property, housing, etc.

BUT

12026 (b) works in your favor:
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of
residence, place of business, or on private property owned or
lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.

12031 (l) should strike this down (if you need to load):
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a
loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of
residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

Yet ANOTHER reason why 626.9/626.95 should be REPEALED. Conflicting laws revoke your 2A rights living in campus dorms.

KWA-S
04-22-2009, 4:16 PM
626.9 (h) and (i) make it a felony to bring a loaded or unloaded firearm onto campus property, housing, etc.
BUT
12026 (b) works in your favor:
12031 (l) should strike this down (if you need to load):
Yet ANOTHER reason why 626.9/626.95 should be REPEALED. Conflicting laws revoke your 2A rights living in campus dorms.

Now, extend this to the homeless bums who's place of residence is, say, fairgrounds, schools, and government buildings. :43:

Sobriquet
04-22-2009, 4:18 PM
One can accept that the politics between public housing and public dorms are different, and that politics matter to winning legal cases, or not.

If not, and one does something about it, one will likely close the door on being able to eventually change the politics and the law.

I can guarantee you that quite a few UC housing regulations would not be able to be applied in Public Housing. Briefly glancing at UCLA's regs I see:

1. Must be in possession of photo ID.
2. Acceptable Computer Use policy.
3. Inspection.
4. Possession of "excessive" amounts of alcohol.

Bottom line is that it is not an apples to apples comparison.

-Gene

Your point is very well taken, Gene, but the gentleman in question here mentioned private housing on UC property. This isn't UC owned housing if I'm reading this correctly.

DDT
04-22-2009, 4:25 PM
One can accept that the politics between public housing and public dorms are different, and that politics matter to winning legal cases, or not.

If not, and one does something about it, one will likely close the door on being able to eventually change the politics and the law.

I can guarantee you that quite a few UC housing regulations would not be able to be applied in Public Housing. Briefly glancing at UCLA's regs I see:

1. Must be in possession of photo ID.
2. Acceptable Computer Use policy.
3. Inspection.
4. Possession of "excessive" amounts of alcohol.

Bottom line is that it is not an apples to apples comparison.

-Gene

Assuming those other restrictions are constitutional may also be a stretch.