Colorado University to Segregate Dorm for Students with Gun Permits

You have to understand who is involved here. This is CU Boulder, proudly situated in the peoples republic of Boulder. These people refer to communists as "those right wing nut jobs":D This the place where Ward Churchill taught and was well loved. Look a little deeper into the politics of the people involved here and tell me that there was no malign intent, I'll listen, but since I do know them I can't promise not to laugh.
 
Don H said:
There is no compromise here. The University is not "allowing" firearms on campus. Firearms on campus in Colorado has been legal for several years. The University doesn't have a choice in the matter. The University's segregating of permit holders is in fact a step backwards as the school pushes back against a law they strenuously resisted in court. This is just plain harassment of permit holders and I forsee a lawsuit challenging these baseless school requirements in the near future.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I was unaware of the intricacies of Colorado's CCW laws. Living outside of Chicago, we don't have CCW laws, let alone any public debate over campus carry. So I am out of my element in that regard. I can totally understand the frustration of having new laws or policies passed as a "reasonable accommodation" which are anything but. I've posted extensively about the ridiculous nature of the Chicago ordinance that was passed in response to the Heller decision. So for that I apologize.

I still maintain that the wild hysterics and comparison to Jim Crow era segregation it's just plain distasteful at best and counter productive at worst. To the average person, seeing comments saying that only allowing guns in specific dorms is akin to segregated lunch counters comes off as lunacy, particularly since "gun owner" isn't a protected class. If it ever does become one, then people can validly make the comparison, but until then I feel that those types of comments only serve to hurt gun owners' image. And since that image can translate into votes leading to more gun control, I would say that it is very much in our best interest not to come off as lunatics.

Bringing it back to living in my area of Illinois, it is really hard to debate the validity of gun ownership in general, let alone concealed carry. Having people automatically dismiss the argument because of their preconceived image of "gun nuts" is pretty common. So all I can say is that adding to that image is really not helping.
 
There was a time when "race" and gender weren't protected classes. Should people have waited until they WERE protected in order to protest discrimination?

Seems like putting the horse behind the cart... and then saying you can't put the horse in front until you have agreement from the anti-horse people that it belongs there.

In other words, if WE don't act like a "protected class" how are we ever going to convince anyone else that we should be?
 
Hazborgufen, would you object if your landlord told you that you could only live in the corner apartment, if you had a FOID card? That's essentially the case here.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
There was a time when "race" and gender weren't protected classes. Should people have waited until they WERE protected in order to protest discrimination?

Seems like putting the horse behind the cart... and then saying you can't put the horse in front until you have agreement from the anti-horse people that it belongs there.

In other words, if WE don't act like a "protected class" how are we ever going to convince anyone else that we should be?
Click to expand...

Obviously the idea of protected classes didn't exist prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so the civil rights movement didn't even have that to shoot for at the time. The concept and the protections it afford are now established. I think that the issue of gun ownership as a protected class is separate from the thread topic, though would certainly generate interesting discussion.

And to be clear, I am not arguing that the University's decision should be ignored and not protested. I'm merely stating that the types of comments made should be more aware of the image it will present. Conflating the horrors people lived under during Jim Crow with the inconvenience someone who is 21 years old and choosing to still live in the dorms while keeping firearms are such dramatic magnitudes of scale different that it is ridiculous.

Image is everything. If the average person's reaction to a comment is to roll their eyes and walk away, you've lost regardless of whether your argument is valid. Again, I'm taking about the average person, not staunch gun grabbers. They aren't the ones we need or even could reason with.
 
raimius said:
Hazborgufen, would you object if your landlord told you that you could only live in the corner apartment, if you had a FOID card? That's essentially the case here.
Click to expand...

The corner apartment might be the more sought after unit, so that sounds like a privilege. :p

I get what you are going for though, and if a landlord did try to regulate where I could live based on my choice to own firearms that I would store on the premises, then of course I would raise a stink. Indeed I've done similar with regard to the tedious regulations contained in Chicago's firearm ordinance.

I would not compare my plight to the struggles of African Americans under segregation though. I've got more sense than that.
 
Hazborgufen said:
Anyone making a "back of the bus" comment or comparing this to lunch counter segregation is clearly dense or didn't read the article. This isn't some kind of Jim Crow law against CCW holders and nobody is going to be the next Rosa Parks or of gun rights here. Don't be minimizing the accomplishments of the civil rights movement by trying to compare this story to it.
Click to expand...

First: Welcome to the board.

Second: I posted this article, I did read it in it's entirety, and I do read for comprehension. No problem there. Not dense either.

Third: Forced segregation at any level legitimizes forced segregation at every level.

Fourth: You obviously missed the point in the comment and the sarcasm with which it was posted. Perhaps I should have entered a few smilies to indicate that.

Oh, well, better late than never ... :D:D:p:p;);)

Fifth: Please read THIS ARTICLE by Clayton Cramer which is more than familiar to nearly everyone on this board.

We aren't the first to be treated this way. We are merely the most recent.
 
scrubcedar said:
These people refer to communists as "those right wing nut jobs"
Click to expand...

HAR!!

You are sooooo right. I live 12 miles from Boulder and that's as close as I want to get. You can smell the political correctness from here.

These are the people who elected one of their mayors because she had cancer; tried to get prairie dogs placed on the endangered species list; invited the homeless because they discovered they didn't have any; wanted people to distinguish the difference between the "good" and "bad" mosquitoes before swatting them; wanted to mount sensors on everyone's cars who lived there to monitor their vehicle use; ordered the trash companies to operate separate trash trucks for recyclables and trash instead of using one truck for separating both. The list goes on, and on, and on ...
 
Hazborgufen said:
To the average person, seeing comments saying that only allowing guns in specific dorms is akin to segregated lunch counters comes off as lunacy, particularly since "gun owner" isn't a protected class.
Click to expand...

The right to arms pre-existed all other protected classes. Every citizen of the United States of America has the right to keep and bear arms; and that was finally codified as an individual right in Heller, although it was never otherwise. That was a pipe dream of the anti-firearms contingent.

Just this nonsensical lunatic's opinion.
 
I just talked to a few college kids,,,

I just talked to a few college kids,,,
Easy for me to do as I work in a university computer lab.

One young lady said she would definitely not want to share a room with a gun owner.

Another young lady said "Only if I knew the person."

One young man said "No way would I let them pair me with a gun owner.

One young man said "I would be the gun owner and I would not want to be separated out."

The lasy young man said "I don't think I would care if my roomie carried a gun."

No consensus at all from 5 random college kids.

I honestly don't know where I stand on this,,,
If I were a college administrator I don't think I could look at one student and tell them they have no choice but to abide with their roomie owning, storing, and carrying a gun in their shared room.

In a shared dorm building is one thing,,,
But in your personal living space is another thing altogether.

Color me undecided,,,

Aarond

.
 
Aarond: Did you bother to ask the responders why they carried the view they had?

Just like Oregon, I see the politically correct Colorado tring to do a end run around the law, and their respective State Supreme Court decision.

Now, I pose a question of law: What should happen to educators that blantly teach those in their care to just disreguard any law they do not like?
 
No reason you couldn't pair up gunowners with gunowners (or gunowners with folks indifferent to gun ownership) without exiling them to off-campus quarters, and then imposing onerous restrictions upon when and where they may carry. They're even proposing to dictate extralegal storage requirements for students who aren't even living on campus.

These regulations are a spiteful slap at student gunowners by churlish administrators still seething at losing in court. :mad:
 
Question - who sets up security for this place? if it's a typical dorm, with back door propped open for party hounds, and cheesy door locks, I might not want to live there, since the college advertised to the world this is where guns can be stolen. It's not on campus, so it's only security will be regular local PD, right, or will they have campus cops check it out occasionally?
I understand both sides, yes, it's a sort of move in the right direction, with a lot of segregation against one of the two classes of people who can legally be discriminated against - gun owners and smokers. I can see lawsuits from both sides, for many reasons.
If I lived there, my carry pistol would be inexpensive, and I'd have to buy some sort of decent safe/security system for it, since I cannot take it into a class room, did I read that correctly?
The last question, are students who are identified as CCW permit holders, (do they have to sew a yellow felt pistol shaped cloth to their shirts?), are they restricted from attending functions such as athletic events, or are they just cautioned not to bring their sidearms, as no firearms are allowed into these events, by anyone? If it's the latter, that's not discrimination against the students per se. If they are refused admittance to various buildings or events simply because they have CCW permits, or are subjected to constant searches of self and belongings, then we have grounds for action...I would think. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
 
But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?? :p

The CCW folks would not be barred from attending athletic or cultural events, but would be prohibited from carrying. In fact, the concealed weapon is largely rendered a nullity for students, since about 90 percent of their daily activities would require them to enter a gun-free zone.
 
I thought it was bad the way Chicago thumbed its nose at the courts changing their laws in a way as to not be in contempt of court but as to simply kick the can down the road to the next lawsuit. This IS some sort of progress but it seems that it can/will be challenged on many levels.
 
Hello Hermannr,,,

Aarond: Did you bother to ask the responders why they carried the view they had?
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't "bother to ask",,,
It was just a conversational question I posed to them.

I suppose I could put together a formal research study,,,
It's part of what I do for a living after all.

But again, it was simply informal conversation.

Aarond

.
 
Interesting because in Kansas somebody would be going to jail, since it is illegal for any state offical, personel, or agency to release any records that ID a person as a CCW holder, unless it is by warrant, for offical police investigation. Wonder who the custodian of records in Colorado is and what the law says about releasing those records.
 
jimpeel said:
First: Welcome to the board.

...

Fourth: You obviously missed the point in the comment and the sarcasm with which it was posted. Perhaps I should have entered a few smilies to indicate that.

Oh, well, better late than never ... :D:D:p:p;);)
Click to expand...

Perhaps I did miss the sarcasm, so I will thank you for the welcome and apologize for jumping to conclusions.

I'm relieved to see that the comments were made in jest. I'm clearly a bit frazzled by the environment in Chicago. Reveal that you are pro gun in some areas and people will treat you differently. To a lot of people, guns are scary weapons used by bad people to do evil things. The idea of gun ownership is foreign to them and their perceptions of gun owners is negative. So I may be over zealous in my effort to polish the image of gun ownership. Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top