Local U's Apartment Community Council caught attempting to sneak in a gun ban.

C

Crosshair

New member
From the Facebook group: "Advocates for Responsible Firearm Ownership"

The University of North Dakota Apartment Community Council (ACC) sent out a quiet notification stating they are recommending all weapons (including legally owned firearms) are to be banned from the on-campus apartments. Here is the relevant paragraph from the email.

"Community Council has recommended that the storage of weapons be prohibited in all campus apartments. Weapons storage will be available at the Police Department. On October 2, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. the Apartment Community Council is inviting all residents to an open forum, at the Apartment Community Center, to discuss proposed changes to the weapons storage policy. A representative from the UND Police Department will be available to answer questions. Please plan on attending."

This is ridiculous on many accounts.

1: There is no reason and/or justification to recommend this proposed ban. What problem is this supposed to solve?

2: It is a slap in the face to the legal and responsible firearm owners who have stored firearms in the apartments for many years if not decades.

3: Considering how open the apartments are (not locked as opposed to the dorms) it is a risk to public safety to disarm the population residing within open buildings or any buildings of residence for that matter.

4: North Dakota is a hunter state and many graduate students (myself included) hunt in season. This severely restricts any hunter's ability to clean, modify or properly maintain their firearms or even reload.

5: It invites further nanny-state restrictions on law-abiding students who are of age and wanted to live on their own and are legally responsible to own firearms.

6: This was done very discreetly hoping to catch firearm owners off guard. It was placed in the third paragraph in a very subtle email labeled "UND Apartment Housing Informational." Not even the monthly calender passed out to all residents made mention of this supposed recommendation. It is obvious they wished this to get by quietly and pass without incident. Shameful at best.

This is just a horrible blow to not just the 2nd amendment but to all law abiding citizens who have been responsible firearm owners all their lives. We must protest this recommendation, stopping it in it's track less UND assume the role of nanny and "help us" from ourselves.

I invite all to join us in voicing their concerns to the ACC this Tuesday. We are organizing speeches to address our grievances so not only can we stop this but send a message that private firearm owners are responsible people who take the 2nd amendment and safety VERY seriously.

Non-apartment residents are encouraged to attend although speaking is not required. Please be respectful in speaking your mind as well as listening to their reasoning; evoking emotions will not help us. Please also refrain from rabble rousing.
Click to expand...

A few comments from the feedback section:

Got a crazy number of flyers printed today and gave 1000 to the Housing Office to distribute to all the apartments. College Republicans also said that they were going to raise awareness at the football game on Saturday. Now we'll have to wait and see if our letter to the editor makes it into the "Student" on Tuesday morning!
Click to expand...

Good luck in your quest to retain your Constitutional rights in the face of mass ignorance that is the PC and Media.
Click to expand...

I do not attend the local university, but I have many friends that do, that is how I found out about it. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. It is rather obvious that they had planned to sneak this in without resistance considering how they made the "announcement".

Not all 2nd amendment battles are at the national or even the state level.

I work Tuesday, but I plan to keep this thread updated.
 
Last edited:
3: Considering how open the apartments are (not locked as opposed to the dorms) it is a risk to public safety to disarm the population residing within open buildings or any buildings of residence for that matter.
Click to expand...

This is a big one for me. The school generally takes no additional measures to provide security for on-campus apartments (unlike dorms). The only difference security-wise between an on-campus apartment and an off-campus one is which side of the street you're on. No outer door locks, no front desk, no cameras, no RAs doing rounds all night.

Far too many people also assume that, hey, it's North Dakota...how much crime can you have there? Tell that to the woman that was forcibly raped last year in our on-campus apartments (Montana State). Robberies and rapes happen in Podunk, same as New York City. In fact, once you adjust the numbers to per-capita you'd probably be surprised at the crime rates in some small college towns.

Sadly, though, this won't (IIRC) be the first university to ban firearms across campus, including graduate/family housing. Hope you guys can head this off, though.
 
Okay, while I don't agree with the idea of a ban, it is ludicrous to suggest that they are attempting to sneak a gun ban or that it is being done in a quiet or discreet manner. It was put in an emailing to those living in campus apartments that stated it was a housing informational mailing. Flyers were also printed and distributed. How much more blatant do they need to be?

Is this sneaky, quiet, and discreet because residents weren't spoon fed via a letter in bold print that said it included gun-based possibly changes on the outside and then stated those changes as the #1 item in bold print or because they were not individually called on the phone or visited in person and notified in Dick and Jane reading series vernacular (so that all could understand the meaning) that these changes were being considered?

Are any of the other matters in the notice also being considered as being sneaky as well?

Yes, they are proposing some changes and yes those changes are not gun friendly and so not appreciated by gun owners, but claim that such changes are being done in a sneaky, discreet, quiet manner is preposterous.
 
is ludicrous to suggest that they are attempting to sneak a gun ban or that it is being done in a quiet or discreet manner. It was put in an emailing to those living in campus apartments that stated it was a housing informational mailing. Flyers were also printed and distributed. How much more blatant do they need to be?
Click to expand...

1. It was put in a VERY subtle Email. The title was "UND Apartment Housing Informational", not "Proposed UND Apartment Housing policy changes." They were intentionally vague in this case.
2. The fliers were printed by those of us OPPOSING the ban.
3. The most this group normally does is organize social events. Not policy changes like this. As my friend said, "All they have done before is organize Ice cream parties."

Sorry, I guess I didn't word the original post very clearly. I hope this clears things up
 
Update:

here is some stuff my friend posted before and after the meeting:

The UND Campus Police Firearms Storing Facility and Talking Points

I have used the UND Campus 'Armory' since I don't like to keep all my eggs in one basket so I'll tell you guys what I know about their storage facility.

1: It is open 24 hours, however, general office hours at the station close around 4pm so you have to call local dispatch to have an officer meet you there; this can take a while if it's a busy day or night especially on the weekends.

2: No ammunition storage. This is a problem since many of us store mass quantities of ammo and if they ban weapons how will they address ammo storage needs?

3: No gun cases. This is a problem for several reasons. A) it causes weapons to rust when exposed to a non-dry environment as it has already caused one of my prized rifles to rust along the barrel and took hours to clean, B) it still makes the residents have to store the cases and C) some weapons come in several parts so how do we store different barrels, grips, muzzle breaks, scopes etc?

4: Their armory is VERY small. It is literally a 6x6 closet with a light bulb. I've seen it many times and it can barely house the checked in weapons as is. How do they plan on storing firearms for all the hunters, trap shooters and target shooters in the apartments?

5: No space allocated for maintenance, reloading or cleaning. With the no case rule firearms will require monthly maintenance so how will we do this?

6: It is impossible to determine if the UND Police will not fire our own weapons for the fun of it. There are always stories of police stations having fun with checked in firearms and the lack of locked cases and trigger locks makes this even harder to swallow.


And here're some talking points facts, challenges and questions I have on the subject.

1: What entails a "weapon?" Is it a firearm? Something that can cause harm on another? If not carefully defined my entire kitchen cutlery kit could be construed as "weapons."

2: The apartments are not the dorms; not only are all the residents over 21 (save for families but the head of the households are all over 21) thereby legal age to buy all firearms but they are not locked like the dorms are. By stating the campus apartments are "weapons free" they send a white flag to all criminals stating the apartments are disarmed and therefore ideal targets for crime. The apartments are hardly ever patrolled even by Parking Services and are not monitored by anyone or any security system. The only security system of any kind is the dead-bolt locks and those are easily compromised.

3: As far as my research goes there has no been NO firearm-related incidents or violence in the campus apartments, especially by legal owners. The ban is entirely unwarranted so one has to question what brought this on? Why does the ACC see it necessary to ban firearms from people already following the law of the land responsibly?

4: What authority does the ACC have to recommend such a radical idea? We voted them in to plan ice cream socials and day care help for the families, not to tell us how to live our lives.

5: The UND Police as a reactive force, not a proactive. They cannot prevent all crimes and should encourage firearm ownership to those willing and of age instead of placing all control and safety into their hands. There are two very viable ways to eliminate violent crime; one is to have a police state under martial law and the other is community involvement whether it's firearm ownership or the neighborhood watch. Put the power to defend freedom and the community into the hands of the people, not a nanny state.

6: How do they plan on enforcing this? Will there be random searches or perhaps a a Turn-Your-Neighbor-In-For-Nike-Shoes Program? If they cannot enforce this then it is a paper rule only.

There are many others issues to be raised with this ban but you all get the idea. Hope these help.
Click to expand...

The one from after the meeting.

I just got back from the ACC meeting and the collective debriefing of myself and other colleagues and here are the main points.

1: As it turns out, the ACC acts as an advisory board and this is merely step 12 of 25 to ban "weapons" outright from the on-campus apartments and campus entirely. The police chief of UND Police is the primary advocate of this policy (as well as designer) and the housing committee is following close behind.

2: The police chief and housing office indirectly outlined three reasons for the proposed ban.

A: Continuity/conformity. Because the dorms and academic buildings do it, so should we and are no different than the others.

B: Potential break-in and theft of "weapons" from apartments.

C: Originally they desired to have all "weapons" banned from the apartments but did not have the "adequate facilities" to store them. See reason A.

The chief (sorry, I don't remember his name; I'm doing this from memory) briefly mentioned the Virginia Tech Massacre as well as the shootings in Maryland but was quickly put down when someone mentioned those were incidents where the culprit illegally brought in weapons from off-campus.

The Housing Committee seems to be coping out; conforming to the ideas of the police chief without any real knowledge on the firearms debate or any related topic so this forum was a great opportunity to bring this knowledge to the table.

There were some pro-ban people there to state their beliefs (and I am glad they mustered the courage to speak up) and their reasoning was based almost entirely on fear; fear of firearm owners and the worst case scenario. Another pro-ban person stated the potential to snap in a very emotional manner suggesting she was quite irritated. The first person said no pro-ban people would come to the meeting thinking it would not affect them; this is a sign that in round 2 (which we're very certain will take place soon) we should expect more pro-ban people.

This is good news actually; it not only allows us to hear more opposition but also gives them a chance to incriminate their own ideas. In my ten years as a pro-firearms debater I've only seen two basis for gun-control; sensationalism and centralized control over the masses. Not to mention this gives the event more press coverage.

Speaking of which, the Grand Forks Herald did show up and interview many key speakers myself included. Expect a story or blurb in tomorrow's paper so support the GF Herald by buying one; they were nice enough to show up so let's thank them in turn. I also saw cameras taking pictures of the Women for Firearms group outside when they were doing their poster protest/photo shoot.

All in all, everyone did a great job at talking in turn and no rabble rousing. Thank you to all for coming out and helping but there are many key things I would like to bring up.

1: Next time we ALL need to get together and coordinate our arguments accordingly. I did not use all my arguments since I never unload my magazine (not clip) all at once so we need to coordinate for next time.

2: Plan your speech/points carefully. When you have the attention of the crowd it is very easy to say the right thing the wrong way. This happened a few times tonight but it happens. I practiced my questions in front of the mirror many times before presenting them.

3: Think of debating from their point of view. In debates, people have the bad tendency to initiate trench warfare and entrench themselves in their own ideas and wonder why they're not getting anywhere. These people either do not understand or they do not acknowledge the 2nd amendment and the freedom culture as we do. They see things differently so put things in their terms so there is no equivocation. Know thy enemy as well as know thyself.

4: Do not threaten or warn of potential consequences. It causes the other to get defensive and close up. Granted the chief and ACC already made up their minds but don't give them another reason to. WE are under the microscope, THEY ARE NOT.

5: Ask the people in our group about unknowns. I could've answered everyone's questions on the UND storage facility (such as it is) before the meeting and saved a lot of time. Again, we need to coordinate better.

6: While this was not a problem tonight, try not to perpetuate stereotypes. I don't think this will be a problem with us but just a reminder.

7: Take notes during the event. Anyone probably could've noticed I was feverishly taking notes on the responses from the pro-ban people and addressed them in due time. This way I could plan my line of questioning. The representative did an INSANE job of this and outdid us all. Kudos to him; he has my vote and makes me proud to have switched my voter registration to Grand Forks County.

8: Don't be afraid to have others speak for you if you're not comfortable addressing a crowd. Throughout my line of questioning sometimes the guys next to me would whisper me points or pass notes. This greatly helped me in drilling the questions.

That is all for now; I'll post more as it develops. Again, thank you for your support and keep us appraised of any events that unfold.
Click to expand...
 
A: Continuity/conformity. Because the dorms and academic buildings do it, so should we and are no different than the others.
Click to expand...

This fails to recognize the fundamental difference in the purpose and nature of these various buildings. Campus housing units are private residences; this is little different than a suggestion that because guns are banned inside the courthouse, they should be banned in everybody's homes as well for conformity's sake.

If the university doesn't want to deal with the liability, I'd invite them to get out of the family housing business. Sell the property, let private landlords deal with it.
 
If the university doesn't want to deal with the liability, I'd invite them to get out of the family housing business. Sell the property, let private landlords deal with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they earn money via the housing. It is a source of revenue.
 
^ So if one of those apartments has a home invasion and the then unarmed students are robbed, raped, or killed then they'll be perfectly glad to explain their position to their families, yes?
 
Not just unarmed students; we're talking about family housing...people's kids live there.

Yes, it's a source of revenue. But if they're not willing to take on the liability of running rental units, then they should give up that revenue to somebody who will. What I'd really like to know is what the magical difference is between these housing units and those across the street (off campus). Except perhaps shoddier police protection. What makes letting these residents own guns so much more dangerous?

I've heard some semi-decent arguments regarding keeping guns out of dorms, or out of classroom buildings...I disagree, but at least there were points made. These are people's homes...the only way you can support this is if you support a general ban on guns in the homes of all citizens.

Which, I'd hope, is not a popular position in North Dakota.
 
Yes, it's a source of revenue. But if they're not willing to take on the liability of running rental units, then they should give up that revenue to somebody who will.
Click to expand...

They don't have to take on the {perceived}liability of allowing guns in campus housing, but they still get the profit. So why should they turn this over to somebody else?

If students don't want to live where guns are not allowed, then somebody else will provide housing where guns are allowed and the students can live there. Just because the university either chooses or legally cannot allow guns in student housing is not a reason for the university to not provide housing to those willing to live by those rules.

So if one of those apartments has a home invasion and the then unarmed students are robbed, raped, or killed then they'll be perfectly glad to explain their position to their families, yes?
Click to expand...

The liability of married student housing is the same as dorm housing for the university. The Sally Struthers' "for the children" argument is a bit silly here.
 
If students don't want to live where guns are not allowed, then somebody else will provide housing where guns are allowed and the students can live there. Just because the university either chooses or legally cannot allow guns in student housing is not a reason for the university to not provide housing to those willing to live by those rules.
Click to expand...

Spoken like somebody who has never experienced the grossly inflated housing market in some college towns. I can't speak for this one specifically, but I know here there is a pretty big divide between what housing costs on-campus and off up here and I've heard and seen similar from other areas (including both small semi-rural towns and in neighborhoods in large metro areas).

You're also assuming that somebody else will be able to provide housing where guns are allowed. Believe it or not, despite the rapidly deflating bubble there are still areas where housing demand well outstrips supply. And in some cases, the supply is hamstrung either by a lack of available land (say, downtown Seattle) or by a city with absolutely ridiculous policies on growth (say, here in Bozeman).

So there are two questions then. How much more should somebody have to pay for rent in order to be allowed to own a gun for self-defense? How much is reasonable there? Second, should landlords even be allowed to ban firearms in their rental units? And as a bonus question, in this case what makes these rental units different than any others off campus, and the university different than a common landlord?

I'd like to think that for most of us here the answers to those would be zero, no, and nothing.
 
Update: Things are getting interesting.

The University paper, "The Dakota Student", published an article in favor of the ban and it is quite obvious that they did not do their research.

CGuns may be outlawed from University Apartments, but can be stored in the University Police office Click the link if you want to read the article.

Here are the online responses to the article.

Adam Mohs
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:25 AM CST
Campus appartments should be considered private residences. The university is the landlord, and like any other landlord has no right to tell its tennants what they may keep in their appartment. And if violent crime on campus is nonexistant on campus, as the author says, then why is there a need to prohibit firearms in apartments in the first place?

I would also like to point out that the campuses where the recent shootings have occured have all been weapons free, so obviously having these rules in place does not deter people intending to do harm to others. The fact is that the only people who will follow this rule are the people who will not do harm. Law and rule abiding people are the ones hurt by such laws and rules because they follow them. The recent school shootings are not examples of why we need these rules. They are examples of why these rules don't work and don't really protect any one.
Click to expand...

Robert VandenBerg
posted 10/05/07 @ 12:07 PM CST
Mr. Mohs struck the nail right on the head. I fail to grasp what exactly is so "sacred" about university-owned land. The student who live in on-campus apartments are adults just like the students who live in off-campus apartments. Imposing restrictions on campus apartment residents that go above and beyond what any other apartment resident has to comply with merely send the message that you can't live on campus and be an adult at the same time. All the rhetoric about the proposed ban making us "safer" falls apart when you consider the simple fact that apartment residents have always been allowed to keep their weapons in their apartments, and the apartment community is nevertheless perfectly safe. If something isn't broken, then why is UND so eager to fix it?
Click to expand...

Jacob Gissendanner
posted 10/05/07 @ 2:06 PM CST
Honestly, DS, you refused to print any articles we submitted regarding this issue including one in which we merely wanted to notify people about the forum - yet you have now printed a story in favor?

Shame on you - this is pathetic.
Click to expand...

ejburton
posted 10/05/07 @ 7:50 PM CST
That is a stupid policy; a knee jerk reaction to some problem that doesn't even exist. I haven't heard of one fire arm related incident at UND in 15 years.

Seriously; If you live in a University Apartments and you want to store your fire arm (deer rifle, pistol, shotgun) you should have the right to store that fire arm in your residence if you are legally able to own and possess a fire arm. I can see maybe not having guns in the dorms but appartments. That is a Stupid policy.

What part of the second ammendment does the University not understand. Sounds like UND is begining to be like a police state no smoking or chewing tobacco anywhere on campus. I guess its will be illegal to chew or smoke in your car on university drive avenue next?
Click to expand...

Jacob Gissendanner
posted 10/05/07 @ 10:00 PM CST
The UND Police Chief said himself that there has only been one instance of a stolen firearm on campus, and it did not result in any further illegality as far as anyone could tell.
Click to expand...

Nick
posted 10/06/07 @ 12:48 AM CST
The UND police is proposing - and the Dakota Student is endorsing - a completely ineffective solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. This is utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Tony Bowers
posted 10/06/07 @ 11:28 AM CST
This article is your typical left-wing, liberal anti-gun argument, which downplays the truth (saying that the pro-gun argument "There exists an argument that having guns on campus could deter these incidents, but the reality is they would only escalate them." and " a need for protection argument just doesn't hold a lot of weight." They fail to back any of their arguments with ANY data, and downplay all the data from the pro-gun argument. take, for example, Virginia Tech. Everybody knows what happened there not too long ago. a crazed student with a couple of handguns committed the worst shooting this country's universities have ever seen. This was at a time when Virginia Tech had banned guns from the campus. Now, not a lot of people know this, but a couple years ago, at that same school, the same thing almost happened. It's important to note that this was before V. Tech banned guns, btw. A crazed student came onto campus with a gun, threatening to kill people, just like the one a couple months ago. only this time, two male students who had conceal and carry permits witnessed it. they withdrew their weapons and took down the shooter BEFORE he did any amount of damage. If you compare these two stories, and then say the protection argument just doesnt hold any weight, you are only wasting your breath. Victims who shoot back live longer.
Click to expand...

John Wickre
posted 10/08/07 @ 12:08 PM CST
This editorial is wrong on the stated fact that the police station is occupied 24 hours a day. The station only maintains bussiness hours and when it is closed the only way to retrieve one's fire arm is to call and have an officer meet you at the station. The fact is that in the aftermath of gun problems at other Universities involving gunman, the school is attempting to address these issues with window dressing of their own. They are doing anything they can to deal with the gun "problem" even if what they are doing doesn't address the problem at all.
Click to expand...
 
First off, I don't agreed with campuses banning firearms. I believe that people going to college that are of the age to own guns are just as mature as non-college attendees are. And most of them are just as responsible, just as most of the non-college attendees are.

Having said that.... a little reality is needed.

The apartments are university-owned property.

The university is a "state" university.

As such, the state can pretty much enact and enforce any rules they wish. Welcome to the world of governmental power. Yes, all of the folks that disagree with the proposal should fight against it. But, if the battle goes the same way I've seen other battles in other states concerning guns on campus go, the outcome is likely preordained.
 
More shady moves by the Housing Committee.

OK, we have an update here. Looks like the Housing Committee had another "public" meeting. They did have it listed on their calender for people to see. However they used an old trick from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and buried the calender so deep into their website that it was nearly impossible to find it. It quite literally "was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

Here is part of one of my friends posts:

Just today we received information from both a the president of the Females For Firearms, the former president of the College Republicans and our local representative that the Housing Office met in a "public" meeting to discuss the ban further despite their office's statements that everyone was "on vacation." They advertised it on a small portion of their site that requires no less than six steps to get there.

Concerned, various people on my staff attempted to contact both the UPD and the Housing Office and either received stonewalling, loop-around or in one case was hung up on. We are attempting to mobilize and gather outside support as our current group of 60 people is not enough to combat this issue. We are fighting a losing battle and I fear a LOT more help is needed.

Here is our group; Advocates for Responsible Firearm Ownership
http://nodak.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6134394049

I am asking for anyone with legal knowledge, resources or just the desire to help to join us in this battle. Now that the gloves are off let us turn this incident into a flash point for others to rally behind. My name is Tim Rodenberger and I am the point of contact (POS) for ARFO so if anyone has any questions, comments or concerns I am the person to talk to.
Click to expand...

My friend will get a copy of the minutes tomorrow and I will have more info at that time. Looks like they are still trying to sneak this in.
 
I joined the group on facebook, to show my support for those fighting to keep their rights.
I hope those of the PD and the UND smart up.

After joining this forum not very long ago, I'm surprised to read all of the legal battles over firearms that I never heard of before.
 
http://www.housing.und.edu/apartments/
The monthly calendar shows meetings are regular events. Its link is in the low left center of the page. How hard is that to find?

My point, you would be well served to focus on the serious matter at hand and stop whining about how you don't like their notification system. You have community council meetings every two weeks. Since you are so worried about your community, you should be attending those every time they have them. You are wasting energy complaining about an issue that isn't core.
 
Slight misunderstanding about the meeting.

OK, the people down at the Housing Office now know to make 100% sure their calender is correct. Turns out the meeting is THIS Tuesday, the 23rd. The calender was wrong, resulting in a storm of emails and phone calls asking what was the deal. (Yes everyone was civil, we are trying darn hard to make sure nothing is done or said that could damage our position.) The Housing Office didn't help anything by hanging up and being generally unhelpful at first. Though to be fair, they didn't know what the deal was as well.

Glad we got this cleaned up. I plan on being there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top