Firearms in Public v. Political/Free Speech (Sarkeesian and Utah State)

[Beguile's Mistress]

The think about open and concealed carry permits that worries me the most is that the hand that will hold, aim and fire the gun - if that is done - is controlled by the mind of person whose name is on the permit.  Having experienced the limited abilities of some individuals and their skewed ideas of common sense I'm leery of their judgment.  I fortunately know no one in Utah and have no reason to go there and these days Utah is more frightening to me than ebola.

[Kythia]

What terrifies me even more is that they'll meet, merge and mutate to form either Utobla or Ebutah (I haven't decided yet)

[Beguile's Mistress]

*snickers*  You made me choke on my coffee. :D

[Steampunkette]

Maybe, if we're lucky, they'll cancel each other out and the universe will restructure itself around the place where Utah and Ebola were.

[Kythia]

the place where Utah and Ebola were.

The Ut-hole-a-bola?

[Steampunkette]

Relevant to some of the very disturbing commentary in this thread:

[Retribution]

The whole refusal to take action due to open carry is well lame. Not to mention I doubt there is a law allowing open carry of pipe bombs either. Using this reasoning terrorists threats in such areas are perfectly legal and we all know they are of course not.

Having said that, as a firearms owner I honestly like open carry a bit better than concealed. I would honestly rather see the firearm than be guessing who has one and who does not. And I would hope the licensing process weeds out those who should not be carrying. Unfortunately such processes only tend to catch those inclined to obey the law.

[Steampunkette]

Right? Open carry makes it so much easier to pick your targets before you draw your gun in the first place. You know -exactly- who you need to shoot to avoid getting killed in a hail of gunfire! :D

Concealed carry is not much better, in my opinion...

[Retribution]

We are not going to agree on this  :-) and the second amendment is one thing I will not give on in the least bit. We could duel with factoid links at high noon and neither of us is going to change their mind. We would also hijack this thread and change the topic.

So, I will state once more I think the excuse given was a lame excuse for not responding on the part of the authorities. And it was just that an excuse because they did not want to. As for open carry, you have a point that a "bad guy" seeing which "good guys" are armed can cause problems. Having said that there can be "surprise" issues with law enforcement that make out of sight guns an issue. So I prefer the dam thing be in plain sight of course I have no irrational fear of inanimate objects *cough* sorry, force of habit.

On a personal level I was traveling once, on a hunting trip really. My home state has more restrictive laws than the next state over....so my guns were all cased up and such in back as required in my home state. Got pulled over in the next state going a little too fast, cop saw my "hidden gun" and well I had a service weapon pulled on me. Once I explained what to hell was going on life was fine, but he viewed a legally cased firearm as a hidden one. I get it, so all things considered I would just as soon see the dam gun and know it is there and we all go on with our lives.

[Corrected my there to their did not change content]

[Ephiral]

As someone who thinks that trivially easy lethal force and human psychology are a volatile mix at the best of times, I'm rather glad for the no-carry nature of my country - but I'd take open carry over concealed. Partial data on threats is better than no data. (This is not to open a gun-control debate; Retribution, I generally respect you, and don't want to get into a mud-slinging fight that's likely going to boil down to "who can throw the bigger pile of statistics at the other guy". I will, however, say that it's not inanimate objects that scare me; it's that humans are extremely extremely bad at decision making and controlling their actions.)

Either way, the reluctance of the authorities is... pretty galling. They're setting a precedent here: Actually enforcing the laws surrounding access to lethal force in an environment of elevated threat is too much burden on weapons owners. That... basically makes the entire concept of "licenses" laughable except as an add-on charge.

[Steampunkette]

Hey... I'm not against the right to bear arms. I just think there's very little the form of a reasonable way to handle it given our current technological and sociological restraints.

Open carry makes you a target. Concealed carry makes it harder to get to the weapon in time to defend yourself. And both of them are irrelevant if you're black since having a gun automatically makes you a threat to everyone around you in the eyes of the law and most of the racist wet breadslices running around the US.

That's all I'm saying.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I own guns and I support the right to keep and bear arms.  I support the second amendment.

I also support the first amendment and my right to say that while I know a lot of people who keep and bear arms at least half of those people scare the shit out of me and I don't trust them to be responsible gun owners - you know, like the man who thinks it's fine to have a gun in the draw of the hall table right by his front door.  "Well, all my kids know it's there, so I don't have to worry about them messing with it."

Not everyone who owns a gun or carries it is an idiot and not everyone who openly carries a gun is an incompetent fool but I watched a man at a gun rally pick the pocket of someone with a concealed weapon and steal the carrier's gun.  Three people stopped him even though he had a round chambered after taking off the safety.

My contention is that until people prove they are (not can be but are) responsible and homeowners stop killing family members because they think their wife/child/husband is an intruder we should be much more careful about who carries guns and where they are allowed to carry them.

[Retribution]

And we seem to be taking over this thread.. suffice to say I think we are in agreement the authorities were being dolts in this case. I do not know who Sarkeesian is and have not done any research because well she would probably piss me off beyond capacity for rational thought. I am a right of center kind of guy and try not to elevate my blood pressure anymore than I have to after all.  :D

As for the other comments I can see things I can agree and disagree with in those that came after me. Out of basic human respect I shall not comment further on that. Last time I talked guns with a long time liberal friend was two years ago, I have refused to speak to him since so I just don't wanna go there.

[consortium11]

I'm still struggling to see what the university or police could do here.

From the universities statement Anita decided to pull out once it was made clear that there was no way the university could ban guns from the event.

As set out in a previous post the law... put in place by the state government and which the state supreme court upheld... prevents the university from doing anything to prohibit or limit people with a valid CC license from being there. There's no wiggle room. As Anita said in her own tweets it's because the police wouldn't (which would be better put as couldn't) take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event and that because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.

It's why articles like this (or at least the "It wasn't threats that shut down Anita Sarkeesian's USU event -- it was the school's response" tagline) are somewhat unfair; the school couldn't do anything but what it did; put on extra security. The complaint should be against the state lawmakers and/or whoever decided a university was the best place for the event (if it had been held in a privately owned building that wasn't a educational establishment the owner can apply whatever restrictions they like on carrying a weapon), not the university.

[Retribution]

I can only respond for myself here of course. My issue with how the police handled it is the part about pipe bombs in the initial threat. As far as I know those are not covered under any law I know of as being legal. Thus why I view the police response as kind of lame. Now we all know the media does not always portray things in the most accurate light so these articles are like as not accurate to lesser degrees.

Also, the jaded part of me would say Sarkeesian may have been more happy getting 'shut down' as such things offer more press. Hell, we are talking about it here and I do not even know who she is. So she may not have put up that much of a fight either....

[consortium11]

I can only respond for myself here of course. My issue with how the police handled it is the part about pipe bombs in the initial threat. As far as I know those are not covered under any law I know of as being legal. Thus why I view the police response as kind of lame. Now we all know the media does not always portray things in the most accurate light so these articles are like as not accurate to lesser degrees

Again, going by Sarkeesian's own tweets and the university statement it was the refusal/inability to prevent concealed handguns being at the event and the refusal/inability to do firearms searches which led to her pulling out. Unless we're suggesting that she's lying about that (and I'm not sure why we would) then we have to accept it's the firearm issue which led to the cancellation; that doesn't fall on the university.

[Retribution]

Hmmm, now I am curiously reading the information on Utah carry permits and such http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html  for those interested. It varies from state to state, in my home state for example anyone can bar carrying just put up a sign essentially. Thus why I have not gotten my permit (most times when I have one of my guns with it is cased, unloaded, so on as required by law) it is hard to warrant spending $500 or more to get a permit that is virtually useless. Thus, why I would assume some states put limits on barring firearms.

[Ephiral]

Amusingly, Retribution, the laws in your area sound... not very far off from how it works here. In Canada.

[Retribution]

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/LAWcarry.html if you look at item 1 I do believe one can come up with provisions to have banned firearms from the event. I would have to dig a bit deeper to tell for sure but I would hope the university police can get more info than what I did in a few minutes  with Google  :-) Thus, my point it was more a case of don't want to.

And to clarify, the permit fee in Utah is dropping to $41, but the classes that one has to take to get a carry permit in all states are expensive. Also you will note that reciprocal  agreements are mentioned, just because you can carry in one state does not mean you can in another. Sooooo, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth carrying a firearm is not like the old west.

And yes, Ephiral and it is a pain in the ass to be blunt. I would not mind the pain if it actually did anything, but my state has a nasty crime rate that just keeps going up. But that is a whole other ball of wax that I am trying to not get into.

[consortium11]

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/LAWcarry.html if you look at item 1 I do believe one can come up with provisions to have banned firearms from the event.

It doesn't. Title 53 Chapter 5a Section 102 of the Utah Code makes clear that Universities cannot prohibit the possession or use of firearms:

5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Section 76-10-501; and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.

As mentioned in a previous post, Universities went to court over this arguing that they should be able to restrict firearms on their campus. They lost. Badly. To quote from the judgement (as above, mentioned in the earlier post).

In this case, we conclude that the legislature has not overstepped its constitutional bounds. The plain meaning of article X, section 4 of the Utah Constitution, supported by history, context, and our prior decisions, is that although the University has broad powers, it is not completely autonomous, and it is ultimately subject to legislative oversight. Policy considerations, no matter how persuasive, cannot dictate a contrary interpretation. The Utah Constitution does not grant the University authority to promulgate firearms policies in contravention of legislative enactments, and it is not our place to do so. To the extent their constituents disagree with the legislature’s choice, their remedy is to express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box

[Retribution]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry. So in the case of an outright threat like in this situation I feel like someone with the right legal expertise could address the matter. The school may not be able to bar guns on campus, something I have dealt with when it comes to students wanting to hunt. But during a special event or in the case of threats I feel like the right legal mind could get it taken care of. Of course I will freely admit I am possibly wrong, not a lawyer and my only familiarity with Utah law is what I Googled during this discussion.

[Oniya]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry. So in the case of an outright threat like in this situation I feel like someone with the right legal expertise could address the matter.

No legal expertise whatsoever, but with the mention of the POTUS and a hypothetical threat, I think this might apply?  Not that it does your average John, Jane, or Chris any good.

[consortium11]

Nice, find and I see the court decision, but I still feel like something could be done. Now I am not a lawyer so I will not pretend to be an expert. But in the laws I work with there tend to be many exceptions and such. For example lets say the president was speaking at a Utah university, I would find it hard to believe attendies would be allowed to carry.

It's worth noting though that presidents and the like tend not to speak at universities in Utah; when this topic first came up I started googling to see if there had been any similar restrictions during the Presidential elections or during fundraisers... and without fail they instead appeared at private locations where the owner can apply restrictions. I assume the choice of venues is deliberate and I assume that the firearms laws have at least some baring on it.

No legal expertise whatsoever, but with the mention of the POTUS and a hypothetical threat, I think this might apply?  Not that it does your average John, Jane, or Chris any good.

1) "Clear and present danger" relates to when the government can regulate free speech (i.e. a first amendment case) not gun rights (Second Amendment). In and of itself it doesn't mean anything in a case like this; it would have to be used as an example rather than a precedent.

2) "Clear and present danger" was a horrible piece of law that allowed to government to criticize virtually any speech against it; the fact that it didn't is one of the few times a government has shown huge restraint in the face of critics. I still find it shocking that so many people support "clear and present danger" and "fire in a crowded theatre" as examples of legal reasoning.

3) Thankfully "clear and present danger" is no longer the law; it was overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio in favor of the "imminent lawless action" test. Again though, this relates to speech; as things stand the only connection to this case would be that it reinforces that the death threat is not protected speech rather than having anything to do with the gun control issue.

[Retribution]

Like I said am not a lawyer, but let me lay out my feelings on this. I will freely admit this is a lot of conjecture on my part:

Utah is a very conservative state with some of the most liberal gun laws (oxymoron alert!) Obvious the current president is not going to be in a hurry to go speak there.

While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.

We are talking about University Police here. Call me jaded, but University Police do not do anything the University has not told them to do. I am also pretty darn sure most Universities have a pretty extensive legal staff.

So here is how I reconstruct this whole ball of wax: Ms. Sarkeesian is asked to speak or otherwise makes a speaking engagement at the University. In a conservative state like Utah this is meet with a lot of disdain and the University takes a lot of heat. Threat is called in, University sees their "out" their legal staff sees the above listed court decisions and so forth and a lot of plausible deniability for saying they cannot ban firearms at the event. The powers that be instruct the Uni police to take just that action. The Uni is then out of an engagement they are taking a lot of heat for with a slightly plausible excuse for not being paragons of free speech.....life is now good for them.

Ms. Sarkeesian is in the business of being polarizing. Her scheduled appearance in a very conservative state is just that. Life is good for her. Threat is called in and even more publicity is generated and life gets even better for her! The University uses this lame ass excuse to instruct the University Police to tell her they cannot protect her. Even more controversy! Hell look how much we are talking about her and I had never even heard of her before. And as a side bonus she gets to throw rocks at the anti gun control crowd and all they can really do is take it and smile. Life is now utterly blissful for her!!

And that is what I see in this whole fiasco.

[kylie]

Utah is a very conservative state with some of the most liberal gun laws (oxymoron alert!) Obvious the current president is not going to be in a hurry to go speak there.

Hardly material to my point whether it's ever the president per se.  It could just as well instead be a small Senate inquiry panel into some crisis of the day, a representative of the ACLU perhaps, any given anti-war campaign...  Or maybe just one lone feminist invited by some university.  You do seem to be supporting my point in another way: If it is less than a favorable environment for liberal politics, is it more likely that someone's going to threaten them with violence in order to keep them out?  Particularly now that it's been established that on any state campus (at least), there will be no protection? 

         That said, I would also still maintain that if it were the president or some federal agency, that law would soon find its limits and/or security of some form would find its way there in droves.  I don't think that's a shocking assertion.  But the point is, one may well wonder what exactly can be said and get done there by just whom precisely, in such an environment.

While I know nada about Ms. Sarkeesian I think it is safe to say she is a controversial figure. Controversial figures weather it be her or Rush Limbaugh make their hay and their money by being well controversial. No publicity is bad publicity for them.

This isn't "no" publicity and you very well know it.  This is not getting to speak.  I assume you're partly right - that this still gives her an example to use to champion a cause.  And you're partly wrong:  Because she doesn't get to speak before people there, some of whom might not know a whole lot about the issues at all, or might be swayed by hearing her.  Even red states are not all or forever red...  Particularly, not youth on university campuses.

...  The Uni is then out of an engagement they are taking a lot of heat for with a slightly plausible excuse for not being paragons of free speech.....life is now good for them.

Eh.  Maybe if you assume their enrollment priorities are to get a higher proportion of kids from conservative or even misogynist backgrounds.  The others may well take notice, if they are researching the background of where they go to school at all, and look for someplace that people can actually speak on such issues as part of their educational environment.  Of course some won't have the family resources to decide based on such things.   But quite a few may at least consider it over the next couple years.

Ms. Sarkeesian is in the business of being polarizing.

I think she is trying to raise a topic so people are more aware of it and perhaps reform it.  While Rush might think he's doing the same thing, I rather doubt his rhetoric would do as well on objective measures of stuff he's talked about.

        And this sort of wording you're using suggests to me more, that you think she deserves everything she gets.  Death threats and all.  That is how that sort of conversation typically goes on the far and ugly right.  Whoever points out a deep, ongoing problem with evidence and enough fire to be called "emotional" (works double duty when applied to women) is "too excited" or "too biased" or "polarizing."  Uh huh, sure.   

Her scheduled appearance in a very conservative state is just that. Life is good for her. Threat is called in and even more publicity is generated and life gets even better for her! The University uses this lame ass excuse to instruct the University Police to tell her they cannot protect her. Even more controversy! Hell look how much we are talking about her and I had never even heard of her before. And as a side bonus she gets to throw rocks at the anti gun control crowd and all they can really do is take it and smile. Life is now utterly blissful for her!!

Oh but the gun nuts are smiling with good reason.  They have just been given carte blanche to call up and threaten academics out of speaking at universities whenever they want.  That's a hell of a precedent to be smiling over.  I highly doubt it is one that Sarkeesian would have planned in advance.  It would be one hell of a Pyrrhic victory, if she is at all concerned about related causes as you seem to suggest.  Granted maybe you think she's simply that clueless.

           And you really think life is "utterly blissful" for someone who was already, previously receiving death threats and being forced to move out of her home before all this?  Really now.