First District Court of Appeals: "Universities Can't Regulate Guns." - Granite Grok

First District Court of Appeals: “Universities Can’t Regulate Guns.”

“If you talk to any of my Democratic colleagues who lost that year, they would tell that gun control was one of the major contributory factors in the loss of their seats.”   John Dingell

Alexandria Lainez2
University of North Florida Student Alexandria Lainez: Plaintiff and member of Florida Carry, Inc.

Tallahasse. On December 10, 2013, the 1st District Court of Appeal — in an en banc decision, ruled in favor of University of North Florida student, Alexandria Lainez and Florida Carry, Inc. a gun rights group in a challenge to university policy banning students on campus from storing guns in their personal vehicles.

A preemption law passed in 2011, prompted the court to decide that the Sunshine States twelve  public universities fall within the purview of the law. This recent ruling also states that while universities have the power to restrict lawful conduct such as drinking or smoking on campus — that same power does not extend to the regulating of guns.

In opining for the court, Judge Clay Roberts wrote, “Restricting recreational activities is a far cry from restricting a fundamental, constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense…”

Roberts opinion was supported by the majority of the 15 judges and was further supported in dictum when Judge Scott Makar asserted that the Legislature has demonstrated a long history of letting Floridians store firearms in their personal vehicles  and universities do not have limitless authority. Markar wrote,

“… If universities can regulate away a Second Amendment right, why not a First Amendment one? Or one protected by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment? The point is rhetorical, but nonetheless meaningful because campus authority unchecked can go astray of constitutional norms.

Of course, this decision comes with a strident, tantrum-like dissent. Enter Judge Philip Padovano and his personal advocacy of feifdom power-grabbing by academia. Padovano counter-claimed that voters approved a constitutional amendment creating exclusive stand-alone powers for the state university system that differ from other agencies. (In other words, exclude it from the reaches of the legislative body).

“A state university powerless to prohibit students from bringing firearms to school, is a remarkable conclusion is not supported in law, and with due respect for my colleagues, I believe that it defies common sense.”

The most perplexing counter argument Judge Padovano makes is in asserting that people do not ever doubt a university professor’s ability to stop a student from making a religious speech in class even though that student has a “First Amendment right” to make that same speech elsewhere.

What we learn here is that liberal Kool-Aid-drinking judges work hard to carve out the sovereign powers of academia and permit free speech selectively all while attempting to poke holes in the second amendment rights of its’ citizens. Victory today and we fight another day.

 

>