Court kills gun ban

State lawmakers are claiming victory, but the political shootout over the U campus' ban on guns is far from over.

The Utah Supreme Court struck down the U policy outlawing firearms on campus Friday. However, U administrators say they will continue to enforce the anti-gun policy while the issue is resolved in federal court.

"There will be no change in policy during the (pending) of this lawsuit,"? University of Utah President Michael Young said Friday.

While Young is set on maintaining a gun-free campus, state officials say students who bring guns on campus are legally protected. Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General, said if the U tries to enforce the ban it could face serious legal repercussions.

"No student or faculty member can be punished," he said. "That's the law where it currently sits."

He said that students who are punished for bringing a concealed weapon on campus would have a "direct legal defense" and could file a civil suit against the U.

Although the U plans to uphold the current policy prohibiting guns, some students, such as senior Melissa Carey, are troubled by the idea of their classmates packing firearms in class.

"I would be uncomfortable knowing that people in my class have concealed weapons," she said. "I don't believe there is any need to have firearms or weapons on campus."

The state Supreme Court released its 4-1 ruling Friday, stating that the U's gun policy goes against a law enacted by the state Legislature in 2004 prohibiting state entities from restricting firearm possession or use. In its decision, authored by Justice Jill Parrish, the justices stated that "…although the university has broad powers, it is not completely autonomous, and it is ultimately subject to legislative oversight."

Chief Justice Christine Durham, the sole dissenting justice, stated that the U's gun policy, whether constitutional or not, is needed to maintain a safe campus.

"…If the university's policies are reasonably connected with its campus mission and the campus environment necessary to that mission, those policies are within its autonomous authority over student affairs," she stated in her dissenting opinion.

Young says that the U has a certain degree of implied autonomy that allows it to govern academic affairs. He said the nature of a college environment requires different rules and having guns on campus would hamper discussion.

"It jeopardizes the ability to have free and open debate,"? he said. "You want people to feel completely free to discuss ideas."

Shurtleff said the U should bring the issue to the Legislature rather than disobeying the law.

"The debate needs to happen, and it ought to happen at the Legislature," he said.

The U will now continue its case in federal district court under the basis that the First and Fourteenth Amendments give the school the right to regulate firearm possession as a part of academic affairs.

The U originally won a suite in 2003 stating that the policy is in compliance with the state constitution. The Legislature then passed a 2004 law prohibiting state entities from interfering with firearm possession or use. The U Board of Trustees upheld the no-gun policy after the law was passed.