E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSColorado University will no longer allow concealed weapons in undergrad dormitories, but will continue to allow them elsewhere on campus. KUSA's Meagan Fitzgerald reports.
Updated at 4:57 p.m. ET: The University of Colorado will segregate students who have concealed-weapons permits in special dorms, but their firearms will have to be locked up before bedtime, according to campus police.
University officials have amended their student housing contract at its Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses to accommodate students who are 21 years or older and have concealed-weapons carry permits, said Ryan Huff, public information officer with the University of Colorado's campus police in Boulder.
"If you have a permit, you can carry a concealed weapon on campus, as long as its hidden away from view, and you can even have it with you in class," Huff told NBC News. "What you can not do is have it on you at a ticketed event, such as football games, or in any of the residence halls on campus."
The university’s policy change comes after the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an appeals-court decision in March that struck down the university’s ban on guns.
“I believe we have taken reasonable steps to adhere to the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court, while balancing that with the priority of providing a safe environment for our students, faculty and staff,” CU-Boulder Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano said in a statement on the university’s website.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
University officials say both campuses will establish a residential area for students with permits but will ban guns in all other dormitories, according to the new policy.
Huff said those who live in residence halls will have to lock up their firearms with police, but can check out their weapon before and after they go to their residence hall. For those living in family housing units, he said, safes will be established and supervised by the housing monitor.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
"Ultimately, CU-Boulder and Students for Concealed Carry have the same goal in mind, the safety of campus patrons," David Burnett, director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry, said in an email to NBC News. "We feel that CU's previous policy of expecting criminals to comply with 'no-gun' stickers on the doors was absurdly ineffective, and are happy they have made the change to allow campus carry."
The new policy, however, isn’t sitting well with James Manley, a lawyer for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group in Lakewood, Colo., that advocates liberty and freedom.
"We still need to see the actual language of the policy before we make a decision on how to proceed," Manley told The Daily Camera in Boulder.
University officials say less than 1 percent of its staff, faculty and students have concealed-carry permits, according to the Boulder newspaper.
Under Colorado law, to get a concealed-carry permit, a person must be 21 or older, get a federal background check and demonstrate competence with a firearm, including through a class, or military or police service.
On July 20, a mass shooting occurred at a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" in the suburb of Aurora. James Holmes, a 24-year-old former doctoral student at the University of Colorado, is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others in the spree.
Huff said there is no connection between the university's new policy and the Aurora shootings.
"The university wanted to make sure its new policy was in place before students returned for the school year," he said.
According to the university website, students will start returning to residence halls on Tuesday; classes begin for the semester on Aug. 27.
Do you have an education-related story or idea, contact NBC News' Sevil Omer at sevil.omer@msnbc.com
More content from NBCNews.com:
- 'No papers, no fear': Illegal immigrants declare themselves on bus tour
- Texas sprayed as West Nile Virus spreads
- Wildfire evacuees return to find homes gone
- Video: 3 people hurt after carriage horse breaks free in NYC
- Ex-butler who injected socialite in extortion attempt faces sentencing
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Guns keep colleges safe.
At the very least they give students a fighting chance when someone brings one in illegally.
Support that with actual evidence, Bob.
Says the man who invents numbers and posts them as fact . . .
The numbers I have posted are fact. But I see you haven't managed to support your claims on the statistics regarding the number of crimes prevented by handguns. Wonder why that is?
No, they aren't. You're just trying to present them as fact. Quite a big difference between the two actually
Let me get this straight . . . the school will segregate the students with guns from the students without guns, in separate dorms and the separated dorms will be common knowledge, right? Sounds to me like the students in the dorms with guns will sleep easier then the students that don't know what they will do if some nut with a gun walks into their dorm in the middle of the night to shoot them dead in their sleep. Oh, I know what they can do . . . die.
John,
I don't think too many dorm students think about someone coming in during the middle of the night and shooting them in their sleep.
<< I don't think too many dorm students think about someone coming in during the middle of the night and shooting them in their sleep. >> -- Fieldguy
That's the problem. None of them think about it until it happens. And then they are caught with virtually no hope of survival. Do you think the people in that theater in Colorado were thinking about it? Nope! If any trained gun owner had been in that theater with his weapon, the bad guy would have been killed within 5 to 10 seconds. Instead of running away from him in a state of panic and getting shot in the back, a trained person would have been moving towards him at an angle, and when a clear shot was available, he/she would have dropped him like a sack of wheat. Game over! Sure, one or two people may still have been shot, but nothing near the number that was shot and killed. And more important, the presence of a trained gun owner would certainly deter many other nut-cases from copy-catting this crime. It's funny, but a line from Clint Eastwood says it best, from the movie Magnum Force. He said, there's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot. LOL! But, having said all this, I want to make a very serious point here. Gun ownership and carrying a weapon is extremely dangerous. If you are going to own a weapon, and especially if you intend to carry one, you must be trained as an expert. If you don't, then you will eventually make a mistake, which might a terrible one. To have and carry a weapon is to take upon yourself great responsibility. A weapon is NOT a toy and it must be treated with great respect.
Please cite me a case of that happening.
Trying to reason with the unreasonable is a losing battle. They're incapable of understanding anything that they don't like. No amount of reasoning, presentation of fact, or even legalities, makes a difference to them. You can talk yourself blue in the face, and not make a dent. They are INCAPABLE of logical, common sense, reasoning. That's why you only get insults, hysterics, "what ifs", "how about", and any other number of feeble and unsubstantiated responses. They do not have the intellectual ability to engage in adult conversation, let alone a topic that requires fact based credibility. Why waste time? Involve yourself where it counts; with political activism and involvement. The true threat are the legislators/lawmakers, not these knee jerk, hysterical folks here. As for that other half...if you don't like firearms...don't have one. It's your CHOICE. Respect others and they'll respect you.
Can't wait to see how all of this gets to be played out in real time. Time wll be the tell all.
guess if you are gay you need to be placed in one building
Wouldn't that be discrimination....oh wait....I guess discrimination is in the eye of the beholder...or Eric Holder as the case may be. Funny no one has mentioned the shooter at the Family Research Center being brought-up on Federal Hate Crime charges...oh wait, Holder hasn't gone that route...
Sue, your bigotry and ignorance are hanging out. Tuck thay shyte back in.
Our right to bear arms was intended not to protect us from one another but instead to allow citizens to rise up against oppressive governments. This can be seen by looking at the environment the Constitution was signed in. We shouldn't be carrying in public period. Guns should be kept at home, locked up, with law enforcement the only ones allowed to carry
I'm all for gun rights, within reason
Gabriel,
Yes it would seem that armed law enforcement is becoming inconsequential at that school. Wild West.
Our right to bear arms wasn't 'intended' for anything, it just is. The reason that they specifically listed it for protection in the Constitution was for defense of the people.
If you don't think that you should be carrying in public, then do not. I think that I should carry, so I will.
Then you'll respect my right to carry and defend myself.
<< Our right to bear arms wasn't 'intended' for anything, it just is. The reason that they specifically listed it for protection in the Constitution was for defense of the people. >> -- Ringo
Wow. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, the 2nd amendment and the lack of any powers granted to Congress to regulate firearms, was intended to safeguard the people's right to keep and bear arms so they could, if necessary, rise up against an oppressive government. An armed populace is the final check and balance in our nation. If all else fails, we can still rise up against an enemy, foreign or domestic, and kick their axx. I truly wish people weren't so damn ignorant. It is because of massive ignorance that we have become, almost, nothing more than cattle and sheep to our oppressive evil government. A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant, seeks that which has never been and cannot be.
Maybe you should READ a post before you reply to it. Human rights existed long before the Constitution was written.
So, Ringo...you are saying that the Constitutional Amendments were written totally without intent? LMAO
That does not even remotely resemble anything I've said or posted. That's something that you would know if you bothered to read my post before responding.
Then you are saying the 2nd Amendment was written with intent, and isn't just is what it is, huh? Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Maybe if you spent more time reading posts before replying, you wouldn't come up with nonsensical questions like this that don't relate to anything I've posted
Wonder which set of dorms will have a higher crime rate? I guess that's kinda like asking which town has a higher crime rate, Chicago or Laramie.
No guns on campus period!
James-3709089, "Having guns on campus is a bad idea, period." Yeah, you think!? Heck, with all the partying going on in and around dorms it'll be just like deer camp...without the maturity.
Ok, let me see if I have this right . . . this school is going to separate the students with guns from the students without guns, into separate dorms and the separate dorms will be common knowledge. It seems to me that the students in the armed dorms will sleep easier then the students in the weapon free dorms. What will the students do, in the weapon free dorms, if some nut with a gun walks into their dorm in the middle of the night? Oh, I know, they die.
Won't make a difference for either dorm. Students will not be allowed to have weapons in them. Unless the university sets up weapons storage in the one set of dorms then anyone with a CCW that lives in a dorm and wants to carry will have to schlepp across campus to the public safety office.
But, Bassai -
If you were intent on entering a dorm for purposes of murder, rape or mayhem, which would you choose - the dorm where it is known that the inhabitants believe in and are ready to defend themselves, or the one where you know they don't have any interest in armed self-defense?
The second amendment to the US Constitution was implemented because the people in and around 1791 feared that an oppressive government would illegally take away their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Bear in mind that this was an additional measure to protect this right. In Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, there is no power listed that gives Congress the power to regulate firearms, in any way, shape, or form. Hence, they can make no law whatsoever regarding firearms. This means that the people have a natural right to own firearms and to carry them wherever they want as the government has no power to stop them. The Concealed Carry Permit, though it seems to allow people to carry a firearm, is the government exercising its illegal (unconstitutional) power over the people to regulate their right to keep and bear arms. Hence, your government sponsored right to carry does not make you free, it just makes you a trusted slave. What complicates this matter and keeps the vast majority of people blind and ignorant to the truth is that the government has been trying to undermine this sacred right for more than 200 years. And so today, a great number of Americans believe that gun ownership is taboo and no longer necessary. But in thinking so, they completely ignore the very purpose of the 2nd amendment. I wonder how many of you actually know what the real purpose of the 2nd amendment is. Hummm? In any case, it is wrong on so many levels for this University to segregate students based on their right to carry a firearm and to actually require them to lock their gun up when they go to sleep. Maybe the University should lock up all the students just to make sure. In fact, why not put them all in prison to really and truly ensure they don't do anything illegal. Gack!
Well said PAJ, but like my Dad always told me "never argue with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level and beat you up with their experience." I carry every single place I legally can and always will. I know way too many people who have degrees and cannot firure out how to tie their own shoelaces so they wear slip-ons. (and yes I do have an Engineering degree).
You forgot the rest of that amendment--A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE... This does not allow for private ownership of guns, only for militia members to keep and bear arms.
Jean -
You should read the Federalist Papers (wherein the framers discuss their rationale for the Constitution) before you post that. You would then know that the personal ownership of arms is paramount.
PAJ has it right. don't think so? Check out supreme court rulings.
The Anti-Federalists would also disagree.
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/rh_lee.htm
Seems liberal is the new religion.
I always enjoy reading these posts. Now I know I can classify U-C as an institution governed by simple idiots, highly educated simple idiots. Now they have marked citizens who go through the legal process of carrying a firearm. That defies the concept of a concealed carry. BS, MS & PhD. In this case that means Bull***t, More of the Same, and Piled Higher & Deeper.
It's a safe bet that none of these so called "intellectuals" have ever lifted a single finger to serve and protect AMERICA but they bask in the glory of the freedoms we have afforded them.
Bite me mr distefano.
For the neighsayors, why do you not google average police response times. Also google how many police officers have screwed up with a firearm. I am sure the results would shock you. Also, last time I checked, the shooting did not take place on the campus. How about the Gun club owner that could have reported the phone calls or the phsychologist that was counseling the shooter not saying anything? A lot of people on here that think the police will save their a** makes me laugh. How much other stuff do you depend on the government for??? That is half the issue with this country.
If you are going to ban firearms, then ban them for EVERYONE!!! This includes all law enforcement. If no one has guns, then neither does the police. This inlcides all government law enforcement. How about we also get stricter with giving out a drivers license too, and make it illegal to drink alcohol all together? Since these all kill people too.
Wouldnt it be better to do the checks the law already allows?
.
A concealed carry permit is just that, concealed. No one is supposed to know that there is a gun on your person ever, until you draw it out and intervene a criminal act of some kind. I would say that the perpetrator would never have known you had it until he saw it pointed at them. To segregate the CCW students from the others is ludicrous. And if they (the school) thinks I will surrender my arm to them for the evening, they would have another thing coming. They would not even know I had it in the first place. Again a CONCEALED carry permit.
I think the writer meant "I don't know" on that vote choice.
Bonehead.
Oh, goody. That at least makes the students on campus safe at night. Too bad they'll be in great danger of some lunatic gun owner during the day and while in class.
Why is it that you can ban smoking in areas where people object to it but guns have to be allowed everywhere. I don't want to be around anyone carry a gun period. Why can't people who don't like guns have at least somewhere we can be safe from all these gun nuts?
"Why can't people who don't like guns have at least somewhere we can be safe from all these gun nuts?"
There are many such places - outside US borders. You can go there if you legally immigrate. 'Course you might give up that free speech right as well.
I think my "RIGHT" to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" trumps any 2nd or 3rd thoughts (amendments). No one here has a clue what the founders were fully contemplating when they came up with the "2nd Amendment" (It was so not important that it wasn't even the 1st Amendment). So I say my right to live freely without people running around with guns comes before any of these after thoughts.
The Bill of Rights wasn't ranked by importance.
Your rights are utterly unaffected by other people exercising their right to carry
Read the Federalist Papers. They explain very clearly what the framers had in mind, including that the 2nd is the guarantor of the 1st.
"So I say my right to live freely without people running around with guns comes before any of these after thoughts."
The supreme court and the Constituion disagree with that. But you have the right to spout it. Nice, huh?
The Federalist Papers were written in the same cultural and societal time frame as the Constitution. There is a reason the Supreme Court interprets these things in the context of modern society.