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:
People who do not carry guns have rights, too, and the University has every right to act to protect these people and also to protect itself from liability if a non-gun-carrying student, faculty member, or guest gets injured or killed.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow non-militia (i.e. non-National Guard members) to carry guns was pure idiocy. But we have to live with this idiocy until it can be overturned, and make sure that the rights and the life and health of non-gun-carrying people are protected. I think the idea of allowing people to conceal their weapons is the stupidest thing ever. The law should require that people with guns on them should have to wear a neon-yellow vest or red badge or something to identify them to everyone else who is present so they can assess the situation and take steps to protect themselves. Remember when restaurants started to separate the smokers and the nonsmokers? The same should be done in public places with regard to people carrying guns or not.
Pattie, the constitution says people have the right to bear arms, like it or not.
Your "yellow badge" sounds very much like the star the Jews had to wear under Hitler. Sieg Heil.
And the Constitution also says that I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can't cherry pick, here. Your constitutional rights do not supercede my constitutional rights.
Paul-
It's says in order to maintain a well-regulated militia that the people have the right to bear arms.
Exactly. Just how does allowing everyone to prance around with a weapon related to protecting the country, under an amendment that was worded when the new nation depended on citizens to bring their weapons and form a citizens' defense against invasions. Today, we have the National Guard to do that.
This is nonsense, Paul! Jews were made to wear a star to identify them as members of a religion, which would not have any safety implications for those physically around them. How in the hell am I supposed to know if the guy sitting next to me on a bus or in a restaurant has a gun? I don't want to sit next to him if he does. At least grant me the common decency of being able to move away from him, ask for another table or another seat, or leave and go to a different restaurant. Who is going to protect us from these people? We are sitting ducks right now! Getting a large judgment if he injures or kills somebody is too late. One thing that the anti-abortion crowd has taught us is that just because somebody has a constitutional right to do something, that doesn't mean that restrictions can't be placed on the exercise of that right. Having to identify yourself to the public in some way if you are carrying a gun is a logical regulation that balances the rights of BOTH parties.
"I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That you do, Doc. And I am pretty sure that if you could PROVE that those rights were violated by having CCW's in existence, you could get them all overturned.
I don't LIKE it, I don't FEEL safe - these aren't enumerated in the Constitution. Talk to the Supreme Court there, guy.
A nut with a gun definitely interferes with my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is inherent. As for life, when that nut with a gun opens fire because he is impulsive and paranoid, it interferes with my right to life.
It was the only possible ruling for anyone that understands English.
And your rights are utterly unaffected by someone else exercising their rights, DOCJT.
So how are today's gun owners associated with defending the nation as a militia to be mustered to defend the U.S. government against invasion? Having advanced in the last couple of hundred years, we have now organized a little organization called the National Guard in our 50 states. Do you think that the President really needs to call on citizens from every town, village, hamlet, and farm to ride out and defend us against the British, the Canadians, the Mexicans, or whoever else? Just what foreign entity are all these people with concealed-carry licenses defending us from? Oh. Damn! Duck! Here comes another heavily armed Canadian!
That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If you'll take ten seconds to go read it, you'll find no mention at all of protecting the government from anything.
Doubtful, but then again, that would be another thing unrelated to the post to which you are responding.
You're basing a question (that once more has nothing to do with my post) on an assumption.
So what do YOU get from the context of this statement in the Constitution, Ringo? From the "ten seconds" necessary to read this, it very much has to do with protecting the government. Just what the heck would the reference to a "militia being necessary to the security of a free State" mean, otherwise, in the context of a largely rural, agrarian bunch of colonies that had just declared its independence from a powerful monarchy across the ocean? Now the present-day people who wish to bring guns out in society amongst their fellow citizens seem to be saying that they expect attacks from their fellow Americans, not from some foreign entity. Why is this? What is it that each of us is supposed to fear from our fellow citizens? Yes, we have a crime problem, but every society does. You folks seem mightly fearful of your neighbors here in America. How come?
Government is prevented from infringing on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. It is specifically listed in such a way because the founders thought that the militia was necessary for the US to be secure as a free state.
Actually, it mentions no such thing. It quite specifically states that it is protecting the right of the PEOPLE.
Why do we seem fearful? That's easy: because you made an assumption instead of an observation.
So docjt, just because someone has a firearm on their person they should be veiwed as suspicious and suspect even though they have commited no crime'
You seem to think that unarmed people are to be viewed as suspicious and suspect, even though they have committed no crime. What's your point?
And this is based on what exactly?
You changed the subject docjt, what's your point on what I posted.
where do the whacked out people go when the want to mass murder people? the armed police station? or a gun store ? they go to unarmed schools, kid camps, churches, movie theaters, restaurants. how stupid to make them lock em up.
No. It's not. This is a COLLEGE CAMPUS we are talking about. People do stupid things when they are in college. Adding guns to the mix is just asking for trouble.
from the information presented in the article I would feel no safer knowing that some people are allowed to carry firearms while others are not. it is not guns that kill people it is the nut that is carrying the gun. the guy that killed all those people in the movie theater, did he have a CCW? did the guy in Texas, or the one in Virginia? just because you have a license to carry does not mean you have it on you all the time. I don't believe a university campus is a place for any type of fire arm unless carried by the police. students don't feel safe, hire more police and put on more patrols. have an after hours number to call for an escort from the library to dorm, increase the size of self-defense ckasses in the phys-ed department. othe things to do besides allow some to crry fire arms.
Put me in the segregated dorm.
Yep.
What about my First Amendment Right to NOT be shot by your gun?? First Amendment trumps the Second one.
Some important related news:
Man drops gun in movie theater, shooting self in buttocks
Gun saves woman from rape by republican:
GUNS IN SCHOOLS? What is wrong with this picture? As for protecting anybody, most of these gunowners would wet themselves and the guns would end up in the hands of the attacker...
Make it expensive with fees to own a gun; with liability insurance, registration fees, taxes, etc; that no one can afford to own one. The police can be outfitted with weapons with "smart" technology
Guns are used to thwart crime far more often to stop crime than to commit it.
They've been working on the "smart gun" technology for over 10 years now and it's still not reliable enough to use. Same with the so called "microstamping". It can be defeated by a few simple hand tools
A December 1989 CNN/Time national survey of 605 U.S. gun owners asked the following question: "Does having a gun in your house make you feel more safe from crime, less safe, or doesn't it make any difference?" Of the gun owners, 42% felt more safe, 2% felt less safe, and the rest said it made no difference. Results were virtually identical in a May 1994 survey for U.S. News and World Report. When asked "Overall, do you feel comfortable with a gun in your house or are you sometimes afraid of it?," 92% of gun owners said they were comfortable, 6% were sometimes afraid, and 2% were not sure.
In sum, most gun owners, including many who do not even have a gun for defensive reasons, feel comfortable with guns, feel safer from crime because of them, and believe their guns actually do make them safer.
Incidents in which householders shoot family members mistaken for burglars and other criminals have occurred, but they are extremely rare. Studies indicate that fewer than 2% of fatal gun accidents involve a person accidentally shooting someone mistaken for an intruder. With 1409 fatal gun accidents in 1992, this implies that there are fewer than 28 incidents of this sort annually. Compared with about 2.5 million annual defensive uses of guns, this translates into about a less than 1-in-90,000 chance of a defensive gun use resulting in this kind of accident.
It has also been claimed that many people who attempt to use guns for self-protection have the gun taken from them by the criminal and used against them. Although this type of incident is not totally unknown, it too is extremely rare. In the 1979-1985 National-Crime-Victimization-Survey sample, it was possible to identify crime incidents in which the victim used a gun for protection and lost a gun to the offender(s). At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim. Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching a gun out of the victim's hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household's guns when a resident attempted to stop him using another household gun. Thus, the 1% figure probably represents an upper limit.
Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% injury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.
Dean -
you are trying logic and facts with a bunch of people who are quaking in their little booties. Won't work, but I admire your attempt.
Why is it that none of you are ever able to actually cite referenced statistics proven that guns are used more often to thwart crime than to commit it?
The FBI and the DOJ statistics dispute that completely. Try www.fbi.gov and www.doj.gov for the actual numbers.
And while you are there actually researching the statistics, take a look at how many more times likely a gun kept in the home is to injure or kill a family member than it is to be used in stopping a crime.
Doc -
I thought you said the FBI only tracks federal crimes! Accidental shootings wouldn't be a federal crime, now would it?
Those numbers come from the DOJ. Note that I said FBI and DOJ. And if you would like another source, try the CDC.
Well that is quite intentionally misleading, since the numbers actually show quite obviously that they are used far more often to stop crime.
Man drops gun in movie theater, shooting self in buttocks:
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/15/13296949-man-drops-gun-in-movie-theater-shooting-self-in-buttocks?lite
Gun saves woman from rape by republican:
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/greg_peterson_utah.php
Life has risks! The founding fathers and Gun owers and carriers today, know one thing! Its better to take that risk than to be subjugated by a totalitarian government, or be at the mercy of organized crime and criminals in general. Thank god for the 2nd Amendment !
Take risks with your own life. You do not have any right, constitutional or otherwise, to endanger my life.
So one dorm will be safe and the others without any law abiding gun carrying students will become targets.
Oh, yeah. Because people bust into college dorms and shoot them up all the time, don't they?
Economykiller:
I think you missed the "no guns in dorms" part of the article.
I went to a university where handguns were banned on campus, but rifles and shotguns were allowed. The rifles and shotguns had to be turned over to the campus police, who made them available to the owners 24 hours a day. So, if you wanted to go hunting at 5:00 am, you had to stop at the police dept. and pick up your gun first. Guess how well that policy worked? I didn't know anyone who did it. Everyone just kept their gun in the closet.
Nobody....in favor or against gun control....can deny that some of the people posting on this story....who write in favor of carrying guns....are whackos....who are a danger to the rest of us as long as they carry those guns in public.
And the same can be said for those that would deny law abiding citizens their Constitutional Rights to self protection.
A constitutional right to self protection does not mean a constitutional right to shoot innocent people.
Has anyone said that there was such a right?
Given the number of innocent people that are killed or injured by firearms in this country every year, there are obviously many who think that is inherent in their 2nd Amendment rights.
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment, but there is a flaw in our society when we have to have students carrying guns on our campuses.
Stop the PC BS and weed out a few misfits and gang members instead of waiting for them to take us out first.
I'm sick of protecting the rights of those who want to destroy us. We are not all created equal. That statement is flawed and is the foundation for the collapse of the United States. No one is "created."
"created equal" means that we can all choose between right and wrong.
it doesn't mean that all choose right.
Israel used to have a lot of school hostage situations. They put an absolute stop to it by arming the teaches AND allowing the students to bring their weapons to their classrooms. Most of them were fully automatic weapons too.
BTW: ever wonder why there are no shootings in police stations, or police bars or gun stores, or gun shows or most any other place where citizens carry weapons?
Because the criminals have learned that gun free zones like schools and movies are better for murdering people since no one there can legally be armed.
If the government REALLY wanted to save lives they need to limit medical mistakes and limit access to motor vehicles.
Deaths from avoidable medical error more than double in past decade, investigation shows
"The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States"
From: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm
"Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81 percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident(s)."
From: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
"In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents."
From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_are_caused_by_car_accidents_a_year#ixzz1Cpn4wPAZ
"In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220."
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
There are over 25,000 laws on the book's regarding guns and gun ownership. Now, since gun deaths are lower then medical mistakes and vehicle accidents where do you think more emphasis on "control" should be placed?
Over 371,000 Washington residents have Concealed Carry Permits. How many incidents at local Fred Meyers, Wal*Marts, Lowes, Target, etc. have you seen or heard of involving a CPL holder?
The Police And Personal Protection
Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual. Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981 )
Handgun Bans: The British Experience
The crime rate in London is now higher than the crime rate in New York. Crimes with firearms have risen dramatically since the ban on handgun ownership was passed by Parliament. ("Gun law stalks Britain`s," The Express, May 14, 2001)
Study Of The Federal "Assault Weapon" Law
The congressionally-mandated study of the federal "assault weapon" law found that: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." (Urban Institute, "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994," March 13, 1997, p. 3.)
No one goes to shoot up a police station because every one of them is wearing some form of armor. Not because the officers have guns.
By the way, this is 2012. Articles over 5 years old cannot be applied to current issues. Use up-to-date materials and references please.
How stupid is this?!? Where do you think a crazy murderer will go to cause havoc now? Might as well put up signs too,"No guns here, come on in and shoot up the place, we can't/won't protect ourselves." We can all feel safer now, right?
Oh, of course. Because college campuses get shot up every day in this country.
There is a 1 to 4,140 chance of a shooting like the VA Tech shooting happening in this country. Pretty safe to say your logic shows that you don't understand risk to benefit ratios in the least.
Better chance than you posting a viable statistic!
That is a viable statistic. Just because you are uninformed, and never support your claims with actual cited statistics doesn't mean that is not a viable statistic. It comes from actual numbers and a statistical formulae applied to them.
Show me the formula.
I thought you said you had a background in statistics. It is the most elemental of all probability formulaes. Surely you know it by heart.
Translated into reality: DOCJT is unable to answer your simple question, but refuses to admit it
Actually, students on a college campus have a greater chance of being raped or have problems with burglary than being shot.
This is a good site to see some statistics (though the year only goes up to 2010): ope.ed.gov/security/index.aspx
Just make sure you put up a big sign distinguishing which dorm is which. The next crazy is probably not going to want to get shot.
One crime free dorm on campus, put me there.
Bad news, all the felons from the sports teams now know where to go rob.
What part of "no guns in the dorms" do people not understand? You will be no safer in that dorm than you would be in any other.
Rosupi -
If you were intent on commiting mayhem, rape, etc., where would you go? To the dorm where it is posted that the people inside believe in self-protection and survival, or into a dorm where the people, like on this thread, bellieve n run and hide?
Do you really think there is going to be a big sign out front saying, "THIS IS THE CCW DORM!" LMAO
It will no doubt say, "Smith Hall" or some other such campus residence name on the building. Not much of a clue there as to who lives inside. LOL
Depends on if they set up an armsroom in the administrative area of the dorm. If they make them store the ammunition there as well there might be a requirement for hazard signs for firefighters outside.
A hazard sign for rescue workers is quite a different matter from a sign proclaiming that this is "THE CCW DORM".
Buildings with chem labs have hazard signs, as well.
mpa-4893349:
Does not matter. No one will be able to access or use their guns inside the dormitory. That is the point of what I said before. NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED IN THE DORMS! Most of those people are useless without their guns and will more than likely opt for the 'run and hide' option.
The polling question is written incorrectly, as an either-or statement.
It implies that having CC students on campus will make the other students feel "less safe." This isn't always true. Many students will feel MORE safe, knowing that there are armed students around them as a deterrent to crimes on campus. If I were a female student walking to my car after dark, it would give great peace of mind to have numerous CC permit holders scattered around, so that a perp never knows who might be ready for him.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
This country is going crazy.....Dodge City is alive and well.....
Thanks dummies for ensuring the Conservative students are in a known "safe zone" ... of course the little leftist lemmings may be at peril if anything ever does go awry on campus but surely those smart little goobers will be able to figure something out if that ever is the case. (heh heh heh).
It's in the People's Republic of Boulder. There are no conservatives.
Do you have anything that supports your implication that only conservatives own guns?
Students carrying carry weapons on a campus.. to class? OK.. let's be clear here. Just because you have a RIGHT to do something, does not mean that it is in good taste or evidence of civilized behavior. Schools should be safe places, where people don't have to think about personal safety, much less guns. Unless people expect to find huntable game in their classes, they shouldn't have guns there.
Have we lost all perspective as a culture? What happened to the golden rule? What happened to doing something because it is right or polite or respectful.. and not because some constitution or judge said that you have a right to do it. Rights are not supposed to be the standard on what is good behavior.. they're supposed to set the limit on what is acceptable behavior. There is a difference. You may have the freedom of speech, but cursing out your parents at the dinner table is definitely bad behavior. You may have the freedom of association, but joining a violent motorcycle gang is viewed as undesirable and evidence of poor character. You may the reasonable expectation of privacy, but booby-trapping your front land against prospective trespassers and government officials is considered to be bad form.
It would appear that some 2nd Amendment fanatics have lost all reasoning ability and good sense. That is, provided they had any to loose to begin with.