Associated Press News Release
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- A Florida university is going along with an appeals court ruling that says universities can't regulate guns on campus.
University of North Florida President John Delaney on Friday told students and faculty that the university would not appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
Delaney's message also stated that effective immediately campus rules would allow students to store guns in their cars.
Earlier this month the 1st District Court of Appeal sided with a UNF student and a gun rights group that had challenged a rule regarding guns in cars.
Florida law currently prevents anyone from possessing or exhibiting guns at schools and universities. That ban doesn't automatically apply to guns kept in cars although school districts are allowed to enact their own ban on guns in cars.
Story by: James Buechele
"You still can't have it in your residence hall," said FSUPD Maj. Jim Russell. "You can't carry one into class or just tote one around campus."
Russell says a ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeals changes the college's policy on weapons in cars.
Thanks to the court's decision, it's now legal to have a gun securely stored inside your vehicle while on the campus of Florida State University.
Some student we spoke with said they're fine with the measure as long as the owners are responsible.
"As long as it's secured on campus in your car and you don't flash it or anything I don't see a problem with it," said Tanner Ross.
"I think it's alright because everybody's entitled to protection and there's some crazy people out here that we should protect ourselves against," said Shanice Guerrier.
But not everyone is on board.
"It may be a safety hazard just because you never know when a situation or uproar may happen and a student may reach for the weapon," said Emmanuel Johnson.
THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, December 10, 2013..........A splintered appeals court ruled Tuesday that state universities cannot bar students from storing guns in their cars while on campus.
The ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal, which drew seven separate opinions from the 15-member bench, was 12-3 on the merits for striking down a policy at the University of North Florida barring firearms stowed in cars. The majority opinion drew eight votes, with some of the members drafting separate, concurring opinions, while four other judges joined a different opinion agreeing with the court's result.
At issue were the rights of Alexandria Lainez, a student at UNF who said she wanted to be able to keep a gun in her car for self-defense while going to and from the school. Florida Carry, Inc., joined Lainez in her lawsuit.
According to a dissent in the case, similar policies are also in place at the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida.
Under state law, guns are banned on school and university properties, with an exception carved out for people who secure firearms in their cars. However, the law also says that school districts can waive that exception, meaning they can also bar guns in vehicles on school property.
UNF said its policy was legal because the university should count as a school district, and a Duval County judge agreed. But the 1st DCA reversed that ruling.
"The statute clearly grants school districts the power to waive the exception -- not colleges or universities," Judge L. Clayton Roberts wrote for the majority. "UNF attempted to exercise this waiver in adopting the operative regulation; however, UNF is not a 'school district.' "
In a dissenting opinion, three of the court's judges ruled that UNF had the right to institute the gun policy under its own constitutional powers, as long as it didn't try to enforce criminal penalties for violating the rule.
"It is fair to assume that most parents expect state universities to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of their daughters and sons while they are in school. ... If the university concludes that the best way to protect students is to prohibit guns on campus, it is not for the Legislature or the courts to interfere with that judgment," Judge Philip Padovano wrote in his dissent.
Many of the separate concurring opinions differed on how the majority opinion should have responded to that argument, but none of them found it to be a convincing reason to allow the policy to stay in place.