A ridiculous power struggle

State lawmakers have won the first round in the battle over who has the right to set rules regarding guns on a state university campus. But the bigger question ought to be why they are pressing this costly issue at all, forcing taxpayers to bear the cost of appeals through federal courts.

Has there been a rash of crimes on the University of Utah campus that demands students arm themselves? Are there even very many students on campus who genuinely care about this issue, or is this something trumped up by a few lawmakers with an ideological ax to grind? Shouldn't universities be places of free inquiry and learning, safe from intimidation?

All of these questions boil down to one disturbing answer. This issue, as state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff accurately put it, is not about guns at all. It is about control.

OK, so the state Supreme Court has settled that issue. In a 4-1 decision last week, the justices ruled that the U.'s long-standing policy against allowing firearms on campus violates state law, and that state law trumps a university policy. So now that that's clear, can we all get back to the issue of what would be a reasonable and intelligent state law regarding guns on campuses?

Under current law, it appears officials would be unable to bar a concealed weapons permit holder from bringing a gun into a football game at Rice-Eccles Stadium, or into the Huntsman Center for a basketball game. This would render security checks outside these arenas pointless.

Statistics have shown that even concealed-weapons permit holders sometimes commit crimes. Does this sound like a reasonable situation in a post 9/11 world?

Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe lawmakers will decide any time soon to change state law on this issue. And so the university's lawsuit, which originally was filed in federal court but was sent to state court by U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, is likely to proceed. What is worse, a showdown may be looming as university officials insist they will continue the gun ban until the case is finally settled.

We understand the constitutional issues. We support the right to possess firearms, whether for personal safety or for sport. But reasonable exceptions must be made for public safety. Arguments that guns lead to greater safety have not held up under scholarly scrutiny. Surely, a law that allows guns on university campuses ought to be changed.