As a graduate of the University of Utah and a concealed-carry permit holder for seven years, I feel I must take issue with Stephen H. Gunn's "My View" titled "Gun rights don't trump property rights" (May 10). In a manner typical of the anti-self-defense crowd, Gunn confuses the issues at hand (in this case gun rights and property rights) and uses unsupported statements to strengthen his irrational stance against firearms and those who choose to legally carry them.

Mr. Gunn claims that the Utah Legislature's recent bills prohibiting private property owners from preventing those with legally concealed firearms from entering their property have, in effect, "elevated gun rights above property rights." Nothing could be further from the truth. Ownership of private property is not absolute. In fact, it never has been. Although a person may have an absolute claim of ownership to a piece of real property against the ownership claims of all others, the state as a sovereign is able to restrict how a property owner conducts himself on his land. A simple example of this is a zoning ordinance.

In like manner the sovereign (the state of Utah acting through the elected Legislature) has decided to regulate private property owners by prohibiting them from preventing those with legally concealed firearms from entering their land. This is not a case of gun rights trumping other rights. Why? Because absolute, unrestrained use of one's land is not a right recognized by the law. The Legislature merely exercised its sovereign powers to prohibit property owners from discriminating against lawful citizens. The real issue here is a collateral attack on state endowed gun rights by the anti-self-defense community through clouding of the landscape and distorting reality.

Mr. Gunn also confuses what he calls "arming the university community" with allowing certified citizens to exercise their rights to the fullest. This charge by Mr. Gunn and those who lend ear to him at the University of Utah is another example of collaterally attacking the rights of the citizenry and the power of the sovereign. The Legislature is merely forcing the university to obey the law.

Furthermore, concealed-carry permit holders bringing firearms onto the campus is not "virtually without restriction" as Mr. Gunn claims. Among other requirements, permit holders must be at least 21 years of age, pass training courses, submit extensive fingerprints, pass an FBI background check and submit two letters of character from fellow citizens. Permit holders are also held to higher standard of conducts given their right. They are open to stiffer penalties for misuse of a firearm than ordinary citizens. Such a process is hardly "without restriction."

View Comments

Mr. Gunn also implies that with the passing of the concealed-carry laws, the universities have experienced a rise in crime, yet offers no proof.

If Mr. Gunn, the University of Utah and their cohorts dislike concealed-carry permit holders, they should undertake lawful procedures found in the political process of our government to change the law, not disobey it.

As a permit holder, I take great offense to those mired in irrational thought and ignorance that accuse me and other law-abiding citizens of posing a threat to society. Until Mr. Gunn and his group actually offer evidence of a real threat, they should be renamed the "Gun Rights Prevention Center of Utah." That way their true motives would be revealed.


Jeremy Shaw lives in Salt Lake City.

Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.