University of Michigan's Commitment to Campus Safety

The recent ruling by the two-judge state Court of Appeals panel upholds the University of Michigan's stance on banning firearms on its campus, reaffirming the institution's commitment to maintaining a secure and conducive learning environment while respecting the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

Respecting the Second Amendment

In Wade v. University of Michigan, Court of Appeals Judges Mark Cavanagh and Deborah Servitto recognized the Second Amendment's significance, affirming that citizens have the right to bear arms. However, they acknowledged that certain environments, like universities, are sensitive places where firearm regulations are essential for public safety.

Constitutional Permissibility

Cavanagh and Servitto argued that U-M's policy aligns with the Second Amendment, emphasizing that laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places are consistent with the spirit of the constitutional right.

U-M's Policy on Campus Safety

The University of Michigan's policy regarding weapons on campus aims to ensure the safety of its community. It prohibits the possession of firearms, dangerous weapons, and knives longer than 4 inches on any property owned, leased, or controlled by the institution, even for individuals with concealed weapons permits.

Resolving Legal Disputes

Joshua Wade's lawsuit stemmed from U-M's ban on openly carrying firearms on campus. The legal process included a dismissal by the Michigan Court of Claims, followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeals, where the initial ruling favored the university's gun ban.

Supreme Court Involvement

The Supreme Court considered taking up the case in 2020 but ultimately remanded it back to the Court of Appeals following the Bruen v. New York decision. In the Bruen case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require residents to have a special need to carry firearms outside their homes.

Upholding the Campus Firearm Ban

Upon revisiting the case, Judges Cavanagh and Servitto upheld U-M's policy despite recognizing that the plaintiff's conduct is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework. They acknowledged that U-M, as a sensitive place, has the prerogative to address public safety concerns through their policies.

Dissenting Opinion

In the initial 2017 COA decision, Judge David Sawyer expressed a dissenting opinion, asserting that U-M should not preempt Michigan's gun laws. However, his absence in the subsequent ruling did not change the panel's decision in favor of the university's firearm ban.

U-M's Stance on Campus Safety

The University of Michigan, represented by a spokesperson, expressed satisfaction with the Court of Appeals' decision. U-M remains steadfast in its commitment to creating a weapons-free campus environment, with exceptions in limited cases.

Future Steps and Respectful Disagreement

As the legal process continues, Joshua Wade's attorney, Steven Dulan, stated that he and his client are exploring their options. Despite the disagreement on certain definitions concerning sensitive places and schools, the discussions remain respectful and adhere to the principles of legal advocacy.

Conclusion

The University of Michigan's campus firearm ban has been upheld by the Court of Appeals, affirming its commitment to prioritize campus safety while respecting the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The delicate balance between individual rights and public safety continues to be navigated with the utmost care and consideration at educational institutions like U-M.