Abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage. Now a group of Utah gun-rights activists wants to add firearms to the list.

Judicial appointments are a political process, so advocates on one side or the other of wedge issues are always going to try to influence the outcome. But we hope that the governor and the Utah Senate take a broader view of judicial qualifications, because a judge's single ruling on a hot-button issue is no way to evaluate his or her overall performance or suitability for the bench.

A group called Gun Owners of Utah has taken aim at Judge Robert Hilder and former Judge Scott Daniels, saying that both are biased against gun owners and therefore are not worthy of appointment to the Court of Appeals. We do not agree.

The firearms activists are miffed at Judge Hilder because he ruled in favor of the University of Utah in its lawsuit defending its policy forbidding students and employees from bringing concealed weapons to campus without the permission of the police chief.

The U. claims that a provision in the state constitution allows it to make internal policy, and that extends to guns. The Legislature, through the attorney general, insists that the state's liberal concealed-carry laws trump the U. policy.

Hilder ruled in 2003 that the state's gun laws were not meant to interfere with the U.'s internal policy on guns, but he seemed to hold the door open for the Legislature to change that.

We believe that the judge ruled as a matter of law, not bias. He was correct that when the statute was passed, it was aimed at preventing cities and towns - not universities - from passing gun laws that conflict with state law.

The case is on appeal at the Utah Supreme Court.

We support the U.'s policy. But if Hilder had ruled the other way, we would not have concluded that he was biased against gun control. It simply would have meant that he read the law and precedent differently.

The gun owners are opposed to Daniels because, as a member of the Legislature, he sponsored a bill to require background checks for firearms sales at gun shows. But legislating law is one thing. Interpreting it from the bench is another.

Daniels, having done both, knows the difference. That breadth of experience should stand in his favor, not against him.