The court held 4-1 that the state constitution does not grant the University of Utah authority to enact a firearms policy that goes against state law. The U. had argued that a provision of the state constitution that has preserved a measure of corporate autonomy for the university since before statehood allows it to make internal policy independently.

The court decided, however, that the U.'s constitutional autonomy as a public corporation does not exempt it ³from the obligation of all Utah citizens and entities to follow Utah law.²

That makes perfect sense. The U. is a state university, after all, and must be subject to citizen control through the Legislature. On the surface, it sounds absurd to make the argument that the U. should be exempt from state law.

What has pushed the university to take this seemingly unreasonable stand is the Legislature's romance with the dangerous idea that any citizen who doesn't have a criminal record should be able to get a permit to carry a loaded, concealed gun almost anywhere he or she wishes. All that is necessary is a single gun-safety class, a background check and a nominal fee.

This runs afoul of a policy the U. has had for many years that students and staff could not bring guns to campus without special permission from the police chief. The Legislature has pressed the issue, passing a law in 2004 prohibiting state agencies or local governments from enacting rules that limit firearms possession on public or private property.

The U. has argued convincingly that its gun policy has worked well. It makes sense that if people are going to engage in uninhibited debates, as academic freedom demands, that the U. does not wish to open the door to intimidation or accidents by people carrying guns.

The U. must be subject to the Legislature and its laws. It is a pity, though, that in this case, the law is on the wrong side of public safety and common sense.