[Star Traveler]

You said — “The consequences to “carry anyway” are rough if it gets you thrown out of school or arrested. (Seems to me they could only arrest you if carrying on campus was a violation of law, not just school policy as at VT.)”

The prosecuting attorney in the case where the Colorado university student had guns in his dorm (in violtion of school policy) — said that he considers it a *violation of the law*, as he puts school policy as “law”. That’s why the university student was arrested.

So, I’m not so sure about it simply being “policy” in some of these cases.

The fact of the matter is — that “law-abiding” gun owners are going to *shy away from* anything that looks like they’re going to run afoul of the law. These *particular kinds* of gun owners (i.e. the “law abiding ones”) are not going to be the ones who decide to see if they can set themselves up for being prosecuted.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[AnAmericanMother]

That prosecutor is exceeding his authority. "School policy" does not equal "law". A couple of people tried that in personal injury cases here in GA, claiming that violations of company policy or internal rule manuals constituted a violation of law and negligence per se for liability purposes. That was rejected outright by the courts -- and in the criminal law, it would be even more so, because a defendant has a constitutional right to have a reasonably understandable violation of the law charged against him. Any attempt to charge somebody in GA that way would result in a demurrer being granted to the indictment (i.e. the indictment would be dismissed).

Sounds like a Nifong, Jr. is loose in Colorado.