The state constitution says for "lawful purposes." Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.
So where's this "conundrum"?
It says “AND OTHER lawful purposes.” The “and” is obviously the English-language list/last-item connector.
The VERY FIRST item on that list is that of “security and defense.”
The statute obviously infringes on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense; or can you guarantee that no citizen will be housed on campus grounds?
The statute obviously abridges the right of the citizen to hunt on university grounds, as well as recreational shooting.
If you take the “other lawful purposes” as a catch-all qualifier then you could ban guns altogether — regardless of the citizen’s right to security and defense — because the ban would make the usage and/or ownership of those arms illegal... and therefore not protected by the Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms section.
>Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.
PS — If you want to get into the minutia of the details, one of the exceptions in that law is firearms in a “private conveyance;”
Ditionary.com defines conveyance as:
1. — the act of conveying; transmission; communication.
2. — a means of transporting, esp. a vehicle, as a bus, airplane, or automobile.
3. — Law.
a. - the transfer of property from one person to another.
b. - the instrument or document by which this is effected.
It is obvious by usage that Definition #2 is what meant in the statute; it i the only reading that makes sense.
Dictionary.com defines holster as:
1. — a sheath-like carrying case for a firearm, attached to a belt, shoulder sling, or saddle.
Now, it is obvious that a carrying case is a conveyance.
So I should, therefore, be able to open carry on campus, no?