Students for Concealed Carry On Campus, LLC v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo.

• Decision Date: 15 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09CA1230.,09CA1230.
• Citation: 280 P.3d 18
• Parties: STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Martha Altman; Eric Mote; and John Davis, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO; Stephen Ludwig, in his official capacity as Regent; Joseph Neguse, in his official capacity as Regent; Monisha Merchant, in her official capacity as Regent; Michael Carrigan, in his official capacity as Regent; Tom Lucero, in his official capacity as Regent; Steve Bosley, in his official capacity as Regent; Kyle Hybl, in his official capacity as Regent; James Geddes, in his official capacity as Regent; Tilman Bishop, in his official capacity as Regent; Jim Spice, in his official capacity as Chief of Campus Police, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Pam Shockley–Zalabak, in her official capacity as Chancellor, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Doug Abraham, in his official capacity as Chief of Campus Police, University of Colorado Denver; and M. Roy Wilson, in his official capacity as Chancellor, University of Colorado Denver, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

280 P.3d 18

STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Martha Altman; Eric Mote; and John Davis, Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO; Stephen Ludwig, in his official capacity as Regent; Joseph Neguse, in his official capacity as Regent; Monisha Merchant, in her official capacity as Regent; Michael Carrigan, in his official capacity as Regent; Tom Lucero, in his official capacity as Regent; Steve Bosley, in his official capacity as Regent; Kyle Hybl, in his official capacity as Regent; James Geddes, in his official capacity as Regent; Tilman Bishop, in his official capacity as Regent; Jim Spice, in his official capacity as Chief of Campus Police, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Pam Shockley–Zalabak, in her official capacity as Chancellor, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Doug Abraham, in his official capacity as Chief of Campus Police, University of Colorado Denver; and M. Roy Wilson, in his official capacity as Chancellor, University of Colorado Denver, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 09CA1230.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

April 15, 2010.

James M. Manley, Lakewood, CO, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Patrick T. O'Rourke, Margaret Wilensky, Denver, CO, for Defendants–Appellees.

Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., Edward T. Ramey, Denver, CO, for Amicus Curiae Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Opinion by Judge HAWTHORNE.

Plaintiffs, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, Martha Altman, Eric Mote, and John Davis, appeal the trial court's judgment dismissing their claims against defendants, the Board of Regents, individual Regents, Chiefs of Police, and Chancellors of the University of Colorado (collectively Regents), under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

In this case of first impression, we consider whether the Concealed Carry Act (CCA), sections 18–12–201 to –216, C.R.S.2009, applies to universities. Because the statute expressly applies to “all areas of the state,” we conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under the CCA. We further conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief under Colorado Constitution article II, section 13, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The Regents enacted the Weapons Control Policy 14–I (the policy), which prohibits “the possession of firearms or other dangerous or illegal weapons on or within any University of Colorado campus, leased building, other area under the jurisdiction of the local campus police department or areas where such possession interferes with the learning and working environment.” It permits possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons “for peace officers or others who have written permission from the Chief of Police ... or from the Chancellor after consultation with the Chief of Police.” Additionally, “[f]irearm storage may be provided by campus police as a service to students or employees residing in campus housing.”

An individual found to have intentionally or recklessly used or possessed a firearm or weapon in a way that would intimidate, harass, injure, or otherwise interfere with the learning and working environment, “shall be banned from the University campus, leased building, or other area under the control of University campus police.” The minimum disciplinary sanction for a student is expulsion and for an employee, termination of employment.

The Regents included the following justifications within the policy:

• The possession of firearms, explosives, and other dangerous or illegal weapons on or within any University of Colorado campus, leased building, areas under the local campus police department's jurisdiction or areas where such possession interferes with the learning and working environment is inconsistent with the University's academic mission, and seriously undermines it;

• “[Possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons] threatens the tranquility of the educational environment in an intimidating way and it contributes in an offensive manner to an unacceptable climate of violence”; and

• The University's “educational mission should attempt to teach and model those values which are held to be important to the nation as a whole.”

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the policy violates the CCA and the Colorado Constitution's Right to Keep and Bear Arms Clause. See§§ 18–12–201 to –216; Colo. Const. art. II, § 13. The complaint alleged the following:

• Plaintiffs Altman, Davis, and Mote have met all of section 18–12–203's requirements, have no history of substance abuse or criminal activity, have demonstrated competency with a handgun, and are not subject to a protection order;

• The Auraria Campus Police Department's 2007 Campus Security and Safety Report indicates that since 2005, nearly a dozen forcible sexual assaults and almost fifty robberies and aggravated assaults have occurred on or near the Auraria campus, where the University of Colorado at Denver is located;

• Plaintiffs Altman, Davis, and Mote intend to possess a handgun when traveling to, from, through, or on the campuses of the University of Colorado for self-defense, but are prevented from doing so by the Regents' enforcement of the policy;

• Plaintiffs Altman, Davis, and Mote were all denied permission to carry a concealed handgun on campus; • The policy denies campus visitors the right to bear arms in self-defense, including prohibiting possession of firearms safely stored in vehicles that are parked on or driven through campus; and

• The policy “is an unreasonable regulation of the right to keep and bear arms” and therefore violates the Colorado Constitution.

The trial court concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, and therefore granted the Regents' Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal.

II. Standard of Review

We review de novo a trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss, accept all factual averments as true, and view the complaint's allegations most favorably to the plaintiff. Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358, 367 (Colo.2009); BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66, 71 (Colo.2004). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the complaint's sufficiency. C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5); Lobato, 218 P.3d at 367. A court cannot grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless no set of facts can prove that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Lobato, 218 P.3d at 367.

III. Analysis

A. CCA Claim

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in ruling that their complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the CCA. We agree.

In construing statutes, courts seek to effectuate the General Assembly's purpose and intent. Askew v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 927 P.2d 1333, 1337 (Colo.1996). In interpreting a comprehensive legislative scheme, we give meaning to all portions thereof and construe statutory provisions to further the legislative intent. A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 806 P.2d 917, 920 (Colo.1991). We look first to the statutory language, giving words and phrases their commonly accepted and understood meaning. Askew, 927 P.2d at 1337. If the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not resort to interpretive statutory construction rules because we presume that the General Assembly meant what it clearly said. Id. Where the statute's language is plain and clear, we must apply the statute as written. In re 2000–2001 Dist. Grand Jury, 97 P.3d 921, 924 (Colo.2004).

With these principles in mind, we turn to the CCA's text. The CCA “provide[s] statewide uniform standards for issuing permits to carry concealed handguns for self-defense” and mandatory procedures for sheriffs to follow in issuing permits. § 18–12–201(2)(b), (3); see § 18–12–203 (criteria for obtaining a permit); § 18–12–204 (permit contents, validity, and carrying requirements); § 18–12–205 (application procedure); § 18–12–206 (issuance and denial of permits and reports); § 18–12–207 (judicial review of sheriff's decision); § 18–12–208 (Colorado Bureau of Investigation's duties); § 18–12–209 (temporary emergency permits); § 18–12–210 (permit maintenance, address change, permit invalidity); § 18–12–211 (permit renewal process); § 18–12–212 (exemption for foreign jurisdictions); § 18–12–213 (reciprocity); § 18–12–214 (authority granted by permit and carrying restrictions); § 18–12–215 (immunity); § 18–12–216 (permits issued prior to May 17, 2003).

In enacting the CCA, the General Assembly declared the following:

• There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to ... identification of areas of the state where it is lawful to carry concealed handguns;

• This inconsistency among jurisdictions creates public uncertainty regarding the areas of the state in which it is lawful to carry concealed handguns;

• The criteria and procedures for the lawful carrying of concealed handguns historically ha[ve] been regulated by state statute and should be consistent throughout the state to ensure the consistent implementation of state law;

• It is necessary that the state occupy the field of regulation of the bearing of concealed handguns since the issuance of a concealed handgun permit is based on a person's constitutional right of self-protection and there is a prevailing state interest in ensuring that no citizen is arbitrarily denied a concealed handgun permit and in ensuring that the laws controlling the use of the permit are consistent throughout the state.

§ 18–12–201(1)(a)–(b), (d)-(e).

Based on these findings, the General Assembly concluded, “The ... carrying of concealed handguns is a matter of statewide concern.” § 18–12–201(2)(a). Section 18–12–201 thus reflects the legislature's intent to create uniform statewide standards concerning the carrying of concealed weapons.

Section 18–12–214(1)(a) provides:

A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed...