The Kentucky Kernel has missed the mark in its examination of UK grad student Michael Mitchell’s lawsuit against the university after Mitchell was fired for having a firearm locked in his car.
Mitchell was a responsible and exemplary employee who assisted in hundreds of surgeries during his employment at UK Hospital.
The trouble arose only when an eavesdropping bystander heard a discussion about firearms and reported an absurdly exaggerated alarm to police.
When police did not find a gun in Mitchell’s locker or on his person, Mitchell sought full cooperation with authorities, stating he had a gun locked in his car more than a mile from his workplace.
The university used his honesty against him. Police confiscated Mitchell’s firearm and he was fired. In an appalling bid to make an example of him, the college even tried to revoke his unemployment benefits.
Kentucky statutes explicitly state that no organization, public or private, can prohibit a legally armed citizen from having a firearm in a car.
It’s right there in the books. An employer can’t force an employee to be defenseless for the day just because his or her car is on their lot. The law is so strong on this point that it states any employer who tries to punish an employee for having a firearm in the car is subject to damages in a court.
Ironically, Kentucky law even allows a citizen to keep a firearm locked in the car while parked on elementary or high school property.
The Kernel and the university have both invoked the sacred cause of safety as their motivation in this case. But anyone who reads crime reports in the Kernel knows UK is hardly crime free. Since only a few dozen police officers are thinly spread over hundreds of acres of campus, there is no possible way the college can guarantee an individual’s safety.
Court precedent even holds that police have no obligation or liability to protect individuals. Does it really make sense to forbid legally armed citizens from protecting themselves, if not on campus, then during the commute to and from school?
Mitchell’s job often required him to keep late hours and make trips in the wee hours of the night. The law recognizes his right to protect himself at any time of day, but the university, despite entrusting patients’ lives to Mitchell, refuses to acknowledge his fundamental right to self-defense.
In UK’s infinite wisdom, they somehow feel the only way to enforce safety is by enforcing a defense-free campus and imposing draconian penalties on any unwitting violator.
They fail to recognize the impracticality of imposing restrictions on legally armed citizens. Laws affect only those willing to abide by them.
Criminals, by definition, do not abide by the law. Therefore, anti-defense rules affect only those least likely to commit crimes.
Currently, at least four states allow firearms to be kept in locked cars on campuses at no cost to safety. The few colleges that allow firearms on campus have witnessed reductions in crime.
The Kernel is quick to point out the university has the right to control its property. Legally speaking, that is true so far as their authority over employees and students and the power to punish them for violating policy.
But how much control does (should) the college have, not just over their property, but the inside of your car, which is not their property? If they can override the fundamental right to self-preservation, what about certain types of speech?
Can they control the music you listen to? Can they regulate the political stickers you display on your car? Why not ban cars altogether, since historically they pose a greater threat?
In a quote favored by Thomas Jefferson, Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria wrote, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
So long as the college continues to put itself above the law, it will continue to offend logic and violate human rights.
David Burnett is a UK alumnus and director of public relations for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
Does this guy have or need a financial assistance fund?
I will contribute, and I will no longer give to UK until this is corrected.
I will contribute as well! I hope he does not settle w/UK and seeks all back pay, job re-instatement and huge, huge punative damages! I believe that those involved with his dismissal should be fired for their incompetence, all the way up the line. UK has the big head around town and they need to be dropped back several notches. Wear thenm out Mitchell and show not one bit of mercy toward UK.
As a UK alum, I am on board with Jake and Chris. If cannot wait for the Alumni Association calls for a donation… I’ll be sure to tell them that the money I normally send them each year is not coming and will tell them why! I hope UK learns from this, pays him what is due to him, and changes their policy. David, your column was great. It is only preventing the good citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals do not abide by policies… or laws for that matter. UK is not the law of the land!
I’d like to point out a few things:
1) UK is not its administration. Lets remember it.
2) Our alumni donations (I am an alumnus, too) are sometimes/frequently used like a slush fund for UK administrators. Case in point: poor, poor Lee Todd has a second car bought with that money.
3) From the expression of former UK Executive VP Dick Siemer: the university has an unusually large legal budget. Lee Todd and Barbara Jones are is charge of that budget. That is why UK Administration wastes hundreds of thousands of our, taxpayer, dollars on lawsuits which could be settled for a song, or better still, not allowed to happen in the first place by less boneheaded actions of UK administrators, starting with Lee Todd. This fish rots from its head.
Well done David, I’m glad SCCC has responded to this issue. UK time and time again over stepped their bounds when it comes to abusement of ours rights, specifically the right to bear arms. The university has a general problem with student’s rights historically only allowing those that are beneficial to them at the moment to be allowed. I have witnessed freedom of speech blocked time and time again as well as the right to assembly. UK must know that we will no longer stand silent while our rights are trampled on. Well done Mitchell, I’m sure I am not the only one in your corner.
Pingback: Anti-Feminist, Evangelical, Gun Nut Criticizes the Kernel. « The Kentucky Idea
Is this the same Mitchell that was arrested for arson last year in Lexington? He has a extensive criminal history. So why would you set a fire at an apartment complex?
Dave… I am the same Mitchell that was acquitted of those charges in federal court. And exactly what extensive criminal history do I have? I am unaware of what it is… maybe some speeding tickets… If I did have one, do you think Kentucky would allow me to have a concealed carry license? Way to take the high road there, Dave… if that’s your real name.
Any updates there, Mike? Did you get your pistol back?
I got it back after a few months… Waiting on the legal process…
Mike..actually my real name is david but most call me dave. Extensive criminal history was a pore choice of words, but the fact that you had federal charges and the great commonwealth granted you a CCDW does not satisfy my question of why you would think you need a weapon on campus? Were you active in this campaign before you were terminated from UK?
I dont have an issue with people being armed on campus as i think the campus is no different than any other place where you can carry a CCDW, but i question the manner in which you picked up the cause?
Ok… So basically anyone can get charged… but I was innocent. As I was acquitted of the charges. I had a CCDW prior to the charges and still maintain it afterwards. Crime happens anywhere… The University of Alabama and of course Virginia Tech are examples of being on campus when a gun could be needed. When crimes are committed in seconds, the police department are only minutes away. I conceal carry for protection. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Do you remember over the summer when several armed robberies occurred? On a totally different note, the policies set forth by UK hinders my rights that my CCDW (or even anyone openly carrying) outside of UK property. I didn’t “challenge” UK’s policy as one, I didn’t know about their policy, and two, I had it locked in my car. I could argue that I should carry walking from Commonwealth Stadium to the hospital as I could be robbed on my way… but that is a whole other issue. And to answer your question, I was not active in the carrying on campus campaign prior to me being fired. Honestly, I’m not active now. The only people that will abide by the policies (even after learning about it) are the lawful gun owners. The criminals will not… so the UK policy just makes it easier for criminals to commit whatever crime they feel like committing without resistance.