Legal reasoning??

Good News Bad News situation.

First the bad news; a judge in Colorado dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
I'm not sure I understand the full legal reasoning here. It seems one of those bizarre only in the legal world definitions.

The students claimed that the state Board of Regents was an agent of government subject to state law allowing concealed weapons in certain circumstances. Miller ruled that regents are a statewide authority with their own legislative powers. He also found nothing in the state constitution that would prohibit the regents from enacting a campus gun ban.

So, a state ran entity, elected by the people of the state but they aren't bound by the state constitution or law? Someone help me out with this.

Now the good news...some judges get it.

Miller wrote that while "any right-thinking person" could see that a campus shooting spree could be mitigated by a well-placed concealed weapon, the students' argument was flawed.

Sounds like he wanted to overturn the ban but the legal basis for the challenge wasn't accurate enough.

Any lawyers out there or do any of my 4 readers know a lawyer who might be familiar with this case, I would be interested in hearing from others.

Please leave a comment.