What happens when a concealed carry license holder wards off a robbery attempt in Spokane, Washington, by displaying a legally owned firearm in his own apartment? He gets a big atta-boy from the local PD. But if he’s a student and rents that off-campus apartment from Gonzaga University, he gets his guns confiscated in a midnight raid. And he will, in all likelihood, be expelled. That appears to be the most likely outcome of a University Disciplinary Board hearing today to determine the academic fates of Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh . . .
After the robbery attempt, the two seniors dutifully reported the incident to the local constabulary as well as campus police. As relayed by gonzagabulletin.com,
(A)ccording to the Gonzaga Student Handbook, students may not possess weapons on campus or university-owned property. This clause triggered an early-morning return by CAMPO and a residence director, resulting in the seizure of two guns, including a shotgun owned by Fagan. This occurred at 2:30 a.m., more than four hours after the initial incident. Director of Security Brian Kenny served the men with hearing notices at 9 a.m. that morning.
The off-campus residence is located, it seems, in a sketchy part of town. And Fagan and McIntosh claim they were unaware of the no-guns policy.
Even if someone had alerted him to the zero-tolerance weapons policy, McIntosh said that he wouldn’t have gotten rid of his pistol.
“I would’ve probably not have lived there,” McIntosh said. “I would’ve moved out … I do not feel safe, because it’s the Logan Neighborhood. It’s not a good place.”
Still, the gun-free zone policy hasn’t persuaded the roomies of the University’s wisdom. To the contrary.
“What they don’t understand, is that this has done nothing but reaffirm why I had [the gun],” McIntosh said.
Actually, they do understand that, Dan. It’s just that there’s a lot less liability and potential controversy for them if everyone on University property remains a helpless victim.
Sounds like a Supreme Court case brewing.
Sad, misguided policy. As messed up as it is, as a private university they do have the right to ban guns on their property, and the right to expel the students for violating that policy. I don’t think they have the moral right to confiscate the guns, though I don’t know if CA gives them the legal right.
Dear Mr Indoctinated by the left.
No individual (or organization) has the right to deprive another of their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to Life, Liberty, Property or the ability to protect it. There is no such construct, Under any circumstances. See also the Bill of RIghts where this is explained to the Federal Gov’t (and the States/Counties/etc/etc/etc).
Of Gonzoland ______ doesn’t like firearms it is of no relevance at all.
If you don’t support the right of people to control what occurs on their own property, you don’t support the right to private property. Private property is one of the main pillars of liberty. You need to rethink the full implications of your position. I may not agree with the policy of the university, but I don’t have the right to deny them private property (unless I want that turned around on me, which I don’t).
Private property is one thing. But when you’re a renter and your apartment is your castle, your landlord’s property rights shouldn’t supercede your right to proper self-defense in the place you call home.
Now if I went to my landlord’s house and he wanted me to disarm he would be well within his rights. But my apartment is MY home. It doesn’t matter if it’s the landlord’s property, because I’m paying my landlord for it so that I can live there. It is my legal residence. The landlord doesn’t get to dictate what objects I may or may not possess.
Private property like your home is one thing. Private property catering to the public is another. Think different? Try banning Negroes.
The law has dealt with similar issues before, which led to the restrictions upon the behavior of those owning and operating common carriers and public accommodations. Your right to determine what happens on a structure you own clearly depends on the use to which you put that property. Banning the possession of firearms in off-campus housing seems a stretch. Is the president of Gonzaga forbidden to have a pheasant gun stored in his home? If so, is that enforced at 2:30 in the morning? We have at least one Gonzaga Law graduate commenting on this site. I assume GL students will fight for tenant freedoms?! After all, off-campus tenancy by contract is not the equivalent of dorm room occupancy by fee, which on its face gives less than full rights to residents.
It would depend on the lease, unless there is statutory or case law to the contrary. I was assuming the no guns policy was stated in the lease. Land lords can fine you or kick you out for having pets if the lease contradicts that, for having waterbeds, hot tubs, and certain kinds of appliances. Of course the renter has rights, and I never meant to imply that it was OK for them to break in and seize property without notice (or at all, really). I am no lawyer, but I would be very surprised if a no guns policy outlined in a lease is illegal (I’d bow to someone with superior legal knowledge on that though). I think it’s crappy to ban guns in a place where people live, and I wouldn’t agree to those terms.
However, morally speaking, yes I still think that any written agreement between two free people concerning use of private property should be alright, as long as the agreement is freely entered by both parties.
Dear Mr. THinkS heS GOD’S! gIft to legal ANalysis
Your opinion is not infallible and your grammar makes my eyes bleed. Come back after you read the rest of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and jurisprudence regarding contracts and private property- something which conservatives often like to harp about, right? Contrary to your own self-inflated ego, you are not endowed with some sort of mystical pixie dust that lets you decide what society can and cannot do. You can argue about what you think is right, but since the society you live in does not entirely agree with you on every level, your choices are to live with that fact or remove yourself from society.
There are three ways an individual can lose his rights. First, he does not know what his rights are in the first place(thus, he does not know what to protect), second, if, in the exercise of his rights, he deprives someone else of their rights (this is usually done in the context of a crime), and third, he voluntarily gives away his right (Yes, officer, you can come into my house and look around without a warrant. Yes, Mr. Landlord, I agree to not keep guns in the house I’m renting from you.) Sad but true.
It is unclear from the news story whether they lost their right do to the second possibility or the third.
The US Supreme Court has ruled a few times that Property Rights supersede other rights, including a couple rulings on superseding your 2nd Amendment rights. In other words, an owner’s property rights allow him to usurp your right to have a gun while you are on his property.
Or they could have voluntarily waived their right, by signing a contract to that effect.
They may have the right to ban guns on their school, but it’s questionable as to whether they can ban guns in off-campus housing. Even worse is the 2am illegal entry by a landlord and seizure of the tenants’ property. That one they can hit the school with hard. There are renter protection laws in this state, and that seems clearly illegal to me.
If they own the apartment building, they do have that right, as long as it’s clearly spelled out in the lease (if it’s not spelled out in the lease, that’s another matter). We may not like it, and I sure wouldn’t attend that school (as is my choice), but I don’t have the right to deny them private property.
To clarify, I am not saying anything about going in the apartment without the renters’ permission and seizing property (which, as I stated above, is morally questionable at the very least). I’m just speaking to the right to ban gun on property they own.
I’m going out on a limb here (crazy, I know) and back up Ol’ Ben here:
The lease they signed likely contained language directly regulating the property to the rules and regulations of the university (i.e. no firearms or weapons on campus).
“The lease they signed likely contained language directly regulating the property to the rules and regulations of the university”
Seems shaky at best…Pretty sure the rules and regs cannot specify no Bibles, Korans or other religious books inside the residence nor can it say religious materials must be present. Pretty sure they can’t say sexual activities inside the residence are prohibited nor must they occur. In Texas, Castle doctrine even permits handguns inside of temporary housing such as hotels without a CHL.
“No guns” clause is probably in the rules and I’m sure they prohibit alcohol and probably smoking. This only means the rules/regs and the Constitution are in disagreement…and will continue in like manner.
I have a curious question. If the 2nd amendment denies the government any authority to deny ownership of firearms, does it also prevent the courts from enforcing contracts that do the same?
For the record, all ‘rights’ issues revolve around government authority and I believe it’s far more productive to frame the discussion about them in those terms.
I don’t think the constitution gives someone the right to carry a gun on private property, even if you are renting it. Whether it has been interpreted that way, I don’t know and won’t argue.
Regardless, We have two separate questions, here: What is moral and what is legal. Whether restrictions on firearms specified in a lease are legally binding in WA is a legal question (as pointed out above). I still suspect most judges would support restrictions on firearms, even if they wouldn’t support restrictions on religious material or sex acts (for instance). Lawyers could debate the application if there is any ambiguity. That is indeed for a court to decide.
And then there is the moral aspect of this, which I think some of you are missing. Like most of you, I don’t like it that the University would deny their tenants the means to effective self-defense. However, the true test of someone’s morals isn’t in tolerating behavior they like, it’s in how they treat people that do things they don’t like. If you own property, you should be able to do with it whatever you wish, give it to anyone you wish, loan it to anyone you wish, under any terms you wish, as long as you don’t harm the person or property of a non-consenting other. If this isn’t true, you can’t own property in any meaningful sense, which is one of the defining conditions of slavery (or servitude more generally).
The principle of freedom of association is also applicable. You have no right to tell your neighbor whether or not they can keep a gun, but you should be free to avoid associating (socializing, doing business with) anyone for any reason you choose. If my neighbor refuses to associate with me because I have a gun, that’s his right. It’s my right to think he’s a putz for taking this position, but I should not be able to force him to socialize or do business with me.
So, if the property owner enters into an agreement with the explicit understanding that the property will not be used to store guns (or worship Allah, or listen to mellow jazz, or have anal sex, or produce the perfect origami crane), and the other party enters into the agreement of their own free will, then I would call it a morally binding agreement between free human beings. If the tenant then decides to use force (in this case, force of law) to change the agreement after the fact, then the tenant is immoral in my book, and the fact that he thinks the property owner is a putz/bigot/idiot doesn’t justify that use of force. If you don’t like a property owner’s conditions, do business with someone else (take advantage of your own freedom of association). Use your freedom of speech to convince him he is wrong. But don’t use naked force (government) to deprive him of his right to dispose of his private property. That’s statist and anti-libertarian.
Freedom for ALL, not just those who share my values.
I don’t think an off campus apartment is on campus.
California can’t give them any such powers (not rights) because California never had them to grant, since we the people never gifted the state with the power to violate the 4th amendment.
How can the campus police for a private university “seize” a firearm?
I just read the article at the Gonzaga Bulletin. The campus police showed up with the university’s campus housing people, who had keys to the apartment. They knocked and then let themselves in, and went about searching the apartment while the residents were still asleep in their bedrooms.
No warning, no warrant — and it appears that the Spokane PD is testifying on behalf of the residents against the university. The gun confiscation is going to bite the university in the a$$, hard.
They can expel the students if they really want to, but if they do they’re going to really piss off all their regional neighbors. This is eastern Washington, not some progressive-infested Seattle neighborhood. And it sure as hell ain’t that parasitic Washington in the East.
Since the university owns the apartment, the university police would be able to go in, similar to a landlord and renter relationship. But I don’t know where the heck they think they have the right to seize a firearm for a violation of a campus policy. Even if they are give police powers by the state, there was no law broken, merely a policy of a school. I hope he sues their asses off.
Having rented in Washington — both university-owned apartments and privately owned — my experience says that there are laws about this, which my landlords were always very careful to observe.
If there’s an emergency (life or death, or severe property damage) they can go in without giving notice. This happened to me one time when some idiots (on the top floor, of course) left their apartments unheated for the entire winter break — this being eastern WA, pipes eventually froze and burst, and the landlords rushed into every unit in the building to make sure heat was on and water wasn’t spraying everywhere. Fair enough.
Otherwise, if they want in and you don’t answer, they have to give written notice (24 hours warning, iirc) before they can go in without your consent. Of course, a warrant is its own permission.
The landlord can’t come back hours after the emergency was resolved (in the middle of the night, no less), just let themselves in, and take stuff they don’t think you should have. Even if your contract says you can’t have it, it’s YOURS and they can’t just waltz in and take it. They can call the police if they see something illegal or start eviction proceedings, but that’s it.
Unless the law has changed for the worse in the last few years — or the courts agree that anything a university owns is a school and therefore a no-rights zone — Gonzaga has screwed the pooch.
It still requires a warrant. Just because people rent a house or apt doesn’t mean they are not allowed the protection of the B.O.R.
I don’t know anything about Washington law, but I can tell you that what they did would clearly violate California law and I assume general principles of the landlord tenant relationship. the landlord does not have a lf-help remedy of entering the tenant’s apartment without notice except in an emergency, and under no known theory that I can imagine do they have the right to lawfully seize the tenant’s lawfully owned property. Case law has clearly established that a public landlord does not have the right to bar firearms from the tenant’s apartment, and even if a private landlord may do so, the remedy is by eviction, not invasion and seizure. If the students decide to sue, there are ample grounds for recovery of damages. I have little doubt that Washington has some form of tenant protection statute–all big cities do, and most states.
While I am not a lawyer, I do know enough about rentals that once the contract/lease is signed the landlord does not have the legal right to enter the premises at their discretion and without notice except in the case of a legal warrant being served by law enforcement or a bona fide emergency. I also had a situation I California where the landlord attempted to enter unannounced while I was “in flagrente delicto” with a lady friend. Some controversy ensued. Bottom line, once they have rented the space they no longer have unfettered access so long as the lease is in effect, and even in cases of evictions sometimes not for some time after the lease has ended.
If the landlord becomes aware of a violation of the terms of the lease they can take legal action to have you evicted. They most certainly cannot simply walk into your rented space unannounced and confiscate your personal property any more than they can arrive with armed security and demand your immediate departure. IMO, they are lucky no one was shot during this invasion of privacy.
If they are not sworn officers, they are not police but armed security guards.
Midnight raid, eh? Do the cops just like these tactics for the fear factor? Or are they just insomniacs?
Too bad about the dog.
Mustve missed that, because I didnt see anything about a dog.
Wikipedia: ruby ridge massacre
And about 500 other screwed up SWAT and LEO raids.
I got the joke. Lol.
Because being a victim is morally superior to being a survivor
This whole seizing-the-guns thing smells fishy.
Gonzaga is a private university, which means the state’s prohibition of guns on campus doesn’t apply; they can make their own rules on their own property. And being a private entity, I’m pretty sure they don’t have any more right to confiscate a resident’s personal property than I would if I were someone’s landlord. Although their campus police might have legal authority…still, fishy.
As for the sketchy neighborhood bit, Spokane is stuffed to the gills with them. Gonzaga might have been in a “nice” part of town at one time, but it isn’t anymore.
I’m pretty sure that even being private property they can’t ban guns on property that people (i.e. students) are rightfully leasing from them. Once the students lease the apartment then it becomes their home where they are allowed to engage in WHATEVER legal conduct they want to as long as it does not hurt the property.
Simply owning and having a gun is a constitutionally protected legal activity that causes no harm to the property. INAL but it seems like Gonzaga could be in for some legal backlash if they choose to pursue this. I hope the kids have a good lawyer.
There are MANY contractual agreements that can be entered into upon a lease which prohibit “legal” behaviors. This does not make the activities illegal but the landlord then has cause for all sorts of administrative actions for a breech of contract, including termination of the agreement (which was already technically broken by the renter).
That still doesn’t include illegal entry in the middle of the night while they are sleeping. Frankly, that would get a cap busted on their asses.
It’s not about liability. It’s not about controversy. It’s a culture war, and the American “educational” system is the indoctrination center.
The schools do a great job of indoctrination. When it comes to education, they suck. That’s why Johnny can’t read, write or add up a column of numbers. But he knows that 2A has something to do with service in a government-run militia.
I agree that the education system is on the indoctrination side, but only for K-12. Once you get to higher ed there is no indoctrination. The official stance of most higher education institutions is that’s just the way it is so live with it and shut up. There are large pockets of disagreement within higher education but is not acceptable or good for your job to disagree.
YMMV regarding higher “education.” I’ve had the misfortune over the years to interview experienced college graduates for a position on my Computer security staff. The requirements are pretty simple: be technically literate; be able to write short emails in English, and be able to “figure simple stuff out” (a basic analyst position). Fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, ah crap close enough. Most colleges anymore seem to have adopted the Oriental emphasis on memorization and regurgitation. Nearly all the kids I’ve interviewed couldn’t figure out how to cross the street without an adult holding their hand.
Gonzaga (I’m assuming it’s a Jesuit institution from the name) screwed up due to their underlying liberal philosophy. Unfortunately this isn’t the 17th century. I don’t think their Provincial will be too happy with their President, given the bad press they’re getting…
“There are large pockets of disagreement within higher education but is not acceptable or good for your job to disagree”
As someone who sees it from the inside, I agree wholeheartedly with the latter. I haven’t come across any large pockets of disagreement, however.
“I haven’t come across any large pockets of disagreement, however.”
I think it depends on the location of the school and who you consider part of higher education. As for disagreement where I am, administratrators – no, faculty – very little, staff – large pockets.
Colorado Supreme Court ruled students at the University of Colorado Boulder were allowed to have concealed weapons. i.e. campus ban was overruled
Spokane is an extremely pro-gun city, about as ‘Red’ as you can get even in the mostly pro-gun state of Washington. They’ll get their guns back, and it probably won’t take Alan Gura to get them.
Agreed here in liberal Seattle you would have to make a legal suit and take it to the state Supreme Court. No guarantees once it got there, since the court is made up of activist liberal judges. Ah being Red in a Blue state/city is so hard.
OMG, those same activist liberal judges on the Washington State Supreme Court that have just struck down the law that prohibited carrying of firearms in public libraries! Shock, horror!
And before that, those same evil libruls told Seattle that it can’t ban guns from its parks, because the state constitution says otherwise:
And before that, it was the first state supreme court to recognize that RKBA is not just a right in the state constitution, but it also comes from the Second Amendment being incorporated via the 14th and therefore fully applicable to the states (before SCOTUS decision on McDonald v. Chicago), in a 7-2 decision:
Those damn sneaky liberals!
I dont think I wouldve been greeting anyone with anything less than a 00 sandwich after someone breaks into my house the same night. This seems like the culture war that is bleeding over to any facet of life, better to be turned into a criminal or a corpse than defend yourself.
In this state “Washington” legally they could have shot to kill. Off campus housing is just that off campus, thus not entitled to a no gun on campus policy.
The moral of the story is never report a defensive gun use unless shots were fired.
Gonzaga is a good school (Jesuit), but the policy is definitely wrong. Not to mention they should have no power over a student’s off-campus life if it doesn’t interfere with their studies.
That being said, they don’t call Spokane good ‘ol SPO-COMPTON for nothing.
If I am recalling my first-year torts class correctly, if Gonzaga prohibits firearms legally possessed for self-defense, which they have the right to do, and they are renting apartments they own to students in a dangerous part of town with a high crime rate, which appears to be the case, then they are accepting a duty to those students to protect them from harm not only in the apartments themselves but also en route to and from those dwellings.
A good soaking by a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer might change their mind. Or a good talking-to from their insurance carrier’s risk assessment department.
I think you need to retake your first year torts class. There is no such duty except to the extent that a condition of the property (lack of lighting for example) unreasonably increases the risk of harm where the risk of harm is known to the landlord. For example, a property owner may have a duty to light a dark parking lot where there is a known risk of assaults (fights) occurring there. Otherwise a landlord is not responsible for the intentional tortious conduct of third persons for two reasons: (1) such acts are generally deemed unforeseeable, and (2) an intentional wrongful act is usually deemed the direct or superseding cause of a loss when compared to the negligence of a property owner.
Now that apartment complex will be burglarized fairly regularly, since everyone in that place is now disarmed.
They’re a private university, they own the apartment, and they don’t have campus cops. They have campus security.
I’m guessing they asked the local police to do this.
Anyway, I smell a lawsuit in the making.
I agree with the other poster above: don’t call the cops unless shots were fired. The criminal sure as **** isn’t gonna call the cops.
Granted, it’s unlikely in this case, but I’ve been told that you should call the cops ESPECIALLY if you’ve pulled your weapon. You need to make sure that you are seen by the police as the complainant. You never know when a bad guy will run to the cops claiming you pulled a gun on them for “no reason”.
That’s ridiculous and is just going to get you in legal trouble.
This guy tried to break into their apartment. I bet you he already has a long rap sheet.
Sorry, anyone tries to break into my house and is fortunate enough to get away (or not) after I threaten them with force, I’m calling the cops.
I’ll put in a plug for Branca’s “The Law Of Self Defense”.
Private universities (at least the large ones with which I have personal experience) do seem to have police, which is something I don’t understand (and admittedly have never bothered to check up on). But they do seem to have full police powers.
According to what I’ve read, the city PD answered the 911 call, investigated, and told the students “good job.” The campus security (police?) were there also.
About 4 hours afterward, the campus security folks showed up with the campus residential affairs folks, let themselves in without waking up the residents, and started confiscating their property.
Crap like this makes me want to set up a school run by people who actually know some useful knowledge and who are willing to teach. I have some controversial, but well-supported, ideas on how to make the school succeed:
#1: Admission will be male only. No women need apply.
#2: It will employ only men. Again, no women should bother applying.
Ideas #1 & 2 will eliminate the touchy-feely nonsense that permeates all of higher education today.
#3: It will be run with a hard emphasis on results over process.
#4: It will teach only useful skills. There will be no philosophy, “women’s studies” or other nonsensical majors.
#5: There will be an emphasis against specialization and stove-piping. Specialization is the
evolutionary adaptation of insects, not mammals and certainly not humans.
#6: There will be a requirement for everyone to get dirty. If you’re seeking a plush education where you can remain clean and well-pressed all day long, this would not be your choice of school.
Hey, the 1930s called…
given the accomplishments of the greatest generation educated that way , we would be wise to answer.
as a parent whoo has a son and daughter both in college at the present, you would not believe the diffrence in how “welcoming ” college is . for the tdaughter , :-), the son, 🙁 .
Yea. The 1930’s called. And they said “Men used to be able to make a good living when we made stuff in this country.”
Now, unless you’re a government employee, with both feet and your snout in the taxpayer-funded feed bunk, you’re not doing so well unless you’re a politically connected banker. As I said below, dig into the BEA and BLS stats and you will see how men in the private sector have taken it in the neck in the last five years.
Your wholesale rejection of philosophy renders your educational opinions null and void.
(Unless you were joking…were you joking?)
Philosophy is a grand subject to study when you have a steady source of income.
This would be a school that gets young men well-paid jobs when they graduate. Unless one wants to spend even more time in academia, I don’t see many paid jobs, much less well-paid jobs, for philosophy majors.
If you go look deeply at this most recent recession, you see that women made out pretty well. Men got slaughtered in the employment and wage stats.
And none of that negates the value of philosophy. Philosophy isn’t about money, nor is it the driving force behind the fact that our country has (for whatever reasons) destroyed its own economic foundations.
Job training and education aren’t necessarily the same thing.
“Job training and education aren’t… the same thing.”
Funny, I’ve heard that repeatedly from academics justifying why their graduates are living in mommy’s basement, eating ramen noodles and wondering how they’re going to pay $50K+ in student debt.
What the hell is wrong with these so called schools lately???? That’s a great idea, buy up project housing that needs to be bull dozed to begin with, throw a couple grand into a auction bluff, you know clean up the place. You know half assed!!! And then throw students that aren’t even from there in the dangerous s43t holes, and expect them to be safe because there’s a sign that says NO GUN ZONE!! Freaking STUPID, and these people are supposed to be educated.
You might as well put up signs that say come rob, rape, and murder us, because there’s not 1 dam thing we can do about it!! And while I am at it maybe they would like to absorb my college debt, of over 100k??? Complete the courses and go into the job assistance office on campus and state, I graduated, now where’s my job you promised. That’s when she said ” the job field you took classes to qualify for is severely over populated with experienced trained workers, and we cant place you in that field.” Then she had the kohonas to tell me “we can reenroll you so you can get other skills the job market is looking for” Ohh and by the time I graduate those will be gone as well! Plus another 50 or 60k more on my student loans!! No thanks, got a job as a paramedic EMT, My dad offered me a job with the OFD before I went off to school, shouldah couldah!!
Bottom line these schools are making a fortune, while we and parents foot the bill. These jokers should be put up on charges for RECO LAWS. There as shady as hell, and not safe at all, not even close. Just search the net for robberies in the last 24hrs on colleges, you’ll get about 25 hits. And that’s not rape or murder. Not to mention sex crimes! Criminals know, these kids will be like shooting ducks in a barrel, so they ignore those little signs saying GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE, because being arrested for caring a firearm is the least of there worries if caught, plus the DA or states attorney almost always tosses those charges in the trash can and goes after the PLEA DEAL which will most likely be a knocked down to a lessor charge. The OLD REVOLVING DOOR. But the media never talks about crimes on campus, bad for business and tourism. I also should mention, just because a house is owned and maintained by such school, doesn’t necessarily mean its school grounds. I am no attorney, but this one seems winnable to me.
So answer me this. If the courts never hold a business or university financially liable for damages because of the actions of a criminal on their property, why would the courts hold a business or university financially liable for damages because of the actions of a patron or student on their property?
My bad todays web search yielded 31 crimes of robbery, from armed to strong armed robbery on college campus’s across the nation. But yet not 1 on the few campus’s with STUDENT CARRY allowed, GO FIGURE!!
MOST students can’t carry anyway–most states require you to be 21 to get a CCW, and thus only seniors, returning vets, and grad students would be allowed to carry anyway
Which would tell criminals that potentially 25% of any persons they might encounter on campus or in campus housing could be armed or accompanied by someone who is armed. How would you react to those odds if it was your profession? I suspect the average bad guy would not be able to reliably determine the class level of a potential victim and/or their companions and so would be deterred from planning criminal activity on or near that campus or in campus housing. Those BGs that didn’t even have that degree of logical capacity would rather quickly “audit” the class on “Darwinian evolutionary theory”, and fail.
Maybe so in CIVIL COURT. Whens the last time you read any college brought up on CRIMINAL COURT charges for anything, that’s right NEVER!!
This might be a good time to remind folks to support their state’s chapter of Students For Concealed Carry. http://concealedcampus.org/
I happen to work on one of those “Gun Free Campuses”, and while recent state law make it no longer a crime for me to conceal carry here, I can still lose my job, even if I am a licensed CCH holder and store my firearm in my own private vehicle. Gun Free campuses are a target rich environment for criminals. Unfortunately, my wife, my 20-year-old daughter, and myself are unable to provide for our own safety while we work or go to class.
If you rent it…it’s your home. You’re allowed to do whatever you want in your home…yes, there are lease policies…but campus security bothering me at 2:30 to take my guns…yea, they wouldn’t have gotten them….no way no how. I’d pack my things and leave that night.
I hope he sues the crap out of them.
Yes, the 2AM visit and seizure of property is wrong. I would think the most they could do would be to tell them to remove the guns from the property.
Agreed. At 2am I don’t answer my door. Someone forces their way through the door, they’ll get my guns, lead first.
And besides, what parent wants a check when there kids bin robbed or worse, the key to this whole thing is KEEP THE STUDENTS SAFE and a metal or plastic sign is as useful as harsh language when your being attacked. GUNS DONT KILL BY THEMSELFS, I’ve never seen my 1911 get up off my night stand and go and take a life. Young people as well as older people have the right to keep and bare arms! And have the basic right to defend themselves with a gun or not, there choice!! The key to free society is CHOICE!! You don’t like guns, then don’t own one, but by taking away my CHOICE isn’t FREE AT ALL, that’s TYRONY!!
Growing up my dads buddy made that same argument… “Every now and again I load up all of my guns line them up on the table”. He would say “. I tell them they are free to go out and run around, shoot up the neighborhood, and have a good time”. He would pause a second……. ” non of my guns have taken me up on that offer yet”
“Midnight raid” is exaggerating a bit…. The guns should have stayed there, I think they more needed than ever after the attempted robbery/ home invasion. Good on the young men too, they did right.
But a midnight raid? Sounds like the university officials were there after the attempt, which happened after midnight. And if they was no doors getting kicked in or other forcable entry its not much of a raid, sounds like the boys turned the guns over after the incident while the campus Bozos were there… Most likely to avoid gettiing expelled.
Just to comment on the guy saying “just call the police” 98% of the calls I respond to are clean up, the crimes bin committed the people are already hurt or worse. It takes less then 2min for me to break in a front door responding to a medical or fire call. We the fire dept beet the cops there 9 out of 10 times, because there very busy. Most cops will tell you, “your on your own till we get on scene”, what they don’t tell you is if you call 911 and tell them you have bin home invaded and they haven’t found you yet in the closet or where ever, the cops don’t just rush into a unknown environment half hazard. They will show up and wait for backup to arrive. Then cover all exits, wait for SWAT. Meanwhile your inside with the home invaders with or without a firearm. So yes call 911, but relize help could be only minutes away to your front door, but how long till they make entry, and how long do you have to live??? Answer me that one, I think ill keep my guns, and live longer with them!! Just something for you anti gunners to think about!
Might be hazardous for the First Responders if they are unarmed (as most EMTs and firefighters on duty are), but it seems like what you are saying is that if you have a home invasion in progress it would get faster results for you if you called 911 and reported that you are suicidal or having a heart attack. Paramedics arrive in 2-3 minutes and kick down your door to save your life, no hesitation. With any luck the lights and sirens will cause the BG to run out the back before anyone gets shot. Waiting for the po-po to respond/make entry to a residence with a potential armed BG might be different, especially since they are likely to BLOCK the BG’s exit and force him to take a hostage.
Its against most dept policy, as it is ours to carry a weapon on duty. That being said, in certain rough neighbor hoods its not un common, especially in gang areas. Our jobs dangerous enough with out being shot by a gang banger because your trying to revive his victim. I remember many times being the first on scene in the rescue unit with engine truck not far behind and find myself in the middle of two groups of over 50 people, all wearing gang colors, we roll 2 trucks deep even for med calls. So a total of 6 firemen, trying to find a stabbing victim reported to be laying face down in a pool of blood in the center of the street. Just one problem, I ask a couple of fellas there as we run up whose bin cut??? 6 reply nobody yet as they look at us..The guy was 35 foot from us and bled out before cops could get it under control. These sue do libertarians can talk all they want, just ask them when the last time they felt terrified just to do there job, behind layers of highly trained ARMED TO THE TEETH SECURITY mind you. So yeah I’ve bin in some rather heated situations in the past, no pun intended. My policy has always bin, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
Good thing I don’t attend a liberal university. So the school would rather their students die and avoid blame then let them carry and enter a possible lawsuit from someone’s hurt feelings? How are they expected to teach subjects when they don’t even have enough common sense to understand the issue?
“So the school would rather their students die and avoid blame then let them carry (?)”
Sure. That’s the long and short of it. Students can always be replaced. In fact, it’s two tuition payments for one slot at the school. Win-win.
Mark, your right, however, if another student has a CCW and is carrying and something happens you have instant response No waiting for help as a criminal picks you and your friends off. It should be a BLANKET of protection from armed police, and armed campus police, armed teachers and students. Problem solved. Its only when we have layers of protection can we respond quickly and professionally. Not to mention a hell of a lot cheaper then hiring off duty police to feel in the gaps. You can have training mandatory for teachers and students, workshops if you will, where students, teachers, local PD and trainers could sit down quarterly and discuss current problems that are arising. This would bring faculty and students together to work on specific problems going on there. It would be much safer then now!
Well THERE’S the solution! The university should be required to provide each student in university housing with a Kevlar blanket. Problem solved.
I recall a university law student in Idaho suing a few years ago over the right to have arms in off campus housing. I’m not sure how that case turned out, I think he lost.
Who. What. Where. Why. When. Guess which one you always omit?
I went to high school with Erik and I can tell you now, he has my absolute support as his case goes forward. Zero tolerance? Please…
Most universities in major cities are like this, especially ones that have been around a long time. My best friend went to Pitt, and he lived only a few blocks from campus, but i swear we were in the worst ghetto of pittsburgh. It was a bit sketchy, i personally wouldn’t feel safe there without something.
The School should be Sued for Denying their 2nd. Amendment rights, but did the Kids “Read: their Rental agreement?. Apparently not as if the wording prohibits firearms and they signed the Agreement, then they have No leg to stand on.