Student expelled for loaded guns in car

[DaveH]

If it's legal to have guns on campus in VA, can the school really get a search warrant to enforce their policy? I can understand searching his dorms and his person, but I find it really hard to believe they would be able to snoop through his vehicle if he wasn't suspected of breaking anything but campus policy.

Campus policy could be the prohibition of guns on campus, including the public streets, parking lot, etc. May be even a more expanded area. When I (a 24 year-old, veteran) was at VPI (now VT), I could have been kick out for drinking within five miles of campus -- even in by own apartment. My wife could be kicked out of Radford for being in town in shorts, slacks, etc. Even though we live off campus she had to wear a dress to the Laundromat. There are still colleges in the state (and elsewhere) that kick students out for dancing. The rules are part of a contract.

At UVa, VT, and the other public colleges which are open for citizens carry they would need probable cause for any criminal code action -- the same as in any town county, etc.

OTOH, when a students enroll, or an employees are hired, they enter into a contract in which they consent to all types of restrictions and agree to the lose of rights relative to administrative and civil matters -- be it guns, drinking, or shorts.

Private colleges' restrictions are backed up by trespass violations. I'm not at all sure how search of non-students/employees would work. OTOH, the contract with students/employees would likely be binding, for the college to search at private colleges.

In any case, expelling someone is not a criminal matter and none of the Bill of Rights play. "You have a right to [fill in the blank], but you do not have a Constitutional Right to be a student/employee/on campus/etc.

It is not unlike lots of employers which have no-gun polices and can legally search your car in their parking lot.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Gun Loving Liveral]

Having worked in the field of mental health for almost 20 years this is always a very tough call. I have never met the individual involved so I have no idea if I would have described him as a danger to himself or not, but every case you have to take on its own facts. If a person is making suicidal statements of any kind, especially if they mention a specific method, and they have ready access to the method they describe it is a real warning flag. I don't know just how serious the 'story' or 'paper' this student wrote sounded, but if he wrote about shooting himself and had loaded guns with him all the time that takes it to a more serious level. It would be the same if someone talked about hanging themselves and we find 20-feet of just purchased rope in their car.
I do not know about the laws in every state but in Oklahoma a person does not lose all rights for an evaluation, only if the court finds them incompetent.
At the end of it all, I am glad the guy seems OK.

[DaveH]

in Oklahoma a person does not lose all rights for an evaluation, only if the court finds them incompetent.

Wish that were true in VA. Maybe Del Albo HB 815 will make it into law.

BTW -- for the latest on this vet, see:
Expelled UVa-Wise student to continue legal battle - Roanoke.com

[DaveH]

No threat to himself or others. But still out of school

Why? Because he wrote a fictional story for a class assignment. He was just trying to address school shootings such as the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech massacre, which left 33 dead, including the gunman. The story "was supposed to show how disturbed people are who do that...."

The only way to restore liberty on college campuses is to restore
campus carry. ..... ..... ....

See:
Schools Struggle With Dark Writings - WSJ.com

[ElMonoDelMar]

This story seems like a bad deal all around. It really is a shame that this kid lost his permit and was expelled. Though the expulsion seems legal and quite prudent considering he violated the school firearms policy.

I am curious, though. For those people that say his writings are protected under the 1st amendment, how much protection does that offer someone to write "fictional" violent stories about others? How specific must the stories get before they are considered threats of violence?

For me, I'd say it's a tough call. I'm a big supporter of the entire Bill of Rights, but just as you can't go into a crowded theater screaming "FIRE!" some common sense should be used when writing violent fictional stories. When the stories get so specific that they would cause a rational person to fear for their safety, then maybe they should be called into question. That's just my take.

[CR2008]

and what is even better!! (sarcasm)...is this guy will no longer be able to own a firearm since he was involuntarily committed. Ya think the antis found their new tool to beat us with? After all, they think we're crazy for carrying, much less owning a firearm (/sarcasm)

If you can be tried for a "thought crime" then all the have to do is claim gun ownership is a "mental disorder" along with hunting etc and before you know it, those child molesters will be considered MORE NORMAL than a gun owner/ conceal permit holder.... that's how sick these "psychologists" have become today.

It sounds as if a guy's girlfriend/teacher/wife etc can also get a restraining order because her boyfriend/student/husband purchased a gun, probably they can involuntary commit him as well... you think those freaks over at NAMBLA will be treated the same down the road? They got the ACLU in their back pockets but where is the ACLU here for searching cars due to 'thought crimes?"(North American Man Boy Love Association) NAMBLA's Home Page


Probably if the guy was not a Vet, but a NAMBLA member or ACLU member, writing badly would not have made the school "suspicious" enough to search his car.

Still, the guy was not smart because he had is weapons on campus WHICH IS OFF LIMITS.... the broke the law but what REALLY SCARES ME is the "thought crime" thing... may be YOUR CAR will be searched to because of your NRA T-shirt, or bumper sticker.

How can this great nation survive with all these

[Hopyard]

Some things (situations) just don't have easy answers. I knew a guy who was dragged from his house and held for 3 days because he said something to a psychiatrist, and she completely overreacted.

There are two things which need to be safeguarded, and they are in conflict.
1) We need a way to commit those who need care, for their safety and ours.

2) We need to safeguards against irrational or rash acts by folks in authority that would enable them to cart almost anyone off on flimsy or unprovable grounds.

These two things are in conflict and I don't think there is any way to reconcile them and find a satisfactory mid ground.

I do think that if a teacher chooses to give creative writing assignments, s/he should expect creative writing. If she doesn't want to see that kind of stuff, don't give the assignment.

Who is that famous writer of horror stories? Steven King??

Bet his teachers would have had a field day, as would any psychiatrist brought in to exam the thoughts, or any magistrate who had to rule.

In short, if the prof. had not asked for it, it wouldn't have happened.

And I don't like the idea of using his Iraq service experience against him with the assumption that he must have PTSD. EVen if he does have PTSD, most folks who suffer from that suffer quietly, and are no danger to anyone including themselves.

[SixBravo]

I recall reading a story not long ago about how the New York Times ran an article going nuts about PTSD-afflicted Iraq War vets killing their families in record numbers. Then the next day a vet's advocacy group blasted them because the murder rate for Iraq War vets is ~1:100,000 versus ~5.5:100,000 for the rest of the population. If anything, I would say that the Vets are more stable than the rest of us and the whole idea of using their experience in war as a way to judge them is a hazy prospect.

As for overreacting? Maybe. How many of us sat in our chairs and shook our fists at Fox News when they told us about the VT shooter's writings and all of that? I am sure some of us wanted to know why the professors hadn't done something. Maybe others wanted to know why they hadn't done something because stuff like that isn't 'normal' and they never did it when they were kids.

Given that he was writing stories about suicide and murdering teachers, I think the administration was well within their rights to look hard at the student. Force him into psych evaluations, though? Absolutely not. Especially when he went through the trouble of getting a CWP. That decision should have been made by the local attorney's office AFTER dealing with a few lawyers.

Of course, this is all assuming that the scuttle on here is true - that he wrote about killing his professors and suiciding himself. If he wrote a paper about an analysis of the event, then that is something different altogether. With what I do in school, it would be a perfectly viable topic for a paper. Though common sense would dictate that it be discussed with one of the Deans, the professor, and possibly a few others beforehand. If the guy is telling the truth, I think he screwed-up because he didn't talk to anyone before submitting it.

[MR D]

P.S. do not write threateningly, using the name of your instructor when your instructor is the son of Justice Scalia (SCOTUS)

[DaveH]

Still, the guy was not smart because he had is weapons on campus WHICH IS OFF LIMITS.... the broke the law

FWIW, he did not break the LAW.

Here In Virginia, I can and do carry on some college campuses. I have not been to that particular campus of UVA, but if I did, I could carry.

What he broke was a contract between himself (a student) and the institution, which is implied in the application/acceptance fine print.

Once the new Laws go into effect this summer, he would not have lost his CHL because of the detention, either.

Under the new law in Virginia, if the police believe the person is mentally ill, the police can take the person in front of a judge. If the judge feels that the person needs to be evaluated to determine if the person is mentally ill, the judge can then issue a temporary detention order and the person will then be held and evaluated for 48 hours.

Under the new law your rights are not yet lost.

(NOTE: Under the current law as soon as the temporary detention order is issued, you lose your gun rights, even if you are later shown not to be mentally ill -- as happened in this case.)

Under the new law, if the evaluation shows that you are insane, then the judge can either involuntarily commit you to an inpatient facility for treatment or the judge can let you have outpatient treatment. Whether you get mandatory inpatient or outpatient treatment, you lose your gun rights. If you choose to do voluntary outpatient treatment, skipping going to court, the new law requires that you must be warned that doing so will cause you to lose your gun rights.

For that reason, I would never agree to voluntary outpatient treatment! You have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Go in front of a judge and fight it. Of course, I am not a lawyer and you need to get proper legal advice if you find yourself in such a situation.

Another good point in the new law is that there are provisions where you can petition the court to get your rights restored, once you are well. There are even appeal provisions so that if the court denies your petition, you can appeal to a higher court to get your rights back. Unless the court can show that you should not have your rights restored because you still have mental-health problems, then the court is required to reinstate your gun rights!

MAKING THE LAW SIMPLER SO THAT SOME OF THE MORE ANTI-GUN JUDGES CAN UNDERSTAND IT.

That said, I have no idea if those rights are also available to someone who loss their CHL under the current Law