This is a discussion on Unbelievable within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Devildog
VA offer to the families of the VA Tech because they allowed the easy slaughter of there family members. No dollar ...
March 25th, 2008 10:34 PM
Although the amount may be an insult, if Virginia is like most states, the courts will hold as a matter of law that there is no negligence, and that the handgun laws are within the discretion of the state. In other words, the offer of $100,000 likely is a gratuitous benefit. To begin with, a state may not be sued without the state's permission. Permission is given via statutes (tort claims statutes) which set up the circumstances in which a state may be sued, and usually there is a ceiling on the amount.
Originally Posted by Devildog
For example, in Texas a public school cannot be sued for anything whatsoever except for vehicle related claims. The ceiling for a claim against a Texas county is $100,000 and for cities it is $250,000. If the Virginia incident had occurred in Texas, it is almost certain that there would be no liability. Virginia law may not be a whole lot different. There may be a Virginia lawyer in this group that can give a more specific answer related only to Virginia.
March 25th, 2008 11:02 PM
...Families would also have the opportunity to question the governor and university officials about the shootings, according to the family member...
This should add insult to injury...
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
March 26th, 2008 12:25 AM
I don't normally approve of lawsuits and I have never sued anyone in my 36 years on earth. However, I this case, I would like to see the familes sue V.T. to the point they have to close their doors. It is pure B.S. for any institution government or not, not to allow people to protect themselves and not provide adiquate protection. There are a lot of people who need to wake up and vote out the pieces of crap that pass these laws.
March 26th, 2008 12:59 AM
Sorry, but I can't agree with any of this lawsuit nonsense. Terrible as the situation was, stealing more money from other folks that had nothing to do with it doesn't solve the problem, nor does it make it right. It only serves to show that we're all willing to compromise everything for the whim of a majority bent on finding anyone and everyone to blame to sooth their writhing emotions.
Suing VT itself as a private entity doesn't solve the issue either and has the same effect as suing the State. You think the State won't bail them out if they're sued over this? Think again folks. That means it's being taken out of the hard earned effort of folks that had NOTHING to do with the act.
As for the comments about the illegality of carry at tech, it is NOT state law that students cannot carry. It's only a school policy. Only K-12 and VCU are specifically mentioned in state law. Those who "lost" their ability to defend themselves...lost it of their own accord.
Don't missunderstand my words. I'm not saying it's those who were harmed own fault for being harmed. That fault can only lie with the shooter. I'm saying NO ONE can fully take your ability to defend yourself from but you without physical force. The only way any one can do that is by armed aggression, ie initiation of force. They had not just a choice, but choices. 1) The rules of the school are clearly written and they chose to stay; 2) They chose to follow the school rules and play the schools games, the schools way...defenseless. Law had nothing to do with it.
Once the shooter was down...there's no one else to blame. You can play the blame game to the end of time, but one thing will always remain true. The person that pulled the trigger is to blame; not me, not you, not your neighbors, and not that annoying guy living 3 houses down and steals your paper every morning.
Life's about choices and everyone in this situation learned via the school of hard knocks.
Sounds harsh? GOOD! It's reality. That's the way it is and always will be. This dog doesn't wear wool. Well, except on my feet... in hiking boots... in the winter...
Off to clean my drink off of my TV screen...caught the story on the evening news just before I logged on here...
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
March 26th, 2008 11:43 AM
Most school systems where constructed in a time and age, when such a shooting was not only unthinkable, but was never even conceived. And the only threat they imagined was destruction and theft of property, and possibly a few students getting out of line.
Many colleges are open flow building plan and over the years, towns have built around them, and use the same street. So you can not build a fence around the campus.
It is next to impossible to set up MD booth at all entrances. And even running one MD booth at each building, the cost including cops or private security to man the booths would be staggering, and would bankrupt higher education.
Sure, itís easy to say allowing conceal carry on campus would resolve the problem. And while I think itís a step in the right direction, I hate to say it but it will not resolve the issue of security.
And remembering my college days, Iím not sure all students should be allowed to get a CCL and carry a pistol. Sure some 18 year olds are adults, and are capable of rationing the complex situation put before them, but many are not.
Unlike the 18 year olds that go into our military, students would not have the training, and conditioning to accept such a demanding issue and responsibility.
An easier plan would be to persuade teachers/professors to get a CCL and offer firearms training, and encourage open/conceal carry.
Well, thatís my 2-C worth...sorry for the rantÖ
March 26th, 2008 02:36 PM
pakinnova: Very well thought out and very well written. I fully agree.
March 26th, 2008 03:00 PM
I tend to disagree with some of the logic behind the way of thinking of catgorizing a group of people based souly on something they have joined. Stereo types are generally never good, and even saying that somebody should be allowed to do something based souly on X reason is not a good way of thinking in my book. Take the pilot that just had the ND in the cockpit He had over 50 hours of training in firearms the systemed still failed, or he just had an accident. Being in Northern VA and working at two firearms training centers I've seen numbers of people come in from all walks of life. Civilian, Military, LE.
Originally Posted by tns0038
Ability to manipulate fireamrs doesn't rest souly on a credential you learned in one of these and haven't practiced in years, it generally comes down to attitude towards firearms. Most people assume that somebody is "trained" based souly on participation in Military or LE. Trained maybe. Responsible is another question that has no aplicability with an agency. I've seen a number of highly trained cops/ military and have participated in training with them and if they are "GUN PEOPLE" and take that part of the job and incorporate it with there love of firearms they do very well and are highly trained and responsible. If they do it because they have to, and do not practice its a whole another ball game. I've seen secuirty guards that can't hit a target at 3 feet, while I've seen others that could be competing in Expert/ Master Classification in IDPA. Because they have incorporated this as part of their lives.
As one former poster said its a choice. If your serious about this stuff and you take in consideration all angels incorporating a multitude of differn't things, and you practice I don't care where you came from. I would feel comfortable around you and guns.
If you stay static on a range shoot, shoot at paper, don't really get any practice from a holster, don't know how to incorporate moving and shooting, or have no idea what a basic tueller drill is, how does one expect that your proficent from the whole picture. Most military folks rarely get practice with anythign other then a rifle, and probably did not get trained on how to draw a gun from a strong side holster properly in the military, unless your MP and then even that is a maybe. If they do its most likely from a drop leg or a flap style holster which is not concealed nor is it generally relative to CCW on the civilian streets. Granted they maybe very good at that system, but the only way to get better with something is to use/practice/ and train with it. A fighter pilot isn't given an airplane after watching topgun, and working in a simulator. Why should a former soldier with no CCW training on laws in that state or experience drawing from a concealed holster be given special treatment. Just a thought!
ďAre you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the roomĒ?--Chuck Swindoll
Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!
March 26th, 2008 03:24 PM
As unpopular as this viewpoint may be I am going to voice it anyway.
Virginia Tech did not deny anyone their right to self defense. They were under no obligation to be on that campus. Their policy is in writing and I believe every student and employee gets a copy of the school policies. They were there of their own free will. They were left helpless by their own informed consent. Each and every person there made a conscious decision that to them what the school was offering was more important to them than carrying a weapon was.
No one I know of expects homicidal maniacs to follow rules, policies or laws. They gambled and they lost. If they were not willing to take that gamble they should have taken their tuition money elsewhere.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
March 26th, 2008 03:31 PM
I agree with what you said. "They were left helpless by their own informed consent."
The only problem is that there are few major institutions of higher learning that don't draw this line in the sand of Education vs. Security. Most people, even with all of the shootings going on, will choose 4 years of education over security in return for a lifetime of reaping the benefits of an advanced degree.
I don't agree with suing the schools, as they are allowed their own policies. But perhaps a large settlement or the threat of one will make other institutions change their policies to allow security and education to co-exist. At the minimum the exposure will bring the discussion more attention and perhaps more people will learn the facts and see the light.
March 26th, 2008 04:25 PM
That would be a good plan tns0038, except for the very same rules of no carry at VT (and most others who prohibit) already did and still do apply to 21 year olds and above and all the way up to 150 year olds including Staff, Faculty and Graduate students.
And I don't know of many places that an 18 year old is eligible for a Concealed Weapons permit nor can even own a hand gun. So I am not certain where you start your argument there about 18 year olds or why you include it. If you passed a law today that allowed carry on Colleges and University's and prohibited the College or University from barring it, in almost every case in the nation, everyone would be 21 years or older and would then include Staff and Faculty.
The fact is that VT had no duty to protect individuals. But they denied them one tool to do it themselves. So they took some liability on by doing that. And they still do it. Even today...
March 27th, 2008 08:02 AM
It's the lawyers who are playing th efamilies as pawns and pushing this so they can make big bucks on the heart stings of others. If they were sincere, any litagation would be for a change in policy and not to give a group of people X amount of money to "help heal their pain". Face it. any amout of money dished out comes from the taxpayers, and I, for one, don't feel I need to pay anyone because our elected heros in Richmond want to feel good about themselves. I really have had it with people who thinks money can heal.
March 27th, 2008 10:57 AM
I agree that the money only makes the bottom feeding lawyers feel better but the voters are ultimately responsable for what the politicians do. I think the politicians should suffer for there stupitidy at the next election.....any one who voted to make this or any VA college a kill zone should be voted out!!!!!
Originally Posted by JG01
March 28th, 2008 10:45 AM
If CCLís where restricted to 21 and older, I would be more in favor of it.
Originally Posted by cphilip
I donít know what Florida law is regarding age for CCL, I do know that LEOís have to be 20. But there are exceptions to that, and I was one of them back in the 70ís.
I still like the idea of teachers/professors being encouraged, to train and carry.
March 28th, 2008 11:08 AM
I think the defining difference here is that the college takes on the responsibility by not allowing people to defend themselves. Many courts (off the top of my head I remember an Oregon Supreme Court ruling I read last week) have recognized the inherent right of EVERY human to self defense. Granted, it's not in the constitution like the 2nd is, but it's case law. Only a few states say otherwise, and I choose not to visit those states.
Originally Posted by AKsrule
Using the logic of a lawyer can work to our advantage sometimes I think. Taking away our ability to protect ourselves is taking away our right to self defense. I could make a valid argument in court that taking away our right to self defense without consideration is illegal. So by taking away our right to self defense they would also have to accept responsibility for that defense. The problem is, you can't sue them just because they took the right away. You must have standing, and prove damages. You can't prove damages on what might happen, so you have no standing to bring action against the state until something DOES happen. I hope that every family of every person involved gets the nastiest personal injury lawyer around, and I hope each one of them gets an 8 figure settlement.
It has been shown many times that the only way to hurt the Gov. or an administration such as the schools is to hit their pocketbook. We can't put them in jail for involuntary manslaughter, so we can make them not get their new benz's or their new $20 mil sports facility or whatever else they had planned for the money.
March 28th, 2008 11:26 AM
Your legal ability by far will surpass the efforts of many fine lawyers who have gone before you only to have their case tossed out on defenses of governmental immunity, immunity for discretionary decisions, and low ceilings on tort claims. Now if you want to amend your state statutes or state constitutions you may get somewhere.
Originally Posted by i12flytoday
I would point out that the decision of a state not to permit firearms on campus is far different from the Heller case now before the U.S. Supreme Court which is testing D.C.'s law that completely outlaws loaded firearms of any kind within one's own home.
I am from Texas which has the same restriction against firearms on college campuses. Hopefully, the legislature in its next session will take this issue up for consideration. My prediction is that we will get something done about the problem.
By dukalmighty in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: April 22nd, 2010, 06:24 PM
By dukalmighty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 14th, 2009, 03:43 PM
By P95Carry in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 27th, 2006, 03:22 PM
By floridaguy911 in forum Related Gear & Equipment
Last Post: September 14th, 2006, 05:35 PM
By snowdoctor in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: March 30th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Search tags for this page
no dollar amount can replace
Click on a term to search for related topics.