havegunjoe

Here is an interesting article I came accross. What do you all think?

"When it comes to banning guns on campus, and when students suffer damages (such as wrongful death) due to an interference with their civil rights, is there a liability on the part of the campus who writes and enforces such a gun ban?"


http://www.goodforthecountry.com/

__________________
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.

Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor

BigEFan

Maybe we should try and convince a few campuses that they should ban free specch on campus and require that all students waive their 4th amendment right to search and seizure.

The ACLU can then litigate and we can file a friend of the court brief hoping to get those panty waist judges to rule that the Bill of Rights extends to campuses.

Somebody wake me up I must be dreaming!

__________________
Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell

Rock and Glock

It's worth an argument, but difficult to get a good hearing. At the University of Kansas my son, living in on campus housing, had to sign a complete disclaimer absolving both the University and the State of Kansas of anything and everything. Whether or not it was legal is a different matter.

The premise has some merit for those plaintiffs with really deep pockets and a lot of time and energy on their hands.

__________________
Richard

NRA Life Member

"This world is not a playground where children at play are pampered by friendly nannies," Wendelin Wiedeking

Musketeer

Got to love those disclaimers... If they were so airtight then why would companies/schools be concerned about liability for the criminal actions of private citizens?

How do you beat a disclaimer... you document a specific danger/threat to the safety/well being of the signer which has been ignored by the party requiring the disclaimer be signed.

You sign a disclaimer to bungee jump but if it is proven the company did not perform regular inspection and follow established safety procedures they will still be liable if an neglected bungee breaks. The same could be applied to schools. They require a waiver incase of harm. You send them a notorized and registerred letter stating your concern that their disarmament policy places honest students at higher risk, making them attractive targets. Once they cannot pretend ignorance you wait for tragedy to strike and then shout from the rooftops that they KNEW of the danger. Sadly bloodshed and the following civil suits are all they understand.

Musketeer

Private universities certainly can and do, if a public one can is debatable but would most likely be upheld. The ACLU would be thrown out on their rear end because the COTUS has no meaning between private individuals and institutions.

Free speach does not exist on a campus. Student Newspapers are regularly required to follow university guidlines. Search and Seizure protection does not exist, ask any in university housing.

AutoFan

Public Universities have to adhere to the laws of the government that issues their charter. And since it has been ruled the the US Constitution applies to states and cities, it also applies to publicly funded colleges and universities.

And you cannot sign away your right to sue. Ask any lawyer. Those "hold harmless" documents can be entered into evidence, but they do not eliminate liability.

MitchellCT

Generally speaking, the liability of any land owner, or anyone else, is one of reasonable care.

Baring or allowing firearms is a factor, but not a determining factor.

Maybe banning firearms from college campuses is wrong...but then again, college is a place of drug use, drinking, unsupervised emotionally immature people...and are firearms a good fit for that environment?

A case can be legitimately made for removing firearms from the access of irresponsible people, and college students fit that bill.

Its just a factor, not the point on which liability hinges.

The VT case in an example of, in my opinion, negligence because of the many warnings Cho exhibited and the numerous people in positions of authority which knew about his problems that even if firearms were allowed on campus for CCW permit holders, the butcher's bill could have been the same.

Even if you are a student who was allowed to be armed, what if you weren't present?

What if you were present, but decided to cover the door, pile desks in front of the door and have people take cover while you called in the police? Isn't that a legitimate option for a situation involving CQB fighting in a structure with an unknown number of bad guys armed with who knows what? (I know from doing a CQB class that hunkering down and killing the intruders sure is a great option...the only option that consistently allowed the defenders a CHANCE to survive, and no promises at that either)

The massacre could have taken place, Cho may have heard the cops and put a bullet in his head before you got the opportunity to do it.

Guns on campus offer an option for survival, but denying them isn't where liability comes from.

Liability comes from action or inaction which in the totality of the circumstances was insufficient to be considered reasonable.

If VT didn't do what they could have, I see liability for VT.

What if they did everything they could have reasonably done, I mean really stayed on top of this issue, but this still happened? Should they be liable then?

aquanomics

Universities banned *free* speech years ago when they created, adopted and pomoted political correctness! Read Mike S. Adams on townhall.com for numerous examples of universities trampling all over the 1st A when it suits them. Mopes like the ACLU (pro-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-gun) typically support the universities actively of decline to challenge them.

SIGguy229

I disagree with this statement. What about those students who live off campus who only travel to campus to attend class? I don't remember people drinking and doing drugs during class...? Remember, we are talking about people (adults) who should be permitted to carry on campus (as they carry everywhere else), IAW with the law, i.e. 21 y/o or older with requisite permit. We're not talking about giving a 17/18 y/o a SAW when he/she checks into the dorms.

An "irresponsible" 21 y/o can still have access to firearms, despite what the laws say.

But I bet there are more responsible 21 y/o that irresponsible ones. As long as he/she hasn't committed any felonies, he/she should be able to get a CHP (or whatever it is called in your state). Should this person be able to carry on campus? Yes...because why would their life be any less worthy than mine? It is the folks who carry on campus without a permit, with less than honorable intent are the ones I am concerned with.

MitchellCT

#1 I said a case can be made for it, I didn't say I agreed with it. It was an example, nothing more.

#1(a) With the price of college tuition, you are better off investing in NFA weapons and learning a trade than going to school for a degree which will not prepare you for the real world.

#2 If the college is private property, they can establish almost any rules they chose to. You have no right to keep and bear arms on private land if the owner decides it so; your options are to leave or be a trespasser.