Dear Idaho, I think you're being taken for a ride

[doofus47]

So I was chatting with my BiL who works at a public institution of higher learning in Idaho. He told me that b/c of the passing of the law that allows CCW on school campus, the school will have to hire more security people. The threat given to the school admins was that they could be civilly responsible if something happens and they haven't taken the extra precautions. As a result, some funds originally allocated to classes are going to be re-allocated to hiring security.

I am not sure who made this recommendation to the admin staff (legal ? insurance? I dunno) wasn't wrong. Has there been any precedent that the staff of any public institution (museums, etc) have been held responsible for not providing more security since general public CCW has been allowed?

This sounds like flat out scare tactics.

Thoughts?

 

[colbad]

I do not see how the State passing a public law imposes a higher level of liability on the school opposed to anyone else? I see possible concern if police said they will not or cannot provide protection and school has evidence of a need to protect. Simply having a law public CCW law does not increase civil liability to protect everyone from a potential mishap. That would be like saying that Walmart now has to increase costs because the state passed a CCW law so not they have to hire guards "just in case". Sounds like some poor legal advise....or an opportunity to generate legal fees.

 

[zxcvbob]

*Anything* the legislature does that the school doesn't like is an excuse to shift funds away from education and towards administration. That way they can ask for more money from the state or higher tuition costs (or both) and they have a scapegoat.

It's not an Idaho thing, it's all state universities. Same song, 42nd verse.

 

[FrankenMauser]

It's a bunch of scare tactics.

ISU (Idaho State University) is right down the road from me. They recently announced that they're going to have to buy handguns to train and arm all of the campus security personnel, because of the passage of 'campus carry'.

Because more guns = more risk to students and a higher likelihood of an armed response being required.

...Apparently.

 

[Cnon]

*Anything* the legislature does that the school doesn't like is an excuse to shift funds away from education and towards administration. That way they can ask for more money from the state or higher tuition costs (or both) and they have a scapegoat.

It's not an Idaho thing, it's all state universities. Same song, 42nd verse.

I concur.



Cnon

 

[ballardw]

Just another case of the ivory-tower-living-in-academia mind set.

The allowed carry is only those with our "enhanced" permit which includes a bit more range time than the basic. Since that is only for those 21 years of age and older a big percentage of the students don't even have a chance of carrying.

And only applies to students and faculty. There's a whole lot of wish-wash about what may happen to non-students carrying on campus. Since part of at least the Boise State campus is effectively also part of the city park system, ie. Greenbelt along the river, there's a certain amount of confusion over jurisdiction in some places as well.

 

[Jay24bal]

Look on the bright side, at least ID is trying to give everyone the right to self-defense.

** and yes, I realize it is a RIGHT, and should not have to be given by a legislature.