You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts
- Thread starter lwestatbus
- Start date
Hunter Rose
New member
Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination. And it's considered unlawful to discriminate based on race...
The key phrase in the Marsh opinion, and what may help clarify the distinguishment is "Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.
That goes for a privately owned stretch of highway, but not a privately owned farm. It goes for a privately owned 'company town' but not a grocery store. It goes for a campus, but not a Wal-Mart. Farms, grocery stores, and Wal-marts are not for general public use, they are specific uses. They are not operated to benefit the public, they are operated to sell wares or services. Highways, 'company towns', and Universities are built and operated to benefit the public and their operation is primarily a public function therefore property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
That goes for a privately owned stretch of highway, but not a privately owned farm. It goes for a privately owned 'company town' but not a grocery store. It goes for a campus, but not a Wal-Mart. Farms, grocery stores, and Wal-marts are not for general public use, they are specific uses. They are not operated to benefit the public, they are operated to sell wares or services. Highways, 'company towns', and Universities are built and operated to benefit the public and their operation is primarily a public function therefore property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
maestro pistolero
New member
The "target-rich backstop" theory:
If someone is intentionally slaughtering people, then the chance of a stray bullet hitting a bystander that was intended for the perpetrator is one worth taking. The perpetrator's next unchecked shot will likely take take down an innocent life anyway.
Training issue:
If the CCW training is insufficient for campus carry, then it's insufficient, period, and ought to be improved. Contrary to what scholastics like to imply about campuses, they are not holier ground than a movie theatre, grocery store, or bank property. Innocent life is present everywhere.
If someone is intentionally slaughtering people, then the chance of a stray bullet hitting a bystander that was intended for the perpetrator is one worth taking. The perpetrator's next unchecked shot will likely take take down an innocent life anyway.
Training issue:
If the CCW training is insufficient for campus carry, then it's insufficient, period, and ought to be improved. Contrary to what scholastics like to imply about campuses, they are not holier ground than a movie theatre, grocery store, or bank property. Innocent life is present everywhere.
Fallacy. No one can ban firearms anywhere, with the possible exception of inside a prison. Which is why I disregard any such silliness.
A business can request that no one be armed, but those bent on victimizing others will not heed, therefore I will not go defenseless. The most a business can do is ask me to leave if they discover that I have a weapon, and the only way that will happen is if I am forced to draw that weapon in response to unlawful threats to my safety.
Depends, in some states, carrying a firearm into a business with a "no firearms" sign posted is a crime. Texas is one example
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm
Now, that being said, I do not agree with such a law. I believe that it's withing the business owner's rights to ask you to leave but I'm against their inane policy being enforced by the law.
Most definitely. A retail, or any other business, is open to the public, but isn't a 'public place'. In other words a singular purpose exists, to do the business they are in, that's it. They are not open for use by the general public. They are not for 'use by the general public' they are there specifically, and singularly to sell their wares or services.
Campuses are more like small towns then shops. There are a wide variety of public uses going on and although certain building may be closed, a campus is perpetually open to the general public even between semesters when no classes are held.
Does a college not provide a service by providing you with an education in exchange for tuition and technology fees? I think a better example of what you're describing would be a city or county hospital. While such a place is privately owned, it has entered into an agreement not to turn people away or refuse service. Thusly, many people who are seeking the services of such a hospital have no other option. A college on the other hand can and will refuse to render their service if you do not pay their fees and a person does have the option to seek that service elsewhere should you disagree with their policies. Your quote states
Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function
All these businesses are ones that are otherwise operated by the government and are deemed essential to the day to day operation of society. Higher education simply does not fit this criteria.
Supposing I owned a college, And I am able to kick people off my campus for having weapons, Why couldnt I kick out black people?
Because kicking someone out for carrying a weapon is kicking them out for their behavior. Kicking them out for being black is kicking them out for their race which they have no control over.
Hunter Rose
New member
Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...
Cawnc4: "people with weapons" aren't a recognized minority. And arguments suggesting that discrimination against race is equal to discrimination against "people with guns" does nothing to help our cause...
I couldn't agree more.
Webleymkv,
As a campus, I am referring to a wide area consisting of residential housing, shops, professional offices, theaters, museums, and a wide variety of actives available to the general public and open grounds available for general use by the general public, even University hospitals to serve the general public. ALL on campus. Not to mention public paved roads, water, sewer, and some provide their own electricity, phone, and INTERNET services which are accessible at any time while either on, or traveling through campus-even when no classes are being held.
These are much more then the big classroom building with a parking lot you may be envisioning. University and college campuses are much more like a town within a city then they are a typical business setting. They are public places generally used by the surrounding general public for a great number things.
Without being familiar with the area you could have gone to the bank, driven to a restraint and picked up lunch for you are a friend to meet and play football in one of the open areas, picked up a paper and met your date for a show and afterwords took a walk in the night and never known you had come onto campus. You could even get a place for the night so you can be close by for the parade and street fair the next day.
Your hospital example causes me to think your not getting the concept of general public use. Try reading the Marsh opinion if you haven't already and put in 'campus' where they talk about Chickasaw. You'll see that it fits like a glove on a hand how campuses, especially the larger ones, are run, built and arranged and what the justice state about the conpany toen in the case. Maybe the opinion itself will do a better job of illustrating the distinguishment between privately owned businesses that are open to the public and privately owned facility built and operated to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it's owner's property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
If a University campus were just a big building and a parking lot that's singular activity were holding class rather then of a small community within a larger municipality then the rebuttals you present might make comparing them with retail stores or a hospital might be more compelling.
As a campus, I am referring to a wide area consisting of residential housing, shops, professional offices, theaters, museums, and a wide variety of actives available to the general public and open grounds available for general use by the general public, even University hospitals to serve the general public. ALL on campus. Not to mention public paved roads, water, sewer, and some provide their own electricity, phone, and INTERNET services which are accessible at any time while either on, or traveling through campus-even when no classes are being held.
These are much more then the big classroom building with a parking lot you may be envisioning. University and college campuses are much more like a town within a city then they are a typical business setting. They are public places generally used by the surrounding general public for a great number things.
Without being familiar with the area you could have gone to the bank, driven to a restraint and picked up lunch for you are a friend to meet and play football in one of the open areas, picked up a paper and met your date for a show and afterwords took a walk in the night and never known you had come onto campus. You could even get a place for the night so you can be close by for the parade and street fair the next day.
Your hospital example causes me to think your not getting the concept of general public use. Try reading the Marsh opinion if you haven't already and put in 'campus' where they talk about Chickasaw. You'll see that it fits like a glove on a hand how campuses, especially the larger ones, are run, built and arranged and what the justice state about the conpany toen in the case. Maybe the opinion itself will do a better job of illustrating the distinguishment between privately owned businesses that are open to the public and privately owned facility built and operated to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it's owner's property rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.
If a University campus were just a big building and a parking lot that's singular activity were holding class rather then of a small community within a larger municipality then the rebuttals you present might make comparing them with retail stores or a hospital might be more compelling.
Bruxley, I think I understand your point about large university campuses and agree that such an institution has no right to ban guns in the private businesses and roadways that happen to fall within the campus area. I do, however, maintain that it is within their rights to ban guns, with properly posted signs, within buildings that belong to the college.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).
Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.
Or are 'property rights' so important? Recall, I see no business types going to war over having to have toilets or no cooties in your pizza.
About training - there is a subtle issue here:
1. If the state allows carry - then the training should whatever is mandate by that state's carry law. What that should be is a separate issue.
2. If you ask the college administration to grant you carry permission, separate from state laws (they can do that) - if I were a president, I would ask a potential carrier if they have trained for a high intensity gun fight.
3. If you do see yourself as a protector of the young and proactive (another debate about what you want for a role) and make that argument, you are not as defensible if you have taken the time to train.
4. As I mentioned before about the backstop problem, it's well know that a death of an innocent caused by taking some action is emotionally unacceptable to many even if a cost benefit analysis suggests it is sensible.
Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.
Or are 'property rights' so important? Recall, I see no business types going to war over having to have toilets or no cooties in your pizza.
About training - there is a subtle issue here:
1. If the state allows carry - then the training should whatever is mandate by that state's carry law. What that should be is a separate issue.
2. If you ask the college administration to grant you carry permission, separate from state laws (they can do that) - if I were a president, I would ask a potential carrier if they have trained for a high intensity gun fight.
3. If you do see yourself as a protector of the young and proactive (another debate about what you want for a role) and make that argument, you are not as defensible if you have taken the time to train.
4. As I mentioned before about the backstop problem, it's well know that a death of an innocent caused by taking some action is emotionally unacceptable to many even if a cost benefit analysis suggests it is sensible.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
A company should only evaluate you on the job. If what you do doesn't interfer with the job - they should not be able to have policies against your actions.
Glenn, this may be your opinion but in many states employers may fire you for no cause. They might just not like you and they can fire you if they choose. The law only says they can't fire you for specific things like your race, religion and so forth. They have a lot of leeway there.
However, if the choice is safety or employment then the employer has offered you an immoral (but maybe legal) choice that you might disobey in good conscience.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
TG - that's why I stated my opinion. Companies can, in some states fire for no discernible reason, but if all the Jews were fired on a given day - then here current laws come into play.
I would extend similar analyses to the RKBA. It would not be allowed to fire those who carry for that stated reason. If we saw a discernible pattern of CCW/CHL employees being fired, then as with any other protected class discrimination pattern, the employer then gets their butt kicked.
About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.
Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.
So, for a quite silly example - Rosa Parks disobeyed and made a moral stand. If she had tried through a disguise to pass as white to sit in the front of the bus, just to have a good seat - then that might not be seen, by some, as a greater moral action.
Whether there is moral decision making without some ultimate self-interest is one debated by folks for a zillion years.
To return to the point. I regard carry as a basic right and support legislation to remove the ability to modify employment based on carry (except for techy stuff). Current laws need to be changed on this regard.
I would extend similar analyses to the RKBA. It would not be allowed to fire those who carry for that stated reason. If we saw a discernible pattern of CCW/CHL employees being fired, then as with any other protected class discrimination pattern, the employer then gets their butt kicked.
About the moral choice of not following a company policy - that unleashes theories of morality and levels of actions.
Some will say that disobeying based on a higher principle is moral. Some will say that if you knowingly agree to a principle in public but disobey for your own self interest - that is not moral. Disobeying for a higher moral principle is legit, though - but then you have to act on that principle.
So, for a quite silly example - Rosa Parks disobeyed and made a moral stand. If she had tried through a disguise to pass as white to sit in the front of the bus, just to have a good seat - then that might not be seen, by some, as a greater moral action.
Whether there is moral decision making without some ultimate self-interest is one debated by folks for a zillion years.
To return to the point. I regard carry as a basic right and support legislation to remove the ability to modify employment based on carry (except for techy stuff). Current laws need to be changed on this regard.
So we accept that banning discrimination against protected classes (race, etc.) is the law of the land. I have no use for those who want to maintain that they have the right to discriminate (just get that out there).
Should not our goal be that the right to carry a firearm (except for techincal reasons - MRI example), be similarly protected as a fundamental characteristic and right. Thus, bans are as discriminatory as racial, etc. bans.
What you're missing is that there is a fundamental difference between carrying a firearm and one's race or religion. Carrying a firearm is a behavior while race and religion are not. I have no control over my race and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior. Saying that an institution must allow someone to carry a firearm onto their premises would be analagous to saying that that same institution must also allow someone to perform a religious ceremony on their premises. I don't think that many would disagree that banning certain religious ceremonies such as animal sacrifice on an institutions premises is unreasonable. While that is an extreme example, the principle is the same. You may hold whatever belief you wish, but you may not necessarily perform ceremonies of that belief anywhere you like.
To use your Rosa Parks example, had Rosa Parks been refused a seat on the bus because she was wearing a tee-shirt with derogatory phrases about whites on it, I'd say that the bus company's action is completely justified. However, her race was something that she had no control over as she did not choose to be born black, white, asian, latino or any other race. As such, the bus company's actions were unjust as she was punished for something over which she had no control and did not harm or otherwise infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
You have to look at this from another perspective. Some people may not feel safe or comfortable working, doing business, or otherwise having activity in a place where people may be carrying firearms. Is that belief rational? I don't think so but that's their belief and I have no right to impose my belief on them just as they have no right to impose theirs on me. If the decision of whether or not to allow firearms was left up to the individual institution, then both that person and myself have the freedom to work, do business, or pursue an education in an institution that is in line with our beliefs. A law saying that an entire group of institutions must allow carry is just as oppressive as one banning carry in an entire group of institutions. Obviously there are exceptions as Bruxley has pointed out, but college owned facilites such as classroms, offices, stadiums or gymnasiums do not fall within such exceptions.
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.
Not in this country. Note:
Muslim woman can sue to wear veil in license photo
Muslim women sue and win case against UPS over dress code dispute
Imams removed from plane sue US Airways
AirTran Airways apologized Friday to nine Muslims kicked off a New Year's Day flight to Florida after other passengers reported hearing a suspicious remark about airplane security.
Show me the numbers.
Concealed carry is legal on campus in several states.
Show me how college students, faculty, and members of the public on campus in these states have been endangered or harmed by lawfully carried concealed weapons.
Show me the blood running in the streets and the lives destroyed by lawfully carried weapons in these states.
Show me how deadly the lack of restrictive laws has been for the folks who live in states where concealed carry on campus is legal.
I want facts, not emotions. Show me the numbers.
It is right that the burden of proof be placed upon those who would limit or outlaw a certain behavior, not upon those who would maintain the natural state of freedom.
pax
Concealed carry is legal on campus in several states.
Show me how college students, faculty, and members of the public on campus in these states have been endangered or harmed by lawfully carried concealed weapons.
Show me the blood running in the streets and the lives destroyed by lawfully carried weapons in these states.
Show me how deadly the lack of restrictive laws has been for the folks who live in states where concealed carry on campus is legal.
I want facts, not emotions. Show me the numbers.
It is right that the burden of proof be placed upon those who would limit or outlaw a certain behavior, not upon those who would maintain the natural state of freedom.
pax
Quote:
and my religion is a belief, not necessarily a behavior.
Not in this country. Note:
A graphic example of the same principle being taken to the extreme. I view such cases as just as bad.
lwestatbus
New member
Some Interesting Developments
I've been away from the post for a few days. It sure sparked some interest.
Here are a couple of addenda to my original thoughts:
Finally, a nod to the young vets who contributed to the thread. I returned back to campus after one year in Kuwait and Iraq in the first rotation and the invasion. I am now seeing a large number of combat vets in my classes. I would LOVE to have them around if someone starts trouble. We'd fire and maneuver his butt into oblivion.
I've been away from the post for a few days. It sure sparked some interest.
Here are a couple of addenda to my original thoughts:
- My ideas were based on the premise that the government would control the ability to carry. I'm not saying I agree with that but that is the way it is. Florida also prohibits carry into certain large venues such as sporting events. It also prohibits carry in bars (you can take it into the Red Lobster but stay out of the bar area) as well as "notorious establishments." Many of the responses here were actually addressing that issue more than the OP thoughts.
- There were some very insightful posts about the difference between self defense (hold the fort until the cavalry arrives) and active engagement (you ARE the cavalry). I had not considered this issue when I made the OP. I would head for the gunfire. They are my kids. Think whatever you might. That's the way it is for me.
LOL, we kick people off campus all the time. We discriminate against them because they are stupid or lazy (and sometimes because of some just plain unfortunate circumstances).Hunter Rose said:Because kicking someone off your campus is considered discrimination.
Finally, a nod to the young vets who contributed to the thread. I returned back to campus after one year in Kuwait and Iraq in the first rotation and the invasion. I am now seeing a large number of combat vets in my classes. I would LOVE to have them around if someone starts trouble. We'd fire and maneuver his butt into oblivion.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I would like to return to my example of a male wearing ladies' underwear.
It is concealed.
Some folks might think wearing ladies' underwear is predictive of a risk to society.
It is a behavior.
Does the boss have a right to ban a male from wearing ladies' underwear and demand the right to inspect you to see if you do such (as they might to detect a concealed weapon)?
As Pax says, the risk of concealed carriers going berserk is very low. It is probably as low as the risk of males wearing ladies' underwear going nuts and nailing you with the stapler.
So by suggesting that concealed carry per se is a significant risk, we negate the argument for allowing it anywhere.
As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.
It is concealed.
Some folks might think wearing ladies' underwear is predictive of a risk to society.
It is a behavior.
Does the boss have a right to ban a male from wearing ladies' underwear and demand the right to inspect you to see if you do such (as they might to detect a concealed weapon)?
As Pax says, the risk of concealed carriers going berserk is very low. It is probably as low as the risk of males wearing ladies' underwear going nuts and nailing you with the stapler.
So by suggesting that concealed carry per se is a significant risk, we negate the argument for allowing it anywhere.
As far as beliefs and behavior - behavior that disrupts the job is actionable. Otherwise that is not the realm of the boss.