Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Of course there is Chuck Norris 
Weapons on Campuses--Some New Thoughts
- Thread starter lwestatbus
- Start date
Firearms and self-defense
Linked? YES!
Same? No.
People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular. Of course nowadays, a firearm is the most effective defense tool available to the public.
I'm saying we need to be careful about how we approach things, in order to defend our ideological flanks. When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis. I'd rather we didn't leave them that chance.
Linked? YES!
Same? No.
People defended themselves for a LONG time before firearms became popular. Of course nowadays, a firearm is the most effective defense tool available to the public.
I'm saying we need to be careful about how we approach things, in order to defend our ideological flanks. When we assume everyone else will see the link between firearms and the right to self-defense, we leave ourselves open to idiots and clever-antis. I'd rather we didn't leave them that chance.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I am not sure I see what you mean. Could you give me an example?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I also don't see a problem with linking firearms to self-defense. To my mind, that vein of thought leads to the suggestions of the charge of the 8 year olds, laptop-fu and the pencil of death as viable alternatives to firearms when someone like Cho arrives in your classroom.
I should add, that the Heller decision had no problem with inextricably linking self-defense with guns.
Granted, Heller only dealt with guns within the home, yet the logic will prevail, I'm sure, to self-defense outside the home.
What seems to be at the core here, is that some seem to think that property rights (in general) trump self preservation rights. Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.
Granted, Heller only dealt with guns within the home, yet the logic will prevail, I'm sure, to self-defense outside the home.
What seems to be at the core here, is that some seem to think that property rights (in general) trump self preservation rights. Sadly, that is misguided thinking. As in, how are you going to maintain any individual right, if you are dead? One simply cannot exercise any other right, if self preservation is not the dominant right.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Perfectly put! Maslow (one of those academic types) says that survival is our primary need.
While the Declaration is not organic law, within it are the declaration of natural rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
When you learn where and how Jefferson penned them in this manner, you will also learn why Life is the first right of natural persons.
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
When you learn where and how Jefferson penned them in this manner, you will also learn why Life is the first right of natural persons.
So, to get back on track: By what grant of power or authority does Government or property owners divest any person of their preeminent right?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
The government does by due process of law if I commit a crime. IMO the property owner has no such authority.
It's the same in Louisiana. I hate it. I was working at a local highschool in BTR, LA when they alerted everyone that a student's mom called stating that he was heading back to school with a gun. I was angrier than a Beelzebub as I could not legally be armed while on campus (it's also posted) and i *think* one cannot be within 1,000 feet of a "campus", either.
I have mixed feelings. A lot of college students are horribly emotionally immature; not sure I'd feel comfortable with the partying with alcohol and firearms (despite what the laws may explicitly state). I also know that only the committed will choose to carry and only the trained, committed would actually use the thing - just like with the bulk of the public.
There would be some problems; suredly. But I think those issues can be avoided, albeit with WHOLESALE CULTURAL CHANGES WITHIN THIS NATION.
JuanCarlos
New member
I think this is a huge stumbling block in ever changing this policy, because everybody thinks "college student" and immediately sees the average 19-year-old hitting a beer bong at a frat party, or whatever.
Nevermind that there are 30-year-old veterans in college (some living on campus, particularly when you get to family housing), or former LEOs, or even perfectly responsible 21-year-olds (and, as you mentioned, drunken idiots who aren't in college but can carry).
Especially if we're talking about CCWs on campus, in which case you're generally talking 21+ (which weeds out most of the idiots...hell, most of the students).
Then you get back to the whole "north side/south side" argument, where for whatever reason I can be legally permitted to carry concealed on the north side of College Avenue, but for whatever reason the south side is off-limits...which makes sense, right?
And of course not all of that was aimed at you, Chui...you qualified your statement pretty thoroughly.
This is why I don't think any law should ever recognize this "right" of propertyowners. It should never be illegal to carry on private property...the fundamental right a propertyowner has is to restrict who enters their property, and if somebody carries a firearm on their property against their wishes they're well within their rights to ask them to leave (and not return, and press charges if they do). Beyond that I see any terms a propertyowner sets on my entering their property as requests, and I don't see any reason they need to have the force of law behind them.
No, divemedic. That's not what I meant. We all know that there is a lot of stupidity walking around college campuses. Some of it is 17 years old and some of it is over 21 years old. The bulk is probably under 20. BUT... we have a nation of immature f-ups from 10 to 80 years old. CHANGE THIS HORRID FACET OF "THE NEW AMERICAN" CULTURE AND THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY DOESN'T IT? We KNOW that the vast majority are capable of being mature yet we've slipped to "the lowest common denominator" with respect to Character and Morals. Without Moral Self-Restraint one will be ruled by Rulers. I think I can govern myself. And so can you. All of you reading this.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
To me, a college prof, the student carry issue is a complex and a special case. The core of the problem revolves not around the actual carry in my mind in the classroom but the peculiar situation of campus dorm life.
I've argued for carry, of course - but not by the MRI - that's a special case.
In the dorms, we have an exaggeration of behavior and risky decision making. Young students are led into stupid behaviors by irrational group activities that push risk taking and substance abuse. Security for property is very lax. In fact, in my other role - prof. supreme! ), I'm reviewing a set of articles on teenage risk taking and their diminished capacity in some arenas for common sense.
One might comment that we allow 18 years to carry guns in the service but that situation is fairly tightly monitored by more mature adults that acculturate the young ones. It's argued that the dorm situation is more risk inducing that situations in the past where young folks were apprenticed out to older folks in the work force. Now, they are relatively unsupervised and left on their own, group pressures lead to stupidity.
Now most of the carrier group would be over 21 and probably want to get off campus. No problem for me - my specific problem is that I'm not comfortable with carry guns in the stew of the dorms as currently controlled.
We get such stupid behavior every weekend.
So, I'm torn between the conflicting forces on student carry - perhaps a special look at students beyond the simple license might work but that is another can of worms. Sigh.
I've argued for carry, of course - but not by the MRI - that's a special case.
In the dorms, we have an exaggeration of behavior and risky decision making. Young students are led into stupid behaviors by irrational group activities that push risk taking and substance abuse. Security for property is very lax. In fact, in my other role - prof. supreme!
), I'm reviewing a set of articles on teenage risk taking and their diminished capacity in some arenas for common sense.One might comment that we allow 18 years to carry guns in the service but that situation is fairly tightly monitored by more mature adults that acculturate the young ones. It's argued that the dorm situation is more risk inducing that situations in the past where young folks were apprenticed out to older folks in the work force. Now, they are relatively unsupervised and left on their own, group pressures lead to stupidity.
Now most of the carrier group would be over 21 and probably want to get off campus. No problem for me - my specific problem is that I'm not comfortable with carry guns in the stew of the dorms as currently controlled.
We get such stupid behavior every weekend.
So, I'm torn between the conflicting forces on student carry - perhaps a special look at students beyond the simple license might work but that is another can of worms. Sigh.
the_pragmaticist
New member
You can always compromise. A dormitory is no place for firearms - that's something I can state with all the experience of having lived in one. That said, most dorm denizens are under 21 and would not have a license in the first place. As a compromise, the college could still exercise private property rights and ban firearms in dormitories if they felt the need.
My issue is with my STATE removing the decision from the hands of the colleges. It's illegal in Ohio to carry on a campus and there's nothing a campus could do about it if they wanted to. Dorms, streets, buildings, classrooms - it's all de facto off limits. As stated above, there are plenty of us attending and teaching at universities who don't fit the beer bonging profile.
My issue is with my STATE removing the decision from the hands of the colleges. It's illegal in Ohio to carry on a campus and there's nothing a campus could do about it if they wanted to. Dorms, streets, buildings, classrooms - it's all de facto off limits. As stated above, there are plenty of us attending and teaching at universities who don't fit the beer bonging profile.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'll also point out that all dorms are not created equal. During the week I stay in a dorm that is entirely 21 and up, and all single rooms (with sturdy exterior-grade doors for each room). Caters largely to international students, and non-traditional students (including many veterans). Ages range from 21 to some guys I've seen than must be upwards of 40+. Yes, sometimes I wonder why somebody who's 40 would be staying in a dorm...just as some might wonder why I'm here (at nearly 30). I'm guessing that, as in my case, there's a good reason.
Security of property is no more an issue really than it would be in an apartment. The level of stupid behavior is nothing compared to what I've seen in the "general pop" dorms. There's really no reason whatsoever that somebody couldn't keep a firearm in their room here, particularly if they agreed to secure it in some form of safe (at their own expense).
Even better, we're actually allowed to check in firearms down at the front desk. But not handguns. So you can bring in and store any rifle you want (including an AR-15, FAL, whatever...and people do), but heaven forbid you have a CCW and want to store a handgun there when you aren't carrying. Then again, you'd have no way to get from your car to the front desk anyway without breaking school policy and possibly the law as well anyway.
This is why blanket bans of any kind always seem somewhat ludicrous to me.
And that's before you get into the family housing issue, which is a whole 'nother level of absurd (as those are duplexes and even freestanding single-family houses no different than the ones across the street).
Security of property is no more an issue really than it would be in an apartment. The level of stupid behavior is nothing compared to what I've seen in the "general pop" dorms. There's really no reason whatsoever that somebody couldn't keep a firearm in their room here, particularly if they agreed to secure it in some form of safe (at their own expense).
Even better, we're actually allowed to check in firearms down at the front desk. But not handguns. So you can bring in and store any rifle you want (including an AR-15, FAL, whatever...and people do), but heaven forbid you have a CCW and want to store a handgun there when you aren't carrying. Then again, you'd have no way to get from your car to the front desk anyway without breaking school policy and possibly the law as well anyway.
This is why blanket bans of any kind always seem somewhat ludicrous to me.
And that's before you get into the family housing issue, which is a whole 'nother level of absurd (as those are duplexes and even freestanding single-family houses no different than the ones across the street).
In Michigan one can walk on Univ of Michigan or MI State's campus carrying concealed but you cannot enter the buildings with it. I like that. It's nice to walk thru the Quad or wherever to get to bookstores, restaurants, etc with "your best friend" in tow. Louisiana does not allow one to carry on campus or be within 1,000 feet of a campus. How they'd enforce the "within 1,000 feet" I don't know. There are a lot of restaurants within the 1,000 feet of LSU's campus on Highland Road. Crazy but true...
Every person has a right to self-defense, to prevent injury or death to themselves, with the exception of the legally condemned man facing his execution.
Government can prohibit or curtail your self-defense rights when you are in custody (i.e. resisting, assault, no fighting rules or statutes for jails, etc).
There can be exceptions written in law that equate some forms of self-defense to a crime. Defending yourself against "attack" by a police officer may be called resisting arrest or battery on an officer. That doesn't make these statutes correct policy, however.
When it comes to private property, a property owner cannot suspend or deny your right to self-defense. The property owner may order you off his property for any reason[1] and/or enforce that order as provided by law.
However, that does not mean a property owner can't display a "no weapons allowed" sign or simply "No firearms" sign. Doing so does not remove your right to self-defense, but it does limit your choice of tools and equipment.
Your right of self-defense is not negated by prohibitions against carrying a firearm on the property. Arguing such is akin to claiming restraint of trade because you can't drive 100mph to work every day. You still have a right to self-defense and may defend yourself, even though it may be more difficult.[2]
When it comes to employers who prohibit guns in their businesses, they may do so as they see fit. Their authority does not include the interior of an employee's vehicle, however. If we extend their argument, then a company that bans tobacco products for a "smoke free environment" may fire an employee who's spouse keeps spare cigarettes in the car or the employee who smokes in his car when off the property. Such invasions of privacy and one's "pursuit of happiness" overstep the property or business owner's jurisdiction.
[1] - Property owners can order anyone off their property, though property open to the public (businesses) may not discriminate soley on certain characteristics like race, religion, ethnic background, etc.
[2] - While a business or property owner can prohibit legally carried firearms, they should recognize that they will legally shoulder a higher burdern of responsibility for the safety of visitors.