Marine Veteran Kicked Out of School for Possessing Firearms

[jasonj84]

WTF? Is this what we have come to? These junior moonbats would rather have no weapons on campus, so when you have another Virginai Tech, there is even less of a chance at stopping it? Go ahead and disarm probably the only MF who, in a Vtec situation, is the only one who will actually fight back and not be a victim. Too stupid for their own good.

 

[biff44]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

 

[GSG]

Did anyone else catch this?

knowing an armed person could just walk onto campus makes her feel a little uneasy.

Yeah, because thankfully schools stop and search every person before they set foot on school grounds.

The combination of Virginia Tech and Mass. gun laws are the two biggest things keeping me from going back to finish my degree.

 

[Bill Nance]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

+1 Anyone here who doesn't educate their kids about guns should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

Speak for yourself. Both of my kids shoot.

 

[jccaley1]

if something happend i bet they would want an armed marine there!!!!!!

 

[gene]

Unfathonable

Sorry but that's all I got!

 

[Nickle]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

Some of us are working to fix that.

Want to help?

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I'm just readng this now for the first time but I am confused: if OR law doesn't allow CCW in courthouses, public and private school, why is there a slew of people up in arms about it? Isn't the onus to know where we can and can't carry on the gun owner?

Can someone clarify? I may be missing something (granted I do think the put ishment is ludicrous)

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

My kid shoots and he's in the military. My nieces and nephews know how to shoot also. Plus with son we are always introducing more of his friends into shooting.
Can't make that a one size fits all generalization.

 

[Bob P]

Hey, look in a frigin mirror if you want to blame someone. How did we let this generation of kids grow up without introducing them to shooting sports? Our laziness is coming back to haunt us.

Both my daughters shoot. One activly, one doesn't care for it but has been to the range a couple of times and has put about 100 rounds through a .380. I'm in the process of working on my nieces and nephews.

 

[mark056]

This is not true of a public university. they have to abide by the constitution and state laws.

I am not so sure about the veracity of that statement. I believe that public institutions can make more stringent "rules" or policies without running afoul of the established statutes. Schools do this all the time with their ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies.

Mark L.

 

[n1zfg]

The libtards needed to save face, so they stuck him with two things:

1: Go see a shrink. He just needs to find one that is also a Marine. All it really would need to say is "1A: Fit For Duty" If he's good enough to safely carry a machine gun in the defense of his nation, then he is good enough to safely wander around some libtard college campus.

2: Write a ten page paper on a subject that many of us here could probably pump out a graduate level thesis on. Of course, those libtards probably wouldn't stroke out while reading it, though it would be kind of fun watching their heads try to explode.

 

[Negotiator]

Yup, same here.

Me too!!!!!Makes my head go to a point. I was a university professor for several years ( one of the Boston "Potted Ivy" private universities) - same place I did my PhD. Lord above, I had to get out of there...it was before I had my LTC, but if I had had it at the time, I would have carried in violation of school policy. The old joke about academia is that the reason the politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so small...

This sounds like the "Trial" scene from "Scent of a Woman" . Where's Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino) when we need him!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqsf0XynGz8

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Me too!!!!!Makes my head go to a point. I was a university professor for several years ( one of the Boston "Potted Ivy" private universities) - same place I did my PhD. Lord above, I had to get out of there...it was before I had my LTC, but if I had had it at the time, I would have carried in violation of school policy. The old joke about academia is that the reason the politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so small...

This sounds like the "Trial" scene from "Scent of a Woman" . Where's Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino) when we need him!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqsf0XynGz8

Except on MA it is also illegal unless you get written consent to do so.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Me too!!!!!Makes my head go to a point. I was a university professor for several years ( one of the Boston "Potted Ivy" private universities) - same place I did my PhD. Lord above, I had to get out of there...it was before I had my LTC, but if I had had it at the time, I would have carried in violation of school policy. The old joke about academia is that the reason the politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so small...

This sounds like the "Trial" scene from "Scent of a Woman" . Where's Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (Al Pacino) when we need him!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqsf0XynGz8

Hubby works at a university, when I listen to him, I would have lost my job if I worked there a long time ago. I couldn't do it. If the comments didn't come out of my mouth you'd be able to read them in my facial features. I don't hide it very well.

 

[namedpipes]

Wow

 

[dsm]

Ok, OWU is in fact a public school, therefore subject to the constitution and state laws.

I've forwarded a copy of the initial post plus the link to FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Hopefully they will get involved.

Well, ok, but the state law says:

(5) A school board, for a school district over which the
board has authority, may prohibit persons licensed under ORS
166.291 and 166.292 from possessing firearms in or on a public
building that is a public school or the site or premises of any
student program or activity that is sponsored or sanctioned by a
public school.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/hb3400.dir/hb3435.intro.html

How specifically are you asserting that they may not be following state law, if you are? I'm not discussing here whether the law is right or wrong, just whether it was followed.

 

[Bill Nance]

How specifically are you asserting that they may not be following state law, if you are? I'm not discussing here whether the law is right or wrong, just whether it was followed.

No, I'm just saying that they have to abide by laws. It's perhaps legal in Oregon for a University to make such rules, but they need legislative authority to do so, and even with that authority, they can't override the constitution.

I didn't read he whole link you posted, but it's entirely possible that Universities aren't covered under the definitions in the law of public school boards?

Again, not asserting in this particular case that laws were broken. I don't know all the facts and I'm not a lawyer. In general however, when public universities have tried to stomp on constitutional protections, they lose in court.

 

[namedpipes]

A private entity has the right to say: Thou shall not carry if you enter this place, in the same way I can (if I wanted to) tell visitors they can't smoke. If I find out, I might not be able to have you arrested but I can certainly order you off the property. You'd have the choice of complying, departing or remaining in trespass. For THAT you could be arrested or at least forcibly removed (ordered to leave and don't).

A public entity though, like a university (assuming it is a state run school)... CAN they make a rule that contradicts state law? They can certainly have no smoking zones (at least they get away with it). Someone mentioned a dry dorm where he couldn't drink even though he was 21. He couldn't be arrested for it, but I'd think the school could discipline him for violating a rule. I'm not sure they can't have a rule to prohibit carry.

otoh, the "trial" that man went through sounds like a skit from the Three Stooges with Moe as the judge, Larry for the prosecution and Curly for the defense.

 

[GSG]

A private entity has the right to say: Thou shall not carry if you enter this place, in the same way I can (if I wanted to) tell visitors they can't smoke.

This bothers me though. If I own a business and post a sign that says "No black people allowed" people would flip out, it'd make the news because I'm infringing on someone's rights, I'm discriminating.

As far as I'm concerned, if you run a business that's open to the public, the public should be allowed in. If the public happens to be lawfully carrying firearms, you should not be allowed to tell them they can't enter. If it's a members only club or something similar, go for it, make it as exclusive as you want, that doesn't bother me. Some people are very allergic to cigarette smoke, and even if they're not, the smell can be offensive, and it causes health problems.

A public university is pretty far from private IMHO, especially since it's funded by taxpayers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Universities, public and private, get away with all sorts of stuff other businesses can only dream of.

Consider the case of a student being kicked out of student housing for "violation of rules". Chances are the student would not get very far with "I will stay until a court orders me evicted and, if you lock me out or deny entry in the meantime, you and not I will have the more serious legal problem. Once you finally get me out, you must hire a state licensed "eviction mover" to put all my possessions into storage, and pay the first month's rental fee on that storage, plus the cost of moving it into storage".

Now, just imagine in a landlord decides a tenant in non-school housing has "violated rules" and wants the tenant out immediately (after, of course, holding a "landlord's tribunal" instead of a housing court eviction proceeding) and instructs landlord's security staff to forcibly eject said person from the property if he shows up.

While the concept of locos parentis has gone by the wayside with the legal age technically being 18 for most things other than alcohol or gun licenses, colleges still continue to act with a relative degree of impunity when it comes to asserting a de-facto exemption from may of the legal protections allegedly afforded to patrons of all businesses.

 

[Bill Nance]

Universities, public and private, get away with all sorts of stuff other businesses can only dream of.

Consider the case of a student being kicked out of student housing for "violation of rules". Chances are the student would not get very far with "I will stay until a court orders me evicted and, if you lock me out or deny entry in the meantime, you and not I will have the more serious legal problem. Once you finally get me out, you must hire a state licensed "eviction mover" to put all my possessions into storage, and pay the first month's rental fee on that storage, plus the cost of moving it into storage".

Now, just imagine in a landlord decides a tenant in non-school housing has "violated rules" and wants the tenant out immediately (after, of course, holding a "landlord's tribunal" instead of a housing court eviction proceeding) and instructs landlord's security staff to forcibly eject said person from the property if he shows up.

While the concept of locos parentis has gone by the wayside with the legal age technically being 18 for most things other than alcohol or gun licenses, colleges still continue to act with a relative degree of impunity when it comes to asserting a de-facto exemption from may of the legal protections allegedly afforded to patrons of all businesses.

You are absolutely correct, which is why it's so important we donate to organizations like FIRE. FIRE has a very good record of taking all legitimate cases, including religious freedom of all faiths and freedom of speech, including speech codes, "free speech zones," and oe case in which as I recall, a man working towards his MSW was kicked from a university for writing a paper saying he didn't think liberal welfare programs were a good idea.

We don't hav so much ready cash that we can donate tons, but FIRE is one of the tops on my list because of the important work they do.

 

[dsm]

This bothers me though. If I own a business and post a sign that says "No black people allowed" people would flip out, it'd make the news because I'm infringing on someone's rights, I'm discriminating.

As far as I'm concerned, if you run a business that's open to the public, the public should be allowed in. If the public happens to be lawfully carrying firearms, you should not be allowed to tell them they can't enter.

I think that statements like those don't help argue our cause, I think they set it back by showing that our side cannot be reasonable or rational about this topic.

A person cannot choose not to be black. You can choose not to carry. "No black people allowed" discriminates against the person. "No weapons" only discriminates against the activity that the person is doing.

The Home Depot here has a sign at the door that says "no propane tanks in store," presumably for safety reasons so that people returning gas grills don't bring a full tank inside. Are you saying they should not be allowed to post that sign?

There are sounder arguments than simply "the public should be allowed in."

Personally, I have to conclude that on private property, it is a property owners right to deny weapons. I think it's a poor decision, both morally, and business-wise, but I don't think I can support legislating against it.

 

[biff44]

Both my daughters shoot. One activly, one doesn't care for it but has been to the range a couple of times and has put about 100 rounds through a .380. I'm in the process of working on my nieces and nephews.

Same with my kids. But I am sorry now that I was "too busy" to actively go out and find ALL of their friends and get them involved in junior shooting events. Just bringing your kids to the range, I think, is simply not enough. We need a whole new crop to pick up and carry the standard. A few gun owners kids, vs an ocean full of antigunner's kids, is not going to secure our gun rights for the future!

I wish some of the sports networks, like ESPN, would take a more active role in shooting sports, luch as trap or pistol marksmanship coverage. We need to get these kids out from in front of their Xboxes, and onto the firing line.

One thing I am personally doing this year is getting my Basic Hunter Safety instructor's certificate. At least I can make sure my kids friends all have FID cards and the certificate to get a MA hunting license.

 

[Ray-500]

FIRE is one of my favorite civil liberties groups. here's an excerpt from an article on their website:



I despise what's become of our universities. Organizations like FIRE deserve the financial support we can give them.

Universities, colleges, high schools, and all levels of education have become the haven of the 60's Hippies and Radicals. They are infested.

Was a college student in the 60's at Bryant. From what I saw, the "culture" of the 60's, as its often described, was non-existant. People were trying to earn a degree and get into the job market. Yes, there were some folks who got wrapped up in the "time" and let their studies go. They were suspended, dropped, or "asked" to not return.

On my own end, was too busy busting my ass driving a cab on the dogshift to pay my way to pay too much attention to the "culture". Did manage to participate in the "community" activities, including a fraternity. But, the "common" picture of the 60's is foreign to me. Was too busy working, studying and trying to graduate to pay too much attention.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Home Depot here has a sign at the door that says "no propane tanks in store," presumably for safety reasons so that people returning gas grills don't bring a full tank inside. Are you saying they should not be allowed to post that sign?

Certainly not. They also should be able to post "no entry without shoes", and have a patron who refuses to leave when arriving barefoot arrested for trespass.

They should not be able to "write law" with signs, or cause barefoot entry to become a "criminal offense" because it violated their sign. There is a huge difference between telling a business what it must allow, and not providing a mechanism for the business to turn violations of their policies that would not be crimes into offenses just because they have a sign posted.

 

[GSG]

I think that statements like those don't help argue our cause, I think they set it back by showing that our side cannot be reasonable or rational about this topic.

A person cannot choose not to be black. You can choose not to carry. "No black people allowed" discriminates against the person. "No weapons" only discriminates against the activity that the person is doing.

The Home Depot here has a sign at the door that says "no propane tanks in store," presumably for safety reasons so that people returning gas grills don't bring a full tank inside. Are you saying they should not be allowed to post that sign?

There are sounder arguments than simply "the public should be allowed in."

Personally, I have to conclude that on private property, it is a property owners right to deny weapons. I think it's a poor decision, both morally, and business-wise, but I don't think I can support legislating against it.

Allow me to respectfully disagree.

At what point are stores allowed to remove people's rights? They don't have armed guards there to protect me in the event of a Tacoma mall/Omaha mall shooting, and even if they did, why does the store get to have a say in the choices I've made. I have visible tattoos on my body, should they be allowed to make me cover them in their store, or not have them to enter? What about a hammer? I can legally carry a hammer, and I can do lots of damage with it, but should the store be able to tell members of the public entering a public place that they're not allowed to bring in items that they can legally carry anywhere else in public?

I think if you have private property made private (like a house, apartment, private piece of land) than you should be able to restrict it, because it's where you live, your "castle" if you will. But a business is open to the public, and the public should not be expected or required to change behavior that isn't illegal, dangerous, unsanitary or offensive because of store policy.

Certainly not. They also should be able to post "no entry without shoes", and have a patron who refuses to leave when arriving barefoot arrested for trespass.

They should not be able to "write law" with signs, or cause barefoot entry to become a "criminal offense" because it violated their sign. There is a huge difference between telling a business what it must allow, and not providing a mechanism for the business to turn violations of their policies that would not be crimes into offenses just because they have a sign posted.

Agreed.