The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Paraguy on November 11, 2013, 09:33:52 AM
-
ABC News' Mosheh Gains and Sandra Petrykowski report:
Two Gonzaga University students are on indefinite probation for pulling out a gun when an intruder allegedly tried to force his way into their university-owned apartment.
Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were notified Sunday in a letter from the Spokane, Wash., university they had been placed on indefinite probation for violating the school's weapons policy Oct. 24 when a six-time felon knocked on their door and allegedly demanded money.
Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.
"I just kind of popped up and opened the door and see Mr. Taylor standing there and he starts explaining how he's homeless and needs money," Fagan told ABC News.
Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.
McIntosh, an electrical engineering major, said he and Fagan called police after the incident and Taylor was arrested.
McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.
Fagan and McIntosh say they didn't know anything about the policy, but they wouldn't change a thing as they wonder what would have happened to them if they hadn't been armed.
"Because we were just defending ourselves there is no reason that we should be punished for it," Fagan said.
The seniors said they plan to appeal the school's indefinite probation ruling.
-
Having a firearm in your residence is a tricky one as you go state to state. In Minnesota you can not regulate firearms as a landlord. Sounds simple, but you also can not have firearms on school property except under certain conditions. Is a dorm a residence or school property?
Here is the biggest thing in Minnesota law, if I notify the Superintendent, Dean, or person with the highest title, they can grant permission. My letter to our local schools is written to state that I will carry, the purpose, my credentials, and that if I do not receive a response written denial by a set date the permission is granted. This letter with documentation is sent, and the Form 3811 is kept with photo copies of everything contained in the packet.
This is how we do it with the State Capitol complex, courthouses, and schools around here.
It is sad that our very own government ignores the Constitution of the United States in this matter, but as long as we know it is out there we need to play the game. Sad they are expelled, but did they break a written agreement with the school or ignore the proper way of doing thiings?
-
as m58 pointed out it all comes down to state law. the gun was discovered, as long it was not an illegal search, how it was found does not matter. they knew the policy, they may have even signed papers stating they knew the policy. if they have state law on thier side i hope they sue and get $$$, if they don't, i hope they are expelled.
-
as m58 pointed out it all comes down to state law. the gun was discovered, as long it was not an illegal search, how it was found does not matter. they knew the policy, they may have even signed papers stating they knew the policy. if they have state law on thier side i hope they sue and get $$$, if they don't, i hope they are expelled.
Too bad it won't go to trial...they might get a jury that doesn't believe in persecuting folks under an unconstitutional law no matter if they were foolish enough to agree to it.
Jury Nullification was provided by the Founders for just such a situation.
-
Not many are willing to do that.
-
as m58 pointed out it all comes down to state law. the gun was discovered, as long it was not an illegal search, how it was found does not matter. they knew the policy, they may have even signed papers stating they knew the policy. if they have state law on thier side i hope they sue and get $$$, if they don't, i hope they are expelled.
By all means...maybe if we all write letters we can get the school to push for public flogging for daring to defend themselves from a 6 time felon. ::) ::)
-
it has nothing to do with them defending themselfs.
-
it has nothing to do with them defending themselfs.
TAB, I know you are thinking that since they agreed to the rules of the University when they signed up they have to follow those rules, but that is flawed thinking.
If a person takes a job and agrees to work for 5 years as a slave of the owner, that is still a violation of constitutional rights and the "slave" cannot be punished for not upholding their part of the deal.
-
no one made them go to that school or live in those dorms.
-
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that there is no legal requirement to obey illegal laws or rules.
TAB and a few others need to read up on the Nuremberg Trials for a refresher on what happens to people who "just follow orders".
-
no one made them go to that school or live in those dorms.
No one made that example choose to be a slave, but is is still a violation of the constitution.
-
Here is a thought, how aout the students sueing the university for
1.not providing enough armed security since they can't be armed
2.allowing a convicted felon on campus and access to the apartments
Ranger Dave
-
Dave, there are court rulings that say the police do not have to protect you. its not strech to have that applied to non leos. Even if you had an actavist judge, it would be over turned on apeal. hell the ss can't even protect the pous. I doubt you will find better security then that.
-
Yeah, I know about the SCOTUS rulings and the court system and that is why I don't go to buildings marked as gun free.
-
THere you found a solution you are happy( or atleast can live with) about. if they had done that...
-
Dave, there are court rulings that say the police do not have to protect you. its not strech to have that applied to non leos. Even if you had an actavist judge, it would be over turned on apeal. hell the ss can't even protect the pous. I doubt you will find better security then that.
True.....
But that is where the BEAR part of the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS comes into play. It gives me the right to protect myself when and where others can not.
Gun-free zones on publicly accessible properties are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
Period.
-
I still believe the university should be held responsible for the felon having access to the apartments and not having enough security since they don't allow residents to protect themselves.
-
how do you control a campus that is huge, has 10s of thosuands of students, has access to several froms of transpertation? its really not easy, or even practical.
-
Then why prohibit people from defending themselves?
-
You don't need a gun to defend yourself. A gun is just a tool. Its software, not hardware. I can think of several reasons not to allow guns in dorms. 1 liabilty 2 felons/ porbies can't share the room with one, so now you have to ask 2 people about thier personal lives. 3 public affairs night mare. its really easy to cite liabilty and other intrustions in privacy for having a no gun policy. Its not so easy to explain why they can have guns. all it takes is one person to make it thier mission and you will be screwed.
-
how do you control a campus that is huge, has 10s of thosuands of students, has access to several froms of transpertation? its really not easy, or even practical
You don't need a gun to defend yourself. A gun is just a tool. Its software, not hardware. I can think of several reasons not to allow guns in dorms. 1 liabilty 2 felons/ porbies can't share the room with one, so now you have to ask 2 people about thier personal lives. 3public affairs night mare. its really easy to cite liabilty and other intrustions in privacy for having a no gun policy. Its not so easy to explain why they can have guns. all it takes is one person to make it thier mission and you will be screwed.
You cite reasons a large campus can't be controlled (they can't) and in the next breath, say it's perfectly OK to keep the most effective tool for self defense out of the hands of those that don't suffer from your Kalifornia induced Pant Shitting Hysteria and just want to protect themselves.
WTF? Do you have guns to protect your family? Does not that make you a hypocritical ass?
Tab, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and your ass, and none of them makes a lick of sense.
-
So tell me this, how do address the issues i pointed out? Pointing to the 2nd amendment is not going to work. I see this the same way i see the employer/ employee realtionship. fallow the rules or get the boot. ( all of this presums state law says its ok to ban guns,)
-
Ok what other defensive tools do you recomend when a felon busts in your door, carrying a gun intending to do you harm when you cannot be armed?
-
So tell me this, how do address the issues i pointed out? Pointing to the 2nd amendment is not going to work. I see this the same way i see the employer/ employee realtionship. fallow the rules or get the boot. ( all of this presums state law says its ok to ban guns,)
I address your points by saying "allow honest legal citizens to CCW everywhere".....
Brilliant, TAB..... you just made the point for everyone else........ Follow the rules, as in the 2nd Amendment, or get the boot. THAT is what we need to be saying to the government....who, by the way, are the ones not following the rules.
You cite reasons a large campus can't be controlled (they can't) and in the next breath, say it's perfectly OK to keep the most effective tool for self defense out of the hands of those that don't suffer from your Kalifornia induced Pant Shitting Hysteria and just want to protect themselves.
WTF? Do you have guns to protect your family? Does not that make you a hypocritical ass?
Tab, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and your ass, and none of them makes a lick of sense.
I see you have met TAB and his thought process.... ;D ;D
-
You don't need a gun to defend yourself. A gun is just a tool. Its software, not hardware. I can think of several reasons not to allow guns in dorms. 1 liabilty 2 felons/ porbies can't share the room with one, so now you have to ask 2 people about thier personal lives. 3 public affairs night mare. its really easy to cite liabilty and other intrustions in privacy for having a no gun policy. Its not so easy to explain why they can have guns. all it takes is one person to make it thier mission and you will be screwed.
Let me introduce you to TAB. TAB is the oozing slime you get when Sara Brady and Michael Bloomberg mate >:(
-
I often disagree with TAB, mostly on his acceptance of the legal situation he is operating under.
From the businesses he has run to firearms.
For business, you need to get the job done in the environment you are working in...no time to fight city hall in a major campaign if you want to "Ger 'er Done".
I have no doubt that TAB supports 2A far more strongly than it appears....he has a deep believe in personal freedom which includes property rights to the exclusion of other concerns to some degree.
But, were the chips down, I'd have TAB at my back any time. I'd just bring some extra ammo in his caliber. :D
-
I often disagree with TAB, mostly on his acceptance of the legal situation he is operating under.
From the businesses he has run to firearms.
For business, you need to get the job done in the environment you are working in...no time to fight city hall in a major campaign if you want to "Ger 'er Done".
I have no doubt that TAB supports 2A far more strongly than it appears....he has a deep believe in personal freedom which includes property rights to the exclusion of other concerns to some degree.
But, were the chips down, I'd have TAB at my back any time. I'd just bring some extra ammo in his caliber. :D
I agree....
I do not doubt TAB's beliefs in personal freedoms, including the basis of the 2nd Amendment either.
Where TAB and I (and others) tend to engage in disagreement (more often than not) is over legal issues involving public domain and CCW. While I agree that when it comes to personal private property, the owner should have exclusive rights, TAB tends to overlap that into public access zones and uses liability issues for his defense.
I will also allow that even though I do not see eye-to-eye on every little detail with TAB, we have far more in common where interests are concerned, and I consider him an intelligent and likable fellow, whom I would probably enjoy engaging in discussion with were we to meet in person, and a valuable part of this forum.
More than once he has made me rethink my position on things, and even when I usually conclude that I still feel right in my opinion, at least it made me think in order to reinforce my stance on whatever the subject..... and we can always use that.
I would sincerely hope that no one (like new members or guests that are unfamiliar with the norm of this forum, or anyone familiar but not paying attention) would ever get the notion that my bandying words with TAB is in any way a personal attack on him.
-
Let me introduce you to TAB. TAB is the oozing slime you get when Sara Brady and Michael Bloomberg mate >:(
Some things you just cannot un-hear!
-
like it or not liabilty is a big deal in this world. the bigger the pockets the bigger the risk. A flesh wound can cost 10s of thousands how many of you can pay that? Not many,
-
like it or not liabilty is a big deal in this world. the bigger the pockets the bigger the risk. A flesh wound can cost 10s of thousands how many of you can pay that? Not many,
The answer to that is to level the Liability Playing Field.
If you remove a person's ability to fully and effectively protect themselves, you are responsible for providing protection and paying should what you provide not be effective.
It might be more likely there will be an accidental injury than an assault casualty, but that is the decision that will need to be made...and the one making the decision to leave folks helpless and defenseless is on the hook for the damages and consequences.
I know you will say that there is no guarantee that a person will be able to protect themselves if they are armed so they can't prove you are liable
I know because you have said it before, and the answer is that you may be right, but if they are left defenseless it is guaranteed they will not be able to defend themselves as effectively.
If, however, they are left with the means to defend themselves and fail, there is no question that the responsibility is theirs.
-
I am along with TAB on the fact that if you agree to the rules you are wrong to break them. However, when he starts giving all the reasons the rules and laws should restrict our freedoms I am done with it. What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand. If I want to hear all the reasons to regulate a right or eliminate a protection I will turn on Piers Morgan.
-
THere is a diffrence between a private group and the gov.
-
True, but do you believe in our basic human rights or not? Your statement is right out of the Brady Handbook!
-
like it or not liabilty is a big deal in this world. the bigger the pockets the bigger the risk. A flesh wound can cost 10s of thousands how many of you can pay that? Not many,
Before we discuss you talking out of your hat again, WTF what/who are you replying to? Did this just pop into your noggin?
Do you think as grown adults living and working in the real world we don't know about liability and how much it can cost?
-
most people have no clue how much liabilty costs.(or any costs in business) example, how much does your employer pay for your workmens comp?
-
TAB,
You would be amazed about what people know about liability exposure and insurance. Most adults carry at least one liability policy - auto or home.
The bigger question is if it is right for somebody to restrict basic human rights and for you to promote it over ambulance chasing attorneys, and that is all the issue over inflated liability costs is anyway. Pres. Reagan tried to address this as a part of controlling health costs - Multi-million dollar settlements for a 90 year old who falls, or the millions for a staph infection where a person has two months off a $25k per year job.
My argument with you all along here, and other times this has come up, is that you promote restricting basic human rights in the name of cost, liability, and political correctness/relations. If you want to restrict me in your own home that is your right, but when you invite me to spend money at your place of business you open yourself up to not restricting my basic human rights. That is the basis behind all Civil Rights court rulings and legislation.
-
here is my deal, if you have a choice to be there( i am not talking about a home you rent, but if its in the middle of a college campus, you have to fallow the rules of the campus) they have the right to restrict what comes on thier property.
-
here is my deal, if you have a choice to be there( i am not talking about a home you rent, but if its in the middle of a college campus, you have to fallow the rules of the campus) they have the right to restrict what comes on thier property.
They shouldn't if it is not a private school entity..... and those rules violate my rights under the Constitution.
If it is a public, state, or school that takes federal money, then it should be regulated by the 2nd Amendment.
Liability is a separate issue. You have liability with any free choice in life.
-
Peg,
Gonzanga is a Catholic school. However, even as a private school they must deal with the civil rights issue. I understand and support that these students signed on for what they got. However, I do not support TAB's stance that a public entity or private business can infringe on civil rights. Look at what religious organizations and even private businesses are facing over the health care bills and the conflicts with their religious beliefs. They are being told that civil rights rule. This is where TAB and I part ways, and I do not appreciate is being so well versed in the Brady and Bloomberg speak in support of what happened or in reasons to ban our rights.
-
Just to clarify my stance on the SD/CCW anywhere issue (which I have stated several times over the years):
Private property without public access should be at the discretion of the owner of the property.
If the public has access to a property, at any time, then the Constitutional right to bear arms should be allowed.
-
To clarify my stance on SD/CCW (which I have stated several times over the years):
Private property without public access should be at the discretion of the owner of the property.
If the public has access to a property, at any time, then the Constitutional right to bear arms should be allowed.
No argument from me on that one!
-
What about areas where its either dangerous, or would cuases issues? I can think of a few right off the bat, that having a gun on you would be bad or would cuase mechanical issues. You also are going to have to define what is and is not public. example, the radiaolgy department at the doctors, it could be dangerous and cuase fuzzy images, at what point does that trip become public and private? clearly you can't even have it in the room when you are having a mri. But at what point is it no longer open to the public?
-
I know I am feeding a troll at this point, but taking your gun into an MRI can't be done because of issues caused by the magnetic fields. However, when I had my CT I had my gun on the belt with no issue. I have done the same with X-Ray. All depends on the machinery and your carry practice or ability.
Private = Your home or private property where you do not invite people for a public meeting or business
Public = Publicly owned, private business where public is invited to conduct business, private organization who invites people to participate in public meetings just to name a few.
Look at public and private from the angle of the no smoking laws. Just as good, look at it through the lenses used for other civil rights.
-
smoking signs would be a bad example, tons of places you can't smoke by law. lets go back to the college thing. classrooms are not public places. Ask fq. dr offices are private, unless you like people walking in on you.
-
smoking signs would be a bad example, tons of places you can't smoke by law. lets go back to the college thing. classrooms are not public places. Ask fq. dr offices are private, unless you like people walking in on you.
Wrong, wrong and wrong TAB:
No smoking laws, in Minnesota, are a perfect example. They lay out the basics that if it is publicly owned or private but open for public it is considered public and smoking not allowed. These same places are the areas where firearms should not be disallowed.
A college is all public. Whether publicly or privately owned, they do business with the public by inviting them to enter and spend, thus they are a public place. Your dorm is your home, and many courts in different states have ruled that a landlord can not restrict your access to arms in property you rent. This is the reason that a mall cannot, even though they do, post at the entrances for an entire mall. The individual renters have the right to have arms and control their rented property.
Even though people cannot just walk in on you in an exam room, the doctors office is public - Private or public business that operates by inviting customers in to do business with them.
Remember TAB that we have two types of law in this nation: Legislative Law and Case Law. The courts have ruled through Case Law that property owners have a responsibility to their invitees. This means that in a private family setting you must provide a reasonably safe situation that does not cause risk. For business this takes the safety and expands it to not being able to deny civil rights, and in Minnesota that you can not smoke there.
While I believe that these students broke their word when they signed a contract and did not follow the terms of agreement, they also have a God given right to self defense that the school was trying to deny. This is the type of situation that would have been the cause of civil disobedience protests in the 60's.
-
i am not disagreeing with you about dwelling, it gets sticky when its on the campus itself. If is illegal or not aloud on campus, how do you get it there? i am a big fan of texas 30.06 law.
-
Not sticky at all. If you are allowed to have in the dwelling, you are allowed to get it there.
Keep grasping ;)