Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It doesn't help when the news organizations are claiming that they are in trouble for something that is not the case:

(CNN) - Two Gonzaga University students could be suspended or even expelled after using a handgun to defend themselves from an intruder in their university-owned apartment, an act which the university says violates the school's weapons policy.

They are not in trouble for defending themselves, and certainly not for using the handgun to defend themselves.

They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.

It's like saying "man punished for giving CPR" when he is really in trouble for the illegally carried gun that fell out of his pocket while giving CPR.

Do I agree with the rule the the university has about guns? Nope. But if they didn't want to follow that rule then they should have moved somewhere else. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse either, it's their job to know the rules they have to follow.

Not reading simple rules like that probably means that they don't read food labels either and that they will die soon anyway. They can't shoot those trans-fats to death.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?

Seriously being this obtuse? I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I am not. The land lord said no guns, so no guns

I agree with hotsauce, private landowners can limit you rights when you agree to their terms. You can also sign away you rights in certain circumstances. They have the right to bear arms, but they agreed they didn't when they agreed to the rules.

I'd honestly argue that someone at university is a de facto ward of the university. IMO, the university bares a responsibility to keep its students safe. Having guns on campus is dangerous when combined with booze, raging hormones, frat hazing, and other stupid stunts. Now I'm the first person to stand up and say campus cops suck dick. They're terrible and I know from first hand experience more than once. But that doesn't mean we whould be letting people still in the transition to adult hood arm themselves to the teeth.

 d-usa wrote:
They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.

Sounds like these kids probably carried purses into classrooms when they were younger.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They are in trouble for willingly violating a rule that they should have known about since the day they moved into the apartment. Breaking that rule is the offense, defending themselves is just how the police found out that they were breaking the rule.

Sounds like these kids probably carried purses into classrooms when they were younger.

It's where they kept their guns...

Thank goodness the intruder wasn't injured!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Idiots disobey rules they signed off on....get in trouble.
This is a gun issue how?

Everytime a thread mentions the word Gun it becomes a gun issue.

I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.

-Shrike- wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:

Spoiler:

Woe betide the fool who attacks the owner of a pewter Thunderhawk.

Holy fething Mary Mother of Christ.

That supporting pole must be made of adamantium.

Google tells me it weighs 3.6kg. That's 8lbs.

And finally we have found a proper, off topic, way of settling the PP vs GW (or any other system) pissing match! Minis in socks at dawn!

Now we just need a mod to sanction it and we can enforce it on the rest of the forum whenever some idiots start the "my system is better" bollacks.

Man I feel sorry for the Xwing fans...

 Steve steveson wrote:
Man I feel sorry for the Xwing fans...

X-wing is more of a board game, it gets a pass.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Man I feel sorry for the Xwing fans...

X-wing is more of a board game, it gets a pass.

Why? Just let somebody get hit with a scale star destroyer and we will see who wins!

 d-usa wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Man I feel sorry for the Xwing fans...

X-wing is more of a board game, it gets a pass.

Why? Just let somebody get hit with a scale star destroyer and we will see who wins!

Can you even fit that in a sock?

For now FF don't make one, and if they do the owner will not need to fit it in a sock asthey will win by having a fething scale star destroyer. That wins everything.

djones520 wrote:I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?

This seems pretty basic, assuming that the university is private property.

As to the parallel to tenant's rights... I have no idea how that works in Washington State. I'm assuming that landlords do not have the right to evict for rules that are in violation of the bill of rights, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it, either. However, I suspect that student housing on-campus is separate from your standard landlord's agreement in the eyes of the law.

Legitimately curious about this one.,

Stuff found on the internet should not be taken as legal advice, but any who:

http://www.washingtongunrights.com/faq.html

Can I carry at or near a school? Or College?
(RCW 9.41.280) If you have a valid CPL and are picking up or dropping off a student you are allowed on the school grounds. Firearms are not permitted in school buildings. Colleges set their own policies, which ban lawfully carried guns. South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia is the only college in this state we know of that does not specifically ban lawfully carried guns from their campus at this time.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf

Places listed below that have Rules that state no firearms allowed on Premises. Washington State
Administrative Rules cover these areas.

Colleges/Universities, Licensed Child Care Facilities, Racing Association Grounds, An Emergency
Respite Center, Licensed Pregnant and Parenting Teen Residential Programs And Their Facilities,
Licensed Homes and Facilities That Provide Care To Children. Overnight Youth Shelter & Residence
Operated By the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration

People who work or attend school at such places can be fired/expelled if they possess firearms on these
listed properties. Some Colleges/Universities may have storage facilities for those who wish to possess
firearms while attending college. Check with your school.

Note: The Administrative Rules of Washington have the information on carrying on College/Universities.
You can see the code Here and look down to the listed College/University to see their rules on carry.

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:I see this being an interesting case. Does a land lord have the right to strip a tenant of the Second Amendment?

This seems pretty basic, assuming that the university is private property.

As much as I think it's a dick thing for the University to do, Azazel is right in that it's a private institution so the students didn't have a "right" to keep that gun on University property. Same with some homeowners associations. If you are subject to an HOA, read the bylaws. Many stores prohibit firearms on their premises even with a valid permit. It's their right regardless if they are a tenant shop or the landlord.

Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him

 Jihadin wrote:
Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him

And what happens when the situation escalates and you're stuck with a fake gun?

Edit: Here's my question. Did the University PD actually have the authority to confiscate a legally owned weapon? I wasn't aware a renter's agreement could result in private property being seized.

I agree with hotsauce, private landowners can limit you rights when you agree to their terms.

While I agree with this in general, and that you bring it on yourself if you break agreed upon rules...well...can't say i'm not hoping that the Uni gets enough bad PR or a legal eagle boots them sufficiently to make them change policy.

Moreover, while private property owners do have some leeway in prohibiting behavior, there are limits there too. Write up a housing agreement that says you can't practice X religion, see what happens. Whether prohibitions on weapons falls into that category is for above mentioned legal eagles to determine. Myself I wouldn't sign a no-weapons agreement, but I am hardheaded.

Did the University PD actually have the authority to confiscate a legally owned weapon?

...Possibly. If they can make it fly that it's evidence in a crime (Pointing a gun at someone could be called illegal brandishing, after all.) yes. If they can't, no, and it's likely he will get a gun shaped lump of rust back in about 6-12 months, and then sue the uni PD for its value.

Gonzaga has acknowledged that they will be reviewing their policy regarding fire arms. Big step on their part in my eyes.

 djones520 wrote:
Gonzaga has acknowledged that they will be reviewing their policy regarding fire arms. Big step on their part in my eyes.

Agree.

For me this is two completely separate issues (three if you count all the misleading news stories):

The first is that these guys broke the rules. That's pretty straight forward in my eyes and a pretty open and shut case. They made the decision to live in a place where guns were not allowed to be present. They made the decision to violate that rule. How these guns were found isn't really relevant to the fact that the rule was broken. They violated a rule that they agreed to, they should take the punishment for it.

The second is that the policy should be reviewed and maybe modified. The circumstances under which the guns were found are a bigger factor here IMO. The fact that they had to pull the gun to protect themselves doesn't change the fact that they agreed not to have a gun present, but it does show that the policy might have to be modified to allow people to protect themselves. Especially if this is off-campus university owned housing. At least on-campus the university can make the argument that they can increase police presence to make up for the lack of self protection, but that is something that is a lot harder to do with off-campus housing where campus police would not normally be as visible.

Fix the second issue (allowing people to protect themselves) and you will fix future occurrences of the first (people breaking the rules because they feel the need to protect themselves).

Said pretty well d-USA. I'm right with you on pretty much all points. I think there should probably be some differentiation between on campus and off campus housing.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.

Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)

This basically seems to be a case of them being legitimately in trouble, but the rule they violated seems to be a bad one that should be eliminated.

I'd argue that, if I can't protect myself with my Constitutional rights, it is the school's job to provide equivalent protection.

Campus housing should be sufficiently isolated as to prevent people like the assailant in the story from accessing my apartment, if I cannot defend myself with a weapon.


I would issue the following ultimatum, either you let me have a gun in my apartment, or you install fences and combination lock gates around all places where you are restricting my 2nd amendment rights.

I am very sure every school would go with the former choice.

Jihadin wrote:Go with a "Rubber Ducky". Looks like the real thing and when struck by one its the real thing. So a muzzle stab to the sternum hurts badly. Poor aggressor thinking he's going to shot doesn't expect a cold steel barrel skewering him

Trouble is, this will often knock a pistol out of battery.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I would issue the following ultimatum, either you let me have a gun in my apartment, or you install fences and combination lock gates around all places where you are restricting my 2nd amendment rights.

I am very sure every school would go with the former choice.

They have a third choice, not letting you sign the rental agreement if you don't agree with their rules.

And you have a third choice, not signing the rental agreement if you don't agree with the rules.

Your ultimatum is meaningless.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.

Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)

It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.

I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.

Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)

It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.

I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.

Whether or not it was, if it was in the lease agreement, I don't see any legal footing to stand on.

 djones520 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I read this case this morning and it piqued my interest. A lot may depend on what the State law is and whether it applied to the campus itself, or university property.

Also, I wonder if the off-campus apartment the 2 gentlemen were living in was actually clearly marked as such... I've been to a few college towns where an apartment complex had a suitably "normal" apartment complex name, but was owned by the college, but had no signage letting us know it was owned by the school (you actually had to know someone at the school to know what apt. complexes/dorms were school owned and which werent)

It may not have been marked, but they probably did know it was rented through the university and not a 3rd party.

I don't think its a bad rule for on campus housing, but they clearly think it may be worth reevaluating for off campus housing, even those owned by the university.

Whether or not it was, if it was in the lease agreement, I don't see any legal footing to stand on.

Oh for sure. Totally agree. That's sort of what I meant

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I've got Mulg in a nice wool sock for just such occasions!

The irony here being that Mulg in a sock is about twelve bazillions times more lethal than a super-special 54 bullets magasine assault rifle.

Well, I do need a weapon to get to my pistol, which is then used to get to my rifle... Though I wouldn't go walking around the tight corridors of my house with a mosin nagant for home defense .

Thats a real problem. Instead of defending the house you'll have the sudden urge to invade the Reichstag....