Gun Debate Part VIII: Guns and Universities: This time it is Personal: Super: Gold: Alpha Edition

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.

**Ahtman**

Sauce

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.

I can see dorms having some restrictions, but individual apartments, even if University owned, seems a bit of a stretch to neutralize their 2nd Amendment rights.

**djones520**

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

**-Shrike-**

So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun.
University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University.

... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

That's what I thought.

**Da Boss**

Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.

**djones520**

I've done some digging around, and it seems that it is legal for landlords to say no to guns.

I'll have to make sure I check on that from now on when the AF sends me new places.

**Tannhauser42**

djones520 wrote:
I've done some digging around, and it seems that it is legal for landlords to say no to guns.

Same thing applies with the First Amendment. No right to free speech on private forums and all that.

**Kovnik Obama**

-Shrike- wrote:
So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun.
University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University.

... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here?

Is it the first time you see an (educational) institution punish both parties despite the fact that its obvious one is more guilty than the other?

The kids violated the terms of the renting agreement. Guess next time, better just come out wielding a baseball bat. Or the good ol Warjack in a Sock.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.

Oh yeah, because a slap on the wrist for violating dorm rules for a feth is completely comparable to potentially losing your registration (and living arrangements) because you defended yourself from an admitted felon.

**Alfndrate**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
So a convicted felon knocks on their door - they scare him away with a legally owned gun.
University punishes them, because it took place in an off-campus apartment owned by the University.

... am I the only one seeing a slight disconnect from reality here?

Is it the first time you see an (educational) institution punish both parties despite the fact that its obvious one is more guilty than the other?

The kids violated the terms of the renting agreement. Guess next time, better just come out wielding a baseball bat. Or the good ol Warjack in a Sock.

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

I was going to say that it seems weird, but these lads are playing dumb here. When they agreed to live in that University owned housing, they knew that they had to follow the same rules as the poor saps living in cramped dorms. Every dorm on my campus, as well as the 'off campus' university owned apartments have the same rules, one of these are signs posted at the exit that pursuant to the Ohio Concealed Carry law(s), it is illegal to carry a firearm on campus.

**djones520**

Youngin's these days...

2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.

**LordofHats**

Best title of the day Aht XD

Sounds like another case of someone not reading the rules XD Of course given recent high profile shootings at schools and universities maybe this is for the best. Not that every person with a gun is gonna shoot up the place, but maybe having firearms in such an environment isn't the best idea (like no guns within ### yards of a school laws).

**whembly**

At least, they won't be expelled. They're on probation at that University until they leave.

Interestingly, they're going to review the current gun-policy as well.

**Alfndrate**

djones520 wrote:
Youngin's these days...

2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.

How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal

**Kovnik Obama**

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.

I was going to say that it seems weird, but these lads are playing dumb here. When they agreed to live in that University owned housing, they knew that they had to follow the same rules as the poor saps living in cramped dorms. Every dorm on my campus, as well as the 'off campus' university owned apartments have the same rules, one of these are signs posted at the exit that pursuant to the Ohio Concealed Carry law(s), it is illegal to carry a firearm on campus.

Exactly. my first reaction to reading this was ''Really, and you didn't think it'd be a good idea to, you know, just lie about it? Just say you came out with a hammer in your hand, or something''.

**Da Boss**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
Universities try to get away with this sort of crap all the time. When I was in uni I spent the night with a girl in the uni dorms and they fined her because "no boys allowed". I paid the fine, didn't have the time or resources to start anything with them over it (and had gotten into trouble previously over being a knob online) but I remember thinking it was completely ridiculous that they could even have a rule like that.

Oh yeah, because a slap on the wrist for violating dorm rules for a feth is completely comparable to potentially losing your registration (and living arrangements) because you defended yourself from an admitted felon.

Jeez, chill out man.

**-Shrike-**

djones520 wrote:
Youngin's these days...

2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.

Best post of the day!

**Alfndrate**

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

.

**djones520**

Alfndrate wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Youngin's these days...

2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.

How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal

The weight don't matter, when you've got these in there.

**hotsauceman1**

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

**Kovnik Obama**

djones520 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Youngin's these days...

2nd Edition Dreadnought in socks. That's what you do. None of this new fangled warjack crap.

How heavy were those old 2nd ed Dreads? Mulg's like 3/4 a pound of metal

The weight don't matter, when you've got these in there.

Really? Those got nothing on this :

I mean, I'd take on armoured knights with this thing in a sock!

**djones520**

Well, lets test them out.

I'll bring my ork dreadnoughts in a sock, you bring that.

First to fall loses.

I get to go first though.

**cincydooley**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.
''.

Wait, what?

**djones520**

cincydooley wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.
''.

Wait, what?

Sarcasm.

**cincydooley**

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.

**-Shrike-**

No? How about this.

Spoiler:

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

**Kovnik Obama**

djones520 wrote:
Well, lets test them out.

I'll bring my ork dreadnoughts in a sock, you bring that.

First to fall loses.

I get to go first though.

I'll agree to a coin toss.

**cincydooley**

djones520 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.
''.

Wait, what?

Sarcasm.

Gracias. My online sarcasm detecter is off.

**Alfndrate**

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

Because the argument was brought up as to whether or not property owners could strip constitutional rights (such as no having firearms in their domicile).

Though I believe this thread is now about saps made with footwear and miniatures.

**hotsauceman1**

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

**Kovnik Obama**

-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.

**-Shrike-**

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.