Two college students facing expulsion for defending themselves with a firearm

[WackyDan]

On what grounds would they sue?

The college can prove they violated the terms of their lease. Tethering that to their education might be a challenge and that all depends on how the state would view off campus apartments owned by the college versus on campus as well.

Yeah.. its subjective, and I'm not a lawyer. It will be interesting to see where this one goes.

 

[fskimospy]

The college can prove they violated the terms of their lease. Tethering that to their education might be a challenge and that all depends on how the state would view off campus apartments owned by the college versus on campus as well.

Yeah.. its subjective, and I'm not a lawyer. It will be interesting to see where this one goes.

I'm willing to bet somewhere in their code of conduct or whatever it talks about how violating university housing policy or whatever can be grounds for expulsion, etc.

 

[thraashman]

they can try...and they won't stop

Look at how long the liberal hippies have been trying to ban God.

At no point have liberals tried to ban any god or gods from PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS. In fact we work real hard to ensure that's where they stay.

 

[werepossum]

Are you saying that private property owners must allow residents to bring weapons into their property if they wish to rent an apartment?

Seems like a straightforward idea to me - if you are serving the public, you cannot violate anyone's civil rights. No banning guns because you have a problem with them, no turning down gay weddings because you have a problem with them, no refusing to serve blacks because you have a problem with them.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like a straightforward idea to me - if you are serving the public, you cannot violate anyone's civil rights. No banning guns because you have a problem with them, no turning down gay weddings because you have a problem with them, no refusing to serve blacks because you have a problem with them.

I'm not sure what basis this straightforward idea has in any law. We have specific laws passed that require public accomodations be open to all people regardless of race/ethnicity/etc. There are similar laws in some states that include sexual orientation, but not all states. There is no law in any state that I am aware of that says private business must follow all rights guaranteed in the Constitution nor am I aware of a law in any state that requires people serving the public to allow firearms inside their privately owned buildings.

 

[Matt1970]

Everything I have read says a landlord has the right to ban guns from their property. The University is basically a landlord in this type of situation. He had every right to use his weapon to defend himself, he isn't facing any criminal charges for it but the University also has the right to expel him.

 

[schneiderguy]

What the government can and has done is passed laws to prevent discrimination through legislation. If your argument is that the government should pass legislation to require property owners to permit weapons in their private property I encourage you to agitate for such action. I am unaware of any active legislation nearby Gonzanga that has such a requirement, however.

So you don't actually believe in private property rights. Figures.

 

[2timer]

Seems like a straightforward idea to me - if you are serving the public, you cannot violate anyone's civil rights. No banning guns because you have a problem with them, no turning down gay weddings because you have a problem with them, no refusing to serve blacks because you have a problem with them.

Private property owners aren't "serving the public."

 

[fskimospy]

So you don't actually believe in private property rights. Figures.

My argument is explicitly in favor of property rights in this case.

 

[werepossum]

Private property owners aren't "serving the public."

They are if they are renting rooms. Same principle as not serving blacks or gays - fine if you don't want to let them onto your private property, but not fine if you are a business. Even if your business is renting a room in your home.

The real lawsuit here is on behalf of the six-time felon. The university promised him a safe, gun-free workplace, then failed to deliver. Not only has he suffered extreme mental anguish, but due to that mental trauma he is now limited in his ability to perform his profession of home invasion.

 

[Matt1970]

The real lawsuit here is on behalf of the six-time felon. The university promised him a safe, gun-free workplace, then failed to deliver. Not only has he suffered extreme mental anguish, but due to that mental trauma he is now limited in his ability to perform his profession of home invasion.

LOL, He should get hazard pay for having guns pulled on him while working.

 

[TreVader]

I'm a gun nut and I have no problem with property owners not allowing firearms.

Would you take issue to the University not allowing a gay person or a fat person to live in their apartments?

Gay/Fat people are human beings with rights. Guns are inanimate objects and do not have rights.

Beyond that, what are you talking about? By the logic of you charlton heston wannabes, because an Airline is govt. owned or owned by something you payed taxes for you should be able to bring your AR-15 on it.


This was private university property. They aren't even being expelled (YET), they're just being told PLZ DON'T BRING FIREARMS ONTO UNIVERSITY PROPERTY.

What is so hard to understand here. These kids should apologize and tell all the conservative leeches to lay off them. If I ran that university, they would already be expelled for causing such an uproar.

 

[TreVader]

Seems like a straightforward idea to me - if you are serving the public, you cannot violate anyone's civil rights. No banning guns because you have a problem with them, no turning down gay weddings because you have a problem with them, no refusing to serve blacks because you have a problem with them.

Yeah, and Habib and Ahmad from Yemen should be allowed to bring their AK-47s they just bought at a texas gun show on the plane, right? Oh and grenades too, kinda stupid those are illegal. armor-peircing bullets. SAMs... hell we should just let anyone with enough money buy their own nuclear submarine!


I mean the world would TOTALLY be safer if every human on earth had a nuclear weapon? Nobody would ever commit crimes!


^this is the basis of the libertarian child-mind logic. Everything would be best if anyone could do anything.

 

[spidey07]

You can totally take and AK-47 or AR15 on a plane. Nothing wrong or illegal about it.

You can also legally own grenades.

Might want to know about the subject you are speaking about lest you look like a stupid liberal whose opinion is totally worthless.

 

[shira]

You can totally take and AK-47 or AR15 on a plane. Nothing wrong or illegal about it.

You can also legally own grenades.

Might want to know about the subject you are speaking about lest you look like a stupid liberal whose opinion is totally worthless.

Define "totally take."

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/firearms-and-ammunition

All firearms, ammunition and firearm parts, including firearm frames and receivers, are prohibited in carry-on baggage.

Might want to know about the subject you are speaking about lest you look like a toothless redneck whose opinion is totally worthless.

 

[TreVader]

You can totally take and AK-47 or AR15 on a plane. Nothing wrong or illegal about it.

You can also legally own grenades.

Might want to know about the subject you are speaking about lest you look like a stupid liberal whose opinion is totally worthless.

You cannot take an AK on a plane. You cannot take any gun on a plane you idiot. Also, you are not legally allowed to own a functional grenade. It's considered a "destructive device".



Learn the rules you tool

 

[thraashman]

You can totally take and AK-47 or AR15 on a plane. Nothing wrong or illegal about it.

You can also legally own grenades.

Might want to know about the subject you are speaking about lest you look like a stupid liberal whose opinion is totally worthless.

First, it's obvious he meant carrying a gun onto a plane, which you cannot do. Packed and stored firearms are clearly a different situation. And second, the first result when Googled if it's legal to own a live hand grenade says no. In fact most sources I've found say you can't. I've seen some that indicate it's legal with a special permit and a tax that costs about $200 per grenade.

 

[spidey07]

LOL!

Keep posting you idiots.

 

[thraashman]

LOL!

Keep posting you idiots.

Well let's see. I posted a link that is the top link on Google on the subject of grenades ownership. And shira posted a link about bringing guns on a plane. Both of which say you're wrong. So, I think the idiot that it's amusing that they keep posting, is you.

 

[spidey07]

Well let's see. I posted a link that is the top link on Google on the subject of grenades ownership. And shira posted a link about bringing guns on a plane. Both of which say you're wrong. So, I think the idiot that it's amusing that they keep posting, is you.

Can you take firearms on a plane?

Yes, in checked luggage.

Can you own and manufacture destructive devices?

Yes.

This is where first hand knowledge trumps what you can google.

 

[thraashman]

Can you take firearms on a plane?

Yes, in checked luggage.

Can you own and manufacture destructive devices?

Yes.

This is where first hand knowledge trumps what you can google.

Actually, you are completely incorrect about taking a gun on a plane. If you were to take a gun on a plane, you'd be arrested. If you were to check a gun into your luggage, then an employee of the airport would take your checked luggage onto a plane, thus YOU were not taking a gun on the plane. Fuck you and your stupid semantic bullshit if you want to play this game.

 

[spidey07]

Actually, you are completely incorrect about taking a gun on a plane. If you were to take a gun on a plane, you'd be arrested. If you were to check a gun into your luggage, then an employee of the airport would take your checked luggage onto a plane, thus YOU were not taking a gun on the plane. Fuck you and your stupid semantic bullshit if you want to play this game.

Still googling the destructive device stuff I see.

Face it, you don't know shit about what you're talking about. You are ignorant and your opinion is worthless.

Liberalism is a mental disease, as evidence here.

 

[thraashman]

Still googling the destructive device stuff I see.

Face it, you don't know shit about what you're talking about. You are ignorant and your opinion is worthless.

Liberalism is a mental disease, as evidence here.

And people that quote Hitler to make a very wrong point have some serious issues. If I believed it was possible for a monster like you to have loved ones I'd wish that they'd have a competency hearing for you.

Many people in this thread have provided evidence for their point of view. You have not been one of them.

 

[spidey07]

And people that quote Hitler to make a very wrong point have some serious issues. If I believed it was possible for a monster like you to have loved ones I'd wish that they'd have a competency hearing for you.

Many people in this thread have provided evidence for their point of view. You have not been one of them.

Once again your opinion cannot be trusted because you are totally ignorant about what you are talking about. This is how it is with the liberal, they are just too stupid listen to.

Via the national firearms act, civilians may own destructive devices, short barreled rifles and automatic weapons. One simply needs to spend 200 bucks for the tax stamp and off you go. That should give you something to google.

 

[thraashman]

Once again your opinion cannot be trusted because you are totally ignorant about what you are talking about. This is how it is with the liberal, they are just too stupid listen to.

Via the national firearms act, civilians may own destructive devices, short barreled rifles and automatic weapons. One simply needs to spend 200 bucks for the tax stamp and off you go. That should give you something to google.

It's really no fun to try to have a discussion with you. You don't back up anything you say. You make crazy rants and prove that you have no semblance of sanity. And you don't even fucking read the posts of people you argue with. I posted about the $200 tax in my first post in regards to this. You were more than welcome to refute the link I posted, but I myself even posted a partial refutation of it. But instead, you chose to make a crazy rant, double down on the wrong about taking a gun on a plane (as I pointed out, you can't, you can check a gun into baggage in which case someone else would take it on the plane for you), and quote Hitler as if he's your personal hero.

You should seriously quit while you're really, really, really far behind.