Someone tried to force his way in and one pulled a gun. They were off campus, but in a building owned by the college.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc...topstories.html?vp=1

As a landlord I understand and agree with the right of the university to deny gun possession, but if they are going to do that, shouldn't they provide security?

Building is leased by the school rather than owned and campus security is unarmed.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. The school set the rules, but then didn't prevent the thug from trying to rob them.
If you deny someone the means to defend themselves, you have a moral obligation to protect them.

No point, just facts that are known to people locally but not widely reported in the media.

I attended Gonzaga University. Their lack of security and Draconian weapons policy is criminal as far as I am concerned.

Thank you for the clarification, and also pointing out yet another instance of the media reporting incorrect info regarding ownership of the apts.

The school will claim they have no duty to protect individuals. They will also claim they have the right to restrict firearms in a building they lease. I don't agree with the school but either way the students are in a tight spot.

If they paid rent that apartment is their home. No one - not the landlord or owner of the property can suspend the right of an individual to have a gun in their home.

I, for one, would like to see this challenged.

You're wrong if it was in their housing contract or lease. I'm not agreeing with it, but facts are facts.

Just a few " Legal Facts ":

Firearms, Weapons Prohibited In Administrative Hearings.
WAC 10-20-010(1)
(1) Firearms or other dangerous weapons are prohibited at all facilities owned, leased, or operated by the office of administrative hearings and in rooms where the office of administrative hearings is conducting an administrative hearing. This prohibition applies to all parties or witnesses at hearings, all office of administrative hearings employees, and all other persons present. However, it does not apply to law enforcement personnel, security personnel, or military personnel, all while engaged in
official duties.
(3) Possession of a valid concealed weapons permit is not a defense to the prohibition in this section.
Places listed below that have Rules that state no firearms allowed on Premises. Washington State Administrative Rules cover these areas.

Colleges/Universities
,………….
People who work or attend school at such places can be fired/expelled if they possess firearms on these listed properties….. "
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/washington.pdf


WAC 10-20-010
Agency filings affecting this section
Firearms, weapons prohibited in administrative hearings.
(1) Firearms or other dangerous weapons are prohibited at all facilities owned, leased, or operated by the office of administrative hearings and in rooms where the office of administrative hearings is conducting an administrative hearing.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/def....aspx?cite=10-20-010

I understand that the law says you can't have a gun there but what I am saying is that it contradicts the second amendment. It needs to be challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by mmassey338:
I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. The school set the rules, but then didn't prevent the thug from trying to rob them.
If you deny someone the means to defend themselves, you have a moral obligation to protect them.

I agree with you, Massey, and as violence and disrespect for the law continue to increase, the law about protective third party security is gradually changing, case by case.

Take a look at all the suits being filed these days by the parents and other relatives of those injured or killed in campus and other shootings where the means of self-protection are banned by the operators of those facilities.

Changing case law is a slow process, just like the suits against tobacco companies were, but the law does change, glacially but continuously.

I highly doubt the law will be changed here in Washington state. As a very 'blue' state any pro second amendment laws are not likely to pass our legislature, much less be signed by our very liberal Democratic governor ('F' rated by the NRA).

I have been following this somewhat closely. The university is taking some heat (and rightly so) on student safety issues. Granted, the kids probably knowingly broke the rules (again, rightly so) but were clearly smart enough to play the game well after the fact. That said, I liked what one of the kids (dressed in a suit) said on TV while being interviewed..."Saving my life or the lives of others was and is worth an expulsion". Great way to make the uni look bad if they actual did expel them! These kids are damn smart and were fortunately NOT expelled but just put on probation for their senior year. I actually conversed a bit with one of the kids fathers and he comes from four generations of Marines so none of this is surprising give the way the kid was brought up.

As Chesty Puller said, "Take me to the Brig. I want to see the real Marines".

IMHO the problem lies in whether the probation issue will follow them the rest of their professional lives. It could be a job killer if it came up in a background check by a potential employer. By the way, I highly doubt if Gonzaga cares if it 'looks bad' or not, considering a lot of folks are probably siding with the school, especially in heavily 'blue' Washington state.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
IMHO the problem lies in whether the probation issue will follow them the rest of their professional lives. It could be a job killer if it came up in a background check by a potential employer.

Being that there was no conflict with LE and no arrest, I doubt very seriously a background check would reveal the incident. Even institutionally, I doubt that such a thing would appear on academic transcripts. Given that, I suspect the probation is really just an internal slap on the wrist. Academia is SOMETIMES pretty good about keeping its dirty laundry inside the sphere.

Frankly, if I were one of these kids though, I would actually include the letter announcing my probation with CERTAIN job or graduate school applications and then integrate an articulate response in my statement of purpose accompanying the application. A bit of online digging would probably reveal which corporate contacts or academic departments are likely to be "sympathetic" to the actions taken by the students in this case.

Maybe corporate contacts would be sympathetic but not academic departments.....

PAPI, there is no WAC or RCW prohibition against carrying on a private university campus. It's a civil matter.

Alumni such as myself are bringing pressure to bear.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
PAPI, there is no WAC or RCW prohibition against carrying on a private university campus. It's a civil matter.

Alumni such as myself are bringing pressure to bear.

I was simply trying to provide some factual basis (Written Codes) for the students probation ( Suspension / Expulsion ). I realized, it was an Administrative / Civil Matter.

" IF ", there were Criminal Charges ( Weapons Possession on University Property) to ponder over & pursue. I'm pretty confident,...the University Admin, would have eagerly encouraged Law Enforcement Officials to pursue.

The University Admin, could then wash their hands, & let the politics/public pressures,fall upon the Law Enforcement Officials to worry over.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
I highly doubt the law will be changed here in Washington state. As a very 'blue' state any pro second amendment laws are not likely to pass our legislature, much less be signed by our very liberal Democratic governor ('F' rated by the NRA).

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I said the pace is at glacial speed. It took 50+ years before lawsuits against tobacco companies became successful, and legislation barring the production, sale and possession may not ever pass.

But, lawsuits have in effect changed the law. Lots of companies, governments, etc. are protecting non-smokers now by forbidding smoking in specific environs because they don't want the hassles and costs of defending against all those attempts. There has even recently been a successful suit against a tobacco company by a smoker of many years.

The same will be true eventually against those persons or entities who ban the right to self-defense on their premises, yet provide no protection for their "customers".

That's why I specified "case law", not statute law in my post. The laws do change without legislation, whether we or the legislators like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
Maybe corporate contacts would be sympathetic but not academic departments.....

Don't generalize too much about academia. I am in an academic department and already contacted both students welcoming them to apply to our graduate program noting that I would do what I could to assist after the fact. Similarly, if John Lott(not that he is the most respectable of academics) were still at U of Chicago, I suspect he would help out in similar fashion. Never underestimate the fact that hunters and shooters can also be "liberal" academics.

Tendrams: University of Chicago? FUGGITABOUTIT! Lott must be the only professor within 50 miles of Chicago that supports gun owners and the right to self defense. Liberal academics supporting hunting/shooting? You are watching too many Twilight Zone re-runs, my friend. Nice try, though. Alberta Canuck: The Washington state court system and judges are very 'blue' also. Don't expect them to assert the rights of firearm owners and self defense. They view firearms like tobacco; a public health issue that needs to be eradicated.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
Tendrams: University of Chicago? FUGGITABOUTIT! Lott must be the only professor within 50 miles of Chicago that supports gun owners and the right to self defense. Liberal academics supporting hunting/shooting? You are watching too many Twilight Zone re-runs,

And you clearly know absolutely nothing about the fundamental ideology governing the U of Chicago's business and economics programs! As for "liberal" academics supporting hunting and shooting...they do have universities in Wyoming, Maine, New Hampshire, Texas, Arizona, and the Dakotas too you know. Why do you think academics find their way to these places? It ain't always for the weather I can tell you that. I had a colleague in AZ once who had taxidermy hanging in his office...which made me confortable hanging a couple pronghorn in mine too.

Washington might be blue but on firearms matters things are pretty straightforward and the jurisprudence is very conservative. Our libs have guns too.

Man, I'm sure the college I went to would have taken a real dim view of the AK with a fully loaded 30 round magazine I kept under my bed. Probably a good thing they never found out about it.

RyanB: You either don't live in the same state I reside in or have your head stuck in the sand, IMHO.

Tendrams: IMHO you might want to leave the ivory tower for a bit and visit a local shooting range. Hint: there won't be any liberal academics.......

Frankly, this is why gun owners and hunters OFTEN have a bad rap...because guys like you insist on your opinion (and are happy to continue fighting about it) despite evidence to the contrary. I know plenty of academics who shoot and hunt. I even know people who are "liberal" on many political issues but support the 2nd, hunt, and shoot regularly. To treat hunting and shooting as a "conservative club" that no one else can be in is really just self-defeating.

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
RyanB: You either don't live in the same state I reside in or have your head stuck in the sand, IMHO.

I don't love in King county. Do you?

What other states reimburse someone acquitted for self defense? Had shall issue since 62? Have no duty to retreat via case law?

Tendarms: I laughed out loud at your last post. IMHO you are a prime example of an 'educated idiot'. RyanB: What in the world do you mean regarding the 'love' and King County?

quote:

Originally posted by mmassey338:
Someone tried to force his way in and one pulled a gun. They were off campus, but in a building owned by the college.

Bet thug thought he was in a "Gun Free Zone"!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
Tendarms: I laughed out loud at your last post. IMHO you are a prime example of an 'educated idiot'. RyanB: What in the world do you mean regarding the 'love' and King County?

Live. I'm posting in a screen that's 2.5" wide cut me some slack.

RyanB: So what does your screen size have to do with your spelling error? Cut me some slack. Please tell me you are not a product of the public education system......

It means I'm reading and typing on a screen that's 2 1/2 inches wide. It makes things difficult.

If you care to know my education comes by way of the Society of Jesus. As a matter of fact, at the same school that is persecuting the two gentlemen we are talking about.

Now stop being a prick so we can discuss what we came here to discuss.

RyanB: IMHO sounds like your technology has surpassed your educational ablitities. Losers always blame their equipment. The truth hurts...

quote:

Originally posted by Shootshellz:
RyanB: IMHO sounds like your technology has surpassed your educational ablitities. Losers always blame their equipment. The truth hurts...

You're awfully cunty over a simple typo.

lol

quote:

You're awfully cunty over a simple typo.

Now that's funny!

RyanB: Once again; the truth hurts. Either run with the big dogs or stay in the kennel...

What a waste of oxygen you are. I'll be back in Washington soon, think you have the balls to say what you've said here to my face?

Back in Washington and waiting for an answer.

You a big dog or hidin in the kennel?