Students Expulsion 4 Using Gun 4 Protection

[Montrovant]

when someone is denied the right to defend themselves by a law, there is no ignorance in the comment

This wasn't about law but school policy. Where was a law broken?

For those who are complaining about the students being punished for defending themselves, that is untrue. The punishment is for breaking the school policy about guns.

There's nothing wrong with being opposed to the no-gun policy, but the school certainly has a right to enforce it on their property.

if that is the case then shouldn't a school be permitted to allow open prayer or prayer in class?

Yes. Are private universities prohibited from such? Aren't there a number of religious private schools?

 

[KGB]

From the linked article in the OP:



Consequently there’s likely little recourse for the students save that of an intra-mural appeal.

The students were wrong to violate that policy, whether they knew the policy or not, regardless the situation or its outcome, as the ends never justify the means – and the college is at liberty to expel the students accordingly.

a person is never wrong to defend themselves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. And looking at Washington's laws, there is little doubt these students were well within their rights.

Does Washington state have a castle law

Incorrect.

Neither the Second Amendment nor castle doctrine apply to private entities.

wrong again Sherlock...

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

I'm pretty sure that a rental apartment falls under the terms "abode" & "dwelling".

 

[KGB]

Jesus says that if a man ask for your cloak give it to him.

pretty big difference between asking for your cloak & breaking into your house demanding it...

 

[KGB]

From the linked article in the OP:



Consequently there’s likely little recourse for the students save that of an intra-mural appeal.

The students were wrong to violate that policy, whether they knew the policy or not, regardless the situation or its outcome, as the ends never justify the means – and the college is at liberty to expel the students accordingly.

a person is never wrong to defend themselves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. And looking at Washington's laws, there is little doubt these students were well within their rights.

Does Washington state have a castle law

But Gonzaga is a private university and as such they have a right to have a no gun policy if they desire. That's the problem these guys are facing.

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

a person is never wrong to defend themselves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. And looking at Washington's laws, there is little doubt these students were well within their rights.

Does Washington state have a castle law

But Gonzaga is a private university and as such they have a right to have a no gun policy if they desire. That's the problem these guys are facing.

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

The law is irrelevant. They violated the school's policy. As previously stated, private entities are well within their legal rights to ban guns on their property if they desire. The Second Amendment extends to the government, not private entities. They have no case.

 

[Montrovant]

a person is never wrong to defend themselves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. And looking at Washington's laws, there is little doubt these students were well within their rights.

Does Washington state have a castle law

But Gonzaga is a private university and as such they have a right to have a no gun policy if they desire. That's the problem these guys are facing.

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

Is breaking the law the only reason a private organization may release someone? Students can only be expelled for doing something illegal?

 

[KGB]

But Gonzaga is a private university and as such they have a right to have a no gun policy if they desire. That's the problem these guys are facing.

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

The law is irrelevant. They violated the school's policy. As previously stated, private entities are well within their legal rights to ban guns on their property if they desire. The Second Amendment extends to the government, not private entities. They have no case.

you are missing my point. This policy is morally indefensible. They can expel these two if they want & if that occurs, these two students can launch a massive civil lawsuit against the university. At that point, Gonzaga loses the PR war & probably a ton of cash in the process. If the university were smart, they would suspend these two retroactive to the night of the attack for one hour, & then immediately change the policy to correspond with Washington State Law & the US Constitution.

 

[KGB]

But Gonzaga is a private university and as such they have a right to have a no gun policy if they desire. That's the problem these guys are facing.

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

Is breaking the law the only reason a private organization may release someone? Students can only be expelled for doing something illegal?

that's just the point, the students didn't violate any law.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

The law is irrelevant. They violated the school's policy. As previously stated, private entities are well within their legal rights to ban guns on their property if they desire. The Second Amendment extends to the government, not private entities. They have no case.

you are missing my point.

No, I'm not.

This policy is morally indefensible.

I agree, but that is irrelevant.

They can expel these two if they want & if that occurs, these two students can launch a massive civil lawsuit against the university.

They'll lose.

 

[Montrovant]

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

Is breaking the law the only reason a private organization may release someone? Students can only be expelled for doing something illegal?

that's just the point, the students didn't violate any law.

What does that matter, unless expulsion is limited only to law-breakers?

Unless a private university is not allowed to have it's own policy on firearms on their own property, what basis is there for the students to win a suit because of their expulsion?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The students had a duty to die for the satisfaction of a career criminal. They are rich since they are in possession of personal property the criminal wanted. They were under an affirmative obligation to give it to the poor needy criminal.

Saving your own life is no excuse.

And this is your usual level of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let the Principle's daughters be alone in a house without access to "campus security" or a handgun and the same situation unfold. Still a problem?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

liberal laws always favor the criminal

That's remarkably ignorant, even for you.

Actually, it's remarkably accurate, but you're too biased to see it.

It has nothing to do with ‘bias,’ the statement was inaccurate and ignorant.

Unless you really believe some lawmakers actually enact legislation with the clear and original intent to benefit criminals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

a person is never wrong to defend themselves. That is the heart of the 2nd Amendment. And looking at Washington's laws, there is little doubt these students were well within their rights.

Does Washington state have a castle law

Incorrect.

Neither the Second Amendment nor castle doctrine apply to private entities.

wrong again Sherlock...

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

I'm pretty sure that a rental apartment falls under the terms "abode" & "dwelling".

And you continue to be wrong.

The issue concerns private citizens – the students – and a private entity – the school; because there is no government involvement there is no Second Amendment issue. Private entities are at liberty to prohibit possession of firearms on their property with impunity.

Castle doctrine also does not apply because no laws were allegedly broken by the students, the possession of the firearm was not illegal, the students aren’t under arrest, and they are in no danger of going to jail. Castle doctrine would apply if the students had indeed shot and killed the suspect, however that’s not the case here.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Jesus says that if a man ask for your cloak give it to him.

pretty big difference between asking for your cloak & breaking into your house demanding it...

Amen and even if the stuff is given up, anything can still be done to those who are handing it over.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They can desire it, but if I am these two, I'm contacting NRA lawyers immediately. The point is, the students violated no laws & probably saved their own lives. The university will not win this one in the long run.

Is breaking the law the only reason a private organization may release someone? Students can only be expelled for doing something illegal?

that's just the point, the students didn't violate any law.

And because they didn’t violate the law, castle doctrine doesn’t apply.

 

[Papageorgio]

The kids are on probation and they weren't expelled and they are alive.

Gonzaga is well known for their law department. I think they may be discussing this for a long time to come.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let the Principle's daughters be alone in a house without access to "campus security" or a handgun and the same situation unfold. Still a problem?

The University Principal? lol

Perhaps you should find out who is in charge at the college level and come back to play.

 

[MikeK]

Yep, I would have to agree with you on that, as unfortunate as it is.

I wonder if it's possible to pursue a suit against the university, however, for failing to provide adequate campus security, particularly after their ignorant response about security negating their need for a firearm for protection.

I don't see why not. And I think that's an excellent suggestion. Turn it right around on the school.

 

[KGB]

The law is irrelevant. They violated the school's policy. As previously stated, private entities are well within their legal rights to ban guns on their property if they desire. The Second Amendment extends to the government, not private entities. They have no case.

you are missing my point.

No, I'm not.

This policy is morally indefensible.

I agree, but that is irrelevant.

They can expel these two if they want & if that occurs, these two students can launch a massive civil lawsuit against the university.

They'll lose.

no they won't because all they need to claim is that the university provided adequate security. Since they had to defend themselves, the university clearly didn't. That is the heart of a civil lawsuit, proving damages occurred.

also, looks like the university is realizing they will lose the PR war on this if they don't reverse course....

http://www.gonzagabulletin.com/news/article_6a8c2c60-4999-11e3-85d4-0019bb30f31a.html