In light of the AL Univeristy shooting...

[Buckeye Dan]

Or any other gun free zone for that matter...


I am sure there is some legal mechanism in place to prevent this. All though I do not know what that might be. But... Why don't the families of the deceased and the wounded themselves have legal recourse against the state or campus or both for creating a killing zone?

It's historically always been the argument that many guns in the workplace will create a hostile environment. Historically however this is false. Every mass killing that has ever taken place in a gun free zone is the hostile environment. It's a proven fact that when someone snaps the signage and laws preventing firearms have absolutely and indisputably ZERO effect on the outcome that follows when the signs and laws are ignored.

Someone should be held accountable for creating this killing zone. Denying the victims their constitutional rights should have consequences. I have always wondered why this angle has never been approached.

If many firearms in a single locale like the workplace create a hostile or unsafe environment then what do the signs create? The answer...Lambs for the slaughter.

There are routinely massacres at gun stores, gun shows, outdoor shows, shooting events, hunting events or anywhere that a large number of citizens gather with firearms. Especially in states that have several hundred thousand people that walk around concealing firearms on a daily basis. NOT!

 

[kingpin008]

As I understand it, they don't have legal recourse because by agreeing to work there/go to school there/be present on the property, they agree to the policies of the school.

That's why even in states where CCW is legal, they have the right to fire or expel individuals who they discover to be carrying. It's the same as any other business, in the sense that even if you're legal, they have the right to tell you to leave if they don't allow it on their property.

 

[razorback2003]

Legal in Alabama

If you have a license, you can carry pretty much anywhere in Alabama except for protests. If you have an Alabama concealed pistol license, you can carry in K-12 schools and of course college property. It is very clear that out of state licenses recognized in AL are good on college property there. UA-Huntsville probably has a policy against it, but I would be perfectly legal carrying on their property and in the buildings with my snub and my TN Handgun Carry Permit. Keep it concealed and not a lot to worry about.

 

[Bhamrichard]

If you have a license, you can carry pretty much anywhere in Alabama except for protests. If you have an Alabama concealed pistol license, you can carry in K-12 schools and of course college property.

As far as the legal statutes go that's correct. However the Alabama Board of Education has adopted policy that forbids firearms on college campuses. Legislation has been introduced several times to prohibit colleges from dis-allowing the carry of legal firearms, but has never made it out of committee.

 

[HexHead]

As I understand it, they don't have legal recourse because by agreeing to work there/go to school there/be present on the property, they agree to the policies of the school.

That's why even in states where CCW is legal, they have the right to fire or expel individuals who they discover to be carrying. It's the same as any other business, in the sense that even if you're legal, they have the right to tell you to leave if they don't allow it on their property.

I think his point is that while they can restrict carrying guns onto their premises, that shouldn't absolve them from any liability that results from that decision. If you're going to take away someone's right or means to defend themselves, you either need to be able to guarantee their safety or else should be held responsible. So far neither of those two things have been happening.

 

[kingpin008]

Hex - I understand his point. The point I was trying to make is that by agreeing to work/learn there, they essentially agree to their "terms of use" - one of those being non guns, and no guarantee of safety.

As I said, nobody is forcing them to work/learn there. if they didn't agree to the terms, they can learn/work somewhere else.

Should it be different? Of course. Unfortunately, it is what it is.

 

[deadin]

I am sure there is some legal mechanism in place to prevent this.

Unfortunately, law alone will not "prevent" something like this happening.
The only real way to prevent guns in "gun free zones" is restricted entrances with metal detectors, pat downs and/or strip searches. Can you imagine the screaming if they tried that everywhere? Even then there would be a few get through. Man is a devious animal.

 

[Buckeye Dan]

Then I have to wonder how binding that agreement is. Contracts can be challenged. It doesn't seem constitutional to extort your safety in return for their education and policies. Policies which plainly put people in danger.

If I were to drop of my child at a daycare and they made me sign some liability waiver then fine. But if through their own negligence my child or other children get harmed do you think that liability waiver will hold water? I think there is a certain amount of responsibility involved on their part regardless of what you sign.

 

[Buckeye Dan]

Unfortunately, law alone will not "prevent" something like this happening.
The only real way to prevent guns in "gun free zones" is restricted entrances with metal detectors, pat downs and/or strip searches. Can you imagine the screaming if they tried that everywhere? Even then there would be a few get through. Man is a devious animal.

They can't keep weapons out of high security prisons. The signs and policies are unenforceable. They should assume some sort of liability for using them. They are enforceable to some extent but not against someone who would blatantly ignore them with ill intent.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am sure there is some legal mechanism in place to prevent this. All though I do not know what that might be. But... Why don't the families of the deceased and the wounded themselves have legal recourse against the state or campus or both for creating a killing zone?

Two edged-sword. If you think that there should be legal recourse against the state, university, and (by extension) businesses for creating a killing zone because they don't allow guns, then there would similarly be recourse against the state, university, and businesses for creating killing zones by allowing guns.

So, which position does the entity want to defend against. Do they want to defend a position where they are trying to make things safer via their active roles in disallowing guns or defend against a situation where they appear to be not actively participating in safety by allowing guns?

 

[razorback2003]

Conceal Well

I'll have to say that if it is legal, I'd just conceal a handgun well. Alabama thankfully does not make a criminal out of licensed folks who carry at schools. The worst that can happen is you be asked to leave. Yes, you'd have problems with your school or job, but it is hard to go to work when you are hurt or killed by a crazy person.

I've worked jobs that had such 'policies' and had to make decisions at times to keep myself safe. I have been legal, but breaking a 'policy'. I carry a small gun in a good holster that no one but me knows about. Snubs work great for this purpose. Companies do not care about their employees' safety for the most part...if they did they wouldn't keep the obvious nutcases they have on the payroll and on their property. Keep low key, get a snub, and a great holster, and no one will know unless you have to use it.

 

[kingpin008]

It doesn't seem constitutional to extort your safety in return for their education and policies.

They're not "extorting" anything. They're providing you an option, which you are free to take or decline. No more, no less.

If I were to drop of my child at a daycare and they made me sign some liability waiver then fine. But if through their own negligence my child or other children get harmed do you think that liability waiver will hold water?

Honestly, it depends on the wording of the waiver. If you sign something absolving them of all responsibility in all cases, then yes, it will hold water. Otherwise you might have a case.

Look, it's simple. If you sign your kid up at a daycare and in the contract is states that the doors will be locked at all times, then someone forgets to lock the doors and your kid is abducted, then yeah, you've got a case.

But - if that contract says nothing about keeping your child safe in any way, and something happens - then guess what? You're SOL.

It's the same at colleges. They offer no explicit protection from danger - robbery, rape, shootings, whatever. They have some measures in place to help assure that those things don't happen, but doing so does not equal "we take responsibility for your personal safety".

By agreeing to those terms, you assume the responsibility, and acknowledge that the college will not.

 

[Art Eatman]

Doesn't matter if there were a total ban or if there were no restrictions whatsoever for open carry. Once she started her action, she'd have had some amount of success before anybody could have done anything. As usual, laws don't prevent violence.

I've yet to hear of any court case decided against any entity which banned firearms on its premises, insofar as liability for a lack of personal self-defense.