Off duty Police told they can't carry at University

[Sylvan-Forge]

I think if too many people get behind off duty police 1st, rather than faculty being armed up 1st, it will be viewed as "sufficient" and will have closed the door on faculty and perhaps later, students, able to exersize the 2nd on campus.

Basically, there are many more faculty members on a given campus than there are off-duty LEO, thus creating a greater deterrent.

.

 

[tpaw]

Aguila Blanca writes:

Why do you feel it's necessary to pre-judge and pre-penalize the innocent because of what some people might do? That's called "prior retraint" in legal mumbo-jumbo, and in theory it's unconstitutional.

I am not pre-judging or pre-penalizing anyone, just merely posing a situation and looking for suggested recommendaions and ideas on the subject. If you got that impression, it was not meant to be.

And please don't try to tell me that LEOs never get drunk and out of control. I know too many LEOs to swallow that one. [/QUOTE]

No one is trying to tell you anything. Please do not turn this into another bashing thread by bringing LEO's into it. I have not mentioned LEO's so let's keep it that way. I was merely talking about college students who like to party hardy on campus and carry guns at the same time.

 

[Deanimator]

No one is trying to tell you anything. Please do not turn this into another bashing thread by bringing LEO's into it. I have not mentioned LEO's so let's keep it that way.

I related two FACTUAL incidents of intoxicated police committing violent crimes. I could relate more, including the cops who savagely beat some executives in the Jefferson Tap in Chicago, then waved off other cops who responded to the 911 calls.

Why does the existence of student drunkenness justify disarming all students, but police drunkenness [and violence] not justify disarming all police? Why should the acts of some be used to punish all of one group, but not all of the other?

 

[tpaw]

Basically, there are many more faculty members on a given campus than there are off-duty LEO, thus creating a greater deterrent.

Good point. For those that a willing to be armed, giving the faculty the right to carry on campus is a good start.

 

[tpaw]

I related two FACTUAL incidents of intoxicated police committing violent crimes. I could relate more, including the cops who savagely beat some executives in the Jefferson Tap in Chicago, then waved off other cops who responded to the 911 calls.

They should be arrested like anyone else.

Why does the existence of student drunkenness justify disarming all students, but police drunkenness [and violence] not justify disarming all police? Why should the acts of some be used to punish all of one group, but not all of the other?

First, all students are not armed, yet. Second, students make up a few thousand all centralized in one location on their campus. As most schools are party schools, if they all carried, it makes for a more volitile situation. The actions of the cops that you pointed out are isolated, wrong, but isolated, and as I said they should be arrested ane tried like the common criminal.
My original post was to pick peoples minds for suggestions as to how students can carry with a degree of safety and maturity. As it was eariler posted, arming the faculty is a good start. Each dorm also has an orderly on duty in the main lobby who acts as a security person and information center for the students who live in that dorm. Perhaps that person could be next in line after the faculty.
Any other ideas?

 

[Deanimator]

First, all students are not armed, yet. Second, students make up a few thousand all centralized in one location on their campus. As most schools are party schools, if they all carried, it makes for a more volitile situation. The actions of the cops that you pointed out are isolated, wrong, but isolated, and as I said they should be arrested ane tried like the common criminal.
My original post was to pick peoples minds for suggestions as to how students can carry with a degree of safety and maturity. As it was eariler posted, arming the faculty is a good start.

What makes you think that ALL students would carry? What makes you think that MOST students would carry? Some wouldn't be interested. Some wouldn't be legally allowed to own firearms, much less carry. Some would be hardcore antis. Some wouldn't carry if the school REQUIRED them to.

There is no reason to bar students (or anyone else) who can qualify for CCW from carrying on campus that does not apply equally to police, most especially generalizations about alcohol abuse.

 

[dogmush]

My original post was to pick peoples minds for suggestions as to how students can carry with a degree of safety and maturity.

Sure. But it's going to seem too simple. Make them have concealed carry permits.

Right away that excludes about half the undergrads. (those from 19-21). And even in FL, where it's pretty easy getting a permit takes time and money. Two things that college students don't normally have a lot of. I think just making them go through the requirements of the permitting process will weed out most of the folks that will cause problems. Just like it does with adults. Will there still be problems? Sure. There is always some idiot. But life is dangerous, living free even more so.

Also, if they wanted, I could understand some kind of storage requirement if left unattended in a dorm room. When I was there, dorms weren't the most secure of places.

 

[Steve Raacke]

What makes you think that ALL students would carry? What makes you think that MOST students would carry? Some wouldn't be interested. Some wouldn't be legally allowed to own firearms, much less carry. Some would be hardcore antis. Some wouldn't carry if the school REQUIRED them to.

Good point. If someone managed to get the laws changed I'd bet that few students would bother carrying. Look at my state of Louisiana for example. We are a Shall Issue state for Concealed pistol permits. If you meet the requirements and take the class you can get a permit from the State. Yet a very, VERY small percentage of the eligable population takes advantage of this. Of those who do go through the process of getting a permit, few of them conceal carry on a daily basis. Most CCW permit holders I talk to tell me that they rarely conceal carry but have the permit "Just in case" they need to. I know several people who had CCW permits who let them expire simply because they nver used them. Based on that alone I doubt we would see a tidal wave of students or staff rushing to get permits to conceal carry on campus. Also, Louisiana is a open carry state. No permit required to pack your pistol in a holster on your hip. I can tell you right now that the few of us who open carry in this state are so rare that the nickname "UNICORN" is appropriate. You almost never run into another citizen open carrying unless it's prearrainged such as at a open carry meet up. I have no problem with the idea of allowing ALL citizens, police and regular students to carry firearms leagally on campus. Given the chance I doubt many would.

 

[divemedic]

You are missing the point. College students may already carry OFF campus if they have a permit. If a college student is responsible enough to carry off campus, what makes you think he is going to drink and cause trouble on campus? and what does that have to do with things being equal between cops and everyone else?

 

[alsaqr]

Off duty Police told they can't carry at University

Sounds good to me. Now they are on the same footing as off duty soldiers at the same college.

 

[LongRider]

I am pro conceal and carry or open carry, but one thing concerns me. On most colleges and universities, you have rathskellers (bars) where liquor is sold to just about anyone. ID is rarely checked, if at all. I've been to these places and some can get pretty testy. Young male college students are full of testosterone, and the girls are looking to have fun as well. I've seen fights, books being thrown at each other, beers hurled at each other, students passing out on the table and missing classes and so on. One girl who posted on the THR said that if you knew my boyfriend and the friends he hangs around with, they would be the last one's I'd want to see carrying guns on campus. It gave me pause to think about what she said, and what I saw. JMO

This is the very same unfounded garbage the Anti Self Defense Fanatics spewed about CCW in the first place predicting blood in the streets.
Did it happen?
This is the very same unfounded garbage the Anti Self Defense Fanatics spewed about CCW on college campuses now. To those who believe this I have to ask have you joined Sarah Brady or have you just been brain washed? Believing it seems to indicate a lack of independent critical thinking for reasons others have pointed out.

Sounds good to me. Now they are on the same footing as off duty soldiers at the same college.

Pretty sad

 

[Intune]

MTSU's policy should not be cheered on as a positive advancement of the 2nd. :banghead: Unless, it is used to unify us and send a clear message to the school that its policy puts students & faculty at more risk rather than less.

Does anyone know the legal ramifications for the school? What happens if they allow CCW's and there is an accident/death compared to their current policy and the same occurs? I don't know.

 

[Deanimator]

Does anyone know the legal ramifications for the school? What happens if they allow CCW's and there is an accident/death compared to their current policy and the same occurs? I don't know.

How would it compare to a grocery store, restaurant or used car lot that allowed CCW?

Why would they be MORE liable for an accidental shooting by someone not an employee of the school, than they would be for the INTENTIONAL shooting of a student or faculty member prevented from carrying a firearm for self-defense? It can be plausibly argued that when they prevent individuals otherwise legally entitled to from defending themselves, that they then assume that duty in their stead. Failure to protect under such circumstances should be considered actionable negligence.

 

[divemedic]

That would certainly make one think about the ramifications of anti-gun policy, but that is not how it is. In this country, our laws encourage gun free zones. A property owner is held liable if they do not have a "no gun" policy. They are seen as being responsible under the law if a person carries a weapon on property and injures someone. they are allowed to avoid this liability by saying they had a policy in place to prevent it, even if that policy is ineffective.

If a policy is in place, and a person ignores it (as criminals often do) the property owner can claim "third party interference" and say that they are not responsible for what others do.

This creates a climate that encourages anti-gun regulations.

 

[Intune]

Deanimator,

It can be plausibly argued that when they prevent individuals otherwise legally entitled to from defending themselves, that they then assume that duty in their stead. Failure to protect under such circumstances should be considered actionable negligence.

That's kinda what I was asking.

It seems to me that their highest liability/culpability would be their current policy and the violent death of a CCW/LEO who was disarmed.

divemedic has it right (even though it's wrong.) Could you imagine the media storm and the line of ambulance chasers following a CCW/LEO shooting involving an "innocent" person on campus.

"You caused this to happen when you allowed all those guns into my daughters school. She'd still be alive if you had a No Guns policy."

 

[Guns and more]

Good point. For those that a willing to be armed, giving the faculty the right to carry on campus is a good start.

Agreed. But a very small start. University professors are not a cross section of society. I'd say they would be very anti-gun.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

real helpful policy .... NOT

Yeah, those policemen who were taking law classes at Appalachian Law School were a real threat--to the guy who started shooting up the school.

Spree killers tend to be attracted to gun free zones.

 

[LongRider]

A property owner is held liable if they do not have a "no gun" policy. They are seen as being responsible under the law if a person carries a weapon on property and injures someone. they are allowed to avoid this liability by saying they had a policy in place to prevent it, even if that policy is ineffective.

If a policy is in place, and a person ignores it (as criminals often do) the property owner can claim "third party interference" and say that they are not responsible for what others do.

This creates a climate that encourages anti-gun regulations.

Which is why they should be held fiscally liable for any harm that comes to anyone who is harmed as a result of being unarmed and defenseless

 

[tpaw]

A property owner is held liable if they do not have a "no gun" policy. They are seen as being responsible under the law if a person carries a weapon on property and injures someone. they are allowed to avoid this liability by saying they had a policy in place to prevent it, even if that policy is ineffective.

If a policy is in place, and a person ignores it (as criminals often do) the property owner can claim "third party interference" and say that they are not responsible for what others do.

When you say "property owner", are you referring to private property such as one's home?

 

[divemedic]

Yes, if you permit a person to be armed on your property, you are liable for anything they do with that weapon. That includes business, residential, and (in some cases) government property. If that person has an ND, and shoots a child- you can be held liable. At the same time, if a person who is trespassing on your property does the same thing, you can avoid liability by showing that you took reasonable precautions to prevent him from entering your property with a weapon.

That is the state of the law in every state of which I am aware as it stands now.

 

[tpaw]

Never knew that. It puts a whole new spin on things now. When I have visitors, most are conceal carry. Thanks, maybe I should post a sign by the door when they come over just to cover my a$$.......

 

[divemedic]

Simply posting the sign is not enough. You have to be able to show that you are taking reasonable steps to enforce the policy. What exactly is reasonable varies according to the facts of each situation.

 

[Intune]

Such as prohibiting off-duty LEO's & CCW's from carrying at a university?