College Students use gun to ward off 6 time felon intruder, Now face expulsion

[tonymctones]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gonzaga-students-hit-probation-pulling-gun-intruder-131313733--abc-news-topstories.html

Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.

Fagan said Taylor tried to barge in and he called out to his roommate for help. McIntosh entered the room and brandished his gun.
 
"I drew my pointed weapon at him and at which time he sees me and takes off," McIntosh said.

McIntosh has a concealed weapons permit for his gun but campus police confiscated the weapon and told the seniors they had violated school policy and could be suspended or even expelled.
 
Even though the incident took place off campus, the building that houses the apartment is owned by Gonzaga and school officials say their rules on no weapons is clearly stated.
 
"The university policy prohibits the possession of weapons in residential facilities. We also have a similar prohibition on the rest of campus," Vice President of Gonzaga Dr. Earl Martin said.


I cant help but see the easy comparison to liberal ideology on guns here and the campus rules.

[240 is Back]

Hey, they agreed to attend an anti-gun, private, religious university then act all surprised when they're booted for not following the rules.

I bet they dont have this rule for apartments near Texa A&M lol...

seriously studs... when you're signing up for school, work, or anything else - and they're anti gun, you don't sign up.

I have no problem with a PRIVATE INSTITUTION saying X or Y or Z about guns.   "Must carry open" or "Must qualify on gun range to enter" are cool rules, and "no guns anywhere in your college apartment", while a shitty rule, is their choice as a private institution.

If you dislike it -tell them - and enroll elsewhere. 

[Roger Bacon]

Can we ban 240 from the political board.... lol

[RRKore]

Accountability is something that only applies to poor people, apparently.

[240 is Back]

I'd be interested in knowing what % of private universities (or even public universities) prohibit their students from owning legal guns (even with a permit) in their housing.   Theft, liability, common shared areas, etc... I bet most schools take this limitation.  Can't imagine the insurance costs of schools that allow heat in dorms.

I can't imagine living on campus, going to school again... "No guns here"... lol... GTFO, how dare some pimply weakling administrator tell me I can't pack heat?   Their private school, their rules, but no thanks for me.

[tonymctones]

where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?

I think expulsion for this is way to much.

My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.

Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.

[240 is Back]

where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?
I think expulsion for this is way to much.
My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.
Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.

I think any PRIVATE person should be able to decide what happens on their property.  Govt or anyone else shouldn't tell them it's a pro- or anti-gun area.  It's YOUR area, and minimal govt involvement means just that.

I think it'd be insane to ever sign up for living in an apartment - when I have a gun permit - and the school/owner of this property says I cannot have a gun there.  I'd go elsewhere for education and living.  But I'd never try to dictate their policy - it's PRIVATE property, both their school and their housing complexes.  AND I think that if enough people told them "I dislike your gun policy, so I'm taking my $50 grand for education elsewhere", they would CHANGE the policy.

These kids just broke a law at a private school, and wonder why the private school doesn't want them there anymore.  Duh.

[tonymctones]

I think any PRIVATE person should be able to decide what happens on their property.  Govt or anyone else shouldn't tell them it's a pro- or anti-gun area.  It's YOUR area, and minimal govt involvement means just that.

I think it'd be insane to ever sign up for living in an apartment - when I have a gun permit - and the school/owner of this property says I cannot have a gun there.  I'd go elsewhere for education and living.  But I'd never try to dictate their policy - it's PRIVATE property, both their school and their housing complexes.  AND I think that if enough people told them "I dislike your gun policy, so I'm taking my $50 grand for education elsewhere", they would CHANGE the policy.

These kids just broke a law at a private school, and wonder why the private school doesn't want them there anymore.  Duh.

again this thread was not about the validity of their punishment, but the idiocy of the rule itself...

try and keep up

and 240 you have proven you are no pro gun advocate, you can say it all you want buy you are about as pro gun as those anti gun nut jobs crying about muzzle breaks, pistol grips and folding stocks

[240 is Back]

again this thread was not about the validity of their punishment, but the idiocy of the rule itself...

try and keep up

and 240 you have proven you are no pro gun advocate, you can say it all you want buy you are about as pro gun as those anti gun nut jobs crying about muzzle breaks, pistol grips and folding stocks

The article wasn't about "the VALIDITY of the punishment"?  Okay, cool.

if you want to argue if the rules is idiotic, we can do that.  From what point of view would you like to argue it?

If you own stock/shares in this school, you probably support the rule because it's the most cost effective... Insurance costs probably skyrocket when you try to tell a firm you alow open carry or something.

If you own a gun and like to carry one, you see the rule as intruding on your right to bear arms, completely fair.

and there's really no need to make this about "240, you are a anti gunner..."  I like to discuss issues from different vantage points.

[tonymctones]

The article wasn't about "the VALIDITY of the punishment"?  Okay, cool.

if you want to argue if the rules is idiotic, we can do that.  From what point of view would you like to argue it?

If you own stock/shares in this school, you probably support the rule because it's the most cost effective... Insurance costs probably skyrocket when you try to tell a firm you alow open carry or something.

If you own a gun and like to carry one, you see the rule as intruding on your right to bear arms, completely fair.

and there's really no need to make this about "240, you are a anti gunner..."  I like to discuss issues from different vantage points.

did I say the article wasnt or the thread wasnt?

This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.

its funny how you never take the pro gun stance

[Fury]

Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.

Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.

[Archer77]

Accountability is something that only applies to poor people, apparently.

How is this relevant to the issue at hand? 

[240 is Back]

Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.

Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.

It's not a public, state university - It's a PRIVATE school.  And while I would never attend such a shit school, I do support people being able to do what they want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY in their OWN PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

It's really weird here - For the state to tell them "You have to allow people to carry guns on your property, in your private place of business" - Isn't THAT a nanny state?  isn't THAT a case of the govt telling people how to run their own businesses? 

I truly LOVE a nation where people can say "No purple shirts or yellow shoes on my property!" and people have to abide... I abhor a nation where the state TELLS YOU that you have to let people wear nazi or whatever stuff in your business.  I love the idea of a businessman being able to say "I don't want any Obama voters on my property, I will not serve you dinner" or something like that.

If you look at it this way... the fact they're allowed to do what they want ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, on their own private university... that's actually a WIN for the libertarian cause.  The people have to vote with their pocketbook and everyone enroll in the gun-friendly University across town, ya know?

[240 is Back]

This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.

its funny how you never take the pro gun stance

I *think* I'm taking the pro-Constitution stance here?

Suppose tonymctones is a landlord.... He OWNS property.  His potential tenants like to wear swastikas (or whatever highly offensive things) and while they're LEGAL, tony wants them the hell off his property.  He wants to NOT rent to them - to make it a REQUIREMENT for living there, that people can't display X or Y or Z while living there.   While it violates the lega rights of these tenants, hey, it's tony's damn property and he doesn't want that garbage there.

Now... I side with tony... a private citizen that owns this private property.  I think a "nanny state" would be the one which says he has to let certain beliefs be permeated on his land.

[Wolfox]

Hey, they agreed to attend an anti-gun, private, religious university then act all surprised when they're booted for not following the rules.

I bet they dont have this rule for apartments near Texa A&M lol...

seriously studs... when you're signing up for school, work, or anything else - and they're anti gun, you don't sign up.

I have no problem with a PRIVATE INSTITUTION saying X or Y or Z about guns.   "Must carry open" or "Must qualify on gun range to enter" are cool rules, and "no guns anywhere in your college apartment", while a shitty rule, is their choice as a private institution.

If you dislike it -tell them - and enroll elsewhere. 

I disagree. I'm of the belief that every single human being has the fundamental human right to self defense. No private or public organization can hinder this right.

[240 is Back]

I disagree. I'm of the belief that every single human being has the fundamental human right to self defense. No private or public organization can hinder this right.

It's so tricky.  If I live in the USA and I own a piece of property, I should have the right to tell "guests" or "patrons" or anything else, that I don't want them to wear XYZ on their clothing, right?   I WANT a shopkeeper to be able to throw out a person with some highly offensive 9/11 halloween costume or swastika t-shirt, ya know?  YES, it does violate that person's first amendment right - BUT it's on my property and they're free to leave.  

Same with the 4th amendment - "You ain't coming into my place of business unless I can search you for weapons!"

If I run a night club (private establishment) and ten dudes hop out of a SUV with trench coats and its 95 degress out - then YES - I want to violate their rights on search/seize and I want my door man to frisk them.  We're all cool with that, right?  No sense allowing a robbery crew to come waltzing in.

So can we agree it's okay for private citizens, on their private property, to violate these 2 constitutional rights, in order to preserve their own safety, profitability, and even just comfort (what they have to view on t-shirts)?

[Archer77]

I don't mean to come off as a fence sitter but I think both of you guys have a point.  Gonzaga is a private university and can make all the rules it wants.  However, expelling the kids seems like to harsh a punishment.  A stern warning would suffice.

[dario73]

Another situation where a gun saved lives.

Why doesn't the media report more on situations like this?

And yes, there are many, many cases like this where people either save themselves or others by brandishing their weapons. There are more of those situations than mass killings, but you only see the sensationalism of gun violence in the media.

[Archer77]

Another situation where a gun saved lives.

Why doesn't the media report more on situations like this?

And yes, there are many, many cases like this where people either save themselves of others by brandishing their weapons. There are more of those situations than mass killings, but you only see the sensationalism of gun violence in the media.

The media has to first be honest about who are the majority of people using guns in the commission of a crime are.  It's sure as hell aren't legal gun owners.

[240 is Back]

I don't mean to come off as a fence sitter but I think both of you guys have a point.  Gonzaga is a private university and can make all the rules it wants.  However, expelling the kids seems like to harsh a punishment.  A stern warning would suffice.

Thanks man.  I think we commonly accept AND ENDORSE the removal of some Constitutional rights on a daily basis on private property - our own included - and it's totally cool.   And while I DISAGREE with the policies of Gonzaga, I respect their right to make whatever rules they want, on their own private property.

On the other point you make, while the punishment might be harsh, again, it's their prerogative.  if I have a no-swastika policy in my house, and some dude wears such a shirt ONCE, I'm gonna ban him for life (expel).  If three dudes with trenchcoats and shotguns try to sneak their straps into my private night club ONCE, they're banned for life.  And if the policy is "no guns", and FOUR MONTHS into this semester, I discover this kid with a permit has been violating my rule - 24/7, on an ongoing basis since school started in August - then I can completely understand their position.  It's not like he had just moved in.  he'd carried a gun and violated the rule daily, and even with a "suspension" or other punishment, lol, I know that very few permit holders are going to just cave... he may sneak it in.

it's their call, to decide if its a lifetime ban.  While I consider the rule to be bullshit, I totally respect the right of any private firm/individual to make as many bullshit rules on their property... this is America. 

[240 is Back]

When a guest is on your property, you're totally cool with requiring them to suspend their constitutional rights.

If you're hosting a party, or opening a restaurant, you can kick people out (expel them) for all sorts of reasons, violating their constitutional rights.  You can have your bouncer search them (4th amendment), you can tell them no XYZ shirts, violating 1st amendment.

[RRKore]

where did I say he shouldnt be held accountable?

I think expulsion for this is way to much.

My point was that the liberal idea of "gun free zones" is assinine.

Also I do believe if he legally owned the gun he should be able to keep the gun at his place of residence.

LOL.  You are one tiresome little worm. 

Either he should be held accountable or not, don't you agree?  So don't play word games, fake judo champ. 

It's true you did not expressly say (write) that dude shouldn't be held accountable.  That was my inference.

Was my inference wrong, though?:  Because if you think that the rule is asinine, it stands to reason that you'd think he should not be held accountable for breaking that rule, right?   

The exception that comes to mind would be if you thought the rule was stupid SOLELY because the penalty was inappropriately severe.  I don't think you're saying that, though, but maybe you'd be nice enough to clear that up?  I won't hold my breath. 

And besides, it's possible that you don't even really know what you were thinking -- Having multiple personalities would explain a few things about stuff you've written here, haha.  (Not the least of which is your multiple National Championships in judo, of course.) 

[RRKore]

did I say the article wasnt or the thread wasnt?

This isnt even about carrying one as a legal ccl holder but about the ability to keep one at your residence.

its funny how you never take the pro gun stance

reframe

misdirect by personal attack

typical 

Redirecting the chi of the argument vs facing it headon.  Impressive.  Are you sure you don't want to also claim a world championship in Akido?

[RRKore]

Since when does university rules override state law? They were within their rights, according to state law. Even had the necessary permits/certifications.

Figures Mr. Fake Libertarian, aka the board bullshit artist, 240 is on the side of the police state.

This is a good question that begs the answer of someone who actually has some legal knowledge.  (Unlike the crew of about 20 of us who come to this board regularly, haha.) 

FWIW, I've seen youtube videos of Open Carry advocates where they seem to have no problem with refraining from bringing their weapons into businesses that've posted signs saying "no guns on the premises".  Many of the Open Carry guys seem like the types that, if they thought those signs were violating their rights, they would make a big deal about it and I haven't seen that.  Maybe someone here knows more?

[RRKore]

How is this relevant to the issue at hand? 

Glad you asked.

TonyMcFakyJudoChamp is very fond of banging the accountability drum when it comes to whether the government should give aid to the poor.  His point is that the great majority of disadvantaged are responsible for their own desperate circumstances so they should be held accountable by not receiving the government aid that they do now.

In this case, however, he seems to be saying that it's wrong for the gun dude to be accountable for breaking the university rules though he clearly brought that shit on himself.

(It's my feeling that the guy should not be expelled for this reason alone;  If he's been an otherwise good student, just give him a warning.  If he's been a fuckup in other ways though, boot him out.

If you have any other questions or would like any additional information, please let me know.   Thanks.