Gonzaga University students could face expulsion for gun

[Cnon]

SPOKANE, Wash.-- Two Gonzaga University students could be expelled for using a gun to protect themselves at their University owned apartment.

GU leaders said the students violated a policy all students show know about when living in a school owned apartment.


Seniors Erik Fagan and Dainel McIntosh felt they needed to protect themselves in late October when a convicted felon came to their door asking for money. Fagan said he yelled for his roommate after trying to get the man to leave. McIntosh came down with his gun, which he has a concealed weapons permit for according to Fagan. The roommates said McIntosh scared the man off by flashing the gun.




http://www.nwcn.com/news/231242311.html


I agree with the students.


And another thing..............................However, were they just supposed to call the cops and hope and pray they make it in time?


What ever happened to taking responsibility for yourself in these situations????!!!


That just goes out the window just because you sign a lease??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the blank is that about???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Cnon

[mehavey]

>
>...University leaders said the students should have known about the weapon policy.
>

The key question will be whether the "policy" was written, and signed by the students, as condition of occupancy.

.

[teeroux]

The real key question is that the students lived off campus. So does that not make the school a landlord like any other landlord? Landlords cannot usually forcibly seize property belonging to renters.

[spacecoast]

It's a very poorly written article with several spelling/usage errors, which doesn't help to communicate what happened and the policies. However, a policy that wasn't spelled out and that the students "should have known about" doesn't sound like much of a policy. It almost implies a "weapons are bad, therefore they are forbidden" mindset at the University (no surprising). Were they not in clear violation of something they had been presented in writing and signed to show their assent, I would fight it tooth and nail. Even in writing, the policy might be a violation of their rights and they could go for a lesser punishment.

[Tom Servo]

Were they not in clear violation of something they had been presented in writing and signed to show their assent, I would fight it tooth and nail.

Generally, all such policies are enumerated in a lease agreement, which they would have signed. It doesn't matter whether or not they read it; what matters is if they signed it.

Even in writing, the policy might be a violation of their rights and they could go for a lesser punishment.

Which rights and how?

[manta49]

GU leaders said the students violated a policy all students show know about when living in a school owned apartment.

If they knew the rules and chose to ignore them. Then they made a conscious decision not to abide by the rules knowing the consciences.

[mehavey]

"IF" is the 1st question.

The second is the legality of the policy regarding a landlord's restrictions re off-campus housing under Washington Law.

Both need answers.

[Chaz88]

"Off campus" is often not when it comes to college policies. If the college owns or leases the property it is generally considered part of the campus even if it is not physically attached to the main property. I am fairly sure when I started college I signed something that said I would read and follow the rule handbook. So even if I never read it I would be bound by it. Could also be looked at the way the law often is, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it.

Now if they made a decision to put their safety above following the rules I do not have a problem with it. But when making those decisions you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.

[Librarian]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gonz...says-president

In a statement today, Gonzaga President Thayne M. McCulloh revealed that this week’s controversy over possible sanctions against two students who discouraged an intruder at gunpoint from their off-campus apartment has opened the door for “thoughtful evaluation” of the university’s weapons policy, the Spokane Spokesman-Review reported.

[DT Guy]

If you want to evaluate the fairness of an anti-gun policy, contract or lease, switch the word 'gun' for the word 'baby', and 'gun owner' for 'black people.'

"It is illegal for students to have, maintain or possess any (baby) [gun] in school owned or maintained dormitories."

"It shall be illegal for (black people) [gun owners] to use, lease or visit school grounds."

This shows discrimination that otherwise would go unnoticed, I've found, and would work very well in this case, as well.


Larry

[Tom Servo]

This shows discrimination that otherwise would go unnoticed

It's not discrimination. "Gun owner" is not a protected class.

[Chaz88]

If you want to evaluate the fairness of an anti-gun policy, contract or lease, switch the word 'gun' for the word 'baby', and 'gun owner' for 'black people.'

I tried to look at it from that angel but it is too big a stretch for me. I do not think it is an argument that would get much traction.

[spacecoast]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Which rights and how?

For instance, if Washington has a Castle law the lease regulations might be in conflict with it.

[DT Guy]

If we consider that we have a fundamental right to bear arms (i.e., 2nd amendment) then that 'fundamental right' is most certainly protected.

We don't view it that way because we've been trained not to; think about the commotion if these students couldn't exercise other fundamental rights; if they could not vote, could not assemble, could not speak freely.

It's about time we started thinking and treating bearing arms as the RIGHT that it is, and our ability to bear them as protected by the constitution.

As long as we accept limitations on that right that we wouldn't accept on others, we're killing ourselves.


Larry

[BigD_in_FL]

Even in writing, the policy might be a violation of their rights and they could go for a lesser punishment.

Not hardly, they are living in someone else's property then they are subject to THEIR rules that IF enumerated in the contractual documents, makes them in violation of that agreement

They do not have to live there, they chose to live there and be subjected to the rules put forth by the owner (in this case the University)

[teeroux]

^^

There is usually still laws regulating landlords and renters. Such as landlords can't discriminate, or enter the residence without the renters permission and such things. It doesn't matter what you sign the landlord cannot break the law themselves school or not IMHO.

[BigD_in_FL]

discrimination does NOT apply to gun owners, there are specific protected classes as defined by law

[kutz]

Rules is rules,even if I disagree with em.

[Tuzo]

Did the students know about Gonzaga's firearms policy? All students are required to read the university's handbook. Here is an excerpt from the Gonzaga University Student Handbook:

https://www.gonzaga.edu/Student+Life...t-Handbook.pdf

WEAPONS, FIREWORKS & EXPLOSIVES

The presence and use of weapons on campus presents a potential threat to the safety of all community members. Use or display of weapons may result in threat or injury to self or others. Use or display of weapons, whether intentional or not, is generally inconsistent with the University’s Ethos Statement and may be illegal.

Possession, use, display, sale or exchange of weapons at any location on campus, including University residential facilities and privately-owned vehicles, is prohibited. The term “weapon” means any object designed to propel an object, inflict a wound, cause injury, incapacitate, damage property or cause a reasonable fear of such, and includes, but is not limited to, all firearms, pellet/BB/air guns, paintball guns, home-manufactured cannons or explosive devices, bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs, martial arts devices, switchblades or otherwise-illegal knives or knives with a blade longer than
three inches (with the exception of kitchen knives in our University homes and apartments). Replica guns and other simulated weapons are included within this policy. Objects otherwise not considered weapons, and knives with blades
less than three inches, may be included within this policy if used as a weapon. Fireworks, flammables, explosives and chemicals of an explosive and/or flammable nature are also prohibited.

Exceptions to this policy may be authorized by the Director of Campus Public Safety and Security. The University retains the right to search persons, possessions and bags and privately-owned vehicles on University property, and to confiscate, retain and dispose of/destroy all items covered by this policy regardless of value or ownership. Law enforcement may be contacted for some violations of this policy.

[Al Norris]

Exceptions to this policy may be authorized by the Director of Campus Public Safety and Security. The University retains the right to search persons, possessions and bags and privately-owned vehicles on University property, and to confiscate, retain and dispose of/destroy all items covered by this policy regardless of value or ownership. Law enforcement may be contacted for some violations of this policy.

While that may apply to on-campus housing, it most likely will not apply to off-campus property, rented to students.

Here the campus security unlawfully entered a rented abode. They confiscated property in which they had no authority. Authority, as I understand it, rests with the city PD, not the Campus Security and especially not off campus.

Hope these guys get a competent attorney.

[tomrkba]

The whole notion that a right can be overridden by a mere contract is ridiculous. That decision needs to go away.

[vranasaurus]

Constitutional rights are limits on the government and not private parties. (with the exception of the 13th Amendment which directly proscribes conduct by anyone)

If I break into your house and search it looking for drugs I haven't violated your fourth amendment rights but committed a burglary. In that same vein a landlord may be prohibited by statute from doing certain things and/or required by statute to do certain things. However they are not required/prohibited from doing anything by the constitution.

Landlords aren't prohibited from discriminating against tenants by the constitution but by statute.

If this was a public university you could assert your RKBA as a limit on its conduct. But since it is a private university you would have to come up with an argument that allows you to do so.

[Chaz88]

The whole notion that a right can be overridden by a mere contract is ridiculous. That decision needs to go away.

It happens almost every time you sign a contract.

If they signed a contract with the college to abide by their rules when on campus property they abdicated some of their rights when on that property.

Sign a cell phone contract and you give up the right to not pay them for the term of the contract even if you stop using the service.

I signed away the full exercise of my constitutional rights for over twenty years in the Navy and agreed to be bound by the UCMJ and Navy regulations.

It goes on and on to one degree or another.

EDIT: Technically since I am on retainer pay, tell I reach the 30 year mark and switch to retired pay, I am still bound by the UCMJ. But in practice I would need to be way out of bounds before anyone tried to apply it to me.

[vranasaurus]

Let us not forget guilty pleas in criminal cases. A defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in exchange for the state dismissing other charges ,recommending a certain sentence, or getting some other disposition.

The defendant is giving up the right to a trial, to confront witness, to use the courts power to compel evidence, to be presumed innocent, etc...
In pleading guilty they give up a ton of important rights.



So if you can waive your rights as to the government, who is bound by them, then you can certainly waive them as to someone who is not bound by your rights.

[JimDandy]

Actually Vranasaurus, as I understand it, Landlords can't discriminate Constitutionally based on the 14th. Statutes may further define and explain that prohibition, but Heart of Atlanta Motel was decided on 14A grounds as I understand.