Gonzaga University How Important Is Following The Rules?

[Smoke]

So, I’m sure by now we’ve all heard of the two Gonzaga University students who were almost expelled when they used a firearm they weren’t supposed to have in student housing in the first place to run off a homeless felon who was trying to shake them down for money.

The general consensus I’m seeing on various gun forums is that it was completely acceptable for the students to knowingly violate the University’s rules concerning weapons on campus and that the University had no right to kick them out of student housing.

My problem with this is that the student hand book clearly stated that weapons weren’t allowed on campus and the students either knew it or should have known it before they moved in. When I went to college I was given a copy of the student handbook during my orientation, the major point were covered and I was asked to sign a document stating that I had read, understood and agreed to abide by the provisions of the handbook. I don’t know this for sure but I’ll bet that the renter’s agreement they signed before moving into student housing also had a no weapons clause in it.

My opinion is that the University was 100% justified in moving to expel the students, no one forced them to attend that university or live in student housing and they knew they were breaking the rules when they moved in and should have known that they were risking expulsion by doing so.

The biggest problem with this country (again IMO) today is too many people think the rules should apply to everyone but them. I’ve heard it said on various gun forums that those two had every right to ignore the rules that they agreed to abide by and if they were forced to live in student housing I might agree but they weren’t they chose that just as they chose to risk breaking the rules.

I’d like to hear the opinions of other forum members on this who was right? Would you feel the same if it was your rights as a property owner that were violated?

2 Gonzaga Students on Probation for Having Guns - ABC News

 

[feralmerril]

I worked for the national park service over 50 years ago when guns weren't allowed like they are now. If you go to boot camp a recruit cant bring his guns with him, can they? I personally might smuggle a gun with me if put in a situation like that again if I felt strong about it for my protection BUT if found out with it I wouldn't have the nerve to protest my punishment as I knew the consequences when I entered. It`s a gamble and I am a gambler but I don't ask for my money back if I lose at the blackjack table.

 

[finesse_r]

Implicit in any organization refusing to allow you to use your second amendment rights and the natural right of self-defense, is that that organization guarantees your safety. If they fail to provide for said safety they are the ones who have violated their unspoken and unwritten, but unavoidable repercussions of their rules.

The same standard should be applied to any governmental agency that makes laws or regulations prohibiting a person from defending themselves.

Until we begin to hold these organizations and governments and the people who formulate these insane rules and laws, liable in those situations where they effectively disarm citizens or students and then fail to protect them, we will be fighting a defensive battle.

Anyone that allows someone else’s rules or laws put them in physical danger is just stupid. I would like to think we don’t have a total population of stupid people at our universities yet.

 

[Smoke]

Implicit in any organization refusing to allow you to use your second amendment rights and the natural right of self-defense, is that that organization guarantees your safety.

Do you have legal precedent to back this assertion up?

I have to ask the question again who forced them to stay in that housing? I'm sure there are any number of places they could have rented from that had no such restrictions.

 

[carpriver]

Rules are for everyone, when a rule is violated one is held accountable. When we sign a statement that we understand and will follow the rules means we follow the rules even if it means living in a gun free zone.

 

[feralmerril]

Lets see. Fort hood, all prisons, airports, courts, primer schools, hospitals, government offices such as soc sec, DMV,s etc etc. People have been killed in every one of them.
Absolutely every action we do in life is a gamble whether you consider yourself a non gambler or not. You gamble when you drive to Wednesday night prayer meeting that a drunk wont T-bone you. Your personal safety is always ultimately up to you, laws or no laws. I am a advocate of the old saying I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

 

[A10]

Gonzaga is a private university, and can make their own rules. The students violated a policy. However, as a result of that violation Gonzaga is now rethinking their anti-gun policy. They wouldn't have done that had the kids NOT broken the rule. Overall I think it will be a positive outcome.

Back to the OPs point, yup they can throw a kid out for anything they want to. IMHO, there is a big difference between what the rules say and what is right.....

 

[finesse_r]

Rules are for everyone, when a rule is violated one is held accountable. When we sign a statement that we understand and will follow the rules means we follow the rules even if it means living in a gun free zone.

Just as constitutional law trumps contract law or legislative law, there are natural rights of free men as described in the Declaration of Independence. The most inviolate of those rights is the right to self-defense. This supersedes any rules or regulations passed by private institutions or individuals. Just as you cannot sell yourself into slavery, you cannot legally or morally sign away your constitutional and natural right to protect yourself. Of course if you don’t understand your overriding right to self-defense you can loose it through sheer neglect and failure to avail yourself of it. This type of capitulation is often called following the rules.

This right to self-defense is so fundamental and basic to living in a free society, that I am amazed at those that fail to see it. It is the very essence of our second amendment. It is the reason for our constitution and the only viable reason for forming any government. Certainly those that founded this nation understood it.

That our government and our legal system does not recognize this natural right is bad enough. That our citizens no longer seem to know this is their basic human right is appalling.

And yes through a legal trial such rights can be removed if someone is convicted of a serious crime through due process of law.

But even then when we imprison someone we owe them protection. We don’t owe them television, we don’t owe them computers, we don’t owe them drugs and conjugal visits, we don’t owe them phone calls, we don’t even owe them books, but we do owe them protection and safety since we have removed their rights in that area. So prisons should be safe, but deadly boring places.

I am not saying this is how things are currently viewed, but rather how I view them and how I believe they should be viewed.

I always remember that we hung many Germans at the end of WWII whose only crime was following the rules or following orders. Our authority for that was that there are universal laws that supersede any lower order laws or rules or orders.

 

[truckemup97]

Well, I ignored the rules of two universities and had firearms in my dorm room and in my apartment. At this point in my life, I wouldn't have one in a dorm room, as there was no way to properly secure it and other people had fairly easy access (credit card in the door jam trick) to the room. I would absolutely have them in the apartment again.

If caught, I would take the punishment, as I knew the rules before I broke them. Do I think the rules are right? Fair? No, but I knew what they were going into the situation and decided to take my chances.

 

[venomballistics]

Implicit in any organization refusing to allow you to use your second amendment rights and the natural right of self-defense, is that that organization guarantees your safety. If they fail to provide for said safety they are the ones who have violated their unspoken and unwritten, but unavoidable repercussions of their rules.

The same standard should be applied to any governmental agency that makes laws or regulations prohibiting a person from defending themselves.

Until we begin to hold these organizations and governments and the people who formulate these insane rules and laws, liable in those situations where they effectively disarm citizens or students and then fail to protect them, we will be fighting a defensive battle.

Anyone that allows someone else’s rules or laws put them in physical danger is just stupid. I would like to think we don’t have a total population of stupid people at our universities yet.

first thing I thought of is just that. no, or inadequate security provisions made to compensate for the forfeiture of a God given right to self defense.
when your spending 4 to 6 years in a dormitory, under such ill conceived rules and provisions. its a fairly large chunk of your life spent in a vulnerable state.
I can only speculate that the students were prepared, because they had previously witnessed a trending threat as well as a typical limp wristed response of academia.
Having worked within the University of Wisconsin system for a few years, I came to understand this problem soon after I started having students in harms way seeking me out for assistance.
after sniffing around a bit, I found I was the only true sheep dog they had, and I acted accordingly.
I like to think that some of the frightened students I hid away and or removed from the campus equate at least a few families left scarred

 

[25elk]

What I haven't seen here yet is the fact that the perp was a 6 time convicted felon. As usual the law breakers don't have to follow the rules. Nice, huh? If they had followed the rule and had been injured or worse, then their relatives would have every right to sue as IMHO the university had taken the responsibility for their safety when they removed the possibility of the students providing their own safety.

 

[SgtLumpy]

Implicit in any organization refusing to allow you to use your second amendment rights and the natural right of self-defense, is that that organization guarantees your safety...

Raise your hand if you feel that any organization you either belong to or don't belong to guarantees your safety.


Sgt Lumpy

 

[Doug M.]

SPD told the students "nice job". GU security (they are NOT LE) came back later, entered the apartment, and took the guns. I know of no legal authority under which that can be done.

It's a dumb rule, and I don't blame the kids for not following it. On the other hand, I would not attend GU or allow my kids to if I had any. These are off-campus apartments that are leased by the U, as I understand it.

 

[25elk]

Got to agree with you Sarge...but ain't that what lawyers are for? I mean that in a good way CAJ.

 

[deadin]

Implicit in any organization refusing to allow you to use your second amendment rights and the natural right of self-defense, is that that organization guarantees your safety. If they fail to provide for said safety they are the ones who have violated their unspoken and unwritten, but unavoidable repercussions of their rules.

Try using this defense the next time you try to carry a gun into a courthouse, school, etc. because there might be a BG there that means you harm.....

Better yet, try explaining to the judge that you couldn't answer your summons because the State wouldn't let you come to court armed.....

 

[S&W45Colt]

This country was founded on the belief that some rights and freedoms supersede the wishes of tyrants and man made laws. When you lose sight of this basic fact, you've become an enabler of those who seek daily to take our rights from us and to establish the Government above people, rather than a Government of the people.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Try using this defense the next time you try to carry a gun into a courthouse, school, etc. because there might be a BG there that means you harm.....

Better yet, try explaining to the judge that you couldn't answer your summons because the State wouldn't let you come to court armed.....

So you are a supporter of disarming everyone in a school and hoping it's not the location for the next school shooting?

There are armed individuals at the courthouse who's job is to protect you.

 

[Smoke]

SPD told the students "nice job". GU security (they are NOT LE) came back later, entered the apartment, and took the guns. I know of no legal authority under which that can be done.

The University made consent to that rule a condition of attendence and living in University housing. The students knew it and agreed to abide by it

 

[Smoke]

What I haven't seen here yet is the fact that the perp was a 6 time convicted felon. As usual the law breakers don't have to follow the rules.

That's why they're called "law breakers"

 

[Smoke]

A couple of years ago I was out doing my rounds at work, as I’m walking along the West side of the property I notice a woman with two unleashed dog (violates city ordinance) in the field next to our facility.

In order to get where she was at she had to drive around a barricade in the road that had a sign on it that said “ROAD CLOSED” “NO TRESSPASSING” “DO NOT ENTER” as a side note she’s right across the street from a public access open space that’s twice the size of the field that she’s in.

Ordinarily none of this would be any of my business except she’s all the way across the field and right up against my fence. So, I walk up to where she is (still on my side of the fence) and say “Excuse me ma’am are you aware you’re trespassing on private property (like there’s any doubt?)?

She went OFF on me, EXPLETIVE YOU!!!! Who the EXPLETIVE do you EXPLETIVE think you EXPLETIVE are? I walk my EXPLETIVE dogs where ever the EXPLETIVE I EXPLETIVE want.

About this time I really want to ask her “Do you eat with that mouth?” But instead I say “OK ma’am but understand if you stay here I’m going to have to call the police and have them cite you for trespass, and it starts again.

You do whatever the EXPLETIVE you think you need to EXPLETIVE do I don’t give an EXPLETIVE and you can kiss my EXPLETIVE, EXPLETIVE!!!!!!! The whole time She's yelling this she’s high tailing it for her car.

My point is that in order to get to me she had to ignore three very clear messages from the property owners (really four if you count the barricade) saying "We don’t want you here." but somehow it’s my fault that she’s in the wrong.

The message I get from that is that at some point she decided that what she wanted to do outweighed the rights of (really anyone who stood in her way) the person that owned the field and the city government that owns my place. This was two years ago and I still occasionally see her in that field. She bails as soon as she sees me but by God she’s still gonna do what she wants to do.

People like her annoy the Hell out of me, if I don’t get to do whatever I want why does she? I have a neighbor that always let’s his dog run loose not my business in the slightest until I’m sitting there dragging my dog, who wants to eat his dog for lunch, away from his unleashed dog while he doesn’t so much as apologize or even acknowledge I’m there.

The third time it happens I tell the guy that he is endangering his dog and I’m all of a sudden the bad guy?

I don’t exactly have a good closing statement but this has always been one of my pet peeves and I have very little sympathy for people that ignore rules