Former Marine expelled from University of Tampa for gun posession

[Mannlicher]

Tampa is private school, with its own rules. The student knew the rules, and chose to not follow them.
Sad, but end of story............

 

[Wes Janson]

I could be wrong here, but it was my understanding that even in a dorm it would be a crime to possess a weapon.

2)(a) A person shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon as defined in s. 790.001(13), including a razor blade or box cutter, except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities, at a school-sponsored event or on the property of any school, school bus, or school bus stop;

For the purposes of this section, "school" means any preschool, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, secondary school, career center, or postsecondary school, whether public or nonpublic.

And if I understand Gutmacher correctly, it's technically a federal felony to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school without a CWP (or in a locked container, etc).

 

[littlegator]

Sorry, but he broke the law. That's what happens.

I guess that's the point right? That for some reason, the school, local and state laws trumped the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Acquiescence by the courts and the legislature to uphold the constitutional mandate promulgated under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I guess that's the point right? That for some reason, the school, local and state laws trumped the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Acquiescence by the courts and the legislature to uphold the constitutional mandate promulgated under the 2nd Amendment.

That is right. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it holds that the law of the land is to be interpretted by the Supreme Court (Article III), not by individual citizens, cities, or states. The 2nd Amendment has not been upheld as absolute by the Supreme Court. Sorry.

 

[littlegator]

That's obviously what I meant by stating that the court's have acquiesced in their constitutional mandate. Since U.S. v. Miller, (1939) where the Court upheld a state statute requiring registration of sawed-off shotguns, subsequent Courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as being fluid and limited. This, of course, is nothing more than a reflection of the precendent set as far back as Marbury v. Madison, (1803) where the Court expounded upon the powers of the judiciary and their role as interpretors of the Constitution: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Perhaps my statement was not clear enough in my attempt at brevity at the sake of boredom, for what I intended was to indicate that the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, stemming from my opinion of the Court's trespass of the legislature (who acquiesced in their own law making powers), thereby treating the Judiciary as an invitee rather, was overbroad and erroneous.

In other words, I think they got it wrong. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, as a result of a debate over the constitutionality of an act to establish the first bank of the United States, had some very interesting arguments regarding the interpretation of the constitition. Madison stated generally that the federal government is not limited and "is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only." Madison Speech to the H.R. (1791) In conjunction, he stated that where the meaning of the constitution is clear, the "consequences, whatever they may be, are to be admitted." Id. So it should have been, IMO, with the 2nd Amendment, wherein it states, that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Patently clear language, however, that was interpreted by Miller and progeny as otherwise. Judicial activism at its worst.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Right, the Founding Fathers screwed up by allowing the Constitution to be interpreted by the courts by setting up the Supreme Court as holding the judicial power of the United States?

What you seem to be saying is that you think they have strayed because you don't agree with their interpretation of the law, but that was what they were put in place to do by the Founding Fathers, interpret the law.

The supreme law of the land is only as supreme as its interpretation.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by RedneckUF: I'm just glad Tampa PD was there to keep everyone safe. Could you imagine what someone could do in a dorm with a gun? We must keep them out of dorms. If only Virginia Tech Police would have been so on top of things...

Seriously, I spent 4 years at the University of Florida and that's one of the main reasons I didn't live on campus. To me, he is probably one of the most qualified people in the dorm to have the gun. We really need to change that law. Guns should not be prohibited on any campus- End of story.

Its a private university. They have the right to say no guns. Its not the law in this case. I agree the law should allow guns on campus but I feel that private businesses should have the right to say no guns in their business.

I agree wholeheartedly that he should be punished for breaking university policy but the law needs to be changed.

 

[shooter429]

Double NS

You seem to be saying that no matter what a law says, and however it has been misinterpreted by the courts we should all just accept it. IMHO The law is good only if it does not violate a higher law. And in this case, what happened to inalienable rights granted us by the creator and guaranteed by the constitution?
What good is RKBA if every potentially dangerous place bans them? Well, like I always say, I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by 6.

Shooter429

 

[langenc]

There is NO such thing as a FORMER marine except John Murtha.