University revoking 2nd amendment rights off campus

[doc2rn]

No university that accepts funds of any sort Pell grants etc from the US Government (they all take $$$) can make an anti 2A issue out of a photo online taken off campus. If they do it is your responsibility to notify your Senator immediately to intervene lest that institutions $$$ be revoked. Yes the fed can litterally access their accounts and take back their $$$. Any lawyer worth his pay would have told the school that before this ever got this far. If the school is trying to make an example of your friend his lawyer should have asked for a federal injunction within 24 hours, or he is a lowsy lawyer.

 

[chuckusaret]

I just recently learned that my grand kids, one in the 5th grade and 1 in the 8th grade, are forbidden to talk about any part of our government unless it is a subject being taught by a teacher in a classroom. The punishment for uttering a word about politics; 1st offense==a warning, 2nd offense===detention, 3rd offense==expulsion from 3 days to the remainder of the year......

 

[Tim the student]

I just recently learned that my grand kids, one in the 5th grade and 1 in the 8th grade, are forbidden to talk about any part of our government unless it is a subject being taught by a teacher in a classroom.

Wow! Wow! What??? Wow!!

When isn't government part of the classroom? Schools should be giving out prizes to kids who talk about government or politics. Since when is talking about parts of our government a bad thing? I'd like to hear more about that non-sense. I would think that them talking about politics and being interested in politics and government would be a damn bit better than them having no interest in it at all. I can kind of see a little tiny bit where it might of some use to keep some kids from getting picked on at election time, but stopping the bullying would seem to be the answer to that.

I'm still shocked about that. Where is this?

 

[DHJenkins]

Think about it, Tim. You can't have kids forming their own opinions or thinking freely...

That kind of thing could lead to back-talking when the teachers force their uninformed opinions (cleverly disguised as facts) upon the little tykes.

It's not just the banks and the auto industry, people. The decimation of our society starts at a much, much younger age.

 

[Tim the student]

I can honestly say that when I was in school (I'm only 31) we were only encouraged to think about things, and talk about them. I went only to public schools in Iowa.

I haven't heard anything about this from relatives of mine either. I hope it is because it's not happening, not because I just haven't heard about this.

 

[TimboKhan]

That kind of thing could lead to back-talking when the teachers force their uninformed opinions (cleverly disguised as facts) upon the little tykes.

Sigh.

Because, you know, every teacher is an agent of liberalism meant to persuade your kids towards socialism. If you haven't noticed the sarcasm or made an educated guess, I am a teacher. I assure you, I teach because I like to teach not because I have some higher designs on programming kids. I don't know a single teacher that does, though like all teachers, my kids routinely ask my opinion on things and, like all teachers, I will occasionally give them my opinion if it is relevant to class. It's not a conspiracy, dude. It's just regular people doing a hard job.

But, you know, this kind of speaks to the bigger issue doesn't it? We have one dude, who posted one thing about one college and half you guys are ready to storm congress to get them to force this school to dance in lockstep to a particular belief. I said it before, I will say it again: forcing private institutions to in anyway go against their own set policy is a bad, bad idea. I may, and do, disagree with this policy, but I don't have to, nor will I, attend this school. To attempt to change a policy that the board of directors of that school has set, despite most of us not having any stake or interest whatsoever in that school, is ridiculous. Frankly, if it were a big deal, the student body itself would be up in arms (pardon the pun) about this, and clearly they are not.

 

[COMPNOR]

What amazes me is that while we have what the policy says, we have no facts about the situation given. Its not even the OP, but his friend. So why can't we get some facts before we all start jumping to conclusions?

 

[danbrew]

Whether you agree with their policies or not, you agreed to go there and abide by the rules. If the only thing they've got you (or your friend) on is a facebook picture, change the picture. You *could* fight the school. And there are probably provisions in their rules of conduct that are legally not enforceable. Yet do you really want to sue them to overturn policies that you don't agree with?

We've had private property conversations to the nth degree here - if the state law does not prohibit carry on campus, you can carry all day long - regardless of campus policy. But be prepared to be expelled from the University if you get caught. They can't criminally prosecute you (unless you put up a stink and refuse to leave the campus grounds when caught), but they can (and will) kick you out due to their misguided policies (and most likely insurance policies).

One of the things that you're supposed to learn in college is critical thinking skills. Is it "wrong" for them to "infringe" upon activities off campus? Yes. In my opinion, but apparently not in theirs. Is it "wrong" for them to say "no guns" - sure, we all think so. But they don't. How much time/effort/money do you want to spend fighting this? Remember that you're there seeking a degree, which they can make as difficult as possible if they choose. Do you really want to spend private school tuition and face an uphill battle because you're the one nail that sticks out a bit and begs to get pounded down?

My advice? Choose your battles.

 

[AirForceShooter]

How would they know?
Screw them.

AFS

 

[zxcvbob]

There is nothing you can do. You voluntarily agreed to sign that contract, my friend. If you didn't like the regulation, you shouldn't have attended school there. Ya. That's why you're supposed to read things before you sign them. They are a private university. Game over.

Suppose for a minute the policy said "No associating with Negroes" How is that any different?

 

[DHJenkins]

Sigh.

Because, you know, every teacher is an agent of liberalism meant to persuade your kids towards socialism. If you haven't noticed the sarcasm or made an educated guess, I am a teacher. I assure you, I teach because I like to teach not because I have some higher designs on programming kids. I don't know a single teacher that does, though like all teachers, my kids routinely ask my opinion on things and, like all teachers, I will occasionally give them my opinion if it is relevant to class. It's not a conspiracy, dude. It's just regular people doing a hard job.

I live in very large city. A city in which the school systems have removed all activities or references to any non-political holiday. Where high school graduates can't read. Where almost all classes are centered around passing the mandated assessment test, and not about the actual material. Where (like the college I attended), any opinion on an issue or event other than what the teacher/professor put forward during class resulted in a failing grade, and where teachers like you, who actually teach, are fired.

It's nice to hear that you aren't like that, and the area you live/teach in sounds like it's actually interested in education and preparing people for life beyond school. As an aside, I never made mention of any political leaning, liberal or otherwise. My problem is with teachers who advance opinion as fact, regardless of the slant.

However, when the majority of students can't point out their own country or state on a map, and history books are constantly being re-written and the curriculum changed to placate the loudest special intereste group, along with states being forced to teach religious beliefs, I can't help but be extremely cynical of the system as a whole.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Suppose for a minute the policy said "No associating with Negroes" How is that any different?

It's very different because that kind of thing was included in the Civil Rights Act and firearm owners were not.

Racial bias or discrimination, whether it's Constitutional or not, is in the Civil Rights Act.

If gun owners were considered a "protected class" your argument would work, but they are not included in that group protected by "civil rights".

 

[GEM]

The rather hysterical paradox is that if we argued that gun owners should be a protected class, we come up with folks who still argue that their property rights should give them the right to discriminate against these classes in their business and hiring.

Also, a whole lot of ranting and misunderstanding how schools work and your chance of fighting them. Get the Senator to pull their grants - yep, that's going to happen.

The only realistic change would occur if state legislatures override school or business polices. However, all those 'conservative, free market' types come roaring out of the closet on their 'property rights' and pay off the reps to squelch the bills. And guess what - they don't give a crap about civil rights - it's all a sham and deceitful use of 'property rights' to control their perceived liability risks and control their employees. They would have you working 16 days if they could for $1.00 an hour.

 

[sarge83]

I would formally ask them since they are restricting your right of self defense if they are formally assuming responsibility for your personal protection.

 

[zxcvbob]

Suppose for a minute the policy said "No associating with Negroes" How is that any different?

It's very different because that kind of thing was included in the Civil Rights Act and firearm owners were not.

Racial bias or discrimination, whether it's Constitutional or not, is in the Civil Rights Act.

If gun owners were considered a "protected class" your argument would work, but they are not included in that group protected by "civil rights".

Read carefully what I wrote. My hypothetical student is white, but the school found a picture of him on Facebook at a picnic with his black neighbor. Would disciplining that student for violating the Student Handbook be an infringement of his 1st Amendment rights of free association? I don't think the Civil Rights Act comes to bear directly, but I could be mistaken.

I propose that the policy is unenforceable if the school wants to keep its tax exempt status.

 

[Deanimator]

I propose that the policy is unenforceable if the school wants to keep its tax exempt status.

Probably true. Wasn't there a college in the '80s which forbade interracial dating that either lost or gave up federal funding, and or tax benefits? Bob Jones U, perhaps?

 

[COMPNOR]

I would formally ask them since they are restricting your right of self defense if they are formally assuming responsibility for your personal protection.

You agreed to have your right to self defense restricted by agreeing to their rules. They don't have to assume any such responsibility.

 

[Yellowfin]

To attempt to change a policy that the board of directors of that school has set, despite most of us not having any stake or interest whatsoever in that school, is ridiculous.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King. Not a man I like, but on that point he was absolutely right.

Quite honestly if I weren't faced with an entire political complex (politicians, lawyers, senior law enforcement, big cities, activist groups and foundations, schools and teachers and professors) trying to outrightly destroy the 2nd Amendment and a systematic removal of participating in and cognizance of it I suppose I wouldn't have to care. If it were simply live and let live then it'd be a different matter. But the fact is we're in a war in this country to preserve our right to keep and bear arms, among other rights but especially it because it is singularly unique among mankind, and to pass it on to the next generation and to reclaim it where it has been curtailed or lost. I don't like there being a war over all this, I sure didn't start it, I don't like having to fight it, but no way should I or anyone simply ignore it because others are oblivious or refuse to fight it. We can't afford to lose it. We sure won't get it back if we do lose--it took thousands of years and lots of civilizations coming and passing before ending up with anything like ours and it may not ever happen again.

This isn't a harmless policy. It isn't a mere "choice" like what color to paint the bookstore or whether to make the new brick walkway around the fountain circular or rectangular. This policy is an act of hate against an entire class of people and a basic human right that sadly this country is one of the very few to recognize. You're foolishly kidding yourself to think otherwise.

 

[TimboKhan]

This isn't a harmless policy. It isn't a mere "choice" like what color to paint the bookstore or whether to make the new brick walkway around the fountain circular or rectangular. This policy is an act of hate against an entire class of people and a basic human right that sadly this country is one of the very few to recognize. You're foolishly kidding yourself to think otherwise.

You are exactly wrong. This is a choice. A choice made by a board of directors of a privately owned school who have the right and the freedom to make choices that you and I disagree with. We may not like it, but it is not our place to change it. I also happen to disagree with you that it is a "basic human right" to own a gun, or at least I think you are being pretty dramatic about the whole thing. Basic human rights, in my opinion, are those that we need to live such as food, water and shelter. While I love guns more than just about anything, I don't need one to live. Thus, I refute your claim about guns being a basic human right.

I weren't faced with an entire political complex (politicians, lawyers, senior law enforcement, big cities, activist groups and foundations, schools and teachers and professors) trying to outrightly destroy the 2nd Amendment

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment, a point that seems to get continually lost in this discussion. The school is not saying that this student can't own a firearm, ever, they are saying that he can't own a firearm while he is a student at that school. To combat this policy is quite simple: If you don't like that rule, don't go to that school. On a smaller, but exactly equivalent, scale, I don't let people into my house that want to talk to me about the Mormon church. I own my house and simply don't have any interest or time to waste talking to someone about something I don't care about. This is not taking away their first amendment rights, as I am not saying they can't talk about the Mormon church. I am just saying they can't talk about the Mormon church to me on my private property. The school is doing the exact same thing, except it just so happens that they are casting out something that we are all passionate about.

 

[mr.scott]

How are they going to know if you own a gun unless you do something dumb and post pics of yourself on my space acting like a thug posing with them?
Personally, I wouldn't go to the school because this policy ensures that they push liberal ideas and agendas.

 

[Yellowfin]

I also happen to disagree with you that it is a "basic human right" to own a gun, or at least I think you are being pretty dramatic about the whole thing. Basic human rights, in my opinion, are those that we need to live such as food, water and shelter. While I love guns more than just about anything, I don't need one to live. Thus, I refute your claim about guns being a basic human right.

Having a gun allows you to better defend your food, clothing, shelter, and life from someone trying to take it from you. If you can't secure what you have then you don't own it, you're just borrowing it from someone who can and would take it from you but by luck alone on your end hasn't done so yet. Self preservation and retaining what is your is a basic human right, thus by extension so is the means to do so.

Not to say that such is the only means; thankfully as an accommodation of where and when we live at the moment such is rarely necessary, perhaps not readily seen as at all necessary in your experience, and such good fortune of yours I wish certainly that it continue for you. However the lack of demonstrated specific instance of the need at the time is apparently something you misinterpret as its lack of being in total. Do you need one every day to live? Most likely not, I'd say. But one or two days of your life you very well may and you may not know if you'll live 3 days, 3 months, 30 years, or 30 more seconds on one side or the other of such decision. That one has the right to influence one's outcomes, to define one's own existance, is as basic and irrefutable as the sun rising.

 

[TimboKhan]

That one has the right to influence one's outcomes, to define one's own existance, is as basic and irrefutable as the sun rising.

Certainly this is true to an extent, but the roughly 5000 years of human history that went on before the gun proves to me that the gun itself is not a basic human right any more than the sword, spear, atlatl, donkey, wheel or down vest are. They are simply tools. Vital, important tools to be sure, but ultimately still just tools. In the right hands and circumstance, a rock is just as deadly and can help define one's own existence just as definitively as any gun can.

For me, a gun is an expression of liberty. Being an American, it is also my right as a citizen of this country. I think where I am getting hung up is the idea of a gun being a "basic human right". Well, whatever. When it comes down to it, chances are we are a whole lot closer in opinion than we are further away, and I don't want to drift this thread any further off topic than I already have.

 

[raz-0]

From the perspective of being in the university environment for a while.

If they have been accused of misconduct, there is going to be some sort of proceeding in which you can defend yourself. The subject of this hearing are going to be entitled to some form of representation. This usually means a you get assigned some faculty member to represent you. It usually does not prohibit you form lawyering up at this point.

If you lawyer up, that review/appeal process takes on a WHOLE different tone. In this case, where the rubber meets the road would be the scholarship vs. the off campus/ internet clause in the code of conduct. I'm sure that was added for crap like cyberbullying, on-line threats, and to regulate behaviors on sites where professors are reviewed and complained about, as well as anything gang related. It also was likely simply appended. Since they are going to cause you material harm, how they treat that document and apply it across the student body now comes into question as a civil matter outside the review/appeal process. Getting them to document that they are scanning the facebook pages of everyone and applying every part of their code of conduct all the time will come into play. They likely aren't doing that perfectly, and from that point on it can be argued they are singling you out.

The real question is how much money are you going to spend to keep a scholarship, and how much are they willing to spend to not give it to you?

 

[Fryerpower]

On a smaller, but exactly equivalent, scale, I don't let people into my house that want to talk to me about the Mormon church. I own my house and simply don't have any interest or time to waste talking to someone about something I don't care about. This is not taking away their first amendment rights, as I am not saying they can't talk about the Mormon church. I am just saying they can't talk about the Mormon church to me on my private property. The school is doing the exact same thing, except it just so happens that they are casting out something that we are all passionate about.

The school is NOT doing 'the exact same thing.' Notice that the friend of the OP was not on school property. They were not at a school function. They were completely away from the school when they held the gun.

Do you tell your Mormon friends that they cannot be your friend since they are Mormons? Or is ok for them to carry out their normal life and normal rights as long as it is not in your house?

This is not about keeping their campus and students 'safer'. It is about controlling every aspect of their student's lives.

Just to clarify this a little. It is not just about guns. The policy says that they cannot hold a weapon of any sort. What common household items have you seen/heard about being used as weapons?

My guts roil at the idea of what they are doing. However, if I was in their shoes and just wanted to get the education and get it done.

"I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind, got my paper
And I was free."

-Jim

 

[DHJenkins]

...but the roughly 5000 years of human history...

Off by quite a bit, aren't we? Didn't you say you were a teacher?