Grad student suspended after pro gun rights e-mail(Just Wow!)

news.com ^ | 10/10/2007 | Declan McCullagh

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Which has nothing to do with the constitutional right to free speech, does it?

No, not really, since Congress passed no law abridging his right.

[bilhosty]

On the contrary very, very, very few people carry guns on campus. The penalties are getting kicked out of school and facing criminal prosecution. It is also very hard to carry a gun around campus on your person or keeping it in your dorm with out someone finding out and they will tell. Also parents are usually rational and have something to say about there kids walking around with illegal weapons. They would have much, much better luck hiding drugs.

[tpaine]

-- in most places carrying concealed weapons on your person is banned --

Bill, -- calm yourself and realize that most states now have 'shall issue' concealed carry laws.

unless you can demonstrate a good reason why you need one.

Wrong again. - No reason is needed in most states.

And if that is not the way it is it ought to be. And that is especially true for a college campus.

Carrying concealed "ought to be" restricted to those with a "good reason"? -- Give this some thought. -- Our Constitution specifies we should carry arms as it is "necessary to the security of a free State --".

Can you agree with that concept being a "good reason"?

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Thank you for your reply!
I only carry occasionally. Like going to downtown Cleveland!

[doc30]

Our "supreme Law of the Land" [and all laws made in "Pursuence thereof"] apply to everyone in the USA, and always have since ratification. Read the Article VI.

So the moonbats are justified to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine under your logic. After all, if your interpretation is correct (which it isn't), then any time a media outlet tells someone they can't use their medium to deliver their message, it's a violation of the 1st amendment. You don't seem to realize that the constitution is between the government and its citizens, not citizens between citizens. An owner of any private property has the right to decide if they do or do not want people carrying concealed firearms on that property. I'm not taking about gun grabbers in office, but between private people.

Why would you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?

The benefits or drawbacks of conceal and carry are not the issue here. And a private property owner is not depriving anyone of the right to conceal and carry. He is simply excercising his right to control what is on his property. If the owner, for whatever reason, choses not to have firearms on his property, it is not a violation of the constitution or any other law.

Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.

Like I said before, this isn't about enhanced security and I do agree that there are advantages there. But it is still up to the property owner to decide who and what goes on his property. There are no access rights laws for concealed weapons carried by private citizens on other citizen's private property and that isn't a 2nd amendment issue.

[bilhosty]

That is probably a rational act.

[bilhosty]

There is no absolute Constitutional right. Even the first amendment which comes nearest to it is not absolute. Under the first amendment you may not maliciously yell help in a crowded theater. Commit lible, slander, treason, make bogus or fraudulent claims, threaten or practice jihad in the name of religous freedom. and you certainly do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun on campus.

Actually I am quite calm and smiling as I write this. I kind of enjoy a good mix up every once and awhile with my Freeper friends.

[doc30]

The president of Hamline University and the retired veterans of the KGB and Stasi would be proud of your accusing political opponents of insanity. As for Troy Scheffler, his opposition to preferential treatment of nonwhites on this campus hardly qualifies as racism. If the old school racism of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was wrong, so is the guilt-driven demeaning of white Christians and the promotion of minorities at the expense of whites. Did the excesses of the Nazis in Russia justify the treatment of Germans by the Soviets? Can the Muslim terrorists justify their atrocities based on what the Crusaders or the British colonial authorities had done? Mr. Scheffler is also right when he accuses a supposedly Methodist, and thus supposedly Christian, university, of promoting un-Christian beliefs.

The plain fact is that he is angry for affirmative action, for what he perceives is an un-Christian environment and wants to carry a firearm into that location is what justifies the mental health exam. It's not that he disagrees with affirmative action. I don't agree with affirmative action, either. It was his expressed anger behind it coupled to the fact he wanted to bear arms on the campus. This isn't saying that the campus authorities want to label firarms owners as lunatics (well, maybe the extreme moonbats), but they want to make sure this kid wasn't going to go over the edge and start taking care of business against affirmative action with his concealed weapons. I'm sure if he decided to leave that school, he wouldn't have to have a mental health exam. But if he wants to stay there, it's their school so it's their rules. I'm sure there are plenty of other more Christian colleges he could go to.

[Doctor Don]

Hamline who? Never heard of it! Must be a great school!

[GnL]

Did you take a right turn at DU and accidentally stumble upon Free Republic?

[Wurlitzer]

"Did the freaking former Soviet Union simply move its headquarters to the United States? Unbelievable!"

Yes they did! They are following their master plan [Hillary's also] of embedding themselves in Universities, Media, Hollyweird, Unions etc and using that clout to influence elections. I do not see a nonviolent solution as you cannot even call a communist a communist lest you be labeled as something worse than a child molester.

[Osage Orange]

and you certainly do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun on campus.

Okay let's forget the constitution...for a minute. I think you are wrong...but that's a different battle.

If this particular state has CC laws...are you saying I still couldn't carry there?

And keeping that in mind....what do you think the criminal element of our society thinks when they see "No Gun Zone" signs on campuses?

BTW, when your neighbor, or a stranger comes to your "rescue" with a pencil...don't be alarmed. lol

[HundredDollars]

Whoosh! That was the sound of my post going right over your head.

More of your illogic, fear and submission:

yes,that is my point many studens on college campus’s are irresponsibile, Immature, use drugs and abuse alchohol some are downright belgerant and mean.

1. It is certainly best to be unarmed amongst these types of people. Since there are none of these types of people in the real world, it is perfectly fine to CCW off-campus. (I'm assuming since your original post was about guns on campus that you don't oppose CCW elsewhere.)

I stand beside that and anyway you look at it carrying guns only adds to the problems.

2. The additional defenseless girls who get raped are just a small sacrifice to the god of submission. Refusing to be a victim is in no way helpful, it'll be over soon enough. No one can disagree.

If you don’t believe me just ask anyone else on the street and see how many people agree with you.

3. I can't debate the topic because my opinion is entirely based on fear-based emotion, not logic. But sheeple agree with me so nana nana boo boo. _____________________________________________

Do you have a right to defend yourself? Do other people?

If you are substantially weaker then your attacker do you forfeit this right, perhaps being killed? Do other people?

Exactly what justifies taking away another persons right to defend themselves? Who decides?

Besides the RKBA, I trust people to the point of letting them carry a weapon in my presence without my specific knowledge. I know people are safer based on statistical analysis of crime figures by John Lott.

You fear people so much you won't allow the innocent the ability to defend themselves in an admittedly hostile environment. Instead, you trust the untrustworthy not to break the rules. What is your position based on?

[tpaine]

It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.

Since when does the Constitution apply to private property owners?

Our "supreme Law of the Land" [and all laws made in "Pursuance thereof"] apply to everyone in the USA, and always have since ratification. Read the Article VI.

So the moonbats are justified to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine under your logic.

Only moonbats claim that "fairness doctrine" is made in "Pursuance thereof".

You don't seem to realize that the constitution is between the government and its citizens, not citizens between citizens.
It's the government that can't restrict your rights, not private citizens.

Yep, that's what the Brady bunch types want everyone in the USA to believe; - that property rights trump our right to carry arms.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.

An owner of any private property has the right to decide if they do or do not want people carrying concealed firearms on that property. I'm not taking about gun grabbers in office, but between private people.
A private property owner can prohibit firearms on their property

Why would you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?

The benefits or drawbacks of conceal and carry are not the issue here.

Of course they are. You just don't want to discuss your reasons for why you want to kick out an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon.

And a private property owner is not depriving anyone of the right to conceal and carry.

Wrong. -- It's become a virtual 'brady bunch fad'. Large corporations, insurance companies, etc; - are jumping on the 'ban guns for workplace safety' bandwagon.. -- And some FReepers are buying into the scam.

He is simply excercising his right to control what is on his property. If the owner, for whatever reason, choses not to have firearms on his property, it is not a violation of the constitution or any other law.
-- don't you believe in private property rights?

Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.
Obviously, you don't agree.

--- it is still up to the property owner to decide who and what goes on his property.

Read much? Just above I agreed that certainly, in a private residence you can ban anyone at any time, for any reason. -- But, - you must admit that our Constitution defends our right to carry arms for the "security of a free State".

How can we carry arms during our daily business if private property owners ban them?

There are no access rights laws for concealed weapons carried by private citizens on other citizen's private property and that isn't a 2nd amendment issue.

Dream on. The brady bunch gun banners are making it their agenda to deny access for concealed carry.

[tpaine]

--unless you can demonstrate a good reason why you need one.
And if that is not the way it is it ought to be. And that is especially true for a college campus.

Good grief bill. -- Carrying concealed "ought to be" restricted to those with a "good reason"?
-- Give this some thought. -- Our Constitution specifies we should carry arms as it is "necessary to the security of a free State --".

Can you agree with that concept being a "good reason"?

There is no absolute Constitutional right.

Unable to answer the question bill? How amusing.

Even the first amendment which comes nearest to it is not absolute.
-- you certainly do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun on campus.

Gotta love your example of "good reasoning".

Actually I am quite calm and smiling as I write this. I kind of enjoy a good mix up every once and awhile with my Freeper friends.

With 'friends' like you kid, FReepers find a lot to smile about. You may even find some openly laughing at your reasoning.

[ElectricStrawberry]

...and I only got one side of this story. I have no clue what he said to the administration, how he said it, or any of his behaviors other than what this pro-him article says.

Something doesn’t smell right about it.

[READINABLUESTATE]

“Veni Vidi Vici....me myself, and I ???”
No. “I came, I saw, I conquered.”

Thanks, that makes more sense. I wish I would have studied latin in school.

[aruanan]

Hamline University also said that master's student Troy Scheffler, who owns a firearm, would be barred from campus and must receive a mandatory "mental health evaluation" after he sent an e-mail message arguing that law-abiding students should be able to carry firearms on campus for self-defense.

Hamfisted University?

[wtc911]

The guy got punished as a result of political correctness. If you can’t even mention certain topics on campus without fear of reprisal then that is an infringement of free speech in my book.

--------------------------------------------------

That is a different thing than declaring that a constitutionally protected right had been violated.

[WLR]

Oh Bill,

Bad Student No Latte...

Please, you talk as though the students on campus are little kids.

For one thing... That CCW permit allows that student sitting next to you in class currently disarmed to walk past you on the street armed just off campus, sit next to you at the taco stand, stand behind you at the gas station or toss your errant Frisbee back at the park...

Things like that happen every day... and people are not getting shot by those CCW holders..

Now you get the idea..

With a rate of exception infinitesimally less than the rate of crime that student or the other armed citizens are not going “CRAZY” at any of those places. That is just not happening and the benefits of them being armed are inarguable at this point.. Marked reductions in Rape, Violent assault all occurring after CCW laws arming citizens went into effect.

Therefore, you are not in any more danger from their armed presence on campus..You are however demonstrably safer when examining the rates of crime between places where citizens are armed and they are not.

So the only reason for opposing that CCW holder from carrying on campus is the way you “Feel” not the facts nor the reality of the situation you live in every day.

People used to “feel” the earth was flat too. I felt that that this pretty Blond girl and I were not going to get together.

See now? The world is not flat. I was wrong about the Blond (we have been married 27 years) and your just a little off about this.. No matter..Your thinking was just a little fuzzy thats all.

Many Professors unless they are actually in the hard sciences like Math, Chemistry, Biology or Engineering are easily confused.. sort of comes with the territory.

With all their prattling on at Campus it’s no wonder things like this can be confusing to students at times as well.

It’ll be Ok, you can have that Latte now.. lol

W

PS..

You seem like a nice kid.. go get some good training from an NRA instructor. Buy a nice snub nosed lightweight 357 or 44 magnum.. Learn to shoot well and then get your own CCW.. Then you too can protect the good people around you from those who would harm them.