not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

Colleges are places to learn, not die at the hands of attention-starved mass-murderers.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Locked

b322da
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:34 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#121

Post by b322da »

chasfm11 wrote: I'm coming at this from the opposite perspective....As part of the Declaration of Independence, I have the right to the pursuit of happiness.
I certainly agree with you Chas., that we are approaching the issue from different directions, with which I have no problem (so long as the resolution of the issue agrees with me). :mrgreen:

(Mr. Green is the only smiley I could find which might cause that last statement to be understood as being facetious).

I cannot however, agree with you that the Declaration of Independence gave us the right to anything, other than perhaps to frame the justification of a "right" of the people to revolt against a tyrannical government and institute a new government of their design. (I do hope that my saying this is not an invitation to members to discuss our current national government, not my intent, and which I sincerely think would be way off-topic).

I submit that the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are two very different things. Attempts to merge the two as our nation took shape led to an almost endless debate which almost aborted our Constitution, killing it before it was born, but the end result of that debate is clear. I suppose the most classic examples cited by scholars are probably these:

1. Expressions such as our "Creator" and the "Supreme Judge of the world," which are in the Declaration, are nowhere found, in any form whatsoever, in the Constitution. A great compromise by those smart old men in Philadelphia, thereby avoiding ripping our nation apart at its very beginning. The very first part of the very first amendment to the Constitution confirmed that compromise. (Thereby taking precedence over the second??) ;-)

(It would be nice if our representatives this very day, those on both sides, would come up with a decent compromise. I know -- off-topic.)

2. "All men were not created equal" in the Constitution. Another short-lived compromise, well-known by the drafters to be short-lived, which less than 100 years later led to the most horrifying and tragic war our nation has ever seen.

With the greatest respect to you, Chas., one who addresses an issue thoughtfully.

Elmo

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#122

Post by chasfm11 »

b322da wrote: I cannot however, agree with you that the Declaration of Independence gave us the right to anything, other than perhaps to frame the justification of a "right" of the people to revolt against a tyrannical government and institute a new government of their design. (I do hope that my saying this is not an invitation to members to discuss our current national government, not my intent, and which I sincerely think would be way off-topic).
Elmo
You are correct. I stated what I meant badly. Please allow me to try to correct that.

The Declaration of Independence merely confirmed that I do have the God given rights, not that it created them or granted them. It was from that framework that the creation of our country occurred. In the larger picture, if you will permit some poetic license, the Declaration of Independence was an re-affirmation of at least some of the concepts in the various iterations of the Magna Carta. The principle theme is that government does not grant me rights but that I have the without government.

My point here is that even with the gross over control of our various levels of government there still is "blank space". As long as I'm in that blank space, I have the freedom to exercise my rights. I assume the boundaries of that blank space to be the laws and regulations with which I must comply. When you add policies of organizations into the mix, I freely admit that defining that blank space gets murky at best. I refuse to accept, however, than any figure in authority from any entity can simply infringe on that blank space at their whim, for their own personal purposes. That is precisely the line of reasoning that our Federal government has used to turn the Commerce clause into an attempt to control every aspect of my life. I cannot easily fight the Federal government. I will not, however, give up so easily when the authority figure is at a much lower level of control, especially in a matter that should be inside legally defined boundaries.

I'm not singling out the professor. I think the overreach is rampant. It is my intent to call it out every time that I see it. I have a pet peeve about educators to the point that you might call it a chip on my shoulder. Please bear with me on another example.

I ride my bike on my Town's designated bike trails for exercise 3 times a week and have been doing it for over 5 years. One part of the trail goes across, by design, the rear part of an elementary school playground. Typically, I ride early in the morning (summer) or late in the afternoon (winter) so riding when kids are present is a rarity. One day it happened. Rather than attempt to stay on the trail and confront 10s of kids, I took the bus path around the school, across the parking lot in front and was heading for the exit to the street - when a man yelled to me. I stopped. He asked what I was doing there. I explained my exercise routine and that I was detouring the trail because the kids where on it. He told me that I wasn't allowed to do that. When I didn't respond, he went on into a diatribe about how I was exercising all wrong in the first place and that I really needed to so things completely differently. Calming, I asked him why I wasn't allowed the detour and he said "because I'll get 20 phone calls from mothers about this strange guy riding a bicycle." Seeing that further conversation was pointless and, besides, I was loosing my heartrate that I'd built up, I simply left. It turns out that it was the diminutive stature principal of the school. (Read this as my believing that he had a self inflated D.ed attitude.)

If the principal had exercised his right to post no trespassing during school days signs on the school grounds, I would have obeyed. If he had worked with the Town's parks group, the bike trail would have been rerouted and I won't have had to re-route. Because he elected to take neither of those actions, I was violating no laws and not even a written school policy (I later checked.) He was simply expanding into my blank space. I continue to try to avoid riding while the kids are there but I'm not going to stop riding there because of him. I still ride across the back of that school 3 times a week. Needless to say, I'm not alone.

Edit. I meant to add this. What is the difference between carrying past an invalid 30.06 sign and not cooperating with the professor in dismissing me from his class for concealed carry? In both cases, I'm compliant with the laws and someone is attempting to impose their will upon me that is not legally valid. I have the right to bear arms but am limited the the TPC for doing so. Anything inside to the TPC is blank space and I can exercise my rights. Yes, I know I've mixed TX and AZ but it was to make a point.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

b322da
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:34 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#123

Post by b322da »

I understand where you are coming from, Chas., and I think we respectfully agree to disagree.

Just to perhaps stimulate a little more intelligent comment on Dr. Krauss, and college professors in general, take a look at this.

"Arizona Universities Face Tuition Hikes Of Up To 22%"

If our humble readers will forgive the source, they might enjoy relating the following to the OP. Of course nothing I could say could prevent it. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 45957.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 24
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#124

Post by WildBill »

b322da wrote:"Arizona Universities Face Tuition Hikes Of Up To 22%"
Elmo
I believe the tuition hikes are neccesary to pay for educating professors on laws concerning concealed carry on campus. :mrgreen:
NRA Endowment Member
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 26790
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#125

Post by The Annoyed Man »

b322da wrote:I understand where you are coming from, Chas., and I think we respectfully agree to disagree.

Just to perhaps stimulate a little more intelligent comment on Dr. Krauss, and college professors in general, take a look at this.

"Arizona Universities Face Tuition Hikes Of Up To 22%"

If our humble readers will forgive the source, they might enjoy relating the following to the OP. Of course nothing I could say could prevent it. :lol:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 45957.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo
Elmo, I confess that much of what is posted at HuffPo either makes me cringe or gets my blood boiling, but I could find no problem with that particular article. It is true that a lot of schools are having to figure out the proper balance between what they can reasonably charge in tuition, what they can expect in contributions and/or state funding, and what they can reasonably spend for payroll and infrastructure. However, I fail to see what any of that has to do with Dr. Krauss's threat to engage in civil disobedience in order to infringe on what may become recognized by the state as a right pertaining to lawfully armed students—unless it is related to section 1983 to which you alluded earlier.

Please tell me why you think it might be relevant.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#126

Post by chasfm11 »

WildBill wrote:
b322da wrote:"Arizona Universities Face Tuition Hikes Of Up To 22%"
Elmo
I believe the tuition hikes are neccesary to pay for educating professors on laws concerning concealed carry on campus. :mrgreen:
:smilelol5: :smilelol5:

Wildbill, I must challenge your use of smilies. You said :mrgreen: when it should have been :reddevil
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

WildBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 24
Posts: 17350
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Houston

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#127

Post by WildBill »

chasfm11 wrote:
WildBill wrote:
b322da wrote:"Arizona Universities Face Tuition Hikes Of Up To 22%"
Elmo
I believe the tuition hikes are neccesary to pay for educating professors on laws concerning concealed carry on campus. :mrgreen:
:smilelol5: :smilelol5:

Wildbill, I must challenge your use of smilies. You said :mrgreen: when it should have been :reddevil
I am a master of understatement. :coolgleamA:
NRA Endowment Member

b322da
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:34 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#128

Post by b322da »

The Annoyed Man wrote: Please tell me why you think [section 1983] might be relevant.
I do not mean to "A" "TM," but you have responded to my question with a question TAM. No fair.

Please forgive me for not reading your last sentence earlier. I did not mean to ignore you.

Besides, WildBill earlier referred to a source to help you figure it out yourself. I'll not attempt to improve personally on that at risk of taking up much more of my bandwidth allocation than is justified. ;-)

For more words saying much the same thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1871, see Wikipedia, for a good explanation as to why section 1983 might be relevant here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

¿Qué?

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#129

Post by ¿Qué? »

chasfm11 wrote:So what would you call me if I elected to take the same approach with my employer? Answer: unemployed - and stupid. I have to take a four hour course every year that reminds me about my company's policies, asks me questions to confirm my understanding about those policies and tells me that my non-compliance with any of them is grounds for immediate dismissal, even if my actions were unintentional. Out right telling them that I wasn't planning to comply with any one of them would get me potentially the quickest termination in history. So why is the professor any different?
[youtube][/youtube]

¿Qué?

Re: not allowing students with weapons to attend his classe

#130

Post by ¿Qué? »

b322da wrote:All this is prompted by suggestions that Dr. Krauss, whether rightly or wrongly, proposes to violate the "rights" of students. What rights?
Hypothetically speaking?

Suppose the Arizona legislature passed their campus carry bill that says
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF ANY UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OR COMMUNITY COLLEGE SHALL NOT ENACT OR ENFORCE ANY POLICY OR RULE THAT PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED WEAPON BY A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A VALID PERMIT RECOGNIZED OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-3112 OR THE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF A FIREARM PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-781.


Suppose a professor takes it upon himself to "ENACT OR ENFORCE ANY POLICY OR RULE THAT PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A CONCEALED WEAPON BY A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A VALID PERMIT" and the university or college administration is made aware of his policy and fails to act. What if the university administration (governing board) is named as a co-defendant in a lawsuit against the professor?

Compare that hypothetical example to a college professor sexually harassing a student, and the university administration's liability if they are made aware of the harassment and fail to act.

Now suppose the professor had a letter published in a local newspaper stating his intention to sexually harass male students who register for his class. Does the university administration have a duty to act? Legally? Ethically?
Locked

Return to “Concealed Carry on College Campuses”