TexasCHLforum.com

According to that definition, someone can't be prejudiced against lawyers, guns and/or money?

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

It is prejudice if he has a reason for hating guns? Prejudice - I don't know. Bias - Yes.

Is it prejudice if someone has a reason for hating Black people?

According to my dictionary - Yes. Guns are not members of a racial, religious or national group.

prej·u·dice   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

I believe all three definitions (from where did this come?) fit in this case.
1, for being non-critical about his belief. 2, for having the belief without knowledge of the subject (thus, preconceived). 3, for a connected hatred of those involved with the subject.

Yes, I truly believe prejudice is the correct term.

Even though the forum members are pro-gun doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't like guns is stupid, uneducated, liberal or a sheep. They are entitled to have an opinion and not like them or want to be around them. I don't have an issue with that. Maybe if you had a family member murdered, accidently killed or suicide by a gun you might feel a different way. I know several people who were almost killed in motorcycle accidents and won't ride them anymore. Some of them won't let their children have motorcycles because of this.

It is when then want to infringe on my rights that I have a problem. This professor stated an opinion that he didn't want students to have weapons in his class. That is his opinion, but it doesn't have the force of law. We can say that he is stupid or a genius with no common sense or whatever, but it is just one man's opinion.

OldSchool wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Ameer wrote:

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Back on topic, the Doctor in question in this thread has a simple thought process: Guns => bad => hate. No different than any other prejudice, I would say.

It is prejudice if he has a reason for hating guns? Prejudice - I don't know. Bias - Yes.

Is it prejudice if someone has a reason for hating Black people?

According to my dictionary - Yes. Guns are not members of a racial, religious or national group.

prej·u·dice   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA
noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

I believe all three definitions (from where did this come?) fit in this case.
1, for being non-critical about his belief. 2, for having the belief without knowledge of the subject (thus, preconceived). 3, for a connected hatred of those involved with the subject.

Yes, I truly believe prejudice is the correct term.

I really didn't even want to get into this, but definition 3 applies to people, not objects. The definitions come from a random Google search so they may not be the most accepted definitions so I will concede that people can be prejudice again guns. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that to equate hating a group of people based on race or religion isn't the same as "hating" an object like a gun. Guns don't have feelings or human or inalienable rights. IMO, it is morally wrong to hate a person based on this criteria. It may be irrational to "hate" guns, but it is not morally wrong.

WildBill wrote:Even though the forum members are pro-gun doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't like guns is stupid, uneducated, liberal or a sheep. They are entitled to have an opinion and not like them or want to be around them. I don't have an issue with that.

It's the same with White Supremacists. They have the right to their beliefs and the right to express their beliefs, but if they work for a state university they don't have the right to exclude Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and others they hate from their classroom.

Ameer wrote:

WildBill wrote:Even though the forum members are pro-gun doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't like guns is stupid, uneducated, liberal or a sheep. They are entitled to have an opinion and not like them or want to be around them. I don't have an issue with that.

That is true and it's the same for White Supremacists. They have the right to their beliefs and the right to express their beliefs, but if they work for a state university they don't have the right to exclude Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and others they hate from their classroom.

You are correct. They can say they want them excluded, but just like the professor they can not.

WildBill wrote: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that to equate hating a group of people based on race or religion isn't the same a "hating" an object like a gun. Guns don't have feelings or human or inalienable rights.

Note my rationale for #3:

OldSchool wrote:3, for a connected hatred of those involved with the subject.

I admit I should have said "those groups" to be more clear. However, using your definition, I see nothing #1 or #2 that specify the object of prejudice to be biological in nature. In fact, they specify no object of the unfavorable opinion whatsoever, nor is there a mention of the object being capable of feeling.

As to the professor, I guess I was unfair.
I'm sure I've lost the idea in this thread, and I may have mistaken this professor for one of those who will subject his students to unreasonable search and seizure for firearms. If so, that to me is an extreme position that smacks of hatred. Heck, I wouldn't even think of searching my students for cell phones during a test -- and I do hate those in that situation!

If not, then my apologies to this professor. it still reeks of prejudice when he is so concerned of "allowing" guns in the classroom once they become legal -- if he feels this strongly about it, then why has he not been doing already, when they are illegal? There seems to be some temporal and legal disconnect here, at the very least.

OldSchool wrote:If not, then my apologies to this professor. it still reeks of prejudice when he is so concerned of "allowing" guns in the classroom once they become legal -- if he feels this strongly about it, then why has he not been doing already, when they are illegal? There seems to be some temporal and legal disconnect here, at the very least.

So let's say he is prejudiced. I say so what? I can't do anything about it.

The orginal post said that the professor was going to perform an act of civil disobience by not allowing students to have weapons in class. By the nature of this act he would be breaking some kind of law or rule. His actions have consequences, maybe arrest or maybe a civil suit against him or the school. If his is willing to accept those consequences then we will eventually have to pay for his actions one way or another. When it comes down to it - talk is cheap - and we may see if his actions speak louder than words. [Boy, don't you hate all of these cliches?]. I think that his final actions will be based on whether or not he could lose his tenure rather than principle.

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:If not, then my apologies to this professor. it still reeks of prejudice when he is so concerned of "allowing" guns in the classroom once they become legal -- if he feels this strongly about it, then why has he not been doing already, when they are illegal? There seems to be some temporal and legal disconnect here, at the very least.

So let's say he is prejudiced. I say so what? I can't do anything about it.

The orginal post said that the professor was going to perform an act of civil disobience by not allowing students to have weapons in class. By the nature of this act he would be breaking some kind of law or rule. His actions have consequences, maybe arrest or maybe a civil suit against him or the school. If his is willing to accept those consequences then we will eventually have to pay for his actions one way or another. When it comes down to it - talk is cheap - and we may see if his actions speak louder than words. [Boy, don't you hate all of these cliches?]. I think that his final actions will be based on whether or not he could lose his tenure rather than principle.

Preparing all of today for shutdowns, cliches are the rule of the day (oops, there's another one).
Agreed, of course. Unfortunately, I've seen far more egregrious acts not end in losing tenure -- early retirement, maybe. Then again, an instructor without opinions is, well....

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:If not, then my apologies to this professor. it still reeks of prejudice when he is so concerned of "allowing" guns in the classroom once they become legal -- if he feels this strongly about it, then why has he not been doing already, when they are illegal? There seems to be some temporal and legal disconnect here, at the very least.

So let's say he is prejudiced. I say so what? I can't do anything about it.

The orginal post said that the professor was going to perform an act of civil disobience by not allowing students to have weapons in class. By the nature of this act he would be breaking some kind of law or rule. His actions have consequences, maybe arrest or maybe a civil suit against him or the school. If his is willing to accept those consequences then we will eventually have to pay for his actions one way or another. When it comes down to it - talk is cheap - and we may see if his actions speak louder than words. [Boy, don't you hate all of these cliches?]. I think that his final actions will be based on whether or not he could lose his tenure rather than principle.

Perhaps it is just me not being able to connect the dots but I cannot fathom how the professor is going to conduct his civil disobedience without infringing the rights of his students.

While I realize that the educational situation is different (because those who manage it seldom have the "fortitude" to do it correctly), let's examine how the disobedience is to be conducted. The professor's employer (the State of AZ) is going to great lengths to consider and set policy on a matter. Because it is a State, that policy also has the force of law. The professor has taken exception to the policy and has publicly stated his intent not to comply.

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?

This just an aside, truly, meant as either hypothetical questions, or rhetorical questions, depending upon one's viewpoint. Please recognize that I suggest no answers, so I do hope my intelligence, or stupidity, if you will, is neither explicitly nor implicitly put in issue, but only throw them out as being perhaps of some interest as an intellectual exercise which may, I repeat "may," be relevant to classroom-carry, but as well, may be off-topic. Just an effort to perhaps focus our thinking.

1. Is there anyone out there on the forum who believes that SCOTUS will someday rule that the Second Amendment to our Constitution authorizes classroom-carry, both open and concealed, regardless of a contrary position taken on the question by:

a. Legislation enacted by the state in which the classroom is located, or
b. The policy and regulations of the administration of the institution of learning in which the classroom is located, or
c. The policy and rules of an individual professor/teacher with respect to students in her classroom?

2. Would your answers be different depending upon whether the institution of learning were public or private?

3. Could a section 1983 action lie against the individual in question 1.c. should she prohibit students in her classroom from carrying should SCOTUS so rule?

a. Here too, would your answer be different depending upon whether the institution of learning were public or private?

All this is prompted by suggestions that Dr. Krauss, whether rightly or wrongly, proposes to violate the "rights" of students. What rights? Constitutional rights? Rights bestowed upon students by their particular state government? "Natural" rights? Our serious, rather than rote, thinking on questions like this may be of interest.

Respectfully,

Elmo

chasfm11 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

OldSchool wrote:If not, then my apologies to this professor. it still reeks of prejudice when he is so concerned of "allowing" guns in the classroom once they become legal -- if he feels this strongly about it, then why has he not been doing already, when they are illegal? There seems to be some temporal and legal disconnect here, at the very least.

So let's say he is prejudiced. I say so what? I can't do anything about it.

The orginal post said that the professor was going to perform an act of civil disobience by not allowing students to have weapons in class. By the nature of this act he would be breaking some kind of law or rule. His actions have consequences, maybe arrest or maybe a civil suit against him or the school. If his is willing to accept those consequences then we will eventually have to pay for his actions one way or another. When it comes down to it - talk is cheap - and we may see if his actions speak louder than words. [Boy, don't you hate all of these cliches?]. I think that his final actions will be based on whether or not he could lose his tenure rather than principle.

Perhaps it is just me not being able to connect the dots but I cannot fathom how the professor is going to conduct his civil disobedience without infringing the rights of his students.

While I realize that the educational situation is different (because those who manage it seldom have the "fortitude" to do it correctly), let's examine how the disobedience is to be conducted. The professor's employer (the State of AZ) is going to great lengths to consider and set policy on a matter. Because it is a State, that policy also has the force of law. The professor has taken exception to the policy and has publicly stated his intent not to comply.

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?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. The professor would be infringing on the rights of the student(s). That is why I said that his actions could be punished by arrest or a civil suit.

My answers, with the caveat that iANAL, yada yada yada...

b322da wrote:1. Is there anyone out there on the forum who believes that SCOTUS will someday rule that the Second Amendment to our Constitution authorizes classroom-carry, both open and concealed, regardless of a contrary position taken on the question by:

a. Legislation enacted by the state in which the classroom is located, or
b. The policy and regulations of the administration of the institution of learning in which the classroom is located, or
c. The policy and rules of an individual professor/teacher with respect to students in her classroom?

Of course, nobody can predict the future, but I think it far more likely that SCOTUS will first address the right to concealed and/or open carry in general before it will agree to examine carry in the classroom specifically. So I guess the answer is, "No, I don't believed that SCOTUS will be addressing classroom carry any time soon. And since this may be way out there in the future, we have no way of knowing what the makeup of the court will be at that time, and consequently, we cannot predict how they would rule on this issue." Call that a copout if you will, but I think that is the answer of a realist.

b322da wrote:2. Would your answers be different depending upon whether the institution of learning were public or private?

Depends. I think "no guns" policies are stupid in general, but I think that a reasonable compromise similar to the pending "parking lot" bill for private schools is acceptable. Then parents have the right to vote with their wallets—a right which is denied to them by taxpayer supported institutions.

b322da wrote:3. Could a section 1983 action lie against the individual in question 1.c. should she prohibit students in her classroom from carrying should SCOTUS so rule?

a. Here too, would your answer be different depending upon whether the institution of learning were public or private?

All this is prompted by suggestions that Dr. Krauss, whether rightly or wrongly, proposes to violate the "rights" of students. What rights? Constitutional rights? Rights bestowed upon students by their particular state government? "Natural" rights? Our serious, rather than rote, thinking on questions like this may be of interest.

Respectfully,

Elmo

Please explain to us non-lawyers what section 1983 is. Thank you.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Please explain to us non-lawyers what section 1983 is. Thank you.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 : US Code - Section 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With respect, Elmo, I don't understand the question on the SCOTUS ruling in your question number one. I imagine that the campus carry bill will be challenged in court but I don't see it coming as a result of someone attempting to restrict carry in a class room.

My personal answer to public or private schools would be based on my understanding of the current campus carry bill. It makes it different and therefore I would expect it to be different. I'm simply responding to the potential law. If it is within the power of the school to prohibit carry, I can see that it could be within the power of an individual professor to prohibit it, as long as it wasn't going against the policy of the institution itself. For public organizations, the bill appears to prevent them from prohibiting carry and therefore a professor could not either. Legal action against the professor would depend on that as far as I'm concerned. IANAL.

All this is prompted by suggestions that Dr. Krauss, whether rightly or wrongly, proposes to violate the "rights" of students. What rights? Constitutional rights? Rights bestowed upon students by their particular state government? "Natural" rights? Our serious, rather than rote, thinking on questions like this may be of interest.

I'm coming at this from the opposite perspective. First, it is my belief that the only ways to determine if I'm carrying a concealed weapon is to physically examine me, even visually or to ask me and demand that I answer. Can you do either of those to me on the street as an individual? I'm not subject to unreasonable search (based on PC) and I'm not required to disclose personal information even by legal authorities.

Now, we get into the dicey area about the professor or any teacher's ability to "control" the classroom environment. I was a teacher so I fully understand and agree about the ability to control a disruption to the learning environment. Now, we get to an even more difficult question about whether the POTENTIAL presence of a non-visible thing represents such a disruption.
I agree that the word "right" is too strong for the situation but if the AZ bill passes, a student is given permission to concealed carry under the law and under the authority of State. To get to the point where the student is dismissed from the class, the professor has to either take the exam or questioning routes or rely on his own judgment based on no evidence.

As part of the Declaration of Independence, I have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If you follow the logic that I've broken no laws, violated no policies set by the university in order to be sitting in the class with my concealed weapon, any attempt to impose a different set of circumstances on me is a violation of my right to pursue happiness through attending a class that I've paid for. I see it as no different than if I'm in a public park, minding my own business and you decide, for whatever reason, that you personally don't want me to be there. It is made all the worse in this case because the actual student involved is not the object of the professor's protest. He is not protesting the student but the set of circumstances under which the student is legally operating. If that is not a violation of the rights of the student, I'm not sure what would be.