Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65

Thread: ODU Hopes to Copy the Wildly Successful Va Tech Model

  1. #1
    Regular Member USNA69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    375

    ODU Hopes to Copy the Wildly Successful Va Tech Model

    In an effort to simplify crime and massacre planning for the BGs, ODU seeks to ban guns from campus by regulation.

    http://epilot.hamptonroads.com/Olive...&view=ZW50aXR5
    Last edited by USNA69; 09-19-2011 at 07:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    82

    poll at wavy.com

    Do you think students should be allowed to carry guns on campus?

    http://www.wavy.com/

    No's are ahead.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    Concealed carry holders, you know they arn't a felon, and not going to steel something. Can you say that about other students?


    Ban guns is dumb, just making it a gun free zone for criminals to commit crimes without fear they will be hurt.

    Give no money !
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  4. #4
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaRN View Post
    Do you think students should be allowed to carry guns on campus?

    http://www.wavy.com/

    No's are ahead.
    No's still have it 61% to 38%. Not sure where the other 1% is since there are only two choices. ;-)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715
    Why am I not surprised by ODU's stance?

    Before the slaughter, Va Tech tightened their gun ban and some flack said: "Now the people on this campus can FEEL safer...." (my emphasis).

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Why am I not surprised by ODU's stance?

    Before the slaughter, Va Tech tightened their gun ban and some flack said: "Now the people on this campus can FEEL safer...." (my emphasis).
    yes 40
    no 59

    Philip is gonna be busy!

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    Concealed carry holders, you know they arn't a felon, and not going to steel something. Can you say that about other students?


    Ban guns is dumb, just making it a gun free zone for criminals to commit crimes without fear they will be hurt.

    Give no money !
    Very risky move ocholsteroc. If they don't write the bill correctly it will split the gun lobby.
    If CHP's are to be an issue it has to be only for Students and staff. The general public still has to have the right to OC...otherwise the bill probably won't pass.

  8. #8
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Very risky move ocholsteroc. If they don't write the bill correctly it will split the gun lobby.
    If CHP's are to be an issue it has to be only for Students and staff. The general public still has to have the right to OC...otherwise the bill probably won't pass.
    I see.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    I see.
    Yep!
    This bill needs near 100% support to make it and even then it's a tough sell.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    No's still have it 61% to 38%. Not sure where the other 1% is since there are only two choices. ;-)
    Rounding error....

    Roscoe
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Regualtion would establish the "Cop Loophole"

    Well, the useful idiots are doing gun owners a favor:
    The ODU administration has drafted a regulation for consideration by the university’s governing Board of Visitors at its December meeting that would explicitly ban all guns, except those carried by police officers, from campus buildings and sports events.
    They cannot plausibly state that they are creating a gun-free campus by banning all guns, then turn around and exempt "police officers" -- whether on-duty or off-duty, or limited to campus cops.

    Remember, cops are not soldiers, they are "civilians" like the rest of us. So the regulation would in fact discriminate against everyone except a select breed of state actors, what David Codrea labels The Only Ones.

    Thus, ODU would, by regulation, create a "Cop Loophole" and that lacks a rational basis. Perhaps there would be grounds for an Equal Protection lawsuit.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Current Policy discriminates against OC

    The Minutes from the Board's meeting in July, thus:
    At the conclusion of his report, President Broderick asked University Counsel to brief the Committee on a recent Attorney General’s opinion related to concealed weapon permit holders. Jay Wright explained that the University’s current policy, which prohibits weapons on campus except for those held by police officers and certain other individuals who have gone through an application process, remains in effect for 95% or more of the people involved. However, the Attorney General’s opinion states that an institution’s weapons policy does not apply to concealed weapon permit holders who are visitors on campus, unless it becomes a regulation through the appropriate process. Therefore, the University will be redrafting the current policy such that it will not apply to concealed weapons permit holders who are visitors on campus, and a regulation will be drafted that will cover the concealed weapons permit holders who are visitors to campus.

    In response to a question, Mr. Wright noted that the current policy applies to any group that has a contract with the University. These groups include students (who have a quasi-contract with the University), faculty and staff, and individuals who buy tickets to athletic and other events, whether or not they have a concealed weapons permit. The policy also applies to individuals who open-carry. The only group to which it does not apply is concealed permit holders who are visitors.

    President Broderick asked if the current policy allows for individuals to contact him for permission to carry a weapon. Mr. Wright said that the policy does have a provision for exceptions to be made by the President or Chief of Police. The President suggested that the revised policy state that all requests for exceptions be made directly to the Chief of Police.
    President Hoplophobe can be contacted at president@odu.edu and looks forward to hearing from you!



    I hate self-defense!

  13. #13
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    The Minutes from the Board's meeting in July, thus:


    President Hoplophobe can be contacted at president@odu.edu and looks forward to hearing from you!



    I hate self-defense!
    When will these people wake up? how many crimes are commited by CHP holders? and how many non CHP holders/felons are doing these crimes? criminals still carry illegal. You are just saying NO to the CHP holders not the criminals.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Poll and action items just went out in the VA-ALERT.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Yorktown, ,
    Posts
    407
    The ODU president should not see another term. This jackwagon just does NOT get it!!!

    I am going to sleep on this before I respond. I am far too heated right now...

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Insanity

    One can't help but to think of this fairly well-known quote, which is often attributed to Einstein, although there appears to be no proof of it's actual origin:

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

    Classic, and true, every new "Gun Free Zone" is nothing more than another potential killing field.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Burke
    Posts
    64
    My brother did comment http://www.wvec.com/news/Old-Dominio...130105263.html but I sorta wish that he would have mentioned that I carry regularly everywhere, everyday regardless unless I am in class . I plan on carrying at ODU regardless due to the area whenever I visit him though. No administrator/target will prevent me from defending myself and I already told my brother that it is better to be ready than need it and not have it... just my $.02

  18. #18
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228
    Yes 56%
    No 43%

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by supranite90 View Post
    my brother did comment http://www.wvec.com/news/old-dominio...130105263.html but i sorta wish that he would have mentioned that i carry regularly everywhere, everyday regardless unless i am in class . I plan on carrying at odu regardless due to the area whenever i visit him though. No administrator/target will prevent me from defending myself and i already told my brother that it is better to be ready than need it and not have it... Just my $.02
    hua!!!!!!!
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Ok, email to Mr. Pres. sent - here's my "Please Take Notice..."

    I have two reasons for sending the specific text that I did: first, because I hope to influence the course of rulemaking, and secondly, to place the University on notice of a legal issue. If anyone is injured there as the result of violent crime, the University is already on notice that the failure to protect creates liability. The University can't say that it didn't know, that it was due to an intervening or supervening cause, or that the failure to protect was unintentional. Actual knowledge = liability. Feel free to send your own notices, copy my text if you like.

    Please take notice, that any regulation that has the effect of eliminating the right and power of individuals on campus to defend themselves against violent threats implies the assumption of a positive duty to protect. Without special regulation, the law of Virginia applies to everyone, employees, students, and visitors. And ordinarily, the University has no duty to protect anyone, even as "invitees", since it is not an insurer of personal safety.

    However, actively eliminating a person's ability to defend himself from violent crime places him at the mercy of predatory criminals, and necessitates the implication of the assumption of a duty to be on guard all the time, for each individual, in order to guarantee that no one on campus is subjected to violence.

    Regardless of whether or not the school will be safer or less safe if persons lawfully entitled to do so are in possession of defensive weapons, one thing is sure: the University will have assumed liability for a guarantee of safety for each and every person on campus, regardless of status.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by TraumaRN View Post
    Do you think students should be allowed to carry guns on campus?

    http://www.wavy.com/

    No's are ahead.
    Poll? What poll?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Poll? What poll?
    It was yesterday's poll. I didn't see the final results.

    TFred

  23. #23
    Regular Member Lincoln7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Isle of Wight County, Virginia
    Posts
    143
    The poll is no longer connected to the link provided. I typed in 'ODU' and the first option was "ODU moves to tighten gun ban". I selected this and clicked on 'POLL' above the video. 56% yes, 43% no

  24. #24
    Regular Member Lincoln7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Isle of Wight County, Virginia
    Posts
    143

  25. #25
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Brainstorming for a solution

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I have two reasons for sending the specific text that I did: first, because I hope to influence the course of rulemaking, and secondly, to place the University on notice of a legal issue. If anyone is injured there as the result of violent crime, the University is already on notice that the failure to protect creates liability. The University can't say that it didn't know, that it was due to an intervening or supervening cause, or that the failure to protect was unintentional. Actual knowledge = liability. Feel free to send your own notices, copy my text if you like.
    I appreciate the input from the forum members in attempting to find a solution. I would like to try something very different, influenced by a thought-provoking blog entry by Eugene Volokh:

    (Please bear with me!)

    Any First Amendment Problems With Barring Sex Offenders from Public Libraries?

    Yes, I'm sure you would be offended to be compared to a registered sex-offender, but really -- if they are protected, why shouldn't OC persons similary be protected? Naturally, that blog entry generated plenty of comments; interestingly, it led to a second blog entry, the one that really could help us:

    Exclusions of Sex Offenders and Federal Depository Libraries
    Prof. Doug Berman (Sentencing Law & Policy) points to a Tennessee county’s decision to exclude registered sex offenders from its public libraries. I think the decision doesn’t violate the First Amendment (see this post below), but I wonder whether it might violate federal rules when the library gets benefits under the Federal Depository Library program. According to the government’s regulations for the program,


    Depository libraries must provide free access to FDLP information resources in all formats to any member of the general public without any impediments, such as age limitations, technology barriers, or residency status limitations. Providing for free access to the depository collection is a fundamental obligation of Federal depository libraries.
    I'm really intrigued by the possibilities; however, Volokh later adds this in response to a commenter:
    UPDATE: Commenter Pete the Elder points to these provisions in the regulations:

    39. Depository libraries must ensure that their security or access polices, or those of their parent bodies, do not hinder public access to depository materials. Access policies, posting of signs, library Web pages, and public service hours must conform to this requirement. Signage and other physical facilities of the library and parent institution cannot inhibit public access, and all library employees must be aware of the free, public access requirements for depository resources.

    40. Security measures to protect library users, staff, and collections are permitted, provided that access to depository collections is not hindered. All depository users must adhere to the same standards of behavior expected of other library users. Depository libraries have the right to bar or remove any individual who poses a threat to library staff, other patrons, or the security of their collections.


    My reading is that these strengthen the case against the policies excluding sex offenders: security measures are allowed but only to the extent that “access to depository collections is not hindered,” and in context that sounds to me like access for all would-be accessors. To be sure, if an individual poses a threat, he may be barred, but it sounds like that requires some specific showing that the person is indeed a threat, and not just a claim that the person is in a high-risk category (such as sex offenders).
    ODU appears ready to allege that all persons who carry a handgun, regardless of the reason, is a "high-risk category" -- i.e. a threat to campus safety per se. GPO's regulations suggest such a blanket ban is forbidden for Depository libraries. This leads to the question: is ODU a Depository library? Yes.

    This could be well worth pursuing to see if the Feds can protect the rights of OC-patrons who want to access the Perry library. More about the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) here.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •