Could this be a wedge to eliminating carry prohibition on state school campus?

[user]

My favorite argument, which to my knowledge has never been tested, is that an entity that prohibits the right of self-defense / defense of others by prohibiting the possession of firearms on its property, thereby undertakes an affirmative duty to protect invitees on that property and is liable for the negligent breach of that duty.

 

[45acpForMe]

My favorite argument, which to my knowledge has never been tested, is that an entity that prohibits the right of self-defense / defense of others by prohibiting the possession of firearms on its property, thereby undertakes an affirmative duty to protect invitees on that property and is liable for the negligent breach of that duty.

I agree but the key word is negligent in that sentence. By creating an environment whereby you stop people from being able to defend themself, I believe you have already crossed into the negligent side of the argument.

We understand that even if they attempted some form of security (armed security or even official Police) a person can still be raped/murdered on their campus so I would argue unless they will provide an armed body guard for each and every person on campus that they are still negligent.

The solution is so simple (honoring the 2A) that it is infuriating to watch political hacks jump through any and all legal hoops to NOT honor the 2A.

 

[rlh2005]

RULING - Judge decides state university has no duty to protect students

http://tinyurl.com/6jd23a7
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/032011/03282011/1301339464fls


Judge sides with UMW in rape lawsuit
March 28, 2011 12:00 am
BY JEFF BRANSCOME

A Fredericksburg Circuit Court judge today said the University of Mary Washington did not have a legal duty to protect a student who was raped on campus in 2008.

Judge Gordon Willis sided with the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending UMW against a $10 million lawsuit filed on behalf of the rape victim.

............--Moderator Edited--
RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.

 

[ocholsteroc]

http://tinyurl.com/6jd23a7
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/032011/03282011/1301339464fls


Judge sides with UMW in rape lawsuit
March 28, 2011 12:00 am
BY JEFF BRANSCOME

A Fredericksburg Circuit Court judge today said the University of Mary Washington did not have a legal duty to protect a student who was raped on campus in 2008.

Judge Gordon Willis sided with the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending UMW against a $10 million lawsuit filed on behalf of the rape victim.

-Moderator Edited--
RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.

So..... Did the judge talk about the gun ban? remove?

 

[USNA69]

Judge sides with UMW in rape lawsuit
March 28, 2011 12:00 am
BY JEFF BRANSCOME

A Fredericksburg Circuit Court judge today said the University of Mary Washington did not have a legal duty to protect a student who was raped on campus in 2008.

Judge Gordon Willis sided with the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending UMW against a $10 million lawsuit filed on behalf of the rape victim.

So, there we have it. A court has determined that UMW has no legal duty to protect students.

At the same time, it seems that UMW has the legal authority to passively endanger students by prohibiting to them the means of protecting themselves.

Must be nice to have it both ways.

"Well, girlie, we don't want you carrying some gun which might go off accidentally and hurt someone. What's that? Afraid of muggers and rapists? Sorry, not OUR problem."

 

[skidmark]

Folks, the decision that UMW had no duty to protect any individual student is merely a restatement of any of the five (5) SCOTUS decisions that are out there. It's not like the legal theory is brand new or anything.

Let's get back to whether or not a "student" "residing" on campus is any kind of special animal and if the current statutes allowing certain activities within the curtilige of one's abode can be applied to college tudents despite/notwithstanding/in spite of/regardless of currently existing Administrative Code of Virginia or specific school policy.

stay safe.

 

[marshaul]

Folks, the decision that UMW had no duty to protect any individual student is merely a restatement of any of the five (5) SCOTUS decisions that are out there. It's not like the legal theory is brand new or anything.

Let's get back to whether or not a "student" "residing" on campus is any kind of special animal and if the current statutes allowing certain activities within the curtilige of one's abode can be applied to college tudents despite/notwithstanding/in spite of/regardless of currently existing Administrative Code of Virginia or specific school policy.

stay safe.

+1

 

[ocholsteroc]

"Well, girlie, we don't want you carrying some gun which might go off accidentally and hurt someone. What's that? Afraid of muggers and rapists? Sorry, not OUR problem."

What is the logic in these people?

Once in a while a armor car comes and picks up money from the college, these guys are armed to protect 'money'. Why is money valued more than the students lifes. :banghead::banghead::banghead:


:uhoh:

 

[Grapeshot]

What is the logic in these people?

Once in a while a armor car comes and picks up money from the college, these guys are armed to protect 'money'. Why is money valued more than the students lifes. :banghead::banghead::banghead:


:uhoh:

Banks do the same thing - protect the money, except they give it up quickly if you have a note or tell them to in a convincing voice.. Should college coeds be expected to do likewise?

Excuse me young lady. I neither want to hurt you nor threaten you, so please give me what I want. Neither the university nor the police are bound to protect you, so what options do you have?

Click

Oh sh!t, yes mam, how high?

Notice: Field exercises w/tests are likely to occur at random, but continuing intervals.

 

[skidmark]

Banks and state universities give up the goods without a fight because they have insurance (FDIC for banks, taxpayers for state universities) to cover any losses.

If it was their own money or bodies the response most likely would be different.

And since college students are considered residents of the city/county where they attend school full-time, and live in dorms, would not te dorm be their "castle" when dealing with their right to defend themselves? Which brings us back again to how to apply "curtilige" to live-on-campus college students who are either under or over 18 years of age.

stay safe.

 

[ocholsteroc]

And since college students are considered residents of the city/county where they attend school full-time, and live in dorms, would not te dorm be their "castle" when dealing with their right to defend themselves? Which brings us back again to how to apply "curtilige" to live-on-campus college students who are either under or over 18 years of age.

My teacher was talking about the same thing. Like if you go to bust a drug dealer living in a hotel, it's his "home" because he is paying to rent it. You just can't barge in.

So why can't college students not have the same rights.

 

[t33j]

I recall that there is a law preventing lessees from prohibiting renters the ability to possess firearms in their temporary abodes. I think this is it: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9

 

[Grapeshot]

I recall that there is a law preventing lessees from prohibiting renters the ability to possess firearms in their temporary abodes. I think this is it: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9

Hmmm - nice find. Going to have to cogitate on that for a while.

While this does not seem to be in violation of § 15.2-915 (state agency exemption applies), there appears to be no such exemption in § 55-248.9

Further:

"If a landlord brings an action to enforce any of the prohibited provisions, the tenant may recover actual damages sustained by him and reasonable attorney's fees."

Nice.

 

[TFred]

I recall that there is a law preventing lessees from prohibiting renters the ability to possess firearms in their temporary abodes. I think this is it: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-248.9

Hmmm - nice find. Going to have to cogitate on that for a while.

While this does not seem to be in violation of § 15.2-915 (state agency exemption applies), there appears to be no such exemption in § 55-248.9

Further:

"If a landlord brings an action to enforce any of the prohibited provisions, the tenant may recover actual damages sustained by him and reasonable attorney's fees."

Nice.

We've discussed this here before. The relevant paragraph:

A. A rental agreement shall not contain provisions that the tenant:

6. Agrees as a condition of tenancy in public housing to a prohibition or restriction of any lawful possession of a firearm within individual dwelling units unless required by federal law or regulation; or

has one key kickout phrase: "public housing".

I don't believe that paragraph applies to traditional private rental arrangements.

IANAL, but I think those who are have agreed with this conclusion. I bet it would be a very interesting fight to try to get those two words stricken from the law in a future GA session!

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

Got so involved sifting through the other verbiage, I missed that.

Unfortunately, I agree TFred.

 

[Fenris]

Can a student living in a dormitory refuse a university official admittance to his dorm room?

And are search warrants required?

 

[Grapeshot]

Can a student living in a dormitory refuse a university official admittance to his dorm room?

And are search warrants required?

First thing to do would probably be to see what paperwork was signed and what rules/conditions apply.

 

[marshaul]

We've discussed this here before. The relevant paragraph:



has one key kickout phrase: "public housing".

I don't believe that paragraph applies to traditional private rental arrangements.

IANAL, but I think those who are have agreed with this conclusion. I bet it would be a very interesting fight to try to get those two words stricken from the law in a future GA session!

TFred

OK, sure, but is it clear that dormitories belonging to a state-owned school are not public housing?

I would think they very clearly are.

 

[skidmark]

OK, sure, but is it clear that dormitories belonging to a state-owned school are not public housing?

I would think they very clearly are.

Got to disagree with you on this one. Public housing is open for any person to apply to rent. State school dorms are limited to being rented by enrolled students. Wish I had access to a legal search engine because IIRC the theory of "public housing" was tried once or twice in the 1960's and shot down.

Yes, it helps to be an old geezer sometimes.

stay safe.

 

[marshaul]

Got to disagree with you on this one. Public housing is open for any person to apply to rent. State school dorms are limited to being rented by enrolled students. Wish I had access to a legal search engine because IIRC the theory of "public housing" was tried once or twice in the 1960's and shot down.

Yes, it helps to be an old geezer sometimes.

stay safe.

I am rudimentarily familiar with the concept of public housing.

I'm not sure it needs to be so clear-cut, however.

While dorms are not "public housing" in the connotative sense, in the denotative sense they seem to be. It's not convincingly "private housing", not being owned by a private landlord. It's not "open to the public", but then neither is public housing. In both cases there are disqualifying factors. Application to Virginia Tech is "public", and if acceptance is achieved then the dorms are available.

Is there a statutory definition of "public housing"? If such has never been implemented in VA, is that word in the law to be interpreted to be meaningless? It is my understanding that, generally, courts assume that every part of a law has meaning, or else it wouldn't have been made part of the law.