"out" Lesbian CJ professor-retired LE- fired for gun possesion on campus

[gunsmith]

interesting, the article says she has a permit to carry on airplanes-is that for LE only?

http://www.watermarkonline.com/index.php/News/tampa-bay-lgbt-news/4383-Out-criminal-justice-professor-fired-after-bringing-gun-onto-campus.html

Retired New York City police lieutenant Carol Sciannameo considers herself a role model for the students she teaches at the Largo campus of Everest University, particularly to LGBT students. The lesbian who served on the New York police department for two decades is a board member of the Gay Officers Action League and a graduate of the FBI academy. She is also the highest-ranking officer to wear her uniform during the first New York City Pride parade when cops were allowed to wear their dress blues.

But now the civil rights activist and diversity training teacher has found herself removed from the teaching career she loves.

According to Sciannameo, earlier this year she was asked to substitute teach a class for a colleague in the criminal justice program at Everest College. Prior to entering the classroom, she says students were discussing their substitute teacher when a student shouted, “I’m not staying in a class with that [n-word]-loving dyke.”

The student, who has not been identified by faculty, is also known to wear T-shirts wearing offensive symbols.

“I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing,” said Chequila Johnson, a 33-year-old straight African-American female student. “I just couldn’t believe he would use that kind of language right in front of me.”

Reports show that the student left the classroom in a way that left several students “fearful” of what additional actions he might take. Sciannameo says she felt so personally threatened that she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle. Sciannameo has four separate concealed weapons permits, including one that will allow her to carry a weapon on a commercial airliner. In her 30 years of law enforcement, she has never discharged her weapon.

Apology not forthcoming
Because of his behavior, the student was called to the dean’s office and agreed not to wear T-shirts with offensive messages and to apologize to Sciannameo. According to Sciannameo, the student did cease to wear the questionable T-shirts but instead wore tank tops that displayed tattoos bearing “intimidating messages.” He has yet to apologize to Sciannameo.

Sciannameo was soon approached by higher ranking staff and told that it was against the University’s corporate policy for an instructor to carry a weapon on campus.

However, Elizabeth Moore, another student of Sciannameo’s and a former probation officer from Key West, says she overheard a public conversation where a dean told her that “no one would pat her down” if she did bring a gun to class.

Sciannameo says she had brought a gun to class for the past four years, with full knowledge of the administration. This was the first time she was told it was against policy.

“They even called me a few times in the past four years to deal with altercations on campus because they knew I had a weapon,” says Sciannameo.

Subsequently, Sciannameo was called into the president’s office where she was questioned about the incident and her response to it. University President Peter Pratti expressed concern about an email in which Sciannameo had stated she would take whatever legal means necessary to protect herself. Sciannameo informed the administration that she had retained the services of an attorney and had contacted the press about the story. It was at that time Sciannameo says she was terminated by the university and escorted off campus.

“Last month, Ms. Sciannameo notified the staff and me of issues she had with a particular student,” Pratti says. “Despite our continuing investigation and progress on resolving these issues, Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”

“I was not going to go back into a classroom where I didn’t feel safe and I feared for the safety of my students without a weapon for protection,” says Sciannameo. “In today’s world, where there are incidents like Columbine and others and there is a student who has already displayed threatening behavior, I didn’t think it was prudent to be put where if a threatening situation presented itself I had no way to protect myself or the students in my care.”

Final day, final exam
Sciannameo was terminated the day she had planned to give a final exam to her students. The students were met with two deans and the president who told the class that Sciannameo had been terminated. Sciannameo received more than 20 texts from students upset and enraged by the university’s action.

“It wasn’t really explained to us what happened,” says a gay male high school-aged student who is not completely “out” and spoke to Watermark on condition of anonymity. “I’ve always considered Carol a role model. She was a great instructor and always very responsive to emails, texts and calls. She was more than just a teacher; she was definitely a good mentor to me.”

A number of students expressed concern that they felt their performance on the exam was negatively affected by the unfolding drama.

“Carol was a five-star instructor who did nothing wrong,” says Moore, who is gay. “She was ethical on every level and a role model not just to LGBT students, but to everyone that you can overcome just about anything and succeed.”

Johnson doesn’t believe the university offered appropriate protection to Sciannameo.

“If I don’t feel the university has offered protection to Carol in face of threats by a student, I have to wonder what protection they would offer to me as a student,” says Johnson. “It seems to me that Carol was fired for standing up for the rights and protection of LGBT students and students of color. That just doesn’t make sense to me.”

Besides teaching, Pratti believes that safety should be a top priority for the school.

“The safety and well being of our staff and students is our responsibility,” Pratti says. “In addition, we do not condone violence or intimidation as a means to resolving issues.”

[OleCuss]

That's pretty messed up.

[Untamed1972]

That's pretty messed up.


Yes it is....on both sides.


How much you wanna bet when she files her lawsuit....after years of denying the citizens of NYC their RKBA, the basis of her suit will be RKBA under McDonald?

[Dirtbiker]

That's a great idea, terminate the teacher who was threatened and leave the a-hole who threatened her in the class. :eek:

[bruss01]

Sounds like a great court case in the making. I bet the NRA is champing at the bit to get behind this one.

Or not.

Hey, maybe that guy who believes in the WHOLE constitution might want a piece of this action, what's his name... oh yeah ALAN GURA!

[Gray Peterson]

This is in Florida, not NYC.

[Glock22Fan]

In her 30 years of law enforcement, she has never discharged her weapon.

This is a bit scary except that they probably left out the "except at the range" part.

[dustoff31]

No sympathy. None at all. She knowingly and willingly broke the law/rules.


“Last month, Ms. Sciannameo notified the staff and me of issues she had with a particular student,” Pratti says. “Despite our continuing investigation and progress on resolving these issues, Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”

[Untamed1972]

That's a great idea, terminate the taecher who was threatened and leave the a-hole who threatened her in the class. :eek:


She was terminated for refusal to abide by the policies of her employer. Whats wrong with that?

I didn't see anything in the article where it said she was actually threatenend. The alleged a-hole made offensive remarks and wore offensive t-shirts. What was the threat?

It seemed to me they were making up the threat in their minds.

Last time I checked making offensive statements is not a crime, although possibly academically punishable if made on campus....as was evidenced by the offensive student being admonished by the Dean to knock it off.

So why is this teacher entitled to carry for her protection when no one else on the campus is?

[CalNRA]

so...out of those 4 permits did she have a permit that allowed her to carry on campus?

and did the employment policy she signed have the prohibition of guns in it?

[lobonegro]

My reading comprehension aside it seems to me every thing was fine until she stated that she brought in an attorney and press. At that point the school had to CYA and fire her, which was the right thing to do, liability wise. The story stated that faculty knew she carried and all where fine with it.

[Untamed1972]

and did the employment policy she signed have the prohibition of guns in it?

“Last month, Ms. Sciannameo notified the staff and me of issues she had with a particular student,” Pratti says. “Despite our continuing investigation and progress on resolving these issues, Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”


She was informed of the policy and stated she refused to abide by it. That will pretty much get you fired anywhere you work regardless of what the policy is.

[Flopper]

No sympathy; she tried to use the Brass Pass and for once it failed.

The only sympathy I have is for all people that cannot CCW when not in a secure location.

[ZombieTactics]

Sometimes I am happy to be the radical. I don't see any reason why my rights end at anyone's doorstep.

The way I see it (and I know the corrupt laws and courts don't support me):

I am free to speak anywhere and say anything I like. Those who do not like it (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) can charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "saying something wrong".

I am free to pray anywhere I like, and I don't care who likes it. Those who do not like it can (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "praying somewhere I shouldn't" or "being insensitive to other religions or atheists".

I am free to defend myself - and be prepared to do so - anywhere I like. Those who don't like it can express their displeasure all they want. I see no reason why giving up my rights under the Constitution should be a condition of employment. We're talking about RIGHTS here, not some bridge club niceties. Should people "give up being black on campus" if they have a policy against that, or risk being fired?

The only exceptions I can see are cases where the express nature or purpose of a business or organization in conflict. Atheists United should be free not to hire Christians, the local gun store should be free not to hire anti-gun activists, etc. If the express policy of the University was that they are officially "anti 2A" ... they need to publish it unambiguously so that all can see them for the idiot bigots they are. They should also have all public funding pulled for being a hate group.

[CalNRA]

“Last month, Ms. Sciannameo notified the staff and me of issues she had with a particular student,” Pratti says. “Despite our continuing investigation and progress on resolving these issues, Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”


She was informed of the policy and stated she refused to abide by it. That will pretty much get you fired anywhere you work regardless of what the policy is.

ah. My attention span is short after a nigth shift.

In that case she should work to help reverse that rule for ALL CCW permit holders rather than openly flaunting it.

[nick]

interesting, the article says she has a permit to carry on airplanes-is that for LE only?

Besides teaching, Pratti believes that safety should be a top priority for the school.

“The safety and well being of our staff and students is our responsibility,” Pratti says. “In addition, we do not condone violence or intimidation as a means to resolving issues.”

If safety is their concern, then maybe they should change the policy than bans carrying on campus. Who knows, they might just prevent a campus shooting.

As for the "permit" for carrying on planes, she probably gets that from LEOSA.

[nick]

This is in Florida, not NYC.

I think, he was referring to her working for NYPD. Not a good argument, for the people responsible for denying the RKBA are mostly politicians, including those in police uniform, not rank-and-file cops. These days the rank-and-file cops are given little leeway on it.

[nick]

She was terminated for refusal to abide by the policies of her employer. Whats wrong with that?

I didn't see anything in the article where it said she was actually threatenend. The alleged a-hole made offensive remarks and wore offensive t-shirts. What was the threat?

It seemed to me they were making up the threat in their minds.

Last time I checked making offensive statements is not a crime, although possibly academically punishable if made on campus....as was evidenced by the offensive student being admonished by the Dean to knock it off.

So why is this teacher entitled to carry for her protection when no one else on the campus is?

The wrong part here is the policy in question.

[choprzrul]

Sometimes I am happy to be the radical. I don't see any reason why my rights end at anyone's doorstep.

The way I see it (and I know the corrupt laws and courts don't support me):

I am free to speak anywhere and say anything I like. Those who do not like it (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) can charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "saying something wrong".

I am free to pray anywhere I like, and I don't care who likes it. Those who do not like it can (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "praying somewhere I shouldn't" or "being insensitive to other religions or atheists".

I am free to defend myself - and be prepared to do so - anywhere I like. Those who don't like it can express their displeasure all they want. I see no reason why giving up my rights under the Constitution should be a condition of employment. We're talking about RIGHTS here, not some bridge club niceties. Should people "give up being black on campus" if they have a policy against that, or risk being fired?

The only exceptions I can see are cases where the express nature or purpose of a business or organization in conflict. Atheists United should be free not to hire Christians, the local gun store should be free not to hire anti-gun activists, etc. If the express policy of the University was that they are officially "anti 2A" ... they need to publish it unambiguously so that all can see them for the idiot bigots they are. They should also have all public funding pulled for being a hate group.

Well put. I especially like the idea of associating anti-gunners as a 'Hate Group'. I would really like to see this get some traction. I am going to make a concerted personal effort to change my verbiage from 'anti-gun' to 'gun rights haters'. If enough of us do this, I think it might start changing some perceptions of the 2A as a fundamental right.

[cmaynes]

As much as I support her position, I have to say she was totally out of line and in flaunting the laws did nothing for gun rights in the process. I respect her for her service, but she set a horrible example for her students as far as abiding and following the law.

[Kreature96]

Many employers have the NO GUNS at work policy. They believe the policy will make the workplace safer, yeah right. If an employee decides to go postal the fact he will be terminated for violating the policy is sure to stop him particulary when the prospect of life in prison has not. Essentially the employer has created an unarmed victim zone.

These employers should be held liable for failing to protect employees whom they have disarmed and thereby removed the employee's ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately the victims of these types of incidents do not sue based on this theory they would rather go after the gun companies and seek further gun bans, restrictions etc. Maybe some plaintiff attorney will pick up one of these cases and run with it.

Essentially these employers are preventing their employees from protecting themselves. The god given and constitutionally recognized right to self defense and employers should have to pay dearly for the right to infringe on that right to self defense when their policy results in someone being injured or killed while disarmed by the employer's policy.

Sorry for the rambling.

[FS00008]

No sympathy. None at all. She knowingly and willingly broke the law/rules.



Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

[dirtnap]

She was terminated for refusal to abide by the policies of her employer. Whats wrong with that?

I didn't see anything in the article where it said she was actually threatenend. The alleged a-hole made offensive remarks and wore offensive t-shirts. What was the threat?

It seemed to me they were making up the threat in their minds.

Last time I checked making offensive statements is not a crime, although possibly academically punishable if made on campus....as was evidenced by the offensive student being admonished by the Dean to knock it off.

So why is this teacher entitled to carry for her protection when no one else on the campus is?

I agree. They are grasping at the non-existent "threat" as cause for her carrying a gun, which is BS...the fact is she wants protection from crazy active shooters, just like the rest of us.

[dustoff31]

Sometimes I am happy to be the radical. I don't see any reason why my rights end at anyone's doorstep.

The way I see it (and I know the corrupt laws and courts don't support me):


Perhaps because the owner of the doorstep has rights too?

Your rights don't end at at another's doorstep, you voluntarily give them up by going through the door.

If you believe your rights are more important than another's, don't go in.

We're talking about RIGHTS here, not some bridge club niceties. Should people "give up being black on campus" if they have a policy against that, or risk being fired?

One can't refrain from, or stop being black. One can refrain carrying a gun, praying, speaking, etc.

[Flopper]

As for the "permit" for carrying on planes, she probably gets that from LEOSA.

LEOSA does not permit LEO's to carry on a plane.

[Untamed1972]

I think, he was referring to her working for NYPD. Not a good argument, for the people responsible for denying the RKBA are mostly politicians, including those in police uniform, not rank-and-file cops. These days the rank-and-file cops are given little leeway on it.

"Retired New York City police lieutenant Carol Sciannameo"

Hardly "rank and file".

[Flopper]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

It's a private school, so I'm pretty sure they can forbid any activity they choose.

[Untamed1972]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.


Except that I doubt HR218 supercedes there terms of one's employment.


Even if you are currently employed as LEO, even tho HR218 gives you the ability to carry off duty, if you're Dept. policy prohibits you from carrying off duty if you do so, although you broke no law, you could get fired for violating dept. policy.

[NightOwl]

As much as I support her position, I have to say she was totally out of line and in flaunting the laws did nothing for gun rights in the process. I respect her for her service, but she set a horrible example for her students as far as abiding and following the law.

Actually, she followed the law properly. She didn't follow campus rules/policy, however, which is what got her fired.

[dustoff31]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

I'm not clear whether the school in question is a state or private institution. But either way, HR 218 does not allow carry on private property where the owner prohibits weapons, nor does it allow carry in gov't facilities where it is prohibited.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

[Untamed1972]

Sometimes I am happy to be the radical. I don't see any reason why my rights end at anyone's doorstep.

The way I see it (and I know the corrupt laws and courts don't support me):

I am free to speak anywhere and say anything I like. Those who do not like it (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) can charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "saying something wrong".

I am free to pray anywhere I like, and I don't care who likes it. Those who do not like it can (assuming asking me to stop or go away doesn't work) charge me with trespassing or disturbing the peace or inciting a riot if they so choose, provided I actually do any of those things, but not "praying somewhere I shouldn't" or "being insensitive to other religions or atheists".

I am free to defend myself - and be prepared to do so - anywhere I like. Those who don't like it can express their displeasure all they want. I see no reason why giving up my rights under the Constitution should be a condition of employment. We're talking about RIGHTS here, not some bridge club niceties. Should people "give up being black on campus" if they have a policy against that, or risk being fired?

The only exceptions I can see are cases where the express nature or purpose of a business or organization in conflict. Atheists United should be free not to hire Christians, the local gun store should be free not to hire anti-gun activists, etc. If the express policy of the University was that they are officially "anti 2A" ... they need to publish it unambiguously so that all can see them for the idiot bigots they are. They should also have all public funding pulled for being a hate group.


This is one of those areas though were you must remember that the exercising of your rights may not infringe upon the rights of others. Go do some reasearch on court decisions. I did so many years, sorry I can cite cases cuz it was so long ago, but the courts have ruled many times your rights to free speech/conduct and such may be limited by your employer and it makes sense. Your employment anywhere is voluntary, you are not being forced to work there. A business has it's financial interests to focus on so things that are disruptive to that are within the pervue of your employer to to limit/restrict. Do you have a right to cuss out a stupid customer? Yes in the sense that you commit no crime by doing so, meaning the gov't can take no action against for it. Does your employer have the right to fire you for doing so? You're damn right they do. Why? Because it's their property and their business and they can make any rules they want. It is no different then your employer enforcing a dress code, telling you you can't have nudie calendars in your cubicle and so on. All things that are legal and which the gov't can charge you with a crime for (ie constitutionally legal for you to do), but for which your employer has the right to limit while you are at work.

Remember.....your constitutional rights are about restrictions on gov't and what they can/cannot do to you. It has nearly nothing to do with your interactions with private persons when on private property. If you dont like the rules someone enforces on their private property you dont hafta be there. You on the other hand trying to imply that your rights supercede the rights of a property owner when you're on their property are completely UnAmerican!

No if this woman was fired simply because she had a CCW permit and/or carried a gun while not at work, or owned guns.....that's a whole different story. The writers of this story are trying to make this about her being a lesbian, her feeling threatened by someone offensive speech (although they did not clearly articulate what the actual threat was) and her being fired for carrying a gun......none of which is really relevant. Simple fact is she was fired for refusal to abibe by the policies of her employer which people get fired for in this country every day.

[paul0660]

Sounds like she broke the rules.

And, were I to bet, I would bet she thinks all those permits she has are fine for her, but not for the rest of us.

Just like the lady in Santa Cruz with the BB gun, I don't think this case is worthy of much effort by pro 2A supporters.

[dwtt]

Everyone here keeps talking about the retired cop instructor carrying a weapon, exactly as the news article wanted to frame the issue. However, am I the only one seeing the threatening student was in a criminal justice course? Meaning, he's planning to become a cop one day. I don't know about some of you, but I wouldn't want some nut case being a cop in the city where I live.

[nick]

"Retired New York City police lieutenant Carol Sciannameo"

Hardly "rank and file".

I stand corrected, somewhat. Lieutenants still don't make policy or go stand with the anti crowd when it's pleased with itself for passing another crappy gun law. That honor is usually reserved for sheriffs and chiefs of police.

[nick]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

It only means that she won't be arrested/prosecuted for it, but it doesn't mean that she can't be fired. That's the angle universities are pushing in states that passed the laws allowing concealed carry on campus, I believe.

[Untamed1972]

I stand corrected, somewhat. Lieutenants still don't make policy or go stand with the anti crowd when it's pleased with itself for passing another crappy gun law. That honor is usually reserved for sheriffs and chiefs of police.


yes....but you generally dont make such a rank w/o being politically on-board with the agenda of you're Dept/CLEO either.

I get what you're saying.....but not totally givin' her a free pass either.

[nick]

yes....but you generally dont make such a rank w/o being politically on-board with the agenda of you're Dept/CLEO either.

I get what you're saying.....but not totally givin' her a free pass either.

True. It's just that she bothers me much less than the university officials coming up with those moronic policies :)

[Super Spy]

If she wins this should be excellent precedent.

[GaryV]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

Wrong. HR 218 does not supersede private university policies nor state laws on public universities.

But I'm really glad to see this happen in Florida. Florida, despite being generally very gun-friendly, still has some screwed up gun laws. But because there are only a few, there is no real push or organization behind changing them. University campuses are even exempted from the Florida Parking Lot Law.

Guns are prohibited on al college campuses, by law, even private universities. However, I know of many exceptions that are made by university administrators for LEOs and retired LEOs, even though the law does not except them, unless they are there performing an LEO function.

For example, I sometimes teach at a Florida university. I'm a former LEO, but did not put in my full 20 and retire. I also have a Florida CWL. I co-teach with a retired LEO, who is therefore covered by LEOSA. The school allows him, and current LEOs who are students/teachers to carry on campus (though they don't advertise this fact), but not me or other non-retired former LEOs. However, neither their official policy (which bans weapons on campus) nor state law make exceptions for current or retired LEOs when not performing official LE duties.

So, while I agree that she pretty much asked to get fired, I love that she may now be a fantastic plaintiff for a law suit. Anyone got Gura's cell phone number?

[nick]

So, while I agree that she pretty much asked to get fired, I love that she may now be a fantastic plaintiff for a law suit. Anyone got Gura's cell phone number?

Not his cell phone number, but they have the contact form on their site:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/contact/email_va.html

http://www.gurapossessky.com/attorneys/gura.html

[HUTCH 7.62]

The libby's are now eating their own. I don't blame her for carrying a gun with all the looneys who enroll themselves in college anymore.

[Gray Peterson]

Everest College is a private institution, not public.

Florida Statutes prohibit of carrying of firearms on all public and private school campuses, with the exception of having it one's vehicle (though school districts can prohibit that for parking privileges so it's piecemeal).

She either broke the law or gave the intention that she will break the law. She is not a good plaintiff candidate for anything.

[GuyW]

“....Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”



LOL! Which part of "Don't ask, don't tell" confused her??

.

[GunNutz]

Mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe she should be allowed to conceal a weapon on her person. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair that she receive special treatment for so long. I think all of them should be allowed to conceal.

Also, I did not see where the student explicitly threatened anyone. He made objectionable remarks, but that is quite different than saying "I am going to..." etc. Had he actually threatened her, he should have been punished, and that does not appear to have been the case.

At this point, he (the ahole) is probably more in danger than she is, but I guarantee that he would not be allowed to conceal a weapon. Thus, it's a double standard.

The university knew this: that's why she was fired after she'd gone to the press. They cannot turn a blind eye, officially. They were bending the rules for her by "looking the other way" and she had to make a big deal out of it, so they upheld the rules they were supposed to be enforcing all along.

I do hope, however, that this helps to increase our rights and not further restrict them.

[CSDGuy]

Oregon's CCW law allows for carry on campus. Unfortunately, it doesn't override school district weapon policy that staff and students abide by... A few years ago, an Oregon teacher was fired from her job for CCW in class. She sued and lost. A parent could CCW in the classroom and there'd be no problem as the parent wouldn't have to abide by policy and the CCW would exempt that parent from their version of the GFSZA.

Florida is most definitely NOT Oregon. They have their own laws which do not exempt a CCW holder from carrying on a school/college/university campus. The CCW would, however, likely shield the person from the Federal GFSZA...

Either way, she should have followed the "concealed means CONCEALED" rule...

[Untamed1972]

Oregon's CCW law allows for carry on campus. Unfortunately, it doesn't override school district weapon policy that staff and students abide by... A few years ago, an Oregon teacher was fired from her job for CCW in class. She sued and lost. A parent could CCW in the classroom and there'd be no problem as the parent wouldn't have to abide by policy and the CCW would exempt that parent from their version of the GFSZA.

Florida is most definitely NOT Oregon. They have their own laws which do not exempt a CCW holder from carrying on a school/college/university campus. The CCW would, however, likely shield the person from the Federal GFSZA...

Either way, she should have followed the "concealed means CONCEALED" rule...


the difference being that the school is liable for the actions of it's employees while at work......but not so with the parent. Again it's an employment/liablity policy issue.

[dieselpower]

Subsequently, Sciannameo was called into the president’s office where she was questioned about the incident and her response to it. University President Peter Pratti expressed concern about an email in which Sciannameo had stated she would take whatever legal means necessary to protect herself. Sciannameo informed the administration that she had retained the services of an attorney and had contacted the press about the story. It was at that time Sciannameo says she was terminated by the university and escorted off campus.

This is where she screwed up. it is hard to believe a person with her background would make such a mistake? This is political somehow....

If your primary goal is to keep your job, or to protect yourself, you do not tell someone with the authority to fire you, that you have hired a lawyer...no good can come of it. You keep that stuff to yourself.

If your primary goal is to expose a flaw in a system or change a system with political pressure, your best tactic is to "push" it along.

IMHO, she retained a lawyer in order to "push" a court case about firearms on campus. It has nothing to do with her fear of this student, her saving her job or protecting her rights. She saw a weakness in the School policy and is going after it using this situation.

[dantodd]

Well, one thing is for sure. This will be interesting. I fear that Gray may be right and this was ill timed as it will be challenging both the State law and Private property rights. It's a hard nut to crack attempting to beat down both doors at once. I personally think it would be a good thing if she wins but I don't see it happening here. I also agree with the folks who say that she acted like the kind of person who doesn't believe the rules apply to them.

[Flopper]

LOL! Which part of "Don't ask, don't tell" confused her??

.

Yup, concealed means concealed.

[tiki]

Yes it is....on both sides.
How much you wanna bet when she files her lawsuit....after years of denying the citizens of NYC their RKBA, the basis of her suit will be RKBA under McDonald?

What does McDonald have to do with it? This was a private facility, I don't think McDonald applies.

The alleged a-hole made offensive remarks and wore offensive t-shirts. What was the threat?


I agree with you, but, try wearing this shirt around and see what happens...

http://ideafix7.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/parade_shirt.jpg

[Ron-Solo]

"Retired New York City police lieutenant Carol Sciannameo"

Hardly "rank and file".

I've been a Lieutenant for 9 years now with a LARGE agency. I can assure you, we are not considered "management" and have very little say on policy. I feel a thousand times closer to the sergeants and deputies, than I do to anyone in rank above me. I was a deputy for 12 years and a patrol sergeant for 11 years before promoting. We are still represented by a 'union' which is the same for sergeants. We are supervisors, but not management.

[Ron-Solo]

yes....but you generally dont make such a rank w/o being politically on-board with the agenda of you're Dept/CLEO either.



Sorry, having been through the process, I have to disagree with you on that one. Now, for captain, that's another story.........

[BigDogatPlay]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

Not if the university is private property, and certainly not if there is an employment agreement or contract between school and workers / teachers that says "no weapons".

LEOSA is a wonderful thing but unless the LEO is on duty and acting within the course and scope (she's retired which under California law means she has no peace officer authority, for instance) private property rights should still trump. And any written contract that she knowingly agreed to when accepting employment would certainly trump, if there is such a contract.

This case, to me has the potential for either a great deal of good or a great deal of bad.

[GaryV]

LEOSA is a wonderful thing but unless the LEO is on duty and acting within the course and scope (she's retired which under California law means she has no peace officer authority, for instance) private property rights should still trump.

I'm not so much in agreement that LEOSA is wonderful, since I don't think fundamental rights should instead be treated as retirement perks for one particular group. But you're right, LEOSA does not override laws that allow private entities from excluding firearms from their property, just as it does not override state laws banning guns from public universities.

The loophole here though is that it is not illegal in Florida to carry on private property, even if there is a policy against it or the property is posted (you can be asked to leave, but not arrested or prosecuted for having simply ignored a sign or written policy), and the only state laws about campus prohibitions that withstand LEOSA are those that limit carry on government property. So, since this was a private university, she technically didn't break any law. Had she been in a state where violating private property bans is also a violation of state law, she would have been committing a crime, but since Florida's not one of those, she's good legally. However, LEOSA does not overrule the private university's policy, because it only overrules state laws, not private property rights.

[socalblue]

School is going to have a very difficult time in court. They asked her on multiple occasions to respond to on campus incidents because she was a retired LEO & armed? To me that construes approval for her to carry a weapon on campus.

[KylaGWolf]

That's a great idea, terminate the teacher who was threatened and leave the a-hole who threatened her in the class. :eek:

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I was attacked by another student in my class. I reported it nothing was done. Oh and later in the year he showed up to school with a HUGE freaking knife on his belt (against school policy) and nothing was done again. He has threatened teachers and other staff and students as well and he stays. One reason I now avoid that class if he is in it which is sad I still have some stuff to finish in that class but I hate fearing for my safety more.

[NorCalDustin]

Sciannameo has four separate concealed weapons permits, including one that will allow her to carry a weapon on a commercial airliner.

I'm sorry, but that should override any no guns zone...

[tenpercentfirearms]

Private property owners' rights should supersede their guests rights. You voluntarily step onto that campus, so you must abide by their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't go.

That is what I love about California. It is perfectly legal for us to carry on any campus in California. I packed a Glock 27 to almost every single one of my master's classes at University of La Verne. I am sure if I had looked it up, they had a no guns policy, but concealed means concealed and I wasn't breaking any laws.

The only sad thing is my current employer also has a no guns policy and I am not willing to "concealed means concealed" at a $65K a year job. That risk is way too high.

Maybe I should start a private school and not set a no-guns policy. If it is legal for you to carry in public, then it is legal to carry to school.

[dirtnap]

I agree with you, but, try wearing this shirt around and see what happens...

http://ideafix7.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/parade_shirt.jpg

That would be a sweet *** shirt, I'd sport it!!

[Foulball]

School is going to have a very difficult time in court. They asked her on multiple occasions to respond to on campus incidents because she was a retired LEO & armed? To me that construes approval for her to carry a weapon on campus.

I was also wondering about this. If she has any verification of it then the school could have some difficulty.

[Kreature96]

I agree a private property owner or an employer can have a no guns policy and enforce it, however, when that private property owner invites me on their property for their economic advantage and or have me provide labor for them and they require me to leave my tools of self defense behind then, they should be required to provide for my safety and if I am violently attacked by another invitee they should have to pay damages through the teeth for 1. disarming me and therefore preventing me from effectively defending myself and 2. for after disarming me failing to protect me.

I know it makes too much sense

[ar_craig]

Obviously I'm neither a lawyer nor intimately familiar with the details of the case (beyond the posted article). I have a question for the lawyers among us: is this a case of selective enforcement? It's my understanding that a punishment can be deemed discriminatory if it is not evenly and uniformly enforced...

-Craig

[1911_sfca]

You guys need to think outside the box a bit more; you're very quick to come down hard on her for not following her employer's policies, and say she should get fired for that. But what if the fundamental right of self defense extends to the workplace? And what if that means you could carry concealed in the workplace (and to and from your home) because of that?

IF this turned into a court case, and went far, it could potentially expand gun rights dramatically. The fact that she is a lesbian (in a classroom where "hate speech" was used), and a 20 year veteran officer, would only strengthen the case.

Follow the thought process a bit further to its logical conclusion...

[N6ATF]

http://www.filmsnmovies.com/media/thumbs/1242089527.jpg
"Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting victim disarmers in the monkey-fighting higher education system!"

"You expect students to learn?"

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/129085724356295924.jpg

Everest College, a proud member of the:
61297

[kcbrown]

Some of you appear to be arguing that the rights of the property owner supersede all other rights, in particular of those whom the property owner has agreed to allow onto their property (contract or not). It should be obvious that such an argument is invalid on its face, because the implication is that once someone is on private property, their right to life can be violated with impunity as long as such a stipulation was somehow "agreed to", either explicitly or implicitly.

Here's the deal as I see it: contract/agreement or not, if you as the property owner insist on violating someone's right to self defense (which derives directly from their right to life) then you take on that responsibility yourself. If someone is injured or killed while they are on your property and there was any chance the injury or death could have been averted had the victim not been stripped by you of his ability to defend himself, then you assume all responsibility for it. Sorry, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the above holds in the general case: if you as a property owner insist on stripping those on your property of their rights, you assume the full responsibility, and thus the liability, for the consequences of doing so.

RKBA is particularly important here. Unlike the right to free speech or some other thing, where the consequences, when they exist, of an agreement to not exercise it will almost certainly never be injurious or life-threatening, the consequences of not exercising the right to self-defense are almost always injurious or life-threatening.

So for someone to argue that their right to property supersedes the right of self-defense, they must also argue that their right to property supersedes the right to life, which means they must argue that it is permissible for them to kill those who are on their property with permission as long as it was somehow "agreed to" using the same methods of agreement that would allow them to strip others of their right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but those things are inseparable: you can't argue for one without implicitly arguing for the other.

Somehow, I suspect the people who seem to favor the rights of property owners above all else really don't want to go there.

[NightOwl]

Somehow, I suspect the people who seem to favor the rights of property owners above all else really don't want to go there.

You are welcome in my house, but you can't bring your gun. Also, coming into my house implies agreement that I am not liable for damages if someone attacks you and you're not as able to defend yourself as if you were armed.

I'll go there. Just put a little fine print on the signs at the entrances to the stores/buildings/whatevers. While some people have enough sense to take their business elsewhere, most folks just blithely mosey on past the sign and continue about their business. Thanks for coming to shop, implying that you're not holding me liable.

Here's the deal as I see it: contract/agreement or not, if you as the property owner insist on violating someone's right to self defense (which derives directly from their right to life) then you take on that responsibility yourself.

Unless the person coming onto the property agrees that you're not liable. Don't want to accept that I hold no additional liability? There's the door, otherwise pull up a chair and hang out.

[Full Clip]

She was informed of the policy and stated she refused to abide by it. That will pretty much get you fired anywhere you work regardless of what the policy is.

Yep.
But she probably thought she was "above it" given her LE background.
Sorry but the rules apply equally, even bad ones, which is why they should be changed.

[gmd455]

I think anyone should be able to carry any where they want on public land and in public places. If some one doesn't want me taking a gun into there place of business then I don't go there. I will be fired if I take a gun to my work so I don't. I asked and i strongly disagree with it. I hope a ruling comes out that employers cant keep employees form bringing their guns to work.

[N6ATF]

So for someone to argue that their right to property supersedes the right of self-defense, they must also argue that their right to property supersedes the right to life, which means they must argue that it is permissible for them to kill those who are on their property with permission as long as it was somehow "agreed to" using the same methods of agreement that would allow them to strip others of their right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but those things are inseparable: you can't argue for one without implicitly arguing for the other.

Somehow, I suspect the people who seem to favor the rights of property owners above all else really don't want to go there.

Except they have, every time I've brought this up. They will excuse any instance of the property owner giving the green light to criminals, because private property rights somehow trump all law-abiding people's right to be alive (codified in the 2A). And no, they must not be forced to put up a sign that says your life may be forfeit if you enter these premises, and those responsible for getting you killed will never be punished.

[mzimmers]

Lots of red herrings in this thread, IMO. This issue isn't about lesbians, or minorities, or retired LEOs, or even guns, CCW permits and RKBA. It's about an individual who:

1. voluntarily took a position of employment
2. was informed that her behavior violated employer policy
3. stated her intention to continue to defy said policy
4. was terminated as a result

What part of this does anyone seriously have a problem with? When you accept a paycheck, you go by the rules of the guy signing it. Everything else in this story is simply spin by various special-interest groups, including anyone who tries to make this a gun rights issue.

[N6ATF]

Except it sounds like they gave her the green light to carry when it suited THEM, but not as a primary job responsibility, then when it didn't suit THEM, they revoked her right to self-defense. How dare she guard against an unrepentant threat?

[kcbrown]

You are welcome in my house, but you can't bring your gun. Also, coming into my house implies agreement that I am not liable for damages if someone attacks you and you're not as able to defend yourself as if you were armed.

I'll go there. Just put a little fine print on the signs at the entrances to the stores/buildings/whatevers. While some people have enough sense to take their business elsewhere, most folks just blithely mosey on past the sign and continue about their business. Thanks for coming to shop, implying that you're not holding me liable.


So, by coming onto your property, if you have the appropriate fine print on your signs, you believe you have the right to kill me without any liability on your part?

No?

If you refuse to argue that you have the right to kill all those who agree with your terms without incurring liability, then you cannot simultaneously argue that you have the right to forbid me from the means to self defense without incurring any liability, for those two things are inextricably linked.

Stripping me of my ability to defend myself is an infringement on my right to life just as surely as killing me is. The only difference in the infringement is one of degree, not of kind. This is why infringement of RKBA on the part of the government is particularly heinous and wrong.


With power comes responsibility. If you want power over your property and those who are on it, you must take responsibility for both. Otherwise your right to property and the power that comes from it are ill-deserved at best, as is all power that is conferred without the corresponding responsibility.

[mzimmers]

They didn't revoke her right; they merely changed their mind on enforcing the rule.

Higher education is filled with spineless, inconsistent eggheads without solid morals. That is unfortunate, but not grounds for a reasonable lawsuit.

Unless you're a GI or a convict, employment is bilaterally voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you're free to leave. But choose to break them, and you deserve what you get.

[advocatusdiaboli]

They didn't revoke her right; they merely changed their mind on enforcing the rule.

Higher education is filled with spineless, inconsistent eggheads without solid morals. That is unfortunate, but not grounds for a reasonable lawsuit.

Unless you're a GI or a convict, employment is bilaterally voluntary. If you don't like the rules, you're free to leave. But choose to break them, and you deserve what you get.

I tend to agree.A lot of Americans have a sense of entitlement and she showed one in this case. She took their checks but refused the implied contract that in doing so she assented to their rules. I dislike saying it, but looks like a clear case of holier-than-thou LE disease.

But I do have to ask this question of the OP: WTF does her being a Lesbian have anything to do with anything about this story or the issue? WTF? Nothing at all. And it shouldn't either.

[N6ATF]

Seems a lot like being a GI, actually. Both the Commander in Chief and school administrators seem to love giving people the order to commit suicidal acts, either blanket, or arbitrarily and capriciously.

[CalNRA]

the issue at hand is not property vs right to self defense, but her agreeing to the company EMPLOYMENT policy. She can still visit and carry as much as she wants as long as her permit allows her to, but employment contracts are not a penal code matter.
Some of you appear to be arguing that the rights of the property owner supersede all other rights, in particular of those whom the property owner has agreed to allow onto their property (contract or not). It should be obvious that such an argument is invalid on its face, because the implication is that once someone is on private property, their right to life can be violated with impunity as long as such a stipulation was somehow "agreed to", either explicitly or implicitly.

Here's the deal as I see it: contract/agreement or not, if you as the property owner insist on violating someone's right to self defense (which derives directly from their right to life) then you take on that responsibility yourself. If someone is injured or killed while they are on your property and there was any chance the injury or death could have been averted had the victim not been stripped by you of his ability to defend himself, then you assume all responsibility for it. Sorry, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the above holds in the general case: if you as a property owner insist on stripping those on your property of their rights, you assume the full responsibility, and thus the liability, for the consequences of doing so.

RKBA is particularly important here. Unlike the right to free speech or some other thing, where the consequences, when they exist, of an agreement to not exercise it will almost certainly never be injurious or life-threatening, the consequences of not exercising the right to self-defense are almost always injurious or life-threatening.

So for someone to argue that their right to property supersedes the right of self-defense, they must also argue that their right to property supersedes the right to life, which means they must argue that it is permissible for them to kill those who are on their property with permission as long as it was somehow "agreed to" using the same methods of agreement that would allow them to strip others of their right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but those things are inseparable: you can't argue for one without implicitly arguing for the other.

Somehow, I suspect the people who seem to favor the rights of property owners above all else really don't want to go there.

[CalNRA]

Yep.
But she probably thought she was "above it" given her LE background.
Sorry but the rules apply equally, even bad ones, which is why they should be changed.

that. She would have been much more helpful to civil liberty in FL and else where by engaging a competent attorney and sue the school to change their policy. Instead she essentially said "nana, I won't follow the rules" and the school chose to no employ her any longer.

Being a former cop and/or homosexual doesn't exempt one from rules, as much as some people think otherwise.

[pnkssbtz]

Regardless of the firearm, I think she has grounds for a sexual harassment case against the college. Asking a student to not wear offensive T-Shirts after making publicly hostile denigrating marks is no sufficient to satisfy any legit sexual harassment policy I have ever heard of.

The lack of serious action intended to remedy the situation, combined with the continued harassment from the student makes the college complicit.

[GuyW]

But I do have to ask this question of the OP: WTF does her being a Lesbian have anything to do with anything about this story or the issue? WTF? Nothing at all. And it shouldn't either.

She probably has a history as a "minority" activist in the PD (witness rank), and feels entitled to do whatever she wants. It bleeds over into her other interactions, such as the one in question...
.

[bjl333]

She did break company policy by having a firearms on campus. If she can prove 4 years of looking the other way by employers then she might have a case here.

[Gray Peterson]

She did break company policy by having a firearms on campus. If she can prove 4 years of looking the other way by employers then she might have a case here.

Carrying at a college in Florida is unlawful.

[Gray Peterson]

I tend to agree.A lot of Americans have a sense of entitlement and she showed one in this case. She took their checks but refused the implied contract that in doing so she assented to their rules. I dislike saying it, but looks like a clear case of holier-than-thou LE disease.

But I do have to ask this question of the OP: WTF does her being a Lesbian have anything to do with anything about this story or the issue? WTF? Nothing at all. And it shouldn't either.

Probably because she was known as an out lesbian and best known for that particular issue outside of her position as a criminal justice professor. Remember that this is in Florida, not California, and the local alternative media in that state tend to view situations involving gays and lesbians as a "curious oddity". If this was California there would be no reporting of her being a lesbian at all, just that she broke the rules and violated the law (though if she had a CCW in California, she would be able to carry in both K-12 and colleges).

We also don't know anything about her work history with the NYPD to make any prejudgments about her work ethic.

Remember, folks, the lead plaintiff in CGF's PC12050 is Deanna Sykes, an out lesbian. There are good people and bad people in every minority group.

[GaryV]

Carrying at a college in Florida is unlawful.

Not if you can carry under LEOSA and are at a private school. LEOSA automatically exempts you from all state laws except those restricting carry on state property, and those that make it a crime to carry on posted private property. State schools in Florida would still be illegal, but since banning guns on private property in Florida does not make carrying on that property a crime, LEOSA allows current and retired LEOs to carry on private campuses despite Florida's law prohibiting it. However, LEOSA does not override private property or employment policies, so, while she wouldn't have been breaking any laws, the school can still use disciplinary measures to enforce their own policy even against off-duty and retired LEOs.

[BigDogatPlay]

Some of you appear to be arguing that the rights of the property owner supersede all other rights, in particular of those whom the property owner has agreed to allow onto their property (contract or not). It should be obvious that such an argument is invalid on its face, because the implication is that once someone is on private property, their right to life can be violated with impunity as long as such a stipulation was somehow "agreed to", either explicitly or implicitly.

The right to private property, and the right of the owner to control that property is as equally fundamental as the right to self defense.

A couple of quotes make my point, I think...

Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark. ~Walter Lippmann

The Lippmann quote is most interesting as he was very much a progressive politically and intellectually, yet he still apparently clearly understood just how deeply the rights of private property really run.

As to the concept of an employment agreement "violating" the right to self defense, there is a very easy answer..... don't like the stated working conditions, then find someplace to work that has conditions you agree with.

I was a LEO and I respect the retired LEO in this case. Her sexual orientation is, to me, immaterial. I get it that outside of California there is still places where the media will pounce on an alternative orientation first. However..... if she took the job knowing that she was prohibited from going armed on the campus, and went armed anyway then that is most likely going to be upheld as grounds to term her employment.

OTOH... if the school used her services in a "protection" role in the past and now is having a fit, as has been alleged in the thread since my last reply, then that would put an entirely different spin on things.

[Gray Peterson]

that. She would have been much more helpful to civil liberty in FL and else where by engaging a competent attorney and sue the school to change their policy. Instead she essentially said "nana, I won't follow the rules" and the school chose to no employ her any longer.

Being a former cop and/or homosexual doesn't exempt one from rules, as much as some people think otherwise.

You need to be real careful with that statement. You're making a lot of assumptions about her reasons and her previous position with NYPD, all based on a newspaper article that makes a big deal over her being a lesbian.

It is far more likely this is a case of "ex-cop" privilege gone amok. That I can believe without a doubt.

Not if you can carry under LEOSA and are at a private school. LEOSA automatically exempts you from all state laws except those restricting carry on state property, and those that make it a crime to carry on posted private property. State schools in Florida would still be illegal, but since banning guns on private property in Florida does not make carrying on that property a crime, LEOSA allows current and retired LEOs to carry on private campuses despite Florida's law prohibiting it. However, LEOSA does not override private property or employment policies, so, while she wouldn't have been breaking any laws, the school can still use disciplinary measures to enforce their own policy even against off-duty and retired LEOs.

I stand corrected. I looked at the statute closer (18USC926C) and it appears that it was meant for states which has laws like Texas' Penal Code 30.06, the "sign" law, there. Nearly all "no guns" signs in Texas do not comply with this statute.

[todd2968]

Sounds like this campus has an unconstitutional rule.

Did anyone else pick up the whole duality or hypocracy thing in this story.

Student was told not to wear offensive t-shirts and used the N word exercising 1st ammendment and was allowed to remain.

Teacher execised her 2nd ammendment was terminated.

[mzimmers]

Sounds like this campus has an unconstitutional rule.

Did anyone else pick up the whole duality or hypocracy thing in this story.

Student was told not to wear offensive t-shirts and used the N word exercising 1st ammendment and was allowed to remain.

Teacher execised her 2nd ammendment was terminated.

Try this instead:

Student violated school policy, was notified of said violation, corrected his action (though he did shift gears and start other inappropriate action), and was permitted to stay.

Teacher violated school policy, was notified of said violation, stated her intention to defy the policy, and was released.

No hypocrisy there that I can see.

[BigDogatPlay]

Try this instead:

Student violated school policy, was notified of said violation, corrected his action (though he did shift gears and start other inappropriate action), and was permitted to stay.

Teacher violated school policy, was notified of said violation, stated her intention to defy the policy, and was released.

No hypocrisy there that I can see.

Very well stated... excellent synopsis. :cool2:

[Gray Peterson]

The right to private property, and the right of the owner to control that property is as equally fundamental as the right to self defense.



The problem here is not a matter of "which right is more important". The problem here is one of a civil liability paradigm. I found this out more when I was researching into the "Parking Lot" Protection bills that have passed a bunch of states.

The problem is one of doctrine of competing liabilities. The Brady Campaign for years have been unduly influencing HR departments and other groups that control employment policy with false statistical information, and after they notify them, they lay a trap: "Now that we notify you about the risks, if you refuse to ban guns after we told you this, we will go after you in civil litigation if there is a shooting". They did this to thousands of companies, large and small. The point was to entirely eradicate any presence of a "gun culture" (similar to the way Mary King and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors wanted to annihilate the gun culture by banning the Nordyke's gun shows from the AC Fairgrounds).

The hysteria involving this issue has gotten to the point where in some companies, even mentioning that you have an interest in firearms can get you terminated from your job. This is a result of a vicious campaign by the Brady Campaign, LCAV, and many other anti-gun groups. In Ohio, the Executive Director of OAHV openly called for employers to fire CHL holders, stating that the existence of CHL holders and gun owners is a liability and that they would actively recruit shooting victims of CHL holders at workplaces to see the companies involved in state court.

The problem is: Suing a corporation for disallowing someone from carrying on the job, when they've been criminally attacked is impossible in any state court. There simply is not enough of a connection between lack of carry and being injured by a criminal for a judge to consider it (not to mention these companies have a speed dial to the Brady Campaign and LCAV just in case).

If a person is shot or stabbed, however, and the workplace doesn't have a "no-weapons" ban, LCAV's hired gun litigation team will serve the CEO with a summons in state civil court for damages and liability. The parking-lot protection bills are sorta half-assed ways of dealing with the issue, as every single state which has passed a law also protected the companies from liability due to the requirement by state law.

States need to start making it to where companies are made vicariously liable for REFUSING to allow carry. If that were to happen, every workplace no weapons rule would go up in a large puff of smoke.

[N6ATF]

Student violated school policy by threatening teacher, threat allowed to continue
Teacher allowed to carry gun to protect against general threats, but teacher's life deemed worth less than removal of specific threat

Tuition $$>life
Criminal>law-abiding citizen

[mzimmers]

Student violated school policy by threatening teacher, threat allowed to continue
Teacher allowed to carry gun to protect against general threats, but teacher's life deemed worth less than removal of specific threat

Tuition $$>life
Criminal>law-abiding citizen

There's nothing in the original article about the student threatening the teacher. The closest is her interpretation of his exposed tattoos as "intimidating messages."

Doesn't sound like the student is a criminal. The teacher, on the other hand, willingly defied employment contract, and (depending on who you believe) may have committed illegal CCW on campus.

I think some of us might benefit from a deep breath before posting further on this. It's clearly an emotional issue, but it's getting blown way out of proportion.

This is how employment discussions SHOULD go:

Prospective Boss: "Hey, you want to come work for me?"
Prospective Worker: "Sure!"
PB: "Great! Now, you know you can't bring guns to work, right?"
PW: "Really? Well, forget it then."
PB: "OK...thanks anyway!"

Unfortunately, many people seem to think that employment is a unilateral right.

[CalNRA]

You need to be real careful with that statement. You're making a lot of assumptions about her reasons and her previous position with NYPD, all based on a newspaper article that makes a big deal over her being a lesbian.


WRONG. I specifically separated the statement of prior LE work =/= immunity from rules aside from this case. Notice the empty line separating the two portions.

Show me where I said she thought she was immune because of her law enforcement work.

[Gray Peterson]

WRONG. I specifically separated the statement of prior LE work =/= immunity from rules aside from this case. Notice the empty line separating the two portions.

Show me where I said she thought she was immune because of her law enforcement work.

You got my ire backwards. Let me underline what I'm talking about.

Being a former cop and/or homosexual doesn't exempt one from rules, as much as some people think otherwise.

The cop issue isn't what bothered me here. It's the fact that you're stereotyping gays and lesbians.

[CalNRA]

The cop issue isn't what bothered me here. It's the fact that you're stereotyping gays and lesbians.

are you saying homosexuals will NEVER assume they are above the rules?

That's quite an assertion. Sounds liek you are stereotyping too.


Hence the word "some".

[Gray Peterson]

are you saying homosexuals will NEVER assume they are above the rules?


Hence the word "some".

There's some people who are straight white people who think they're above the rules in certain situations too because of what they are. I do not, however, bring up their orientation. You, on the other hand, brought up 'homosexuals' in the form of a negative fashion, and when you were called on your stereotyping, you engaged in straw man fallacy.

You are stereotyping....

[IrishPirate]

No sympathy. None at all. She knowingly and willingly broke the law/rules.

rules that don't allow for self protection should be broken.

[Seesm]

The policy is the problem, it should be able to even be IN PLACE.

I have no problem with her carrying and the school SHOULD not.

I did not like the time she went and GOT her gun it should have been ON HER already...

[Mute]

rules that don't allow for self protection should be broken.

I don't disagree. But don't expect there to be no consequences for breaking the rules. If you're willing to break rules it should be also mean you believe that suffering the consequences is worth it.

I believe the policy is stupid, but it is a private institution. As long as that's the case, they should have the right to be as idiotic as they wish. No one is forcing anyone to continue a relationship with this institution.

[kcbrown]

The right to private property, and the right of the owner to control that property is as equally fundamental as the right to self defense.


The Lippmann quote is most interesting as he was very much a progressive politically and intellectually, yet he still apparently clearly understood just how deeply the rights of private property really run.

As to the concept of an employment agreement "violating" the right to self defense, there is a very easy answer..... don't like the stated working conditions, then find someplace to work that has conditions you agree with.


Tell me: what's the difference between a government making the decision to forbid carriage of firearms at a specific place (assuming the place in question is one you can choose to not go) versus a private entity deciding the same?

The answer is that there is none. And yet, you would have a huge problem with the government forbidding such a thing, even if it were a place (like a public park) that you had the choice of avoiding, wouldn't you?


In the collision between the right to life and the right to control property, the right to life must win in the general case (there may be some specific exceptions). This is why it is generally not enough for someone to simply be on your property for you to have justification to shoot them -- they must pose an actual threat of bodily harm to you. The laws are written to presume the existence of the threat, but that is a presumption. It is also why you are ethically bound to shoot to stop the threat, not to shoot explicitly to kill, when someone is on your property and is perceived by you to be posing a threat.

I agree that the right to control your own property is fundamental. But so is the right to speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to life. The question isn't whether or not a given right is fundamental, it's which right takes precedence when there is a collision.

Without the right to life, the other rights become useless and meaningless. It is preferable to have the right to life and not the right to control property than it is to have the right to control property but not the right to life. It should be obvious that the right to life is more valuable than the right to control property, and I very much doubt that you'd answer differently if given the choice of which of those two rights to give up.

To assert, after the above, that your right to control your property supersedes someone else's right to life (and the other rights that derive from it, such as RKBA) is hypocritical at best, unless you are willing to give up your right to life in order to keep your right to control your property.

[mzimmers]

I believe the policy is stupid, but it is a private institution. As long as that's the case, they should have the right to be as idiotic as they wish. No one is forcing anyone to continue a relationship with this institution.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner.

[NightOwl]

So, by coming onto your property, if you have the appropriate fine print on your signs, you believe you have the right to kill me without any liability on your part?

No?

If you refuse to argue that you have the right to kill all those who agree with your terms without incurring liability, then you cannot simultaneously argue that you have the right to forbid me from the means to self defense without incurring any liability, for those two things are inextricably linked.

Stripping me of my ability to defend myself is an infringement on my right to life just as surely as killing me is. The only difference in the infringement is one of degree, not of kind. This is why infringement of RKBA on the part of the government is particularly heinous and wrong.


With power comes responsibility. If you want power over your property and those who are on it, you must take responsibility for both. Otherwise your right to property and the power that comes from it are ill-deserved at best, as is all power that is conferred without the corresponding responsibility.

The "right to kill" is a retarded arguement. You're setting up a strawman and a pretty feeble one at that. Knock it off.

I certainly can make the arguement that I have limited liability, and it's a perfectly valid one because I'm not forcing you to be on my property. IF you wish to come here, that's your choice, I'm not infringing on anything, you're infringing on your own right, if anybody is. If you choose to not agree to the terms I'm offering for you to enter my property, then don't. You're welcome to go elsewhere. You seem to be avoiding the crux of the matter, which is that if you don't like my rules, you can leave at any time, or not even be here in the first place. Agree to them, or go elsewhere.

Public property is a whole other ballgame, and people should be able to be armed at all times, with very few exceptions and the location requiring such an exception assuming liability. Private property...not so much.

[NightOwl]

Tell me: what's the difference between a government making the decision to forbid carriage of firearms at a specific place (assuming the place in question is one you can choose to not go) versus a private entity deciding the same?

The answer is that there is none. And yet, you would have a huge problem with the government forbidding such a thing, even if it were a place (like a public park) that you had the choice of avoiding, wouldn't you?

Actually, there is one. Public property is owned...by the public. Private property is not.

[stormy_clothing]

This is a bit scary except that they probably left out the "except at the range" part.

How is this scary, this actually shows her to be level headed although the truth is shes likely not been in a situation where it was necessary. Read up on mandatory police training - though I can't speak for NY here locally all officers are required to meet basic requirements at the range several times a year or they will no longer be allowed to carry.

The school knows they done phuked up - since it's likely the lady will be well looked after in here future I would like to see more practical punishments involved like NRA day at the school :)

[N6ATF]

Private property open to the public must not be a free kill zone, no more than public property.

[kcbrown]

The "right to kill" is a retarded arguement. You're setting up a strawman and a pretty feeble one at that. Knock it off.


For it to be a strawman argument, there must be a crucial difference between the elements of my argument and the elements of the argument I'm using it against that somehow renders my method of argument invalid when applied to the other.

Please point out said crucial differences. If you cannot, then I've no reason to believe my argument to be a strawman one.



I certainly can make the arguement that I have limited liability, and it's a perfectly valid one because I'm not forcing you to be on my property.
If the choice of whether or not to be on someone's property were sufficient for the argument for limited liability, then you could just as easily apply it to greater infringements against a visitor's rights as you could lesser infringements. But, somehow, you can't. For instance, you can't enslave someone just because they've agreed to that condition of being on your property, nor can you avoid liability for their safety with respect to, e.g., the condition of your property.

If you can't avoid liability for someone's safety with respect to the condition of your property, why should you be able to avoid liability for their safety with respect to their need to defend themselves should the circumstances arise?


You cannot shirk responsibility just because the contract you offer says you do. Private property owners would be able to get away with literally anything if that were true.



IF you wish to come here, that's your choice, I'm not infringing on anything, you're infringing on your own right, if anybody is. If you choose to not agree to the terms I'm offering for you to enter my property, then don't. You're welcome to go elsewhere. You seem to be avoiding the crux of the matter, which is that if you don't like my rules, you can leave at any time, or not even be here in the first place. Agree to them, or go elsewhere.
And that can just as easily be said of many public places as well. Sorry, but that alone isn't a sufficient argument.



Public property is a whole other ballgame, and people should be able to be armed at all times, with very few exceptions and the location requiring such an exception assuming liability. Private property...not so much.OK, let's get down to brass tacks: what is the difference between private property and public property, when the public property in question isn't property that one is required to be on? The only difference is that of "ownership", right? In the first case, an individual or group owns the property, while in the second case, the public owns the property.

But in the first case, the group can choose as a collective to implement rules that specific individuals within the group don't agree with. And similarly, the public as a whole can choose as a collective to implement rules that specific individuals within the public don't agree with. And don't try to tell me that in the first case, you have the option of leaving the group, because that is also true of the second: you have the option of moving to a different city, a different state, or to a different country altogether. And if it happens that none of your alternatives offer anything different, well, tough -- the same can be true of private property owners: nothing prevents them from banding together and agreeing amongst themselves to implement the same requirement in all the contracts they offer.


Now, in terms of the law, the government (which now includes the states and municipalities as of McDonald) has a prohibition against infringing the right to keep and bear arms, but one must remember the reason the prohibition exists. That prohibition exists because the right in question is a right. One does not suddenly lose all their claims to any rights just because they're on someone else's private property! One doesn't, for instance, lose their claim to the right to life, even if the terms for being on that property state otherwise. Rights transcend governments and individuals, else they lose their meaning.

And so, again, we come back to the question of the relative importance of rights. Which right is more important: that of life, or that of control of private property? When the two are in conflict, as they are when a private property owner insists on forfeiture of the other (either directly, as in life, or indirectly, as in RKBA) on the part of anyone who wishes to enter that property, you must choose one. And it is completely inconsistent (i.e., hypocritical) to choose property rights over the right to life only when you happen to be the property owner.

That's okay -- it's your right to be hypocritical when you want to be, but it doesn't make you any less hypocritical.

[Mofo-Kang]

The story stated that faculty knew she carried and all where fine with it.

There's "knowing," and then there's KNOWING. It's one thing for an administrator to be able to say "I was never informed that she was carrying a gun, and assumed that she abided by our official policy as given out in all the employee handbooks on the first day of employment," and another to have his plausible deniability removed by being told straight up that she knows the rule and refuses to abide by it. At that point, he's got his hands tied. Unfortunate situation, and probably not very diplomatically dealt with by any of the parties involved.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The natural right to self-defense should trump any private property laws IMHO. Barring employment (or firing an employee) should not have a basis when it comes to someone taking a step towards defending themselves, concealed or otherwise.

[Mute]

If the property is not safe, don't go. NO ONE IS MAKING YOU GO!

[Mute]

For it to be a strawman argument, there must be a crucial difference between the elements of my argument and the elements of the argument I'm using it against that somehow renders my method of argument invalid when applied to the other.

Please point out said crucial differences. If you cannot, then I've no reason to believe my argument to be a strawman one.


If the choice of whether or not to be on someone's property were sufficient for the argument for limited liability, then you could just as easily apply it to greater infringements against a visitor's rights as you could lesser infringements. But, somehow, you can't. For instance, you can't enslave someone just because they've agreed to that condition of being on your property, nor can you avoid liability for their safety with respect to, e.g., the condition of your property.

If you can't avoid liability for someone's safety with respect to the condition of your property, why should you be able to avoid liability for their safety with respect to their need to defend themselves should the circumstances arise?


You cannot shirk responsibility just because the contract you offer says you do. Private property owners would be able to get away with literally anything if that were true.


And that can just as easily be said of many public places as well. Sorry, but that alone isn't a sufficient argument.


OK, let's get down to brass tacks: what is the difference between private property and public property, when the public property in question isn't property that one is required to be on? The only difference is that of "ownership", right? In the first case, an individual or group owns the property, while in the second case, the public owns the property.

But in the first case, the group can choose as a collective to implement rules that specific individuals within the group don't agree with. And similarly, the public as a whole can choose as a collective to implement rules that specific individuals within the public don't agree with. And don't try to tell me that in the first case, you have the option of leaving the group, because that is also true of the second: you have the option of moving to a different city, a different state, or to a different country altogether. And if it happens that none of your alternatives offer anything different, well, tough -- the same can be true of private property owners: nothing prevents them from banding together and agreeing amongst themselves to implement the same requirement in all the contracts they offer.


Now, in terms of the law, the government (which now includes the states and municipalities as of McDonald) has a prohibition against infringing the right to keep and bear arms, but one must remember the reason the prohibition exists. That prohibition exists because the right in question is a right. One does not suddenly lose all their claims to any rights just because they're on someone else's private property! One doesn't, for instance, lose their claim to the right to life, even if the terms for being on that property state otherwise. Rights transcend governments and individuals, else they lose their meaning.

And so, again, we come back to the question of the relative importance of rights. Which right is more important: that of life, or that of control of private property? When the two are in conflict, as they are when a private property owner insists on forfeiture of the other (either directly, as in life, or indirectly, as in RKBA) on the part of anyone who wishes to enter that property, you must choose one. And it is completely inconsistent (i.e., hypocritical) to choose property rights over the right to life only when you happen to be the property owner.

That's okay -- it's your right to be hypocritical when you want to be, but it doesn't make you any less hypocritical.

Your whole argument is a strawman argument. Imprisoning someone would be actively violating another person's rights. Telling someone they can't come on your property unless they follow certain rules is not. That person has free will and full liberty not to ever step foot onto said property. Explain to me again who that's any kind of a violation of liberty.

I wouldn't be pointing fingers at people about hypocrisy. You seem to want to not only have your rights but make other's forfeit theirs so you can pursue your personal choices as you see fit.

[kcbrown]

Your whole argument is a strawman argument. Imprisoning someone would be actively violating another person's rights.


And stripping someone of their right to keep and bear arms isn't actively violating their rights?? What in the world have we been fighting for all this time?

The stipulation is that the imprisonment in question is specified in the contract!

Now tell me how it's still a strawman.




Telling someone they can't come on your property unless they follow certain rules is not. That person has free will and full liberty not to ever step foot onto said property. Explain to me again who that's any kind of a violation of liberty.
And that is true even if the term in question is that you will have whichever right we're talking about violated. The contract could even state that by stepping onto your property, they forfeit any claim to their right to life.

You can put anything you want into the contract. The person can even agree to it, whatever it happens to be. But your assumption is that if it exists in the contract and the other party agrees to it, then it must be valid.

That is an incorrect assumption.

The right to enter contracts with others, the right to control property, etc., are all rights, but you are assuming that they supersede all other rights! It is that very assumption that I take issue with, and I am attempting to show how that assumption is false by placing those rights in conflict with other rights that we hold most dear.



I wouldn't be pointing fingers at people about hypocrisy. You seem to want to not only have your rights but make other's forfeit theirs so you can pursue your personal choices as you see fit.No. I have no problem with a contract or term of entrance onto someone's property stating as a condition that one must give up certain rights. What I do have a problem with is the claim that such a condition can exist in the contract while simultaneously releasing the property owner from the responsibilities that naturally arise as a result of the condition in question.

If the property owner wishes to strip people who enter his property of their ability to defend themselves, fine. But the property owner then assumes responsibility for their safety. You cannot have both power/control and lack of responsibility. You must choose one or the other.

Someone has to be responsible for the safety of the people on your property. If those who are on your property are unable to assume that responsibility for themselves as a result of a condition you have placed on them, then it must be you. Take your pick.


ETA: And guess what? The same is true of the government. If the government is going to strip people of their right to bear arms in certain places, it then assumes full responsibility for their safety. This is why the only acceptable way for the government to implement a "gun-free zone" is by stripping all people of their weapons at all entrances and by placing armed guards within the zone to provide protection. The government at that point is fully responsible for the safety of those within, because those within are unable to take responsibility for their own safety. And it doesn't matter whether or not those within the zone are there by choice.

[CalNRA]

There's some people who are straight white people who think they're above the rules in certain situations too because of what they are. I do not, however, bring up their orientation.

you just did. Notice how I'm not freaking out over it.

You, on the other hand, brought up 'homosexuals' in the form of a negative fashion, and when you were called on your stereotyping, you engaged in straw man fallacy.

You are stereotyping....

Alright, you have read about the strawman thingie, good for you!!!

whatever helps you sleep better, Mr. Over-Reading-It.


PS: I have worked along side enough with homosexuals to knwo that some of them can most definitely feel they are above rules due to their orientation(which all sorts of peopel can feel for all sorts of reasons). It's a fact.

Work with them enough and you will see what I mean.

[N6ATF]

If the property is not safe, don't go. NO ONE IS MAKING YOU GO!

Everywhere is safe, until something happens. And no matter who owns any property, they should not be protecting criminals by making sure all their victims are disarmed, while the criminals have a blank check.

And with the reams of verified, well-publicized research on gun free zones being massacre zones, the property owners who enforce these massacre zones are complicit, and guilty of creating a self-perpetuating self-destructive society, where families and friends of the victims call for more laws and policies that do nothing but protect increasing amounts of future violent criminals.

[Mute]

And stripping someone of their right to keep and bear arms isn't actively violating their rights?? What in the world have we been fighting for all this time?

The stipulation is that the imprisonment in question is specified in the contract!

No it isn't, because, you still have the right not to step onto MY property.

Now tell me how it's still a strawman.

Answered above.

And that is true even if the term in question is that you will have whichever right we're talking about violated. The contract could even state that by stepping onto your property, they forfeit any claim to their right to life.

You can put anything you want into the contract. The person can even agree to it, whatever it happens to be. But your assumption is that if it exists in the contract and the other party agrees to it, then it must be valid.

That is an incorrect assumption.

The right to enter contracts with others, the right to control property, etc., are all rights, but you are assuming that they supersede all other rights! It is that very assumption that I take issue with, and I am attempting to show how that assumption is false by placing those rights in conflict with other rights that we hold most dear.

It is not incorrect. Unless you can show that there is a specific threat, it is unreasonable to assume that the person entering said property is endangered by merely entering unarmed. Besides, if the property is so damned dangerous, why do you still want to enter, armed or otherwise? We also hold the right to free speech "most dear." If we follow your logic, I also can't tell someone what they can't say on property either.

No. I have no problem with a contract or term of entrance onto someone's property stating as a condition that one must give up certain rights. What I do have a problem with is the claim that such a condition can exist in the contract while simultaneously releasing the property owner from the responsibilities that naturally arise as a result of the condition in question.

If the property owner wishes to strip people who enter his property of their ability to defend themselves, fine. But the property owner then assumes responsibility for their safety. You cannot have both power/control and lack of responsibility. You must choose one or the other.

I don't have a problem with this. But it's an assumption on your part that the unarmed person is endangered by merely being unarmed.

Someone has to be responsible for the safety of the people on your property. If those who are on your property are unable to assume that responsibility for themselves as a result of a condition you have placed on them, then it must be you. Take your pick.

Wrong again. If being unarmed is so dangerous, then the person should choose to not go on the property. If they still choose to go, than they should assume the responsibility.

ETA: And guess what? The same is true of the government. If the government is going to strip people of their right to bear arms in certain places, it then assumes full responsibility for their safety. This is why the only acceptable way for the government to implement a "gun-free zone" is by stripping all people of their weapons at all entrances and by placing armed guards within the zone to provide protection. The government at that point is fully responsible for the safety of those within, because those within are unable to take responsibility for their own safety. And it doesn't matter whether or not those within the zone are there by choice.

So now you answer this question, as you've been conveniently avoiding giving an answer. How is it not a violation of my rights if you get to make the rules and set the conditions for how you enter onto my property?

Let's get this clear once and for all. I believe we are all better off if these stupid policies and rules don't exist, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone dictate to a property owner what rules they can and cannot set for their own privately owned property.

[kcbrown]

Another thing to note...

The 2nd Amendment says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The way the text is written is significantly different from the one other amendment that describes the same kind of fundamental rights: the 1st Amendment. Most notably, it does not say that "Congress shall pass no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms" or any such thing. It just says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

Now why do you suppose that particular amendment was written without reference to Congress or, for that matter, to any governmental entity whatsoever? The text of the 1st Amendment makes it plain that when the founders wanted to make it clear that the amendment in question was binding specifically on the government, they would do so.


The Constitution also states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Period.

If you combine those two together, I think it could be argued that it means that nobody, be it an individual, an organization, or a government, may infringe on another's right to keep and bear arms.

[BigDogatPlay]

Tell me: what's the difference between a government making the decision to forbid carriage of firearms at a specific place (assuming the place in question is one you can choose to not go) versus a private entity deciding the same?

Government can not (or more appropriately these days is not supposed to but does) control private property.

The answer is that there is none. And yet, you would have a huge problem with the government forbidding such a thing, even if it were a place (like a public park) that you had the choice of avoiding, wouldn't you?

You're mixing, I think, private property with "sensitive places". While not a strawman, it is certainly apples and oranges in the law.

I agree that the right to control your own property is fundamental. But so is the right to speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to life. The question isn't whether or not a given right is fundamental, it's which right takes precedence when there is a collision.

And no right is an absolute, nor do they exist in a vacuum.

Without the right to life, the other rights become useless and meaningless. It is preferable to have the right to life and not the right to control property than it is to have the right to control property but not the right to life. It should be obvious that the right to life is more valuable than the right to control property, and I very much doubt that you'd answer differently if given the choice of which of those two rights to give up.

Life is more precious, to be sure, but I would submit that without the right to private property we never would have left feudal times.

The two can absolutely co-exist. I have every right to defend my life... and especially so on my property. You do not have a duty or responsibility to defend my life when on my property so if I wanted to be a jerk I could post a sign out at the gate "no firearms allowed" and you would be left with one of two choices if you want to come ring my bell... disarm or don't ring my bell. But I have an absolute right to do that as a property owner. You, as a visitor, can not assert control over my property. That is what it comes down to.

To assert, after the above, that your right to control your property supersedes someone else's right to life (and the other rights that derive from it, such as RKBA) is hypocritical at best, unless you are willing to give up your right to life in order to keep your right to control your property.

And again, you are framing your argument in absolutes. You can not assert your primacy on someone else's melon patch without their assent, tacitly at least.

[BigDogatPlay]

Another thing to note...

The 2nd Amendment says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The way the text is written is significantly different from the one other amendment that describes the same kind of fundamental rights: the 1st Amendment. Most notably, it does not say that "Congress shall pass no law infringing the right to keep and bear arms" or any such thing. It just says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

Rights can be infringed by the state, never by individuals. Your argument on that tack is completely fallacious I'm afraid.

[Mute]

Everywhere is safe, until something happens. And no matter who owns any property, they should not be protecting criminals by making sure all their victims are disarmed, while the criminals have a blank check.

Again, don't go on the property. Then, the only person endangered is the fool setting the policy.

And with the reams of verified, well-publicized research on gun free zones being massacre zones, the property owners who enforce these massacre zones are complicit, and guilty of creating a self-perpetuating self-destructive society, where families and friends of the victims call for more laws and policies that do nothing but protect increasing amounts of future violent criminals.

Are you saying that if I were to visit someone's home and they don't want guns in their home, the law should force them to allow me onto their property with my gun? If yes, then how am I not violating that homeowner's rights?

[kcbrown]

And stripping someone of their right to keep and bear arms isn't actively violating their rights?? What in the world have we been fighting for all this time?

The stipulation is that the imprisonment in question is specified in the contract!


No it isn't, because, you still have the right not to step onto MY property.


But I also have the right to not step onto a public park, or some other public place where I'm not required by law to be.

So again, what's the difference?



So now you answer this question, as you've been conveniently avoiding giving an answer. How is it not a violation of my rights if you get to make the rules and set the conditions for how you enter onto my property?
I don't get to make the rules for your property. And I'm not saying that I absolutely do. What I am saying is that contractual terms have corresponding responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other.



Let's get this clear once and for all. I believe we are all better off if these stupid policies and rules don't exist, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone dictate to a property owner what rules they can and cannot set for their own privately owned property.Well, that's fine. But you do not get to simultaneously strip someone of their ability to defend themselves while on your property and avoid responsibility for their safety. If by your rules you make it impossible for them to assume responsibility for their own safety, then you take it upon yourself to assume that responsibility. Power/control and responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.

[kcbrown]

Are you saying that if I were to visit someone's home and they don't want guns in their home, the law should force them to allow me onto their property with my gun? If yes, then how am I not violating that homeowner's rights?

No. What we're saying is that if you insist that they be on your property unarmed, then you assume full responsibility for their defense and full liability for their safety.

[kcbrown]

Rights can be infringed by the state, never by individuals. Your argument on that tack is completely fallacious I'm afraid.

I see. So if I kill you, then who has violated your right to life?

[glbtrottr]

I think the whole point of the story and the OP is being missed.

Public property, private property, the hypocrisy of the school administration....bleck.

If this story was about a heterosexual woman, it would be far less sensational. And it's not that sensational to begin with.

If this story were about a police lieutenant, it would be annoying at best to the general public.

The reason it is intended to touch an emotional string is that statistically, you simply don't see many in the LGBT community supporting gun rights, let alone those with such broad and common sense qualifications.

Do we have pink pistols? Surely we do.

Do we have log cabin republicans? Without a doubt.

Gay Calgunners? Yup. Some rather fabulous people at that.

Do some or most of us have people in the LGBT community we're close to, support, or are some of us LGBT? You bet.

The issue unfortunately is that the statistical majority of people in the LGBT community (as well as the statistical majority of minority voters) have turned *their* single issue voting (Gay Marriage, Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity for LGBT, etc.) into one that has elected such a liberal / socialist government that *our* rights continue to be hampered / taken away.

Before anyone comes down my street, those who know me know that I'm a fairly ardent supporter of the rights of both LGBT's and minorities - just not within the context of a socialist / hyperliberal administration.

Now - have you ever spent the time trying to convince single issue LGBT voters of the fallacy of their choices?

Bummer for the lieutenant. I don't think she has a leg to stand on. The school may be morally and ethically wrong, but legally from the sounds of it they are within their legal rights.

[Mute]

But I also have the right to not step onto a public park, or some other public place where I'm not required by law to be.

So again, what's the difference?

The difference is that public land is owned by all of us who are taxpayers. Not privately. You seem either incapable or unwilling to realize this very important difference.

I don't. And I'm not saying that I absolutely do. What I am saying is that contractual terms have corresponding responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other.

Well, that's fine. But you do not get to simultaneously strip someone of their ability to defend themselves while on your property and avoid responsibility for their safety. If by your rules you make it impossible for them to assume responsibility for their own safety, then you take it upon yourself to assume that responsibility. Power/control and responsibility go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.

Why? I didn't force them to come onto my property. As for responsibility, they can certainly sue after the fact and a court of law may or may not hold the property owner responsible. I also don't have a problem with that. But it sounds like you're suggesting that the law specifically place the property owner at fault right from the get go. If you're going to do that, you might as well have the law force the property owner to abandon any rules you don't like. I don't see the difference.

[GuyW]

I see. So if I kill you, then who has violated your right to life?

Or the "right to quiet enjoyment of your property"...or the right to vote (KKK / New Black Panthers), etc etc

.

[B.D.Dubloon]

Sounds good to me. She refused to follow the directions of her employer and was fired for it. That's what happens. Also, yeah, there doesn't seem to have been any threats stated or implied by the offending student. Construing "I'm leaving" as a threat is really reaching, no matter how many pantywaist liberal students do it.

Sounds like she wants attention. I hope that the powers that be in the pro2 world don't hang their hat on this one.

[kcbrown]

The two can absolutely co-exist. I have every right to defend my life... and especially so on my property.


But I'm not talking about your right to defend your own life while on your own property. I'm talking about someone else having the right to defend their life while on your property.


You do not have a duty or responsibility to defend my life when on my property so if I wanted to be a jerk I could post a sign out at the gate "no firearms allowed" and you would be left with one of two choices if you want to come ring my bell... disarm or don't ring my bell. But I have an absolute right to do that as a property owner. You, as a visitor, can not assert control over my property. That is what it comes down to.
If you assert that anyone who enters your property must disarm first, then you assume full responsibility for their defense and safety. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. It's that simple.



And again, you are framing your argument in absolutes. You can not assert your primacy on someone else's melon patch without their assent, tacitly at least.And yet, you are trying to frame your argument in absolutes as well. In particular, you're attempting to assert an absolute power to dictate all rules within your property. Well, if that were true, then:



You would be able to dictate that no law enforcement officer be able to enter your property even if they have a warrant.
You would be able to put in the terms of entering your property that you reserve the right to, on a whim, indefinitely imprison anyone who agrees to those terms while they're on your property, and suffer no consequences for doing so.
You would be able to put in the terms of entering your property that you assume no liability for anything at all that might happen to someone who is on your property, and build the guest room in as unsafe a manner as possible (because doing so is cheap), and suffer no consequences for doing so.

How many of you are of the opinion that each person takes full responsibility for his own actions? I'm sure you hold that opinion. I most certainly do. One of those actions is setting the conditions placed on others while they're on your property. Those conditions are your responsibility, and you are responsible for the consequences of others heeding them.

The right to control your own property does not give you a free pass to simultaneously violate the rights of others and to avoid responsibility for doing so.

[kcbrown]

But I also have the right to not step onto a public park, or some other public place where I'm not required by law to be.

So again, what's the difference?

The difference is that public land is owned by all of us who are taxpayers. Not privately. You seem either incapable or unwilling to realize this very important difference.


No, I fully realize the difference. And I already addressed it. The private entity corollary is when the private property is owned by a group of people. The group can decide as a group to implement rules that some individuals within the group disagree with. What options do such disagreeing individuals have in that situation that they do not have when it is the public that is the group in question (with respect to property that the individuals are not required by law to enter)?



Why? I didn't force them to come onto my property. As for responsibility, they can certainly sue after the fact and a court of law may or may not hold the property owner responsible. I also don't have a problem with that. But it sounds like you're suggesting that the law specifically place the property owner at fault right from the get go. If you're going to do that, you might as well have the law force the property owner to abandon any rules you don't like. I don't see the difference.The difference is like anything else: you as the property owner can still require that anyone entering your property give up their right to self-defense (by giving up their ability to mount an effective defense), but now you know what the costs of doing so are. That doesn't force you to abandon your rules, it merely makes you responsible for them.

You have a problem with that? Then how in the world can you possibly claim to believe that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their own actions, when you are attempting to argue against being responsible for the consequences of the rules you place on others while they're on your property?

[Mute]

No, I fully realize the difference. And I already addressed it. The private entity corollary is when the private property is owned by a group of people. The group can decide as a group to implement rules that some individuals within the group disagree with. What options do such disagreeing individuals have in that situation that they do not have when it is the public that is the group in question (with respect to property that the individuals are not required by law to enter)?


The difference is like anything else: you as the property owner can still require that anyone entering your property give up their right to self-defense (by giving up their ability to mount an effective defense), but now you know what the costs of doing so are. That doesn't force you to abandon your rules, it merely makes you responsible for them.

You have a problem with that? Then how in the world can you possibly claim to believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions?

Yes I do have a problem with that. If the property owner doesn't want you on their property and refuses to accept responsibility, you still have the choice not to go on. Why do you insist on going onto the property? By making the person liable for whatever happens, you're just forcing your will against the property owner in a round about fashion. Coercion through civil liability, is still coercion.

Just because the person can't be held liable for their actions doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions. The consequence may be a loss of a lot of good friends or not receiving the benefits of having that armed person's presence to guard against attacks. There is more than one way to face the "responsibilities" of your actions.

I will ask this again. If you know the rules and how dangerous it is to go onto that property with the rules that are in place, why do you insist on going? If you don't go, you won't be hurt and the property owner won't be held responsible for your safety. End of story.

[DREADNOUGHT78]

Sounds like her need for publicity got her the axe. Gay /Straight has no play they would have fired her either way for breaking the rules set by the School. Also no back story... Who knows what if she had made a few enemies at the school along the way? Maybe this was just a reason to remove her? Either way seems like everyones rights were infringed the teacher's right to defend herself as well as the student's right to express himself. I know its pure speculation on my part but it is a public forum and it is my right to speculate!

[mzimmers]

ETA: And guess what? The same is true of the government. If the government is going to strip people of their right to bear arms in certain places, it then assumes full responsibility for their safety.
Um...according to whom? Certainly not the judge(s) who ruled on Warren v. District of Columbia or any of several similar cases.

I also don't buy the argument that the 2A was somehow worded to restrict private citizens' ability to govern what goes on, on their property. As I understand it, the BOR was created expressly as a pre-emptive defense from federal government interference. The notion that the BOR authors wished to state that RKBA superceded other rights is pretty dubious; had they wanted to make this statement, the 2A would have been worded significantly differently.

Some here on CG seem to think that our enumerated liberties are absolute, and carry attendant rights to a forum in which to exercise said liberties. This is pretty stilted, IMO. Just as the 1A doesn't give you a forum for -- or even, an opportunity for -- free speech, the 2A doesn't mean that you can override the rights of a property owner to dictate your behavior while on his property. And, to be blunt about it, thinking that you can, and vocalizing such thinking in the wrong places, probably does gun owners and our causes a disservice in the long run.

[N6ATF]

Again, don't go on the property. Then, the only person endangered is the fool setting the policy....

And the fools who go in not noticing the signs that give the green light to criminals to kill everyone inside...


Are you saying that if I were to visit someone's home and they don't want guns in their home, the law should force them to allow me onto their property with my gun? If yes, then how am I not violating that homeowner's rights?

Fallacious.

Unless you have an open door policy to INVITE armed criminals and disarmed law-abiding citizens alike to go in and out of your "home" with impunity...

[CalNRA]

yep. I won't hesitate to argue for a homosexual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but none of the gays I know would ever vote for libertarian candidates because they are "gun nuts" so the opt for the Dems.

Seriously.



Do some or most of us have people in the LGBT community we're close to, support, or are some of us LGBT? You bet.

The issue unfortunately is that the statistical majority of people in the LGBT community (as well as the statistical majority of minority voters) have turned *their* single issue voting (Gay Marriage, Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity for LGBT, etc.) into one that has elected such a liberal / socialist government that *our* rights continue to be hampered / taken away.

Before anyone comes down my street, those who know me know that I'm a fairly ardent supporter of the rights of both LGBT's and minorities - just not within the context of a socialist / hyperliberal administration.

Now - have you ever spent the time trying to convince single issue LGBT voters of the fallacy of their choices?

[masameet]

Sciannameo is proof that most people just cannot keep their mouths zipped.

Honestly if you're going to do something that you know is prohibited, if not against the law, why tell anybody, esp. your boss, of your intent?

[GaryV]

Tell me: what's the difference between a government making the decision to forbid carriage of firearms at a specific place (assuming the place in question is one you can choose to not go) versus a private entity deciding the same?

The difference is that the government is specifically forbidden by law from infringing on certain rights (such as Keep and Bear Arms) by the Constitution, while private entities are not. While there are other laws that do limit some infringements by private parties, the RKBA is not one of the rights so protected.

By the way, there is no right to life (at least not as you're using the term, since what you're really talking about is a right to safety, not life, since these rules deprive you of a level of safety, not of life), just as there is no right to happiness, or employment, or housing, or wealth. Like all our rights, our right is a right to the opportunity to live. But it is up to us to take advantage of those opportunities and make the most of them, through our own actions and decisions, many of which will be decisions not to associate with certain private parties. There is no right to a result, only to a chance to achieve it.

[kcbrown]

Yes I do have a problem with that. If the property owner doesn't want you on their property and refuses to accept responsibility, you still have the choice not to go on. Why do you insist on going onto the property? By making the person liable for whatever happens, you're just forcing your will against the property owner in a round about fashion. Coercion through civil liability, is still coercion.

Just because the person can't be held liable for their actions doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions.


Is that so? What, exactly, is the difference? What does it mean to be "responsible" for your actions if you do not incur any consequences for them?



The consequence may be a loss of a lot of good friends or not receiving the benefits of having that armed person's presence to guard against attacks. There is more than one way to face the "responsibilities" of your actions.
Well, sure, but that only matters if it happens that the owner of the property actually cares.



I will ask this again. If you know the rules and how dangerous it is to go onto that property with the rules that are in place, why do you insist on going? If you don't go, you won't be hurt and the property owner won't be held responsible for your safety. End of story.There could be many reasons.

First, there is the assumption that I have some meaningful choice in the matter. That is quite often not the case.

For instance, there is nothing forbidding property owners from deciding amongst themselves to implement the same rule. All the grocery stores in the area, for instance, could unilaterally decide to forbid firearms from their premises. So now I have to give up my ability to defend myself in order to go buy food?


In fact, let's apply this to an extreme, but illustrative, situation. Assume the people who believe government should not own anything get exactly what they want and all property (including streets and such) is therefore privately owned. If all the property owners decide unilaterally that a condition of entering their property is that whoever is entering must disarm, isn't that exactly the same end result as the government forcibly disarming the people except when on their own property? So much for the "right" to keep and bear arms.


No, it is my belief that rights mean something more than merely that which people agree amongst themselves to heed (which is to say, it's useful to treat them as more than just that). Your approach would take all rights except property rights and turn them into privileges, because your approach places property rights above all else.


And finally, you should ask yourself this: from what do property rights derive?

[kcbrown]

The difference is that the government is specifically forbidden by law from infringing on certain rights (such as Keep and Bear Arms) by the Constitution, while private entities are not. While there are other laws that do limit some infringements by private parties, the RKBA is not one of the rights so protected.


That is an arbitrary distinction. And again, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it says explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. It does not say that said limitation is applicable only to the government. So on what basis, other than the historical record, do you claim that private entities are not (or, more important, should not be) forbidden to infringe on RKBA?



By the way, there is no right to life (at least not as you're using the term, since what you're really talking about is a right to safety, not life, since these rules deprive you of a level of safety, not of life), just as there is no right to happiness, or employment, or housing, or wealth. Like all our rights, our right is a right to the opportunity to live. But it is up to us to take advantage of those opportunities and make the most of them, through our own actions and decisions, many of which will be decisions not to associate with certain private parties. There is no right to a result, only to a chance to achieve it.While this is true, it ends up making no difference to the arguments put forth here, because what is at issue is the infringement of the right to life (or, to be more succinct, the right to the opportunity to live).

[GuyW]

By the way, there is no right to life....

Those crazy Founders - babbling on about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"!

.

[BigDogatPlay]

I see. So if I kill you, then who has violated your right to life?

You're stretching to try and make a point that is fallacious at the core.... violating the right to life is already a crime called murder.

[kcbrown]

You're stretching to try and make a point that is fallacious at the core.... violating the right to life is already a crime called murder.

Ah, so it is possible for individuals to violate the rights of other individuals. That doing so is a crime illustrates one of the roles of government: to protect the rights of the people.

[dustoff31]

That is an arbitrary distinction. And again, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it says explicitly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. It does not say that said limitation is applicable only to the government. So on what basis, other than the historical record, do you claim that private entities are not (or, more important, should not be) forbidden to infringe on RKBA?


Um. The Constitution?

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[N6ATF]

You're stretching to try and make a point that is fallacious at the core.... violating the right to life is already a crime called murder.

There's this fun common law called accomplice to murder as well.

[BigDogatPlay]

But I'm not talking about your right to defend your own life while on your own property. I'm talking about someone else having the right to defend their life while on your property.

And I maintain that you don't necessarily enjoy those full unfettered rights on the private property of another person if they so choose. Your choice becomes to stay or not go in.

If you assert that anyone who enters your property must disarm first, then you assume full responsibility for their defense and safety. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. It's that simple.

Yep, it sure is that simple. So what's the problem then.


And yet, you are trying to frame your argument in absolutes as well. In particular, you're attempting to assert an absolute power to dictate all rules within your property. Well, if that were true, then:



You would be able to dictate that no law enforcement officer be able to enter your property even if they have a warrant.
You would be able to put in the terms of entering your property that you reserve the right to, on a whim, indefinitely imprison anyone who agrees to those terms while they're on your property, and suffer no consequences for doing so.
You would be able to put in the terms of entering your property that you assume no liability for anything at all that might happen to someone who is on your property, and build the guest room in as unsafe a manner as possible (because doing so is cheap), and suffer no consequences for doing so.

How many of you are of the opinion that each person takes full responsibility for his own actions? I'm sure you hold that opinion. I most certainly do. One of those actions is setting the conditions placed on others while they're on your property. Those conditions are your responsibility, and you are responsible for the consequences of others heeding them.

You're making stuff up out of whole cloth and assuming them to be correct to try and buttress your argument.

** Warrants... fallacious. The power of the court to issue warrant upon proper evidence and for the government to search and seize evidence of a crime in the execution of that warrant is long recognized in the law as a compelling interest which overrides private property rights.

** Reserve the right to indefinitely detain... wrong again. That would be false imprisonment under California law, and kidnapping if the victim is moved against their will to another location.

** Building a guest room.... hmmmmm. Well, people build without permits all the time and not up to code. However, building permitting and inspection is again a compelling state interest well grounded in law.

** Assume no liability.... well, wrong. By inviting someone onto my property I am assuming some measure of liability. Disclaiming it would be a worthless exercise.

Private property law can be a powerful thing, but it does not convey the right to break other laws, which makes your entire line of thought pretty much a strawman.

The right to control your own property does not give you a free pass to simultaneously violate the rights of others and to avoid responsibility for doing so.

Sorry but you are shooting blanks on this. The right to control one's own property is supposed to be absolute. The government has intruded on that significantly over the past hundred years or so, but the concept remains the same.

Again... an individual person can not, under the laws of this country, violate the enumerated civil rights of another person. Only state, or the agents of the state can. If you can show otherwise in the law, I'd link to see the precedent. Criminal violations and civil torts are another matter entirely.

In short and in total, if you show up at my home strapped and I am not comfortable with that, even though I am by nature, I would be perfectly within my rights to refuse you entrance unless you disarmed. If you refused and remained on my property you could/ would be subject to arrest for trespass.

And such arrest would not violate your rights........

[kcbrown]

And I maintain that you don't necessarily enjoy those full unfettered rights on the private property of another person if they so choose. Your choice becomes to stay or not go in.



If you assert that anyone who enters your property must disarm first, then you assume full responsibility for their defense and safety. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. It's that simple.

Yep, it sure is that simple. So what's the problem then.


Ah, I wasn't aware that you agreed with me on that point.

If you agree with me on that point then we're done, and in agreement with each other. All my arguments have been under the assumption that there was disagreement with the responsibility side of the equation.

After all, there have been some here who have been claiming that they can disarm any visitors and disavow any responsibility for their defense and safety.

[kcbrown]

Um. The Constitution?Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Um....so property rights, which are unenumerated and not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, take precedence over RKBA, which is so important that the founders explicitly placed it into the Bill of Rights and therefore made it enumerated?

[dantodd]

Um....so property rights, which are unenumerated and not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, take precedence over RKBA, which is so important that the founders explicitly placed it into the Bill of Rights and therefore made it enumerated?

First of all read the Fifth Amendment. If you're going to claim something wasn't important enough to mention perhaps you should consider the source important enough to read.

Any idea where the term "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" came from?

[N6ATF]

Well, if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness equates to murder, tyranny and the pursuit of sadness, obviously something's not working.

[kcbrown]

First of all read the Fifth Amendment. If you're going to claim something wasn't important enough to mention perhaps you should consider the source important enough to read.

Any idea where the term "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" came from?

With respect to property, the Fifth Amendment explicitly refers to deprivation of property, but one has to make additional inferences in order to arrive at non-interference with control over property (one could argue that such interference is a deprivation of liberty, though). Unlike the Second Amendment, which explicitly says that a person's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (period), the Fifth Amendment doesn't say that a person's right to property shall not be infringed, only that one shall not be deprived of it without due process of law. The language in the Second Amendment is notably stronger, IMO.

That said, you're right: I missed that bit. Apologies. I had this suspicion I was missing something critical. :o

[Mute]

You continue to evade the question. Why are you going onto the propery if you feel the rules endanger you? And skip the red herring argument about having no choice (the b.s. all grocery store argument) because that's a hypothetical that simply doesn't exist.

If you choose to go onto someone else's property knowing that you do so at your own risk and then insist that it's the property owner's fault when you get hurt, I daresay you are even more irresponsible than the owner.

[dantodd]

only that one shall not be deprived of it without due process of law. The language in the Second Amendment is notably stronger, IMO.

And the clause in the 14th amendment by which the Second Amendment is held against the states is?

[kcbrown]

You continue to evade the question. Why are you going onto the propery if you feel the rules endanger you? And skip the red herring argument about having no choice (the b.s. all grocery store argument) because that's a hypothetical that simply doesn't exist.

If you choose to go onto someone else's property knowing that you do so at your own risk and then insist that it's the property owner's fault when you get hurt, I daresay you are even more irresponsible than the owner.

So...I presume by your argument here that you believe that a property owner should be able to absolve himself of all liability for anything that might happen to someone else who is on his property, including actions directly taken by the property owner, simply by placing such a disclaimer in the terms of entrance onto his property?

After all, the person who is on his property doesn't have to be there.

Is that what you believe?


Then why do you believe that somehow a government (i.e., a subset of the population) is any different with regard to property you can choose to avoid?

And don't bust out the "because it's in the Constitution" argument. I'm after a fundamental, axiomatic reason, one that justifies such a limitation being in the Constitution but not applying to property owners directly.

[kcbrown]

You continue to evade the question. Why are you going onto the propery if you feel the rules endanger you? And skip the red herring argument about having no choice (the b.s. all grocery store argument) because that's a hypothetical that simply doesn't exist.


To answer your question, I personally would not go onto someone's property if they had such a stipulation, because I do not have a death wish. The only exception to that may be my employer's property, because a job is required for survival in the modern world and jobs are very hard to find these days.

I also tend to fully read every contract I sign with a very skeptical eye.

As for the grocery store argument being BS, have you ever heard the term "boilerplate" as regards contracts? Do you know why the term exists? It's because there are some terms that exist in contracts that are so common that very nearly everyone uses them. Don't go claiming that private entities as a group won't ever insist on the same specific condition from everyone they contractually interact with, because it's not universally true.



If you choose to go onto someone else's property knowing that you do so at your own risk and then insist that it's the property owner's fault when you get hurt, I daresay you are even more irresponsible than the owner.To be honest, I do see where you're coming from, and believe that the person entering the property has to shoulder at least some of the responsibility. But most certainly not all of it. At the very least, the amount of responsibility shouldered by the property owner should equal that of the visitor. The property owner has a choice about whether or not to place such a limitation on his visitors, after all.

That said, this business about disclaiming liability has been used by property owners to attempt to get out of taking responsibility for everything at one time or another.

Once again, why do you believe the rights of property owners exceed all other rights??

[N6ATF]

You have to wonder about public open property ownership>everything people... do they run, or want to run a real-world version of The V-Club from Caprica (http://www.capricatimes.com/the-v-club), where anything goes and there are zero consequences?

[Mute]

I don't believe property rights exceed all right but rather no other rights, no matter how important, do not trump the rights of a property owner to decide what is or isn't allowed on their own premises.

I don't have a problem with assigning some liability to a property owner for his choices, but I do have a problem with automatically placing all responsibility and blame on property owners alone should an incident occur.

[mzimmers]

I don't have a problem with assigning some liability to a property owner for his choices, but I do have a problem with automatically placing all responsibility and blame on property owners alone should an incident occur.

Yep. Attractive nuisance laws, for example. If I don't build a sufficiently high wall around my swimming pool, and a neighbor's kid walks into it, and drowns, it's somehow my fault.

We have lots of accountability in our society today. Unfortunately, it's not personal accountability, but instead seems to seek out those with the deepest pockets.

[jdberger]

“Last month, Ms. Sciannameo notified the staff and me of issues she had with a particular student,” Pratti says. “Despite our continuing investigation and progress on resolving these issues, Ms. Sciannameo told us that she planned to conceal a firearm [on her person] when teaching class. We clearly communicated to her that carrying a weapon on campus was strictly prohibited. Ms. Sciannameo informed us that she did not plan to comply with this policy and was terminated.”


She was informed of the policy and stated she refused to abide by it. That will pretty much get you fired anywhere you work regardless of what the policy is.

I really appreciate the irony in your post and your sig line....

;)

[Mute]

I'll goes as far as arguing that if I as a homeowner places a condition on all visitors that they carry a gun while on my property, that I have the right to do so and you either agree or leave. I'm not forcing you to step foot onto my property.

[N6ATF]

I'll goes as far as arguing that if I as a homeowner places a condition on all visitors that they carry a gun while on my property, that I have the right to do so and you either agree or leave. I'm not forcing you to step foot onto my property.

So, you supply the guns/holsters/belts?

[NightOwl]

I'll goes as far as arguing that if I as a homeowner places a condition on all visitors that they carry a gun while on my property, that I have the right to do so and you either agree or leave. I'm not forcing you to step foot onto my property.

Start an airline, I'll buy stock.

[kcbrown]

I'll goes as far as arguing that if I as a homeowner places a condition on all visitors that they carry a gun while on my property, that I have the right to do so and you either agree or leave. I'm not forcing you to step foot onto my property.

LOL!

Well, I must say, I like this quite a lot better than if your condition were one of disarmament!

Most certainly, in that case, a visitor would be hard pressed to make a claim of having their right to self-defense infringed in the event a bad guy comes onto the property and attacks them...

At least, in this case, there's no conflict of rights that I can see. Visitors aren't actually being asked to give up anything (other than a choice) here.

[Mute]

So, you supply the guns/holsters/belts?

I most certainly would if that were my choice, though you get the Glocks, I'll keep the 1911s.

[N6ATF]

I most certainly would if that were my choice, though you get the Glocks, I'll keep the 1911s.

I'll bring my H&K then. LOL

[csbullies]

I have been following this and other boards regarding my firing from Everest University. It is really not clear if I was fired or not, but I am posting here to correct some misinformation.

I never carried my weapon on campus after I was notified that the policy about carrying on campus changed.

For the years prior to the incident with this student, the University was under the supervision of a different Dean, Program Chair and Administrative staff. When the new President came to the university, he fired many of these individuals for no apparent reason, and always told me I was doing a good job and was an asset to the team.

The issue of carrying a gun on campus never came up under the new President. I was actually encouraged as were the active law enforcement, to carry as we had some at risk behavior occuring in and about the school grounds.

Upon this incident, I was asked to produce all of my credentials. I produced my PI license, my agency license, my W license, my G license and my Hr218 to the new assistant dean.

The next day, I was told that the credentials were insufficient and that I could not carry.

I went home that weekend and though long and hard. I was in the process of working on a story for Gay Pride month with Watermark and when the reporter was asking about other things I mentioned this issue and the story took off in a different direction. I went back on Monday, without my weapon, after much deliberation and told the assistant Dean that I wanted to take the summer off to consider my options and that I was afraid, in light of the threats of the student, to leave late at night without a weapon.

My quote was, "I do not want to become the Harvey Milk of Everest." I left for the day and the next day, when I again arrived without my gun I was taken into the President's office. He asked me what was going on. I told him about the article being written and that the press wanted to cover the gun issue and that I needed to take the summer off to consider my legal recourse.

I was thinking about getting a restraining order against the student, and was so taken aback by the whole episode, I needed to take a break.

The student was overheard by other students outside saying he was going to kill me. After the incident and before I asked for the summer off, he came close to me in the hallway and flashed the faceplate of his phone (which was a confederate flag) in my face and I felt afraid.

I never disobeyed the corporate policy once I was apprised it was a policy. All the years I carried a weapon and was encouraged to do so went without note.

I am a person that follows the law. This issue was over a threat made against me, my fear level given the subsequent behavior of the student, my decision to take some time off to deliberate what I needed to do and I never brought the gun to school after the notification I was not allowed to do so.

I know the rules of the LEOSA and know that corporate policy, if you want to keep the job overrides the protection. I know that I could probably sue because LEOSA is federal and most probably supercedes corporate policy and believe there is even case law.

I do not want the conflict. I have put it all behind me but when I surf the web and read some of these postings I feel it my right to state the facts.

It seems from the posts that it appears that I suddenly began to carry a weapon when the student threatened me. That is not the case, I had always carried the weapon with the blessing of the former administration and once the incident happened and I was apprised that policy changed, I did not and opted to forego a pretty good salary to leave that position.

The President did not handle the situation well and he was subsequently terminated. I do not know if this incident had anything to do with his termination but it could have.

[dantodd]

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your experience and clear up any factual mistakes in this thread. I wish you the best in all your future endeavors.

[scarville]

I good friend of mine was on the Smith-2004 Yahoo list using the name Ewrecks. He told a story about stopping at a small restaurant while driving to Phoenix. When he saw the sign asking him to leave his guns in the car he locked up his full size pistol, dropped a j-frame in his pocket then went in and ordered a burger plate for lunch. He paid his bill, exchanged a few polite pleasantries with the cashier and left with no one the wiser. One of the other participants on the list went into full attack mode and said, among other things, he should be "gunned down like a rabid dog" for violating the property owner's rights.

The moral of the story is that you will find arseholes everywhere.

Unfortunately these mistakes of nature often get elevated to positions of authority where they become strutting martinets basking in delusional glory. I'm sorry that this woman had to run afoul of one of these cretins.

[PaperPuncher]

No sympathy here.

No special treatment for anyone. Welcome to the ranks of the lowly citizens who you would have been happy to deny the same right. Karma is a *****. Even if you didn't deny anyone you are guilty by association. Just like I am every time a gangster uses a standard capacity magazine when committing a crime.

Sucks doesn't it?

[robcoe]

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/naval-warfare/21904d1281204599-us-can-disarm-indian-navy-ship-necropost-kitten.jpg

[Mesa Tactical]

Does god kill kittens when the necropost is done by the subject of the thread?

[Gray Peterson]

No sympathy here.

No special treatment for anyone. Welcome to the ranks of the lowly citizens who you would have been happy to deny the same right. Karma is a *****. Even if you didn't deny anyone you are guilty by association. Just like I am every time a gangster uses a standard capacity magazine when committing a crime.

Sucks doesn't it?

I don't understand. Is this an attempt at humor or are you for real?

[IGOTDIRT4U]

I don't understand. Is this an attempt at humor or are you for real?

Same here.

[scarville]

By golly it is necro-thread.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2009/04/18/mutantchronicles03_1.jpg

I'll be more careful in the future.

[Gray Peterson]

Actually in this case, necro-posting and awakening the thread was a good thing.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Um no she didn't. HR218 buddy. Supersedes any "policy" at a campus such as that.

She may have a right to carry it onto the campus. But she has no "right" to be employed by them in violation of policy.

[kcbrown]

She may have a right to carry it onto the campus. But she has no "right" to be employed by them in violation of policy.

Then in practice she doesn't have the right to carry it onto the campus.

Otherwise, you could argue that it's perfectly fine for the state to give tax breaks and other choice-based incentives to businesses that forbid firearms on their property, or directly to people who do not own a firearm. After all, the actors in that case still have a choice, just like the person who has a "right" to carry a firearm in violation of their employer's policy.

After all, you can move to another state, just like she can find work at a different employer. Right?

[GaryV]

CSBullies, thank you for posting. It is always best to have first-hand information. And as a former LEO and university faculty member, I can empathize.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that you have any legal recourse. LEOSA is no protection, as it specifically exempts the policies of private parties where state law allows them to prohibit weapons:

This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property

Since Florida is one such state, LEOSA is automatically irrelevant.

Furthermore, Florida is also a "right to work" state, meaning that you can be fired for any cause, or no cause at all, as long as the cause does not violate federal anti-descrimination laws. If you could demonstrate that they fired you for being a woman, or for your sexual orientation, you'd have a case. But short of that you have no legal standing to challenge a termination of employment under state law. In Florida you can be fired because your boss doesn't like the shoes you wore today or the way you parted your hair or the color of your car, and there is no legal recourse.

[LockJaw]

For example, I sometimes teach at a Florida university. I'm a former LEO, but did not put in my full 20 and retire. I also have a Florida CWL. I co-teach with a retired LEO, who is therefore covered by LEOSA. The school allows him, and current LEOs who are students/teachers to carry on campus (though they don't advertise this fact), but not me or other non-retired former LEOs.

I believe you do qualify to carry under the LEOSA. My reading of it shows you only have to put in 10 years of service to qualify.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

Am I missing something here??

[OleCuss]

csbullies:

Thank you for your post and for clearing up a few things. You sound like an honest and law-abiding citizen. I hope that if you have time that you will become a regular on the forum.

[AaronHorrocks]

If it's a school, or a business, they are still operating within the United States, and being so, have to follow all the laws. They don't get to pick and choose the laws they like. They don't get to make policies that violate people's rights and create conflictions with laws. Infact most policies have within thier own language that they will be null and void if they conflict with any state or federal law.

[OleCuss]

I'm not sure I understood your post.

Yes, they have to obey the law. And when a law says that a government cannot interfere with our rights, it does not mean that a private party cannot restrict your rights on their property.

So I can tell someone that I will not allow them to carry a firearm onto my property and (generally speaking) they have to comply with my request.

What's more, you can contractually give up some of your rights. I can guarantee you that when I was in the military I had given up some of my rights. And your employer can have some restrictions on your freedoms as a contractual matter.

[Maestro Pistolero]

I, too appreciate the professor providing us with first-hand information. Absent evidence to the contrary, I respectfully suggest that we take her at her word as to the details of the events.

[Sgt Raven]

Actually, there is one. Public property is owned...by the public. Private property is not.

Except 'Private Property' that is generally OPEN to the 'Public' is different to 'Private Property' that is CLOSED to the 'Public'. both by law and general practices. Also Private Parties that accept Public Funding have different rules governing them than ones who don't.

[Sgt Raven]

So now you answer this question, as you've been conveniently avoiding giving an answer. How is it not a violation of my rights if you get to make the rules and set the conditions for how you enter onto my property?

Let's get this clear once and for all. I believe we are all better off if these stupid policies and rules don't exist, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow someone dictate to a property owner what rules they can and cannot set for their own privately owned property.

Try not renting to someone because of Race, Creed or Color. Tell me how you can't set those rules for your Private Property.

[Sgt Raven]

I don't believe property rights exceed all right but rather no other rights, no matter how important, do not trump the rights of a property owner to decide what is or isn't allowed on their own premises.

I don't have a problem with assigning some liability to a property owner for his choices, but I do have a problem with automatically placing all responsibility and blame on property owners alone should an incident occur.

Again, refuse to rent to a person of Color, see how far you get with your private property argument. :rolleyes:

[AaronHorrocks]

I'm not sure I understood your post.

Yes, they have to obey the law. And when a law says that a government cannot interfere with our rights, it does not mean that a private party cannot restrict your rights on their property.

So I can tell someone that I will not allow them to carry a firearm onto my property and (generally speaking) they have to comply with my request.

What's more, you can contractually give up some of your rights. I can guarantee you that when I was in the military I had given up some of my rights. And your employer can have some restrictions on your freedoms as a contractual matter.

You can not give up your rights, and you can not restrict freedom. The vary concept is bogus and makes our founding fathers spin in thier grave. They are called "inalienable rights" for a reason.

I've heard these sorts of points before, and I have to ask...

Since WHEN is it that a person's private property rights trump all other rights, constitutional or not? I've never seen that case in superior court.

You know it's popular, especially on gun forums to viciously and fascistly censor language, opinions, delete posts, and ban members. The admins claim private property rights, because it's thier server, right? Ok, that's a legit point... But what happens when everyone does that? Every forum, every company, every webserver. Suddenly freedom of speech ceases to exist on the internet because everyone and thier brother is claiming private property rights.

Also, if your private property rights trump all other written and unwritten rights, aren't you aware of 'eminant domain' and how the government can take that away in a heartbeat? Especially in modern times with widespread abuse? So by that, you're putting my constitutional rights below yours, which can be confiscated by the government. So your private property rights at your house that were so important and even trumped my 1st and 2nd amendment rights if and when I visit you, are long gone when the government buys your house out from under you to "re-align" the nearby freeway or highway.

[cruising7388]

No sympathy. None at all. She knowingly and willingly broke the law/rules.

A school policy, perhaps, but what law is it she broke? She's got more ccw permits than you have molars.

[OleCuss]

You can not give up your rights, and you can not restrict freedom. The vary concept is bogus and makes our founding fathers spin in thier grave. They are called "inalienable rights" for a reason.

I've heard these sorts of points before, and I have to ask...

Since WHEN is it that a person's private property rights trump all other rights, constitutional or not? I've never seen that case in superior court.

You know it's popular, especially on gun forums to viciously and fascistly censor language, opinions, delete posts, and ban members. The admins claim private property rights, because it's thier server, right? Ok, that's a legit point... But what happens when everyone does that? Every forum, every company, every webserver. Suddenly freedom of speech ceases to exist on the internet because everyone and thier brother is claiming private property rights.

Also, if your private property rights trump all other written and unwritten rights, aren't you aware of 'eminant domain' and how the government can take that away in a heartbeat? Especially in modern times with widespread abuse? So by that, you're putting my constitutional rights below yours, which can be confiscated by the government. So your private property rights at your house that were so important and even trumped my 1st and 2nd amendment rights if and when I visit you, are long gone when the government buys your house out from under you to "re-align" the nearby freeway or highway.

So I have a right to enter your home without your permission? Particularly if my burglar friend is already inside your home? I do have a right of assembly after all. . .

A constitution and laws which are intended to restrict the government's ability to interfere in your affairs are not intended to restrict your ability to manage your own life and properties.

I'd also note that as currently applied I have great contempt for "eminent domain" - or at least for those who regularly exercise it. I also believe that it's properly restricted exercise has been thoroughly gutted by SCOTUS in a way which undermines the First Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, etc. The extent of the perfidy may take decades to become evident. . .

But the fact of the matter is that contracts can definitely restrict your inalienable rights. They may still be inalienable and they may technically be your right - but if you exercise those rights in a manner incompatible with the contract you are in breech of contract and appropriate remedies can be exercised.

And on your own property you can certainly restrict others' rights. They get free exercise of those rights when they leave your property.

I'd also point out that if government can barge into your property and tell you that you have to allow others to exercise their rights on your property, that is a form of "taking" and tends to further undermine the personal property rights (and thus most other individual rights).

No, people can't decide that they want to burn a cross on my front lawn as an exercise in free speech - that is something that I find despicable and won't tolerate (neither will the local ordinances regarding fires). I'd bet you wouldn't tolerate that either.

You can't decide that you want freedom of religion on my property and come and hold Druid ceremonies in my backyard without my permission.

You also can't carry firearms on my property if I tell you not to do so (although in my case I'd likely invite you to do so). Property rights are fundamental to a degree that I think few truly understand. Too bad our government is so eager to undermine that right and that SCOTUS has turned our governments effectively into our landlords and our property taxes nearly the equivalent of rent to our landlord (the government).

FWIW

[N6ATF]

If you don't want law-abiders to be alive and well on your property, then don't pretend some pathetic written statement with nothing to back it up is going to protect them from the criminals you give the green light by making that statement.

[gunsmith]

CSBullies, thank you for the update and for a first hand account, good luck with your future endeavors & I hope you stick around calguns

[OleCuss]

If you don't want law-abiders to be alive and well on your property, then don't pretend some pathetic written statement with nothing to back it up is going to protect them from the criminals you give the green light by making that statement.

I'm sorry, I really didn't understand that one. If you were referring to my post, would you please expand/expound a little on how I am wrong?

And, again, if it was my post you were referring to could you explain to me how my restrictions on free speech and such were not unconstitutionally abridged when I was in the military? I should be able to cuss up a storm at work (I'm in a professional field where doing that can literally get you fired).

It kinda goes on. . .

[N6ATF]

I wasn't.

[OleCuss]

I wasn't.

Since I have come to have a lot of respect for your opinions, that is an honest-to-goodness relief!

[GaryV]

As for private property rights and the law, there's no conflict in this case. The school policy does not violate LEOSA, because LEOSA itself includes a provision that allows private property owners to prohibit those covered by the law from carrying on their property.

Also, while private property open to the public gets less property rights protection in California, this is generally not the case in the rest of the US, including Florida. In Florida, where this occurred, private property is private property, period. There's no distinction between an open retail parking lot and a fenced-in back yard of a family home. So a private school in Florida has the legal right to prohibit anyone and everyone from carrying on their campus, including retired LEOs.

[GaryV]

Another "form over substance" story. I hope she wins her case. As gun rights and 2nd Amendment supporters. . .it should be our focus to get rid of these no guns allowed, free for the taking victim zones.

Maybe a law that holds employers absolutely liable for any harm that comes to their employees when there is a no gun policy. . .which should also apply to students and/or business customers. I bet then some policies would change in a heart beat!

There's no case to win. LEOSA is no protection, and Florida, being a right-to-work state, gives her no recourse to being fired unless she can prove she was fired for being a member of a federally protected class. If your boss just decides he wants to fire somebody today, and you're the first person he sees, then you're SOL. Better start posting your resume. In fact, even if LEOSA said that private property owners could not prohibit retired LEOs from carrying on their property, she still couldn't win in court over being fired, because of Florida's right-to-work status. She could force them to allow her to carry, but they could still refuse to employ her.

[csbullies]

I thank those of you who said you appreciated my sharing the facts of my departure from Everest University. I am a law abiding citizen and no, I would not ever have brought a gun on campus once I was told that it was against policy.

The whole episode, now almost a year in the past was a very bad experience for me. I loved teaching. I taught with that university for four years and had become very close with many of my students, and endeavored to see them succeed. I care about them and was always grateful that I had the opportunity to share my years of experience with them in the Criminal Justice Program.

I figured, if they were going to school, being taught by someone who had been there and done that was a great thing. For all the years I was there I was well respected and the former administration told me on more than one occasion that they were grateful that I carried a gun.

There were a number of times when they called upon me to assist in those moments between the police arriving and calling for the police when safety was an issue.

The episode is behind me now. I do not even think about suing as I do know this is a right to work state. I know that the LEOSA supercedes many rules but I also know there is not enough case law to make a definitive call.

The sad part about the whole thing is that I had to leave the students and the school I loved for one guy who was out of control. I kept avoiding him, and after the first time when I had to speak with him early on about attire, about 18 months earlier, I never had much to do with him after that. He vowed never to take any of my classes and I respected that.

The night that this occurred I was doing a favor, yes no good deed goes unpunished, for another instructor who took the night off. When I entered as the person teaching for the night, the guy stormed out and remained outside, angry and yelling that he wanted to kill me. Of course, I did not hear this, other students came in to ask what happened and told me what he was saying.

I still teach at other universities, and due to the press over this one each time I begin, I am apprised of the rules in terms of carrying on each particular campus. I always abide by the rules.

Due to the economy going south, despite my retirement status and ownership of a business, I have gone into security to make some extra money to make up for the loss of teaching. I work primarily unarmed posts, and I never carry on these posts.

I live by doing the right thing and following the rules.

This encounter was like living someone else's life.