View Full Version : Students face expulsion after using gun to stop felon's break-in
Boba Fett v2
11-09-13, 22:02
http://t.now.msn.com/erik-fagan-and-dan-mcintosh-gonzaga-university-students-face-expulsion-for-stopping-break-in-with-gun
Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh didn't know the man trying to force his way into their off-campus apartment had an extensive criminal history, only that he was belligerent and threatening. So McIntosh ran off John Taylor, using the Glock 10mm pistol for which McIntosh has a legal carry permit. But now the two students are at risk of being expelled from Gonzaga University for violating student policy on possessing firearms in their school-owned residence. They're also a little raw about a 2 a.m. raid by campus security to confiscate the pistol and Fagan's hunting shotgun, and have since reported them as stolen to the Spokane police.
Gonzaga vice president Earl Martin said the school is abiding by the letter of its code, but Fagan protested that, "By having policies such as this, they are saying that we are either choosing between protecting ourselves or potentially facing expulsion.”
That is a unique situation, I'd like to hear the outcome and if they get their guns back. I guess they should have used baseball bats to beat John Taylor senseless for entering uninvited...;)
Belmont31R
11-10-13, 00:18
Don't live in campus housing?
BrigandTwoFour
11-10-13, 00:22
If this was indeed campus housing, I'm surprised the surrounding area was so sketchy. When I was in college at Miami, the school kept campus housing close to home so it could be routinely patrolled. I lived far enough off campus my last two years that having a firearm in the house was a good idea.
Hell, when we got hit by Katrina (and then Wilma) in 2005, we didn't have power for two weeks and the police were very occupied with other happenings. Our neighbors in the duplex had a break in one night that resulted in someone being stabbed eight times with an ice pick. I slept with a Mossberg 590A1 under the bed for the rest of the time I lived there.
If this was indeed campus housing, I'm surprised the surrounding area was so sketchy.
The area around Gonzaga (and near to downtown Spokane in general) isn't bad, but it's not exactly... good... either. It's one reason I was happy to have left Spokane to return to Idaho.
It was an apartment owned by the university but off campus.
Logan Neighborhood is not a good place.
Eurodriver
11-10-13, 07:41
I like that they reported the weapons stolen to the PD. Shows exactly how they feel about this.
The University is obviously a bunch of douchebags and so is Campus PD.
ForTehNguyen
11-10-13, 09:00
i guess in the eyes of the university it would've been better if they were dead and still enrolled
The "no firearms" policy was clearly stated by the University. I think it's dumb, but it was understood by the two students. They elected to ignore the policy. I'm glad no one was hurt, but the outcome, one the firearms possession was discovered, was predictable and known. They gambled, broke the rules, and lost.
I'd rather be judged by twelve then carried by six.
Would something along the lines of the above apply to the students whose lives were quite possibly saved by having a gun?
Might it be better to be expelled than dead?
Yeah, you can abide by rules that place your life in jeopardy, but you might want to rethink it...
Eurodriver
11-10-13, 09:30
The "no firearms" policy was clearly stated by the University. I think it's dumb, but it was understood by the two students. They elected to ignore the policy. I'm glad no one was hurt, but the outcome, one the firearms possession was discovered, was predictable and known. They gambled, broke the rules, and lost.
If this were a public university, I would feel very different about this situation. But it's a private school. They own the house. They enroll the students. They make the rules.
If the students didn't want to abide by their rules they should have went to a different university. I can't find any case law that would support them in this case. Guy Montag Doe vs. SFHA was settled out of court but it only applied to a public housing unit, not a private university. This is a unique situation where the landlord is also the "employer".
I'd start with the lease. I'm certain it says no weapons allowed. Is this legal given the 2nd Amendment?
The "no firearms" policy was clearly stated by the University. I think it's dumb, but it was understood by the two students. They elected to ignore the policy. I'm glad no one was hurt, but the outcome, one the firearms possession was discovered, was predictable and known. They gambled, broke the rules, and lost.Which gamble is worth taking, possible expulsion or certain death? Anti gun policies and laws are among the few regulations which carry a harsher penalty for compliance than otherwise.
Gonzaga saying that they could have simply lived somewhere else or chosen another place to go to school is refuted by Katzenbach v. McClung.
I'd start with the lease. I'm certain it says no weapons allowed. Is this legal given the 2nd Amendment?
Perfectly legal. Don't agree with it, but they're allowed to impose restrictions on their property.
Gonzaga saying that they could have simply lived somewhere else or chosen another place to go to school is refuted by Katzenbach v. McClung.
I would like clarification on how Katzenback v. McClunch applies.
http://t.now.msn.com/erik-fagan-and-dan-mcintosh-gonzaga-university-students-face-expulsion-for-stopping-break-in-with-gun
Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh didn't know the man trying to force his way into their off-campus apartment had an extensive criminal history, only that he was belligerent and threatening. So McIntosh ran off John Taylor, using the Glock 10mm pistol for which McIntosh has a legal carry permit. But now the two students are at risk of being expelled from Gonzaga University for violating student policy on possessing firearms in their school-owned residence. They're also a little raw about a 2 a.m. raid by campus security to confiscate the pistol and Fagan's hunting shotgun, and have since reported them as stolen to the Spokane police.
Gonzaga vice president Earl Martin said the school is abiding by the letter of its code, but Fagan protested that, "By having policies such as this, they are saying that we are either choosing between protecting ourselves or potentially facing expulsion.”
I do not agree in any way with the schools policy, but it's not hard to understand their seeming need to enforce it, and once has to decide for themselves what risks are worth taking. He decided that his personal protection trumps school policy, but it's private property and as such, school gets to set their policy, as ill considered as it is.
But, such an event forces that school and others to re examine policies that make no damn sense.
I would like clarification on how Katzenback v. McClunch applies.An entity cannot violate the civil rights of a person, even one voluntarily doing business with them, simply because the violated party are otherwise free to choose other alternatives.
Which gamble is worth taking, possible expulsion or certain death? Anti gun policies and laws are among the few regulations which carry a harsher penalty for compliance than otherwise.
Gonzaga saying that they could have simply lived somewhere else or chosen another place to go to school is refuted by Katzenbach v. McClung.
I'm not judging whether it was smart or appropriate for them to be armed in their home. But they chose to take a chance and be armed in violation of what they knew to be the rules. Maybe that decision saved their lives, but they shouldn't be surprised that their transgressions now have consequences. They need to just man up and take responsibility.
Perfectly legal. Don't agree with it, but they're allowed to impose restrictions on their property.
In this state (Minnesota), landlords can't impose firearms restrictions on their tenants.
In the case of these two, however, it may be a school policy and they may have been required to sign a contract agreeing to their rules.
Eurodriver
11-10-13, 18:35
In this state (Minnesota), landlords can't impose firearms restrictions on their tenants.
In the case of these two, however, it may be a school policy and they may have been required to sign a contract agreeing to their rules.
It is a unique case, but couldn't this be classified as a retaliatory eviction?
An entity cannot violate the civil rights of a person, even one voluntarily doing business with them, simply because the violated party are otherwise free to choose other alternatives.
In Katzenbach v McClung, the issue was whether or not the Civil Rights Act applied to the diner, since it was part of the interstate commerce, albeit a small one. It also relied on "civil rights" as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which did not cover the 2nd Amendment. I'm not a lawyer, but one of the keys to the case would be that a Black person could not temporarily stop being Black in order to patronize the facility. In the students' case, they can opt to not exercise their 2nd Amendment right to use the facility, i.e. rent. This is also how many private businesses can prohibit carry on their premises.
They'd have a better chance arguing that the University has an obligation to protect them (by better patrols, access control, etc.) if they're not going to allow a reasonable means of self protection on campus. Even this would be a huge uphill fight, though.
Perfectly legal. Don't agree with it, but they're allowed to impose restrictions on their property.
I would like clarification on how Katzenback v. McClunch applies.
Idk, apartments and condos cannot regulate gun ownage.
Housing is housing, what makes colleges different? It was off campus correct? You can't sight rights away and the Keller case clarified gun ownership a right. No lawyer, here, just thoughts for discussion.
Idk, apartments and condos cannot regulate gun ownage.
Housing is housing, what makes colleges different? It was off campus correct?
Student housing may still be considered campus, if its owned and operated by the University. Student housing is also different than leasing a regular apartment, as your residency there is still contingent on your status as a student.
Think of it as a larger dorm room (which you'd also pay housing fees for) on a detached part of the campus.
In Katzenbach v McClung, the issue was whether or not the Civil Rights Act applied to the diner, since it was part of the interstate commerce, albeit a small one. It also relied on "civil rights" as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which did not cover the 2nd Amendment. I'm not a lawyer, but one of the keys to the case would be that a Black person could not temporarily stop being Black in order to patronize the facility. In the students' case, they can opt to not exercise their 2nd Amendment right to use the facility, i.e. rent. This is also how many private businesses can prohibit carry on their premises. The right to life and well being versus threats of bodily harm is just as non-temporary as skin color. Incremental in the Katzenbach case was the prior ruling of Brown v. Board of Education is that black people had a right to be functional in modern society with economic opportunity hence their right to access to education. Access to education is right to equal standard of living. It is self evident in this case that capability of self defense did manifest itself as necessary for continued function--in this case life itself regardless of standard of well being--so making them choose between one in the other would be to deny both. While that hasn't yet been officially put on SCOTUS letterhead, 85-95% of that is already there pretty much in stone, they just need to dot the i's and cross the t's on it.
Though not a lawyer myself I do spend a fair bit of time reading what really good ones write, a handful of court cases as time allows, and writings of some of the better law professors, and when I can I attend Federalist Society lectures. Volokh Conspiracy darn near qualifies for law school credit just by itself.
They'd have a better chance arguing that the University has an obligation to protect them (by better patrols, access control, etc.) if they're not going to allow a reasonable means of self protection on campus. Even this would be a huge uphill fight, though.First there must be established necessity of preservation of well being--remembering the two Supreme Court decision stating police have no duty to protect--and the shorter route to that is armed self defense, which points to a win for the first point sooner rather than the second.
You make some good points.
I agree that the right to life is "just as non-temporary as skin color". The argument is that one has the option to exercise that right by keeping a firearm, where one can't change skin color or not display it (or other factors that one may deem unchangeable, like ethnicity).
I suspect that Gonzaga is hanging its hat on the argument that the apartments are an extension of the "campus", thus more like a dorm.
The confiscation of the tenants' guns is a serious issue as well.
Their guns were taken illegally. That's clear. As far as being evicted and school suspension, that's up to the university as they broke the rules.
Student housing may still be considered campus, if its owned and operated by the University. Student housing is also different than leasing a regular apartment, as your residency there is still contingent on your status as a student.
Think of it as a larger dorm room (which you'd also pay housing fees for) on a detached part of the campus.
I understand on-campus housing, but this said off-campus, which is what makes it possibly an illegal move to me... I'm curious to see how this plays out.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.