Let's Sue the Unarmed Victims Zones
Friday, May 11, 2007
Captain's Quarters tells the story of Tony Scheffler, a student at Hamline University that dared question the ban of concealed weapons on his campus after receiving an email from the school offering extra counseling and assistance for students coping with the VA Tech murders. The schools reaction?
I can see that the Hamline campus is a model of diversity and free expression of opinion, unless of course, you're in favor of individual responsibility.
Odd that Hamline only put the cop in a building until after the email protesting the unarmed victim zone. I think it would be an excellent use of the legal system if the victims of attacks in an unarmed victim zone would sue those entities for failing to protect them. The theory would be that since they barred the individual from legally protecting themselves, they then took on the liability of providing protection.
This argument has worked before, it just hasn't been tested in the courts to my knowledge. When North Carolina first passed concealed carry laws, the anti-gun idiots got a paragraph into the law that said that businesses may put up signs denying concealed weapons on their premises. Lowe's, the big hardware store, immediately put up those signs. The local NRA chapter went in to talk to them about it and suggested that they might in fact be opening themselves to liability from any unarmed victims that are harmed on their property. The signs came down on all stores in the state. In fact, there aren't that many of them around these days at any businesses.
Personally, I avoid unarmed victim zones as much as possible. Even if I'm not carrying, I feel safer knowing that the threat of there being another law abiding someone armed present helps to dissuade goblins from picking that particular place. The next time I make a large purchase and an unarmed victim zone offers that product, I'm going to let them know I bought from their competitor that didn't endanger my life just to enter their business.
I don't know enough about the law to tell whether Tony Scheffler has a case against Hamline for breach of contract, but it sure seems like it. At the very least, Hamline needs some bad PR. Would you really want to attend a school where the administration is willing to kick you out for your political views?
It's time to get rid of the unarmed victims zones. With all of the publicity of Va Tech, it's only a matter of time before the Islamofacists figure out that a college campus, school, or government building is a far easier and target rich environment than attacking a military base.
David Stern, reaching back to the grand tradition of the Soviet Union, decided that dissent had to involve some sort of psychological disturbance and bounced Scheffler out of Hamline. Rather than wait to the end of the semester and then invite Scheffler to continue his education elsewhere, though, Hamline treated him like a psychotic and barred him immediately from campus until he got psychological helpThank you, Comrade Stern. Glad to see you're looking out for your students.
Scheffler obeyed the campus ban and didn't go to class, but his classmate, Kenny Bucholz, told him a police officer was stationed outside the classroom. "He had a gun and everything," Bucholz says. Dean Julian Schuster appeared at the beginning of class to explain the presence of the cop, citing discipline problems with a student. Although Schuster never mentioned Scheffler by name, it didn't take a scholar to see whose desk was empty.
I can see that the Hamline campus is a model of diversity and free expression of opinion, unless of course, you're in favor of individual responsibility.
Odd that Hamline only put the cop in a building until after the email protesting the unarmed victim zone. I think it would be an excellent use of the legal system if the victims of attacks in an unarmed victim zone would sue those entities for failing to protect them. The theory would be that since they barred the individual from legally protecting themselves, they then took on the liability of providing protection.
This argument has worked before, it just hasn't been tested in the courts to my knowledge. When North Carolina first passed concealed carry laws, the anti-gun idiots got a paragraph into the law that said that businesses may put up signs denying concealed weapons on their premises. Lowe's, the big hardware store, immediately put up those signs. The local NRA chapter went in to talk to them about it and suggested that they might in fact be opening themselves to liability from any unarmed victims that are harmed on their property. The signs came down on all stores in the state. In fact, there aren't that many of them around these days at any businesses.
Personally, I avoid unarmed victim zones as much as possible. Even if I'm not carrying, I feel safer knowing that the threat of there being another law abiding someone armed present helps to dissuade goblins from picking that particular place. The next time I make a large purchase and an unarmed victim zone offers that product, I'm going to let them know I bought from their competitor that didn't endanger my life just to enter their business.
I don't know enough about the law to tell whether Tony Scheffler has a case against Hamline for breach of contract, but it sure seems like it. At the very least, Hamline needs some bad PR. Would you really want to attend a school where the administration is willing to kick you out for your political views?
It's time to get rid of the unarmed victims zones. With all of the publicity of Va Tech, it's only a matter of time before the Islamofacists figure out that a college campus, school, or government building is a far easier and target rich environment than attacking a military base.
1 Comments:
At 7:30 AM, MorningGlory said…
Excellent post, BoonDoggie. I didn't know why Lowe's and other places had removed the "no concealed weapons" signs, but I had noticed that they were disappearing.
Post a Comment
<< Home