Purdue Campus Carry

[Mgderf]

And if Purdue is, in fact, state property then I would think they should have to allow carry.

This is my point exactly.
I'm just not willing to be the test case.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, as a matter of fact I AM sure about this.
Kirk made a better argument, but to the same end.
Purdue University is NOT a private institute as long as they are on the public dole.

In principle, I agree that taking public tax monies makes you by definition "not private", however if they are run by a privately owned/run board, I'm not sure the legal definition matches our shared opinion. That's what I was asking. Am I mistaken that the BoD of Purdue University is private?

Edit: It's similar to the State Fairgrounds, during state fair. The fairgrounds are state-owned, and the board that runs that location has authority (and uses it) to restrict the lawful carry of firearms there. I'm not sure if that board is private, however, so the analogy is not perfect.

Thanks for explaining BoR. But that does not sound like this law^^^ which is is what I have the issue with and what most of my arguements are geared toward. Maybe I am just misunderstanding What ModernGunner is saying.

And if Purdue is, in fact, state property then I would think they should have to allow carry.

I don't put a whole lot of credence to what ModernGunner says. I don't mean that as an insult, only that he posts this same, statist harangue any time any private business has the audacity to believe they have a right to decide what is and is not welcome in their establishment, and refuses to respond when another view is suggested.

Mind you, I do (obviously!) think people should be able to carry where they choose to do so, and the market should be the deciding factor: "Am I going to p*** off more of my customers by disallowing firearms than I will by allowing them?" or "Is it more to my business's advantage to stay the hell out of what my customers carry in or about their persons?"

As for public colleges and universities, I don't believe they should be allowed to restrict carry, either by law, policy, or intimidation: If a student is to be expelled, the mere fact of his carrying a firearm should not be a factor. If a faculty or staff member is to be terminated, the fact that s/he carries a gun should be irrelevant, though what s/he does with it is fair game, insofar as what is criminal activity anywhere else. (Faculty have other "weapons" they can and at times do use to threaten students, such as a student with a well-written, but pro-gun rights paper being awarded an "F" because the instructor did not agree with the premise, as opposed to grading the paper based on its merits and disagreeing with the conclusion on a personal level.)

I do hope that John Galt's information is correct. Students and others who carry safely and lawfully everywhere else give no reason to believe they would not do the same on campus.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

If taking funds from the state is a deciding factor, then would not people getting social security or Affordable Health Care subsidies then also lose their property rights?

 

[Bluejeeper]

In principle, I agree that taking public tax monies makes you by definition "not private", however if they are run by a privately owned/run board, I'm not sure the legal definition matches our shared opinion. That's what I was asking. Am I mistaken that the BoD of Purdue University is private?

Edit: It's similar to the State Fairgrounds, during state fair. The fairgrounds are state-owned, and the board that runs that location has authority (and uses it) to restrict the lawful carry of firearms there. I'm not sure if that board is private, however, so the analogy is not perfect.



I don't put a whole lot of credence to what ModernGunner says. I don't mean that as an insult, only that he posts this same, statist harangue any time any private business has the audacity to believe they have a right to decide what is and is not welcome in their establishment, and refuses to respond when another view is suggested.

Mind you, I do (obviously!) think people should be able to carry where they choose to do so, and the market should be the deciding factor: "Am I going to p*** off more of my customers by disallowing firearms than I will by allowing them?" or "Is it more to my business's advantage to stay the hell out of what my customers carry in or about their persons?"

As for public colleges and universities, I don't believe they should be allowed to restrict carry, either by law, policy, or intimidation: If a student is to be expelled, the mere fact of his carrying a firearm should not be a factor. If a faculty or staff member is to be terminated, the fact that s/he carries a gun should be irrelevant, though what s/he does with it is fair game, insofar as what is criminal activity anywhere else. (Faculty have other "weapons" they can and at times do use to threaten students, such as a student with a well-written, but pro-gun rights paper being awarded an "F" because the instructor did not agree with the premise, as opposed to grading the paper based on its merits and disagreeing with the conclusion on a personal level.)

I do hope that John Galt's information is correct. Students and others who carry safely and lawfully everywhere else give no reason to believe they would not do the same on campus.

Blessings,
Bill

Ok, we're on the same page now

 

[Bill of Rights]

If taking funds from the state is a deciding factor, then would not people getting social security or Affordable Health Care subsidies then also lose their property rights?

Excellent question, and part of the reason that drafting legislation for introduction is such a challenge.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
I agree. I hope the IGA actually hears this and makes it law this session. Has everyone written their legislators to politely request that they pass good, pro-gun rights legislation in the coming session? Remember, this is a budget year, and things move very quickly. They need to know where people stand NOW....

Of note, I posted a few days ago about writing reps. I posted this again today and realized I had not done it myself.

I have since then, and just received a personal note back from Rep. Dermody. On a Sunday afternoon/evening.

Don't tell me these guys don't care or don't read their mail.

I also emailed my district's representative, who is a Democrat. Nothing from her, personally, and not even an autoresponder to indicate the mail was received. I think I know who values my input more.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rugertoter]

What I think is goofy, is when you go through the hoops to legally CC within your state, then get hit with all the "no carry" zones.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What I think is goofy, is when you go through the hoops to legally CC within your state, then get hit with all the "no carry" zones.

Of which Indiana has blessedly few, and each legislative session seems to move us to fewer. At present, you cannot carry in K-12 schools without specific permission from the school board, can be prevented from lawful carry in a building with a courtroom, however this is only an option. Some counties do specifically permit such carry.
Further restrictions exist on shipping ports, riverboat casinos, and the state fairgrounds during state fair. Outside of those limitations, we're pretty well off in this regard. Outside of work, the only one that might ever affect me at this point in my life would be the courtroom limitation. YMMV, of course.

It could be better, (Constitutional Carry, SBS, etc.) but we could have it a lot worse too, y'know?

 

[Redhorse]

THIS IS GREAT. let me know how I can help with this. as a student also at Purdue

Find and like Students for Concealed Carry on Facebook! Follow Rep. Jim Lucas. He pushed legislation to allow the right to carry on campus last year but it died so he's trying again this year. SCC has been pushing this for years!

 

[Redhorse]

Because Purdue is the property of the State of Indiana.

Purdue has no rights, it has authority. Purdue should not have the authority to infringe the civil rights of its students.

Thank you so much, been saying this for years.

 

[10mmfan]

I would say rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the bill of rights would trump their rights anyway as I don't think a university or businesses rights should ever be put above any constitutional right of the people. Their rights as a property owner are a little different as they rent dorms to students who can't keep firearms in their dorms even though they are paying rent so they are essentially denying a whole bunch of people their rights to self defense and so on. Not to mention the non students that go to games and other events. So whose rights should get violated here?

 

[actaeon277]

I would say rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the bill of rights would trump their rights anyway as I don't think a university or businesses rights should ever be put above any constitutional right of the people. Their rights as a property owner are a little different as they rent dorms to students who can't keep firearms in their dorms even though they are paying rent so they are essentially denying a whole bunch of people their rights to self defense and so on. Not to mention the non students that go to games and other events. So whose rights should get violated here?

Except the constitution refers to limits on the GOVERNMENT.
Do I have the right to go to your house and yell obsenities at your family?
No. Because I have no right to free speech at your home.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Except the constitution refers to limits on the GOVERNMENT.
Do I have the right to go to your house and yell obsenities at your family?
No. Because I have no right to free speech at your home.

Sure, come on over!

 

[dusty88]

Because Purdue is the property of the State of Indiana.

Purdue has no rights, it has authority. Purdue should not have the authority to infringe the civil rights of its students.

Exactly.

I disagree with forcing privately-owned businesses to allow or disallow any specific behaviors.

Public universities are a different matter.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Except the constitution refers to limits on the GOVERNMENT.
Do I have the right to go to your house and yell obsenities at your family?
No. Because I have no right to free speech at your home.

Actually, as I understand it, a person ("A") has the right of free speech there (and everywhere; the right is "A"'s, from his/her Creator,) but the homeowner ("B")'s property rights override them in that location. That is, "A" has the right to speak as s/he wishes, and "B" has the right to remove "A" from the property. The laws of this state permit "B" to use whatever force s/he reasonably determines to be necessary to do so, meaning that if "B" can ask "A" to leave and "A" does it, that's all "B" is legally permitted to use. If "A"'s behavior requires "B" to use more force, "B" will have to justify that to a judge and/or a jury, if it goes that far, even if the force "B" uses is not "deadly force" but simple battery.

Insofar as a public college/university, however, that would seem to be the very purpose of the 2A: A restriction on government, preventing their exercise of that power, as government, created not by God but by Man, has no rights.

I've used the comparison before in reference to police officers, and it's always tricky to say it that way, but here goes, using a different metaphor: Barack Obama, in his role as an agent of government, has no rights whatsoever. He has authority, and he has powers, which he can and is expected to use in the service and defense of the People, aka Society. HOWEVER, he, as a human, just like the rest of us, has rights, but neither power nor authority over other men. That is, if he wants to wield the sword of power, he has the authority to do so, but he can't use the power of the office personally. Were I to refer to his wife as ugly, I'd expect a man to use whatever force at his disposal to address the insult; I'd expect a man would be within his rights to pop me in the nose. He cannot, however, use the power of the Commander In Chief and lawfully order the military to put a C4 charge on my car in response to that insult alone.

(And the truth is a defense anyway.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Redhorse]

Good news! A bill to make colleges/universities allow the right to carry has been introduced in this session. Call and write to get this passed and you'll be able to carry at Purdue!