Students Face Expulsion for Using Gun to Ward Off Intruder

[Ben]

In Spokane. Not sure of WA state laws on the subject, but I'm wondering if the university can actually enforce gun bans in off campus housing that they own. Is it the same as saying a person can't bring a gun into a state courthouse? Or does off-campus housing make them a landlord, just like any private landlord, in which case it seems the argument could be made that it's none of their business if a paying tenant has a legal object in their residence?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/10/wash-college-students-face-possible-expulsion-for-using-gun-to-ward-off/

[Brad Johnson]

In Spokane. Not sure of WA state laws on the subject, but I'm wondering if the university can actually enforce gun bans in off campus housing that they own.

Yes. If the condition is built into the lease, it is enforceable.

Brad

[MillCreek]

In Washington state, a private landowner may implement and enforce a 'no guns' policy upon tenants, just as they can implement and enforce a variety of other conditions.  There has been a recent push in Seattle to have property owners with businesses adopt a 'no guns' policy on the premises, ostensibly to reduce the risk of gun violence in Seattle.  These businesses put a sticker in the front window or doorway to give notice.  It has no force of law behind it, other than if you ignore it, and the private landowner asks you to leave, you can be trespassed and the police summoned to enforce it.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/10/gonzaga-university-to-rethink-stance-on-student/

The University is now re-thinking the policy.  Note the part where campus security came at 0200 to confiscate the legally-owned firearms from the students.

[RoadKingLarry]

Of course it would be much better if the student had been assualted/raped/killed. You bring a gun into a conflict like that and someone could get shot.

[HankB]

. . . Note the part where campus security came at 0200 to confiscate the legally-owned firearms from the students.

If an actual law was not being broken, wouldn't that be theft?

[MillCreek]

If an actual law was not being broken, wouldn't that be theft?

I see from this article that the students reported it as a theft to the Spokane PD.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/09/gonzaga-students-deter-break-in-with-gun-which/

[Ben]

Perhaps I'm being hypocritical as a landlord. I have a "no pets" policy, due to one incident in my units and many examples i have seen in others. I simply can't see putting a "no inanimate, legal to own object" clause in my rental agreements though. To me, putting a "no guns" clause in would be the same as putting in a "no coffee tables" or "no 2qt pots" clause.

[MillCreek]

It all goes to private property rights.  For example, if a landlord, due to deeply-held religious or feminist beliefs, wanted to ban possession of pornography on her property, she would be entirely within her rights to do so.  Another example of an inanimate yet legal to own object that the property owner finds objectionable.

[Regolith]

It all goes to private property rights.  For example, if a landlord, due to deeply-held religious or feminist beliefs, wanted to ban possession of pornography on her property, she would be entirely within her rights to do so.  Another example of an inanimate yet legal to own object that the property owner finds objectionable.

Yes, but just because it's their right to do so doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Anyways, I'm more concerned about the theft of the guns by the rent-a-cops. I hope the students bend them over a barrel on that one. 

[BobR]

The two students were placed on probation, but the scuttlebutt is they are fighting that also. I would like to believe the public support, and outcry by the many people around the nation, had something to do with them just getting probation. If not for that, I feel they would have been shown the door, and not very gently.

bob

[zxcvbob]

It all goes to private property rights.  For example, if a landlord, due to deeply-held religious or feminist beliefs, wanted to ban possession of pornography on her property, she would be entirely within her rights to do so.  Another example of an inanimate yet legal to own object that the property owner finds objectionable.

Just like Seattle (?) tried to ban guns in the city parks, claiming to be the property owner?  That didn't fly, did it?  The city doesn't have private property, it holds public property in trust.  I don't know if the same is true for a public university, but the no guns term of the lease may be in violation of the state's preemption laws.

[MillCreek]

Yes, but just because it's their right to do so doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Anyways, I'm more concerned about the theft of the guns by the rent-a-cops. I hope the students bend them over a barrel on that one. 

We are in complete agreement on both points.  I would have demanded a receipt from the campus security.

[MillCreek]

Just like Seattle (?) tried to ban guns in the city parks, claiming to be the property owner?  That didn't fly, did it?  The city doesn't have private property, it holds public property in trust.  I don't know if the same is true for a public university, but the no guns term of the lease may be in violation of the state's preemption laws.

The laws are different for a public, or government property owner, and a private property owner.  Washington's pre-emption laws pertain only to actions of governmental entities, ergo the failure of the Seattle park ban by the city government.  There are private parks within the city limits in which guns are banned, and nary a peep is heard.  This is because the private parks are owned by private landowners, and the government laws pertaining to gun law preemption does not apply there.  A private university owning private property is not subject to Washington's gun law pre-emptions.

On the upside, just two weeks ago, the Seattle city library system decided to get with the program and rescinded the ban on carrying guns inside the public property of the libararies.

[zxcvbob]

I was not aware that it was a private university, even tho' it was probably obvious.  Would it make a difference if they were at Washington State?

[MillCreek]

I was not aware that it was a private university, even tho' it was probably obvious.  Would it make a difference if they were at Washington State?

Indeed it would.  There are many state-level laws making the carry or possession of firearms illegal or prohibited on many areas of public property, such as schools, courthouses, government buildings and the like.  The same applies for many state colleges and universities. For example, there is a specific WAC for WSU spelling out firearms possession:

WAC 504-26-213
   
Firearms and dangerous weapons.
No student may carry, possess, or use any firearm, explosive (including fireworks), dangerous chemical, or any dangerous weapon on university property or in university-approved housing. Airsoft guns and other items that shoot projectiles are not permitted in university-approved housing. Students wishing to maintain a firearm on campus for hunting or sporting activities must store the firearm with the Washington State University department of public safety.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 28B.30.150. WSR 08-05-001, § 504-26-213, filed 2/6/08, effective 3/8/08; WSR 06-23-159, § 504-26-213, filed 11/22/06, effective 12/23/06.]

[zahc]

If an actual law was not being broken, wouldn't that be theft?

Yes, yes, you are beginning to see the true tyranny of "Campus Police", a phenomenon in which a private entity (the college) uses police powers to enforce its own private rules.

That's the very nature of being a campus policeman...you enforce the college's parking rules, curfew rules, alcohol-in-dorms rules, no-skateboarding-on-the-sidewalks rules, dress codes, and anything else the administration wants you to, while wearing a real police uniform, driving a real police car and carrying a real gun. You get to bust into dorm rooms without warrants, confiscate student property with no real basis justifying it, and for the most part, nobody questions the whole system. Students may be perceptive enough to understand the difference between the college's rules and the laws of the land, but most of them simply buckle in the presence of the uniform...college students have little money for lawyers.

[Brad Johnson]

If an actual law was not being broken, wouldn't that be theft?

Depends.  If the college has a standing police force then then campus regulations have the force of law within campus boundaries even if the action is not otherwise illegal.  However, actions which have no criminal element are usually dealt with in an administrative capacity, not with more aggressive policing behaviors (i.e. property seizure).  If the students committed only an administrative infraction, they may have recourse with regards to seizure of the weapon by campus authorities unless said seizure is specified in campus regulations as a potential result. 

Brad

[KD5NRH]

Yes, yes, you are beginning to see the true tyranny of "Campus Police", a phenomenon in which a private entity (the college) uses police powers to enforce its own private rules.

This is why TX uses real state police (DPS) for that function.  Most of the patrol officers seem to be well aware of the difference between university policy and actual law, too.  Chiefs much less so.

[Brad Johnson]

This is why TX uses real state police (DPS) for that function.  Most of the patrol officers seem to be well aware of the difference between university policy and actual law, too.  Chiefs much less so.

Most larger campuses have their own standing police force.  The DPS presence is usually at sporting and special events.

Brad

[zxcvbob]

Here is the rule the students allegedly broke, quoted from the student handbook:  "Possession, use, display, sale or exchange of weapons at any location on campus, including University residential facilities and privately-owned vehicles, is prohibited."

http://www.gonzaga.edu/Student-Life/Student-Handbook-Security-Guide/files/2013-2014-Student-Handbook-FINAL-Document-Interactive.pdf

Any of our legal-eagles here care to parse this sentence regarding how it applies to OFF campus university residential facilities?  Cuz it looks to me like it does not apply at all.

[MillCreek]

If the residential facility is owned by the University, they are arguing that it is part of the campus, and therefore the regulations apply.  The definition of 'campus' need not be limited to a single area with continuous boundaries. 

However, in late-breaking news: on the local news tonight, it came up that the two kids have legal counsel and they received academic probation.  And that legal counsel has discovered that the University leases, rather than owns, the residential facility.  Counsel is thus arguing that the University is not the property owner/landlord and therefore cannot prohibit the possession of weapons at the facility.  The University is arguing that the student code of conduct is not limited to just University-owned residential facilities, but any residential facility controlled by the University, and that by attending the University, the students voluntarily place themselves under the jurisdiction of the code of conduct.

I think the University's position is weakened by virtue of not actually owning the residential facility.

[zahc]

Do they have a legal defense fund we can contribute to?

[zxcvbob]

The University is trying to enforce what they wish the rule said, but words have meanings and it is written down in the student handbook.  Campus means campus.

[MillCreek]

The University is trying to enforce what they wish the rule said, but words have meanings and it is written down in the student handbook.  Campus means campus.

In legal disputes, unless a term is defined, or is a term of art, words are given their usual and customary meaning.  Is 'campus' defined in the student handbook?  If not, the usual and customary definition of a 'campus' is merely defined as the buildings or grounds of a school or college.  That definition is not limited to a circumscribed bounded area, or a collection of buildings only in one place.  With some justification, the University argues that if it owns or or controls a piece of property, it is part of the University campus.  The University clearly considers as it such insofar as their campus security enforces University regulations there.

http://www.gonzaga.edu/About/CampusMap/default.asp is the campus map at Gonzaga.  Can you define the campus there?

[Scout26]

What I like is how the alleged prep went from:

John Taylor, a convicted felon wanted on an outstanding warrant by Washington State's Department of Corrections

 in the Fox news story to merely

a belligerent homeless man

in the Spokesman-Review article.

Then to send to campus Po-Po at 2am to do a no-knock to pick-up the firearms.    Stay Classy Gonzaga.