Gonzaga University students could face expulsion for gun

The whole notion that a right can be overridden by a mere contract is ridiculous. That decision needs to go away.
 
Constitutional rights are limits on the government and not private parties. (with the exception of the 13th Amendment which directly proscribes conduct by anyone)

If I break into your house and search it looking for drugs I haven't violated your fourth amendment rights but committed a burglary. In that same vein a landlord may be prohibited by statute from doing certain things and/or required by statute to do certain things. However they are not required/prohibited from doing anything by the constitution.

Landlords aren't prohibited from discriminating against tenants by the constitution but by statute.

If this was a public university you could assert your RKBA as a limit on its conduct. But since it is a private university you would have to come up with an argument that allows you to do so.
 
The whole notion that a right can be overridden by a mere contract is ridiculous. That decision needs to go away.
Click to expand...

It happens almost every time you sign a contract.

If they signed a contract with the college to abide by their rules when on campus property they abdicated some of their rights when on that property.

Sign a cell phone contract and you give up the right to not pay them for the term of the contract even if you stop using the service.

I signed away the full exercise of my constitutional rights for over twenty years in the Navy and agreed to be bound by the UCMJ and Navy regulations.

It goes on and on to one degree or another.

EDIT: Technically since I am on retainer pay, tell I reach the 30 year mark and switch to retired pay, I am still bound by the UCMJ. But in practice I would need to be way out of bounds before anyone tried to apply it to me.
 
Last edited:
Let us not forget guilty pleas in criminal cases. A defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in exchange for the state dismissing other charges ,recommending a certain sentence, or getting some other disposition.

The defendant is giving up the right to a trial, to confront witness, to use the courts power to compel evidence, to be presumed innocent, etc...
In pleading guilty they give up a ton of important rights.



So if you can waive your rights as to the government, who is bound by them, then you can certainly waive them as to someone who is not bound by your rights.
 
Actually Vranasaurus, as I understand it, Landlords can't discriminate Constitutionally based on the 14th. Statutes may further define and explain that prohibition, but Heart of Atlanta Motel was decided on 14A grounds as I understand.
 
Landlords can discriminate it just can't be for certain things (for example they can prohibit smoking or age discriminate 55+ communities, even though age is technically a protected class.) However, I suspect that in this case standard real estate law will not be the deciding factor. I suspect the laws surrounding school property will be the deciding factor.
 
Thank God we are not reading an article where two students were found dead, they had a need to protect themselves and did so. That should be the end of it.
I am getting fed up with reading articles like this where someone defended themselves and then found themselves in trouble for doing so.
 
Thank God we are not reading an article where two students were found dead, they had a need to protect themselves and did so.
That should be the end of it.


I am getting fed up with reading articles like this where someone defended themselves and then found themselves in trouble for doing so.
Click to expand...



That makes at least two of us on this board.



Cnon
 
More reporting today on the web....

Student was of legal age...

Had WA state CPL (totally irrelevant to the situation, other than to show the character of the student)

Intruder was a SIX TIME convicted felon.

Police approved of the manner they handled the situation (no shots fired)

Student(s) apparently unaware of Gonzaga "no weapon" rule

University inquiry board finds them "guilty of gun possession".

Day (maybe 2) later, (and with no reported reason why... Gonzaga sends email to student body saying they will be reviewing the policy...

Brief interview, student says policy covers ALL/any weapon "could have used a baseball bat and still have been found guilty..."
 
Gonzaga is a private university. The application of their weapons policy to off-campus housing is grossly over broad and unfair. Nevertheless, they can set that policy and enforce it so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes; e.g., those based on race. Fortunately, the university seems to be re-thinking its policy.
 
Posted by Jimdandy

Actually Vranasaurus, as I understand it, Landlords can't discriminate Constitutionally based on the 14th. Statutes may further define and explain that prohibition, but Heart of Atlanta Motel was decided on 14A grounds as I understand.
Click to expand...

The case you cite was about the civil rights act of 1964. The court held that congress had the power, under the commerce clause, to prohibit discrimination by hotels.

Justice Douglas in his concurrence would have held that Congress' power for the act would be the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment. However, that was not the majority opinion.
 
There is another wrinkle to this case; the campus cops (who are not sworn LEO's) came back at 02:00 and broke into the apartment (not necessarily illegal) and seized the weapon (that WAS illegal.) The student reported the theft to the real police.

The school is backpedalling now.

I predict the students will be reinstated (eventually) if they promise to secure the weapon offsite or move out of the university-owned housing, and agree not to press charges.
 
Posted by zcvbob


There is another wrinkle to this case; the campus cops (who are not sworn LEO's) came back at 02:00 and broke into the apartment (not necessarily illegal) and seized the weapon (that WAS illegal.) The student reported the theft to the real police.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a burglary to me.


RCW 9A.52.025

Residential burglary.


(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.
Click to expand...
 
Imagine the lawsuit of the original aggressive felon returned after the campus cops seized the students weapon...and killed them.
 
Wouldn't that make it burglary when your car gets towed from a private lot? :confused:

On topic:
It's a stupid policy on the part of the school. However, had a student been accidentally shot with this gun at the apartment, then the school would be pointing to the reason for their policy.

If that happened, we'd all have less commentary on the school policy and just be talking about the stupid kid who caused the accident. Meanwhile, all the non-gun people would be agreeing with the school. Despite all the statistical approximations, I don't think I could say which is more likely on a campus - successful self defense or an accidental shooting. We are talking about a group of people that fall drunk off rooftops with some frequency.

I side with the students on this one. But this just serves as another reminder of why gun rights are so difficult to defend - both sides are trying to manage the "what ifs" in a culture that is armed but doesn't think of itself that way.
 
No, the elements of burglary, in Washington, require that the person enter a dwelling unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.

Towing a car without justification could be theft or some taken with intent to temporarily deprive but only if the towing was done without legal justification. If you are illegally parked in a private lot the owner can have your car towed as you are trespassing.

In this case campus security entered the apartment with the intent to take the gun. I don't think they had the renter's permission to enter and the gun owner's permission to take the gun. Now whether they entered unlawfully will likely be determined by the terms of the lease. Landlords generally have provision allowing them to enter in order to make emergency repairs. Many times a lease requires a certain period of notice before they enter the premises for other purposes.
 
Towing a car without justification could be theft or some taken with intent to temporarily deprive but only if the towing was done without legal justification. If you are illegally parked in a private lot the owner can have your car towed as you are trespassing.
Click to expand...

A better analogy would be if the car was parked in the driveway of the house you were renting, and the landlord had it towed.

I would think violation of the no guns terms of a lease is a civil matter, and the only thing the landord could do is evict them. Even if used illegally, which was clearly NOT the case here, your landlord cannot seize your property. They would need to have the REAL police do that, which they were unwilling to do, nor did they even charge the students with breaking any laws.

I dont believe campus rent a cops have the authority to seize any property, for any reason. I hope these students get a good civil attorney.
 
What do you mean? I can agree to give up anything I want via contract, including my privacy, ability to travel, say whatever I want. No one forces me to do so and I get something in return. That's my choice to make, not SCOTUS.

Tomrkba,

If a landlord removes something that is contacturally forbidden, it isn't any different than towing a car, unless the landlord keeps it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top