On campus housing?

[KW730]

I greatly appreciate your efforts. They use either officers or cadets for their dispatchers, so it's pretty disappointing that they have such a misunderstanding of the law. I was even detained by a cadet for over thirty minutes for simply walking through a crowd of people. They are not a very well put together department.

Edit: Surely I could call Vincennes city PD or ISP tomorrow and get a truthful answer, no?

 

[Movealongmovealong]

I greatly appreciate your efforts. They use either officers or cadets for their dispatchers, so it's pretty disappointing that they have such a misunderstanding of the law. I was even detained by a cadet for over thirty minutes for simply walking through a crowd of people. They are not a very well put together department.

Edit: Surely I could call Vincennes city PD or ISP tomorrow and get a truthful answer, no?

You are welcome.

In regards to calling, I would hope so. Worth a try, IMO. I see there has been some assaults/robberies and a kid got shot and killed recently, so I can certainly see why you are interested in keeping a firearm there.

Best of luck.

 

[ThoughtPolice]

It may not be illegal but it is normally against school policy.

 

[stephen87]

Since this was bumped I'll throw in my two cents. If you signed a LEASE, the the apartment is leased to you and is your dwelling. You have the right and obligation to protect yourself while in your dwelling. This is your residence which you are legally allowed to possess a firearm in. Legally, yes you can possess a firearm in a university dorm or apartment. Administratively, probably not so much. The more important issue is the legality, so in my opinion, you're good to go.

 

[TTravis]

My daughter is a RA in one of the dorms at IU Bloomington. A firearm of any kind would get you kicked out so fast your head would spin. Zero tolerance. Just wait till you get a real place of your own. Until then, enjoy the college life.

 

[stephen87]

Just keep the one that you carry at the dorm. When you go to class, carry it. When you're in the dorm, carry it.

 

[KW730]

My daughter is a RA in one of the dorms at IU Bloomington. A firearm of any kind would get you kicked out so fast your head would spin. Zero tolerance. Just wait till you get a real place of your own. Until then, enjoy the college life.

It's an apartment separated from the main campus. There has been a rash of armed robberies around here and I would rather not risk it. I have since obtained my LTCH so my original question of the legality doesn't matter much anymore.

 

[Bill B]

What does the lease agreement say? If it says no firearms and you signed it you would be in violation of the lease agreement.

 

[KW730]

What does the lease agreement say? If it says no firearms and you signed it you would be in violation of the lease agreement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that courts have upheld that it is illegal for a lessor to limit firearms within a lessee's established dwelling?

 

[gklatv]

<snip>
I think another supporting piece of evidence, however seemingly contradictory, is the fact that if someone domiciles in a dorm or university apartment for the majority of a year and also works in the same location, they would obligated to file local, state and federal taxes (as applicable) as a resident of that place.
<snap>

In my understanding, living in a college dorm is not, normally, considered a residency in that state. Living in an off-campus apartment/house might be a different story, though. Having a job with a paycheck there may require to file that state non-resident tax forms.

Back on the subject - it's most definitely against school policies to have/carry on campus. Zero tolerance, all the way. Legality is often irrelevant.

 

[KW730]

Back on the subject - it's most definitely against school policies to have/carry on campus. Zero tolerance, all the way. Legality is often irrelevant.

Legality was completely relevant as it was the only thing I was worried about. I personally don't care if I break a rule set forth by a public institution that I am paying a large amount of money to attend. Especially when there is no (okay, slight) risk.

 

[Light]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that courts have upheld that it is illegal for a lessor to limit firearms within a lessee's established dwelling?

See this post made in another thread. Essentially it is still enforceable.

Here is how you exercise your right to bear arms. Don't sign the lease and find somewhere else to live.

If you sign a contract (which is all a lease is) that you will not have a firearm and you have a firearm, you have breached the lease. Honestly, this is not even a law-school final exam question.

The Second Amendment applies to government, not private action. Frankly, until the McDonald case, the Second Amendment had only been applied to federal government actions, not state or local. It most certainly does not apply to private actions.

Can your boss fire you for exercising your freedom of speech? Absolutely (with very limited exceptions). "But what about MY freedom of speech?"

Can a church exclude certain people according to their belief system? Of course they can. "But what about MY freedom of religion?"

Your boss has a freedom NOT to be associated with certain speech and the church has a right NOT to to accept people who do not agree with it's belief system.

You have a right to keep and bear arms and the gvt. cannot infringe upon it. A private citizen can ask you to waive that right by contract (almost ANY right can be waived) and if you sign a lease excluding firearms, you just waived that right and gave your word that you would not have firearms on the premises.

Several responders above are mixing concepts of law that limit government action into a private situation. The same standards simply do not apply.

 

[sarlakk]

Legality was completely relevant as it was the only thing I was worried about. I personally don't care if I break a rule set forth by a public institution that I am paying a large amount of money to attend. Especially when there is no (okay, slight) risk.

While I respect your civil disobedience, I do hope that should you be caught, and action taken against you, that you accept the consequences of your actions, and do not waste taxpayer money trying to fight it.

 

[Burnsy]

While I respect your civil disobedience, I do hope that should you be caught, and action taken against you, that you accept the consequences of your actions, and do not waste taxpayer money trying to fight it.

Your somewhat confused, owning a gun in ones home that is off campus or on for that matter is not illegal. Carrying a gun on a college campus with a LTCH is not illegal, the OP claims to have both.

He was stating that if the school were to take action against him regarding their policy about keeping a gun in his apartment, it was worth it to him. He never mentioned anything that could be construed and civil disobedience.

School policy != law

Read the thread before spouting off.....

 

[sarlakk]

Your somewhat confused, owning a gun in ones home that is off campus or on for that matter is not illegal. Carrying a gun on a college campus with a LTCH is not illegal, the OP claims to have both. He was stating that if the school were to take action against him regarding their policy about keeping a gun in his apartment, it was worth it to him. He never mentioned anything that could be construed and civil disobedience.

Read the thread before spouting off.....

The thread has been read, and my reading comprehesion is far from needing to be attacked.

There is no confusion. While you are correct, I meant to encapsulate civil disobediance in quotes, as it is not technically breaking a government imposed law, I was refering to where he specifically states that he "don't care if I break a rule set forth by a public institution that I am paying a large amount of money to attend. Especially when there is no (okay, slight) risk." Meaning that he knowingly will go against the school's rules (regardless of the location of his carrying), as he does not foresee the punishments (which may include suspension or expulsion depending on the institution) that they might levy upon him as worth worrying about.

I merely stated that I respect his decision, but I hope that he would just as willingly accept their punishment should it be levied.

 

[Burnsy]

The thread has been read, and my reading comprehesion is far from needing to be attacked.

There is no confusion. While you are correct, I meant to encapsulate civil disobediance in quotes, as it is not technically breaking a government imposed law, I was refering to where he specifically states that he "don't care if I break a rule set forth by a public institution that I am paying a large amount of money to attend. Especially when there is no (okay, slight) risk." Meaning that he knowingly will go against the school's rules (regardless of the location of his carrying), as he does not foresee the punishments (which may include suspension or expulsion depending on the institution) that they might levy upon him as worth worrying about.

I merely stated that I respect his decision, but I hope that he would just as willingly accept their punishment should it be levied.

As he has already stated that his life is worth more than attending that school, I am left to assume that he already accepts the possible outcome. If a negative outcome occurs as a result and he wishes to lobby to change the policy...I would support him in it. There is no valid reason for it. Any money thrown toward it, is money well spent.

 

[sarlakk]

As he has already stated that his life is worth more than attending that school, I am left to assume that he already accepts the possible outcome. If a negative outcome occurs as a result and he wishes to lobby to change the policy...I would support him in it. There is no valid reason for it.

actions... words... I believe there is a cliched saying involving those

Regardless, my statement of HOPE is still relevant.

 

[Burnsy]

I HOPED you would understand my point that the OP already said he understands and accepts the possible outcomes but you can see where that got me.

 

[sarlakk]

I HOPED you would understand my point that the OP already said he understands and accepts the possible outcomes but you can see where that got me.

Your point was well-made, and replied to in kind.

Now there may have been an inability to understand the reply, which implies that not everyone takes anonymous internet forum posters at their typed word, and HOPES that their actions will reflect said typed words; but, that is, repectively, your right to do.

 

[Burnsy]

Your point was well-made, and replied to in kind.

Now there may have been an inability to understand the reply, which implies that not everyone takes anonymous internet forum posters at their typed word, and HOPES that their actions will reflect said typed words; but, that is, repectively, your right to do.

Agreed but what other choice does one have? It's a medium of words. Commenting that you hope one is caught doing something that is against an irrational policy and then hoping they will accept the outcome when they have already said that they will is just ill willed and redundant.