Purdue Campus Carry

[squidvt]

Purdue University Campus Carry Petition - The Truth About Guns

There is another petition to allow Campus Carry at Purdue.
One thing is it's saying that carry on campus is illegal. I was under the impression that it was legal just against policy.

 

[eldirector]

Purdue University Campus Carry Petition - The Truth About Guns

There is another petition to allow Campus Carry at Purdue.
One thing is it's saying that carry on campus is illegal. I was under the impression that it was legal just against policy.

Correct. It is not illegal. It is against their policy, and they can certainly ask one to leave (or it is trespassing). Student/Staff/Faculty have additional worries.

 

[actaeon277]

Signed. But listed address and city as "no".
Informed them that it is not illegal, that I carried, and that I'm surprised colleges haven't figured out criminals don't follow the law.
It looks like they only display the comments for supporters. I could be wrong.

 

[indiana36Bravo]

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

 

[John Galt]

Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

I've heard that this bill will get re-introduced again this year.

 

[eachitandi]

Interesting... I took my daughter and a couple of her friends to the basketball game last night and locked my firearm up in my truck when we got there. I was under the impression it was a "no no" as well...

 

[ModernGunner]

As a Purdue Alumni, I strongly support campus carry.

This is yet another reason to push for 'place of public access' legislation. IOW, if ANY business (and colleges / universities are business) invites and encourages the public to patronize that business then the business should be required to adhere and allow the same right to carry as the lawful citizen has 'carrying down the street' in Indiana. Without exception.

The business, then, would have a choice: Allow lawful carry as guaranteed in the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, or be prohibited from inviting lawful citizens to patronize that business. Their choice.

 

[ATM]

As a Purdue Alumni, I strongly support campus carry.

This is yet another reason to push for 'place of public access' legislation. IOW, if ANY business (and colleges / universities are business) invites and encourages the public to patronize that business then the business should be required to adhere and allow the same right to carry as the lawful citizen has 'carrying down the street' in Indiana. Without exception.

The business, then, would have a choice: Allow lawful carry as guaranteed in the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, or be prohibited from inviting lawful citizens to patronize that business. Their choice.

I would never push for something this absurd. Directing the force of the state against individual rights to achieve one's wishes is a dangerous slope.

 

[Bluejeeper]

I would never push for something this absurd. Directing the force of the state against individual rights to achieve one's wishes is a dangerous slope.

^^^^^^^^This x1000^^^^^^^^^

It's the same thing MDA is doing. Just sayin...

 

[John Galt]

As a Purdue Alumni, I strongly support campus carry.

This is yet another reason to push for 'place of public access' legislation. IOW, if ANY business (and colleges / universities are business) invites and encourages the public to patronize that business then the business should be required to adhere and allow the same right to carry as the lawful citizen has 'carrying down the street' in Indiana. Without exception.

The business, then, would have a choice: Allow lawful carry as guaranteed in the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, or be prohibited from inviting lawful citizens to patronize that business. Their choice.

Why not give these places of public access a choice; recognize legal carry and enjoy liability protection or if they deny lawful carry, they will be held financially liable for any actions in which an individual would have otherwise been able to defend themselves?

 

[Bluejeeper]

Why not give these places of public access a choice; recognize legal carry and enjoy liability protection or if they deny lawful carry, they will be held financially liable for any actions in which an individual would have otherwise been able to defend themselves?

Why should our rights trump their rights??

 

[Mgderf]

Why should our rights trump their rights??

Because their fears don't trump my rights.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Because their fears don't trump my rights.

But we're not talking about their fear here. We're talking about property rights. Do you want to be forced to allow people you don't want on your property?

 

[Mgderf]

But we're not talking about their fear here. We're talking about property rights. Do you want to be forced to allow people you don't want on your property?

The biggest problem I see here is that Purdue University is NOT a private institution.
It is NOT privately owned/operated. Purdue University receives tax credits and subsidies from the state.

They do not charge sales tax in the university run businesses because they are subsidized by the state.

So, now I'm PAYING to have someone tell me I cannot carry on PUBLIC property! No way in hell.
This needs to be changed.
If they want to refuse to allow me to carry on campus, they need to quit taking public taxes for subsidies.
Then they would truly be a "private entity" and therefore entitled to restrict most anything they see fit.

 

[John Galt]

Why should our rights trump their rights??

Their rights would not be infringed, they would have a choice. Either recognize an individual's right to self-defense or assume that responsibility when they take away that right from the individual. They would merely be held responsible for their preventing an individual from their right to defend themselves.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why should our rights trump their rights??

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.

 

[Mgderf]

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.

This^^^but I'll go even further.
They should NOT have the authority to infringe on ANYONE'S civil rights, NOT just students but the populace in general.

 

[Bill of Rights]

But we're not talking about their fear here. We're talking about property rights. Do you want to be forced to allow people you don't want on your property?

They would not be forced to allow people there that they did not want. They would simply be denied legal protection from the results of their choices. In essence, it's similar to their sidewalks- if they are slippery due to ice accumulating, and someone slips and falls, a business is possibly liable for any damages. The business can attempt to minimize that liability by taking steps to prevent those falls, such as salting the sidewalk, clearing the ice and snow, or even, I suspect, putting up a sign "Do not use sidewalk. Fall hazard." By your post, they are being forced to buy salt and/or signs, or forced to hire someone to clear the walks.

They can minimize the risks of people being injured in a violent incident by many means, such as allowing only one in their business at a time and putting any employees behind bullet-resistant shielding, or by strip-searching customers on entry (though that might minimize their customer base as well...) or the far, far simpler method of butting the hell out of what objects peaceable, lawful citizens carry on their persons. Doing that minimizes (under the proposed law) their risk of lawsuit: They would be protected from lawsuit just as the "Good Samaritan" law protects someone who stops to render aid in good faith at a vehicle collision.

Alternatively, they can prohibit self-defense objects and accept the risk that they may be sued for damages that that policy increased the likelihood of.

The biggest problem I see here is that Purdue University is NOT a private institution.
It is NOT privately owned/operated. Purdue University receives tax credits and subsidies from the state.

They do not charge sales tax in the university run businesses because they are subsidized by the state.

So, now I'm PAYING to have someone tell me I cannot carry on PUBLIC property! No way in hell.
This needs to be changed.
If they want to refuse to allow me to carry on campus, they need to quit taking public taxes for subsidies.
Then they would truly be a "private entity" and therefore entitled to restrict most anything they see fit.

Um... are you sure about that? I recall this discussion before, and IIRC, the university is run by a private board, though it is, as you say, state-subsidized and owned.
I agree that they should not be allowed to meddle in what objects people choose to carry on their persons. If they must meddle, let them do so with regard to the actions people take, such as OWI through campus, putting their students, faculty, and staff at risk, or entering a building and shooting, stabbing, and beating someone. A guy who does that should meet his legal punishment, and should also be expelled, not for the gun or knife, but for what he did with them.

Their rights would not be infringed, they would have a choice. Either recognize an individual's right to self-defense or assume that responsibility when they take away that right from the individual. They would merely be held responsible for their preventing an individual from their right to defend themselves.

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.

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 that, Kirk. Andrew Boldt might not have chosen to do so, but he should not have had the decision either forced on him to carry and risk expulsion or to be helpless when he was attacked. Similarly, his fellow students might have chosen to be sheep, but there should not have been a prohibition in place that prevented a sheepdog from stopping the wolf with a .45ACP to the skull.

We need a smaller government, one that helps people exercise their rights, rather than working to expand itself and deny or curtail those rights and their exercise. We need people who are willing to work to make that happen. We have a GOP House, Senate, and Governor. We have many citizens who favor the RKBA. There is no reason why we should not improve our laws while we can. If the tables turn, I have no doubt that the other side will quickly work to the opposite effect. We saw it the last time Pat Bauer held the speaker's gavel, and we'll see it again if he or someone like him returns.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Mgderf]

Um... are you sure about that? I recall this discussion before, and IIRC, the university is run by a private board, though it is, as you say, state-subsidized and owned.

Blessings,
Bill

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.

 

[Bluejeeper]

As a Purdue Alumni, I strongly support campus carry.

This is yet another reason to push for 'place of public access' legislation. IOW, if ANY business (and colleges / universities are business) invites and encourages the public to patronize that business then the business should be required to adhere and allow the same right to carry as the lawful citizen has 'carrying down the street' in Indiana. Without exception.

The business, then, would have a choice: Allow lawful carry as guaranteed in the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, or be prohibited from inviting lawful citizens to patronize that business. Their choice.

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.