We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Use of Lawyers With the occurrence of yet another violent attack on a crowd of disarmed people in the news, Glenn Reynolds suggests we start sueing the universities. If a University or any other organization defines its facility as a ‘Gun-Free Zone’ it has an implied contract duty to protect you, and if it has failed to take measures to do so is in breach of that contract.
Think of it this way: you have a constitutional Right of self defense. When a property owner or government makes entry onto that property contingent upon waiving that Right, they imply they will in return defend you against harm. This is not all that different from a situation I faced a decade ago as a C-level manager at a UK ISP. If our net news feeds were wide open, we were a common carrier; but if we put any sort of filtering into effect we were expressing editorial control of content and therefor liable for what we missed, be it child-porn or whatever.
Let the fun begin!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Aside from my misgivings about holding truly private institutions i.e. not universities liable in such a way. I don’t see how this could work.
By your reasoning the NYC government would be liable for just about every murder committed on its streets an interesting idea but I believe the supreme court has ruled multiple times that there is no ‘duty to protect’.
“Swim at your own risk, no lifeguard on duty” means just that.
“No loitering” is an expression to please not hang around without the intent to buy something”
“X-free Zone” could be implying the first scenario, but only says the second one
It seems that a university could only be held responsible if they say they have a zero-tolerance policy in that regard, and/or hire a military force to patrol the entire campus, doesn’t it?
That principle has been long sent to the Nu Labour civil liberties /dev/null, though one has to be non-partisan and say the Tories or Liberal Twatties would have done precisely the same. It’d have been nice if the ISPs had shown some backbone, but as usual in a corporate state it’s been far more rational for them to leap into bed with the gubmint and “voluntarily” censor to “avoid” regulation.
We’re all good little bods on Cleanfeed now.
I faced a decade ago as a C-level manager at a UK ISP. If our net news feeds were wide open, we were a common carrier
Dale,
Dunno where you got your legal advice from, but when I was Technical Director at a UK ISP a decade ago I used to hear a lot about the rights and obligations of a common carrier.
Problem was, as I had to tell many people many times, the arguments about common carrier were all based on US law. The concept of common carrier did not exist in UK law and all the discussions pertaining to it simply had no relevance to UK ISPs.
It was actually a major concern.
Was it the Daily Mail who did an “expose” on the new “internet” phenomenon, which they basically described as a way for computers to send kiddie pr0n to each other, and named the CEO of Demon as part of this “child pr0nography trafficking ring”? One of the papers. That was what kicked off the disastrous mistake of the ISP’s voluntarily setting up their own censor- the IWF. Same mistake as the film industry made setting up the BBFC all those decades ago.
Note to industries: never believe you can escape government regulation by setting up your own watchdog. It’ll become an attack dog against which you have no defence because it’s got a figleaf of “independence”. Make them legislate.
Anyhoo, talking of common carriers, didn’t the US postmaster general use to open every letter to see if there were indecorous pictures inside?
Ian B: Was it the Daily Mail who did an “expose” on the new “internet” phenomenon, which they basically described as a way for computers to send kiddie pr0n to each other, and named the CEO of Demon as part of this “child pr0nography trafficking ring”?
It was the Observer, IIRC.
Yes.
If a University demands that one disarms before entering that is their right (as crazy as it is to enter such a place under this condition).
Just as if a University said “to enter this place you must first drink the Kool Aid with the poison in it” that is there right – the stuff that is taught in these schools and colleges is poison anyway.
I have another idea.
As a purely “health and safety” matter (not political at all) let us take away the taxpayer funding from these schools and colleges. Then they would have to close down and there would be no more mass murder events at these establishments.
Frank J hits the nail on the head.
And:
One would hope it was “needless to say” that anyone who is prepared to break the law against murder will not be impressed by a school or college “gun ban” and will go in armed – indeed such person will be pleased with the “gun ban” because it means his victims will be unarmed.
Sadly not a single British television or radio station understands the above (including Sky News).
Paul, assuming current elf’n’safety as it actually is enacted in society at the moment, rather than principles reagrding self-responsibility-
Suppose a school banned students from wearing life jackets while canoeing. Would they be liable for a drowning? I think they would.
Only if the school attendance is compulsory.
Theoretically speaking, of course – I have no idea what the actual legal situation is.
So far the issue of a “Hostile Environment” charged against the party owning or controlling the “Environment” has been limited to “discrimination” cases of one sort or another.
AND is this really why a legal and judicial system exists? If so, we should carefully think though the logical extensions.
Whoever is responsible for you will control you. Move for them to take that resonsibility, and they will take that control. Think not?
RRS is correct – however I suspect that Dale (and Mr Reynolds) were making a valid point, rather than formally suggesting a court case.
Whatever the demented modern courts would rule I think Alisa is correct.
If you choose to go to “Sucide Club College” where they teach boating in craft made of stone into which one is chained – well that is a choice.
However, there is no reason why the taxpayer should be forced to fund such places.
“This is a gun free zone” never stopped a house or a store being robbed (quite the contrary) and it just makes students and staff helpless victims.
Quite right Paul,
Now answer me this one. Why have I never seen signs like:
Elderly disabled lady living alone
or…
Don’t worry about the dog, we don’t have one!
so, why:
Gun Free Zone?
In the UK we have a lot of UKGov adverts telling us to lock our car valuables in the boot, watch out for your mobile phone etc… By all logic shouldn’t they also advise people to carry weapons in rough areas after dark?
Surely, if someone is going to disarm you they then assume an absolute and non negotiable obligation to protect you?
I say go for it. Require these people to stop parading their consciences and and accept the responsibilities they have assumed.
After all, these laws and rules succeed only in disarming the sane, honest and law abiding. All else remain armed.
Kettering University in Flint, Michigan has had a series of armed guards on campus for years (one company after another has proved less than totally reliable). During my several years there, we suffered numerous break-ins, both in the school and in the various parking lots around it. Several months ago, a student was shot and killed. As I’ve left the school to pursue another opportunity elsewhere, I’m not sure on the precise circumstances. Flint is a somewhat rough neighborhood, and it might not’ve been on campus property per se. But armed guards are hardly going to be a panacea for campus violence–only the dead certainty on the part of a would-be thug that he’d be shot and killed before bringing down any hapless victim will do that.
What I’d like to see, especially in higher-ed, is universal training in the use of firearms, as well as some basic first-aid, etc. In the States, all adult males are supposedly part of the “ad-hoc” milita and there’s very little reason I can see that women should be excluded. After all, it’s not like we’re talking about everyone joining the Rangers or becoming a licensed EMT. But if citizens are expected to have certain first-responder duties (with training to match as part of basic education) in the event of an emergency and before the actual first-responders arrive, I think you’ll see a lot fewer emergency-related fatalities.
Cats: by that logic, British crime victims should be able to sue their government – good luck with that.
Quite so Nick.
Counting Cats:
No one is “disarming” you – if you CHOOSE to go to these suicide club colleges.
Of course government could withdraw all subsidies from these places (incudling “student loans” and the like), but I doubt it will do so.
This is probably the only time I have ever disagreed with Paul Marks, but with all do respect on this one, I do. In the case of truly private property, although I would wish it otherwise, it is only moral that the owner of said property be allowed to restrict the presence of arms. However, in state-run institutions, I completely disagree. The right to bear arms in defense of state, life, and property is established. Under certain conditions this right can be revoked or limited, but I see no reason why a certain section of property owned by the state can cede this right completely.
A few years ago, someone candy-assed whiner went postal in the School of Nursing at the U of Arizona — the building next to the one I worked at. I remember after that happened (no disrespect to the dead intended) how EVERY SINGLE DAY I went into my building to my office I passed through a door that claimed that the U of Arizona was a “Gun Free Zone” OBVIOUSLY, the aforementioned candy-assed whiner didn’t see the same sign. There is particular irony in Arizona’s case as it is an OPEN carry state and to the best of my knowledge local municipalities do not have the authority to enact ordinances that override the right to carry. Except of course that the state can do it on its own university properties.
Now, I’ve worked for a University police department (not U of Arizona) and I have tremendous respect for the men and women I worked with there. Very bright, very committed, and decent people all around. What the Gun Free Zone really does is give the police an excuse to arrest someone for carrying a weapon without the difficulty of a he-said/she-said argument about what the carrying party was doing or intending. Sounds nice and fluffy and I’m sure there are instances where it probably even worked.
As someone had mentioned previously, there is no “duty to protect” and the courts in the US have borne this out time and time, again. (And for good reason, I think.) However, that is NOT the same as depriving me of the right to protect myself. (I fully believe that NY and Chicago’s restrictions on handguns are unconstitutional and illegal.)
Continuing my rant, I’m in full agreement with Blacksmith that basic education should include rudimentary training in small arms and first aid. I would go one step further and include what amounts to a couple of semesters of Army ROTC to my “basic education.” These skills are the basis of soldiering and an educated citizenry as such would be in line with both American tradition and prudence. (That said, I would not make such courses mandatory for attendance, only that they are offered at all “public” schools.)
I would say suing “gun-free zones” that accept public money would be the way to go. On a thread on Pharyngula, I mentioned such a solution. Earlier in the thread I showed links that indicate that gun prohibition itself wouldn’t prevent access to guns by criminals. The True Believers couldn’t debunk them and still insisted that the U.S. should try European-style firearms prohibition even though I falsified their assertions. I mentioned Neil Gershenfield’s FabLabs in that thread as well to indicate that gun prohibition is obsolete.
By your reasoning the NYC government would be liable for just about every murder committed on its streets an interesting idea but I believe the supreme court has ruled multiple times that there is no ‘duty to protect’.
In the absence of affirmative steps depriving you of the ability to protect yourself, then I would tend to agree that there is no duty to protect.
But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether a duty to protect is created when the landowner prohibits you from defending yourself.
It seems that a university could only be held responsible if they say they have a zero-tolerance policy in that regard, and/or hire a military force to patrol the entire campus, doesn’t it?
The argument is that the zero-tolerance policy in and of itself creates the obligation to effectively patrol their entire campus. Whether or not they actually do patrol their campus would be irrelevant to the question of whether they have a duty to do so.
In the case of truly private property, although I would wish it otherwise, it is only moral that the owner of said property be allowed to restrict the presence of arms.
With rights come responsibilities. If you exercise your right to bar someone from going armed on your property, you take responsibility for their safety. Seems very straightforward to me.
This allows the owner of the property to do what they see fit, so long as they are prepared to take responsibility for the consequences.
R.C. Dean.
You are just flat out wrong.
If I say “you can not take a firearm into my house” I do NOT take on any legal obligation to protect you (although I may have a moral obligation).
Ditto any other property of mine.
Nate:
We are not far apart.
I would support any State legislature demanding that any university that gets money from taxpayers allow students and staff to keep their firearms (not check them in).
I believe that Utah has such a statute on the books.
First, I thought you guys not have a constitution in Britain. I’m sorry, you have an “unwritten” one. So how can you have a constitutional right of defense? Secondly, Britain bans guns. So is the British government responsible for all murders in Britain?
I know Glenn Reynolds is in the States (as am I), but I was under the impression all the posters and commenters on this blog were Brits.
Paul:
We have a Bill of Rights in Britain (a hundred years older than the American one, and building on foundations that go back at least the Charta of 1100 and the Great Charta of 1215) – it is just that it is ignored.
Indeed most British people seem not to have heard of the Bill of the Rights of 1689.
Indeed David Cameron (the leader of the British “Conservative” party) suggested that we create a Bill of Rights (perhaps he was unware that we already have one).
Almost needless to say, the Cameron Bill of Rights would not include the right to keep arms (although the Conservatives of the Constitutional Clubs before 1914 would have pointed out that people who do not have this right are not free) and would not even trump the either the rulings of European Union – or the separate European declaration on rights (both of which are terrible).
By the way – there are Americans who write for this blog.
Although I am not one of them.