And if Purdue is, in fact, state property then I would think they should have to allow carry.
This is my point exactly.
I'm just not willing to be the test case.
And if Purdue is, in fact, state property then I would think they should have to allow carry.
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.
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.
In principle, I agree that taking public tax monies makes you by definition "not private", however if they are run by a privately owned/run board, I'm not sure the legal definition matches our shared opinion. That's what I was asking. Am I mistaken that the BoD of Purdue University is private?
Edit: It's similar to the State Fairgrounds, during state fair. The fairgrounds are state-owned, and the board that runs that location has authority (and uses it) to restrict the lawful carry of firearms there. I'm not sure if that board is private, however, so the analogy is not perfect.
I don't put a whole lot of credence to what ModernGunner says. I don't mean that as an insult, only that he posts this same, statist harangue any time any private business has the audacity to believe they have a right to decide what is and is not welcome in their establishment, and refuses to respond when another view is suggested.
Mind you, I do (obviously!) think people should be able to carry where they choose to do so, and the market should be the deciding factor: "Am I going to p*** off more of my customers by disallowing firearms than I will by allowing them?" or "Is it more to my business's advantage to stay the hell out of what my customers carry in or about their persons?"
As for public colleges and universities, I don't believe they should be allowed to restrict carry, either by law, policy, or intimidation: If a student is to be expelled, the mere fact of his carrying a firearm should not be a factor. If a faculty or staff member is to be terminated, the fact that s/he carries a gun should be irrelevant, though what s/he does with it is fair game, insofar as what is criminal activity anywhere else. (Faculty have other "weapons" they can and at times do use to threaten students, such as a student with a well-written, but pro-gun rights paper being awarded an "F" because the instructor did not agree with the premise, as opposed to grading the paper based on its merits and disagreeing with the conclusion on a personal level.)
I do hope that John Galt's information is correct. Students and others who carry safely and lawfully everywhere else give no reason to believe they would not do the same on campus.
Blessings,
Bill
If taking funds from the state is a deciding factor, then would not people getting social security or Affordable Health Care subsidies then also lose their property rights?
...
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....
What I think is goofy, is when you go through the hoops to legally CC within your state, then get hit with all the "no carry" zones.
Find and like Students for Concealed Carry on Facebook! Follow Rep. Jim Lucas. He pushed legislation to allow the right to carry on campus last year but it died so he's trying again this year. SCC has been pushing this for years!THIS IS GREAT. let me know how I can help with this. as a student also at Purdue
Thank you so much, been saying this for years.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.
I would say rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the bill of rights would trump their rights anyway as I don't think a university or businesses rights should ever be put above any constitutional right of the people. Their rights as a property owner are a little different as they rent dorms to students who can't keep firearms in their dorms even though they are paying rent so they are essentially denying a whole bunch of people their rights to self defense and so on. Not to mention the non students that go to games and other events. So whose rights should get violated here?
Except the constitution refers to limits on the GOVERNMENT.
Do I have the right to go to your house and yell obsenities at your family?
No. Because I have no right to free speech at your home.
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.
Except the constitution refers to limits on the GOVERNMENT.
Do I have the right to go to your house and yell obsenities at your family?
No. Because I have no right to free speech at your home.