rather a question of who it applies to.
The Lautenberg amendment (from 18 USC 922g) says that:
(8) who is subject to a court order that
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The case seems to relate to the definition of physical force and domestic violence, which is addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33):
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal  law; and
(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
So in my very-very-much-not-a-lawyer opinion, it seems that the question for the USSC is how much "physical force" is required to trigger the ban - were it up to me, the answer would be "very little"...
seem to be based on unsupported assumptions about how CCW holders behave in public as well as some misapprehensions about what the university environment is really like. What's convoluted is the idea that a purely private act would be a distraction, when that hypothetical distraction isn't occurring anywhere else that the private act is allowed. I base my logic on the following points:
- People are already carrying in other places without causing a disruption or having a chilling effect, and there's no reason that would be different on campus.
- The students who would have the ability to carry on campus are already on campus (albeit leaving their firearms behind). They're apparently not creating a chilling violent ruckus now, so why would they suddenly start to if allowed to carry?
- As stressful as college may be, classroom discussions are not generally violent events - if students aren't throwing chairs and punches now, why expect that they'd throw bullets?
- Students who hypothetically would be discomfited by the possible presence of a CCWer are likely already around CCWers off-campus, yet that knowledge does not seem to cause any disruption off-campus.
"Qualified" means 'eligible; conforming to predefined criteria; meeting a relevant standard.' I've given my opinion elsewhere, but I think CCW should be shall-issue with a comprehensive (i.e. non-trivial) training requirement. It should not be a 'library card,' and those with the legal privilege to carry in public should in fact meet a reasonable standard. A qualification, in other words, that would be just as applicable on campus as off. (And while I'm not a Texan, what I've read about that state's system makes me think you might be underestimating the requirements there.)
I should make clear that I'm referring to public schools here. Private school administrators should be allowed to set whatever rules they want in this regard, but public universities should remain as aligned as possible with the rest of the public sphere. Absent a compelling reason to treat campuses differently - which does not exist in this case, beyond some unfounded fears - the campus should allow individuals to make their own choice in the matter (in accordance with state/federal laws)...
In Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that the college classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas, and it has pointed to the necessity of training leaders to consider a variety of perspectives.1 The common expectation of the college experience is one where faculty will challenge students beliefs and students will challenge each other. We expect that engaging tough conversations about deeply held beliefs can result in intellectual growth. But this is the type of activity that often also results in emotional responses and high tempers. Successfully navigating these stormy waters can be a challenge, and not everyone allows those conversations and challenges to take place because of the risks. Throw in the possibility that some-one is armed with a deadly weapon, and one might reasonably ask whether it is worth the potential risk to themselves or to other students.
Creating a true marketplace of ideas free from offensive language, as any professor can attest, is a challenge. There are even disagreements about the conditions that will best lead to an atmosphere that is conducive to open and honest discussion. Whatever our perspectives, there can be no doubt that, at minimum, there should not be any fear on the part of the students or faculty that they could be subject to violence or the threat of violence brought about by the use of a deadly weapon. Many have written on the overall topic of safety with regard to allowing guns on college campuses. However, not much has been said about how allowing the possession of deadly weapons can create a chilling effect on academic discussions. The Supreme Court has frequently used the notion of a chilling effect to strike down laws that potentially punish speech and that potentially keep people from expressing their views out of fear that they will have to litigate to protect their free speech rights. To the degree that allowing people to carry weapons on campus stifles open discussion, limits the marketplace of ideas, and hinders training students about engaging difficult ideas that challenge their core values, it also creates a chilling effect.
--- Snip ---
Prof. Mash argues that allowing legal CCW on campus would create fear and stifle discussion, but I think the argument is based on erroneous assumptions about how CCW holders behave. If students would be inspired to whip out a gun during a heated academic discussion, why are CCW holders not doing that as a matter of course in other arenas? By the same token, almost every student in the classroom is armed with a fist - and the psychological barrier to throwing a punch has got to be lower than pulling a trigger - yet classroom discussion sessions rarely seem to escalate into brawls...
male-heavy populations. So perhaps removing a non-breeding male removes a risk to younger and more productive males.
I think there's two separate issues in threads like this. On the one hand, it may be a totally appropriate conservation strategy to manage the age- and sex-balance of a population. But on the other hand, a person who takes pleasure in being led up to a selected animal just to kill it is still contemptible...
Here's what I found from googling:
Same goes for racial or ethnic slurs, fat-bashing, religious bigotry, and trans- or homophobia.
This concludes my important PSA for anyone
who needs to adjust a jury blacklist...
It's a good piece, overall...
Profile InformationGender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 26,566
About petroniusInveniet quod quisque velit; non omnibus unum est, quod placet; hic spinas colligit, ille rosas.
- 2018 (2)
- 2017 (4)
- 2016 (14)
- 2015 (18)
- 2014 (29)
- 2013 (35)