[qkslvrsrfrboy]

So then theres no minimum height requirement for using a gun?

[asforme]

PAmedic,

Sorry if I've offended you. I was referencing comparison of statistics on arrests of police officers, published by the Washington Post on 08/28/94, to Florida
Department of Law Enforcement statistics submitted to the Governor on 03/15/95 which found that Florida concealed handgun license holders were three times less likely to be
arrested than were New York City police officers.

I shouldn't have been so broad in my applications of regional, and possibly outdated, data as a generalization of the entire country now. My point was not to put down police officers, most are a an invaluable part of our community, but every group has it's bad apples. A constant argument here has been that a concealed carry permit does not guarantee that a person will not commit a crime, my point is that neither does being a police officer, but the public trusts them to be armed on our campus. A reasonable person would conclude that a group that according to *current data is five times less likely to commit a crime than the general population is not going to pose any threat to the university.

If the fact that among concealed carry permit holders there may be some "bad apples" who are not always law abiding citizens is motivation enough to disarm all concealed carry permit holders, than that same fact can be applied to police officers because just like any demographic group, they have outliers as well.

* “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal
Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997); “An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun
License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September
1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms
License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San
Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas
State Rifle Association

[PAmedic]

Have I mentioned I love you?


And I know that was hard for you to type as clean as it was.

I didn't put the asterisks in there, that's for sure. Somebody keeping an eye on me. No doubt for my own good.

[matshark]

Just another opportunity for whackies to get easier access to guns. Can't sign off on that. I vote no.

yeah, you must really hate that whole 2nd amendment thing... darn bill of rights.

if you really knew about the process for getting a concealed carry permit in VA, you wouldn't say such ignorant things.

[JMUDukes]

This isn't a flat yes or no question.


Faculty/Staff - Yes
Students - No

+1

[makarov97]

....

[makarov97]

...

[Schfourteenteen]

Can the student that you are thinking about actually get a CCW permit?

yes.

[Baldspot]

Love guns, hate this idea and the implied liability it places on the school. Just not work the risk. VA is a joint and several state and, yes, jurors on the east coast are different than those in Utah and Colorado.


P.S. - pick the online response to any article on the News Advance website dealing with LU to see what a potential jury pool would look like. These are the people deciding how much LU would have to pay should the unfortunate occur. Not a pretty sight.

[ATrain]

Love guns, hate this idea and the implied liability it places on the school. Just not work the risk. VA is a joint and several state and, yes, jurors on the east coast are different than those in Utah and Colorado.

Explain joint and several...I don't get it.

[makarov97]

...

[makarov97]

...

[Baldspot]

Joint and several simplified is a legal term that determines to what extent an otherwise innocent party can be dragged into a legal proceeding. It varies from state to state. For instance, person A (homeless person with no assets) steps off a bus onto a parking lot owned by Wawa and promptly shoots person B. In a joint and several state, Wawa would be responsible for the civil damages ($$$) to person B even though they had no knowledge of the incident. In short, its a way for the plaintiff's bar to get big money rewards when person A has no assets.

In the case of LU, the plaintiff attorney would blow up LU's pro-gun policy on a 10'x10' screen for the jury to read (those who may not like Jerry), then ask the jury to send a message with compensatory and punitive damages.

[JDUB]

the school doesn't have to say its allowed. state law already says that. LU just needs to take out the clause that prohibits it.

if someone wants to sue they should sue the state cause they made the law, not LU

[Baldspot]

Love guns, hate this idea and the implied liability it places on the school. Just not work the risk. VA is a joint and several state and, yes, jurors on the east coast are different than those in Utah and Colorado.

Let's break it down. What are the four elements of a negligence claim that one must prove in order to show liability for an act?

After you give me those elements, please answer the following for me, "What is the potential liability of a college for criminal assaults on school grounds, if such campus has a rule prohibiting CCW"?

Its joint and several, not the elements of negligence the plaintiff bar would use. I handle this for a living, we'll leave it at that.

[thepostman]

the school doesn't have to say its allowed. state law already says that. LU just needs to take out the clause that prohibits it.

if someone wants to sue they should sue the state cause they made the law, not LU

true...but come on, if something ever were to happen on campus with a gun there is no doubt if this clause was taken it would go to court and LU would end up paying...thats the country we live in...

[Baldspot]

the school doesn't have to say its allowed. state law already says that. LU just needs to take out the clause that prohibits it.

if someone wants to sue they should sue the state cause they made the law, not LU

There are different degrees that could be argued to determine final punitive damages. My contention would be that a school with an anti-gun policy has a better argument when it comes to final punitive damages than an entity promoting such an activity.

The key is always - who makes up the jury pool. I'd much rather have a jury from Utah then a bunch of local Lynchburgers deciding Liberty's financial responsiblity.

Plus - the state has immunity. LU doesn't.

[makarov97]

....

[Baldspot]

Joint and several simplified is a legal term that determines to what extent an otherwise innocent party can be dragged into a legal proceeding. It varies from state to state. For instance, person A (homeless person with no assets) steps off a bus onto a parking lot owned by Wawa and promptly shoots person B. In a joint and several state, Wawa would be responsible for the civil damages ($$$) to person B even though they had no knowledge of the incident. In short, its a way for the plaintiff's bar to get big money rewards when person A has no assets.
In the case of LU, the plaintiff attorney would blow up LU's pro-gun policy on a 10'x10' screen for the jury to read (those who may not like Jerry), then ask the jury to send a message with compensatory and punitive damages.

But joint and several liability requires that both tortfeasors contribute to the injury of the plaintiff. In your Wawa example, you still have to prove the elements of Wawa's negligence in order to impose joint and several liability. Simply owning the parking lot where the crime occurred is not enough.

So my questions stands, what are the four elements of negligence that are necessary to show liability?

Feel like I'm in kindergarden now but okay duty owed, duty breached, prox cause and actual damages.
Proving Wawa had 1% negligence is all you need and any jury, looking at a crying widow is going to say Wawa should have had one more night light on their lot.

I'm back to work now so you guys are on your own.

[makarov97]

....

[makarov97]

...

[Rocketfan]

Joint and several simplified is a legal term that determines to what extent an otherwise innocent party can be dragged into a legal proceeding. It varies from state to state. For instance, person A (homeless person with no assets) steps off a bus onto a parking lot owned by Wawa and promptly shoots person B. In a joint and several state, Wawa would be responsible for the civil damages ($$$) to person B even though they had no knowledge of the incident. In short, its a way for the plaintiff's bar to get big money rewards when person A has no assets.

In the case of LU, the plaintiff attorney would blow up LU's pro-gun policy on a 10'x10' screen for the jury to read (those who may not like Jerry), then ask the jury to send a message with compensatory and punitive damages.

Don't bring Wawa into this.....

[Kolzilla41]

Joint and several simplified is a legal term that determines to what extent an otherwise innocent party can be dragged into a legal proceeding. It varies from state to state. For instance, person A (homeless person with no assets) steps off a bus onto a parking lot owned by Wawa and promptly shoots person B. In a joint and several state, Wawa would be responsible for the civil damages ($$$) to person B even though they had no knowledge of the incident. In short, its a way for the plaintiff's bar to get big money rewards when person A has no assets.

In the case of LU, the plaintiff attorney would blow up LU's pro-gun policy on a 10'x10' screen for the jury to read (those who may not like Jerry), then ask the jury to send a message with compensatory and punitive damages.

Don't bring Wawa into this.....

+1

[JDUB]

you can't base your argument on local lynchburg people potentially on a jury. if it did go to lynchburg court, which would depend on what the suit was for, and did go against LU, we could just appeal it and take it to a more logical supreme court who would rule in our favor

[hamilton]

If you are licensed to carry a weapon in VA by the state of VA, what makes anyone think that person would be any less competent if they carried on school property?

I vote yes.