Guns On Campus: Northern Illinois U: Rule #1: Sue Everybody
by John Longenecker

You know the facts. Now answer the question: What are the tort liabilities?
____________________

It's time to forget about writing more gun bans, time to quit profiling (it's a stalling tactic for political reasons) and time to litigate. The first order of business for any damaged plaintiff is to sue everybody. This would be all colleges who ban weapons, including those who have seen their students murdered and those who have yet to see students killed thanks to the gun bans which are now ringing the dinner bell for campus shooters in increasing numbers.

This would include suing for administration interference with self-defense by way of policy in cases of both gun and non-gun killings such as knifings, beatings and missing persons.

It could be found that a college has no duty to protect its student body - but does a college have an obligation NOT to INTERFERE with adults who take their own reasonable and legal measures in self-defense? Interference would then be an issue as unreasonable and with damages. What if students carried their handguns, were then disciplined, and sued the college? With all the activity about concealed carry on campus, you can't say campuses weren't on notice that they could be interfering.

At this time, FOX News and only a few others are examining concealed carry on campus. They are going in the wrong direction when they consider arming the Teachers. It's more centralization of power than really solving the problem, and, in fact is another stalling tactic that won't work. Too much independence, I guess, ruining their picnic.

First, any shooter can too easily identify the armed professors by their ‘Tell' or the way they carry unless they are experienced gun owners. If the Profs are carrying for the first time, they will probably have a Tell. Either way, if the shooter identifies them at all, the idea fails. Shooters can easily approach from another corner of campus or wait for the Profs to put their weapon away or leave campus. They can simply kill fast and then commit suicide. It is the equivalent of uniformed officers: All the shooter need do is identify them and avoid them. Undercover cops won't change much, since they don't attend classes. This is at the heart of the Liberty Movement complaint: compelled over-reliance on assets to the exclusion of the citizen, in this case, adult students.

The more effective deterrent is in not knowing who is armed and in what numbers, and in supporting this policy nationwide. In short, ARMED STUDENTS AND VISITORS.

In objecting to armed students, the idea that students are themselves eventual killers or somehow stupid, hot-headed and hasty is not only insulting, but it betrays a neurotic notion in the minds of administrators against all liberty in America and betrays how they view the people they serve.

But when parents, adult college students and visitors are armed when on campus, a shooter has a much, much tougher time identifying who is armed and possibly right next to him. Trustees need to understand that they have no authority to allow or disallow guns. And injured parties must sue for their rights.

The genius of concealed carry is that you just don't know who is armed and who isn't, and that alone changes the entire complexion of the problem. Changing faces of who is armed and in large numbers will serve the purpose it was intended to serve - someone close by who will stop the shooter by holding them for police or in using lethal force - if necessary - which is backed by their citizen authority - a concept administrations hope you won't discover. Armed students would also be in larger numbers than officers and likely much closer when needed. Response time hasn't been impressive; they've all been too late. Way too late. Armed students in larger numbers helps, especially if it’s generally known.

In the news reports of the NIU shooting, officials said they took steps to protect the rest of the students. Oh? How? The shooter was dead, and police hadn't gone 10-97 yet. This reflects a very poor understanding of the problem and its solution - shooters who move fast and citizen authority frustrated and vexed. Brilliant. Interference.

Administrations have ignored and vexed CITIZEN AUTHORITY and its role. Gun Ban policy forgets that adults in America have all legal authority to stop a crime in progress, including their own murder or a crime against another. This is something a gun ban policy cannot override and may not discourage under threat of punishment, counseling or expulsion. This is where litigation comes in for provable interference and demonstrable damages.

The best way to handle the campus, workplace, airport, public buildings or anywhere threat is not to profile shooters nor to arm the faculty, but to lift all gun bans from students, employees, parents and visitors. Citizen authority trumps stubborn tortious interference by trustees. They don't want you to know your own authority. So much for Education.

With the Virginia Tech attitude that they await a mandate before allowing guns on campus in an already right-to-carry statewide law, perhaps they are ignorant of the law. Perhaps it's time to compel them to learn the law and to recognize citizen authority as a matter of education as much as personal safety.

All gun control obfuscates citizen authority to act. In the absence of first responders, it is an interference.

It's time to litigate this. I say go for it.

It would be good for the country.