Two Gonzaga University students could be suspended or even expelled after using a handgun to defend themselves from an intruder in their university-owned apartment, an act which the university says violates the school's weapons policy.
Gonzaga University, a private, four-year university in Spokane, Washington, says the students violated the school's weapons policy by having firearms in their apartment, which is in a complex near the campus.
Volokh raises some interesting questions about whether the apartment was "on campus" and therefore within the scope of Gonzaga's policy. He also notes that the residence director's late-night visit and seizure of firearms may be problematic under landlord-tenant laws.
The incident has drawn a great deal of media attention (see, e.g., here, here, and here) and Gonzaga is reportedly re-evaluating its firearm policy in light of the controversy. Critics argue that students should be able to defend themselves against intruders and that this policy restricts this ability too much. Gonzaga defends its policy, noting that it is in place to protect student safety.
Gonzaga University is a privately-owned institution so the case raises no Second Amendment concerns. Thankfully, I have not seen this argument made in any of the coverage I have read (although one Fox News pundit (whose name eludes me) made this point earlier today on Fox News's "The Real Story").
But the incident illustrates how a similar situation might arise in the context of student housing that is owned by a public university. In a case like that, the policy's validity would be a much thornier issue and would raise questions of whether the university could ask students to waive their right to possess firearms as a condition of living in campus housing or (in the absence of such a waiver) whether a policy restricting firearm possession in public student housing passes Second Amendment scrutiny.
And in the spirit of shameless self-promotion, I invite you to read my comment where I consider the complicated dimensions of this issue! (Available at the UCLA Law Review Website and on SSRN)
But the incident illustrates how a similar situation might arise in the context of student housing that is owned by a public university. In a case like that, the policy's validity would be a much thornier issue and would raise questions of whether the university could ask students to waive their right to possess firearms as a condition of living in campus housing or (in the absence of such a waiver) whether a policy restricting firearm possession in public student housing passes Second Amendment scrutiny.
And in the spirit of shameless self-promotion, I invite you to read my comment where I consider the complicated dimensions of this issue! (Available at the UCLA Law Review Website and on SSRN)
No comments:
Post a Comment