PDA

View Full Version : FSU Police Arrest Student for Possession of Firearms In The Home


N6ATF
02-01-2011, 9:58 AM
http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/FSU_Police_Arrest_Student_for_Possession_of_Firear ms_at_Alumni_Village_114976914.html?ref=914

FSU Police say 29-year-old William Zimmermann was arrested at the FSU Alumni Village on January 27th, after police discovered an AK-47 assault rifle, a high-powered rifle with a scope, and close to 460 rounds of ammunition inside of his home.

:puke:

dantodd
02-01-2011, 9:59 AM
460 rds. of ammunition? Was that one partial box of .22 LR for his "high-powered rifle with a scope?"

wildhawker
02-01-2011, 10:04 AM
Brady is going to hate if one of these "arsenal confiscations" lead to a circuit or SCOTUS decision reaffirming Heller's right to keep in the home, even when it's govt or campus housing.

robcoe
02-01-2011, 10:05 AM
460 rounds? that's it.

I'll go through that in a day when I go shooting

maddoggie13
02-01-2011, 10:07 AM
WTF...need a lawyer.

halifax
02-01-2011, 10:10 AM
"Alumni Village" sounds like school property. No?

Bhobbs
02-01-2011, 10:11 AM
I have 460 rounds in the bottom of my dresser. That's not counting all of my other mil surp ammo and reloads I have in my closet.

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 10:15 AM
I'm sure the antis will argue that this is "different" because Heller and McDonald were talking about handguns, and this is an "evil black rifle". :rolleyes:

I hope he gets a top-notch firearms attorney, because unless there's already a Gura case in the works that covers the right to keep and bear "evil black rifles", this one looks like it may be a perfect setup for that.

Without that, you know the antis (which includes anti-RKBA courts) are going to argue that Heller and McDonald do not apply to "evil black rifles" because those weren't explicitly covered, just as they have tried to argue that those decisions state that RKBA only applies in the home because other locations weren't explicitly covered.

paul0660
02-01-2011, 10:16 AM
"Alumni Village" sounds like school property. No?

Yes, he blew it, no thanks to the snitch.



And this was Florida, not Fresno, as I initially thought.

Coded-Dude
02-01-2011, 10:16 AM
yep...crime doesn't happen on gov property, therefore we don't need to arm or defend ourselves. they keep us safe! throw the book at this guy. :hammer:



/facetious

Oceanbob
02-01-2011, 10:24 AM
Quote:

"and after receiving consent to search the premises, officers discovered an AK-47 assault rifle and a high-powered rifle with a scope in addition to approximately 460 rounds of ammunition.

Zimmerman was subsequently arrested and transported to the Leon County Jail, where he was booked on a felony charge of possession of a firearm on school property. Follow up investigation by the FSUPD has not revealed any motivations by Zimmermann for possession of the weapons.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He should have refused a search. All the police had was a tip (letter).

No PC for a search...

Then again, the man should have kept his guns off campus to begin with.

dantodd
02-01-2011, 10:28 AM
Then again, the man should have kept his guns off campus to begin with.

How would the gun have been any good against an intruder if it is stored outside of his home?

wildhawker
02-01-2011, 10:33 AM
Kcbrown, this is not the "EBR" case you want going up, although I presume it will make it at least to Florida SC, and likely Fed CA.

gun toting monkeyboy
02-01-2011, 10:41 AM
Two problems with this. First, he was living on school property. He knew going in that no firearms were allowed. Right or wrong, he agreed to that when he agreed to live there. Second, he consented to a search. You never, never, never consent to a search. If they have probable cause, they don't need your permission. If they don't, then they don't need to search.

mdimeo
02-01-2011, 10:42 AM
I have 460 rounds in the bottom of my dresser. That's not counting all of my other mil surp ammo and reloads I have in my closet.

Heck, I've probably got 500 loose .22 rattling around in my spare tire well in my trunk that have fallen out of boxes over the years :)

Bhobbs
02-01-2011, 10:45 AM
Heck, I've probably got 500 loose .22 rattling around in my spare tire well in my trunk that have fallen out of boxes over the years :)

A while back I found a few 15 round packs of 8mm under my car seat when I was cleaning my car out.

They make it seem like 460 rounds is an insane amount of ammo.

paul0660
02-01-2011, 10:45 AM
"We can get a warrant, just let us look around, it won't be a big deal".

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 10:55 AM
Kcbrown, this is not the "EBR" case you want going up, although I presume it will make it at least to Florida SC, and likely Fed CA.

I began to suspect as much after I'd posted my previous message, in large part because this case involves more than one question, and the best cases are the ones where you need to ask one and only one question of the judiciary.

Bhobbs
02-01-2011, 10:56 AM
"We can get a warrant, just let us look around, it won't be a big deal".

I bet plenty of people get caught up in that.

nick
02-01-2011, 11:00 AM
Two problems with this. First, he was living on school property. He knew going in that no firearms were allowed. Right or wrong, he agreed to that when he agreed to live there. Second, he consented to a search. You never, never, never consent to a search. If they have probably cause, they don't need your permission. If they don't, then they don't need to search.

A lot of people in free states (and in CA, but I'd say that many gun owners in CA are better educated on gun laws out of necessity, and are generally accustomed to assume that something is prohibited unless they know otherwise) aren't that familiar with gun laws, since they don't have to (or perceive that they don't have to) deal with them on a daily basis the way we have to do in CA. So chances are this guy didn't even know he couldn't have it where he lived. After all, it's not a logical assumption for someone not accustomed to illogical firearms restrictions we're used to in CA.

Moreover, more gun owners have likely heard about Heller than they have about a bunch of firearms laws/regulations/etc., of which there's a multitude. Heller did state, among other things, that possessing a functional firearm at home was a right. So a reasonable assumption based on that would be that possessing a gun at home is ok. Don't forget, a lot of people also thought the 2nd Amendment directly applied to them for the last 100 years.

Frankly, I can't fault the guy here. It's a sad state of affairs that we have a multitude of made-up crimes that shouldn't be crimes in the first place, and aren't something a reasonable person would assume to be a crime in the first place. A reasonable person would assume that murder or robbery is a crime. Few reasonable people (especially without the conditioning we receive in this state) in the US would assume that having a gun at home is a crime, even after decades of such conditioning, just like few reasonable people would assume (once again, without the conditioning) that changing a toilet in your house requires a permit from the government. However, both could be crimes.

N6ATF
02-01-2011, 11:03 AM
If they have probably cause, they don't need your permission. If they don't, then they don't need to search.

PROBABLE

I only see one question:
Is there a right to possess ANY firearm in ANY home, or not?

nick
02-01-2011, 11:05 AM
PROBABLE

I only see one question:
Is there a right to possess ANY firearm in ANY home, or not?

The answer to that by the judiciary will likely be a No. Unless, of course, you expect intellectual honesty from the said judiciary. However, expecting any such thing from our judiciary is setting yourself up for a fall.

cdtx2001
02-01-2011, 11:10 AM
"We can get a warrant, just let us look around, it won't be a big deal".

So come on back with one. Until then here's some sand, you know what to do with it.

N6ATF
02-01-2011, 11:15 AM
This should be the required sign for every law-abiding person's door.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=72624&d=1287642491

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 11:18 AM
PROBABLE

I only see one question:
Is there a right to possess ANY firearm in ANY home, or not?

Of course not.

Time, place, and manner restrictions are "perfectly acceptable", remember?


I fully expect the government to start requiring permits for possession of firearms in the home, and expect them to try to deny such permits based upon things like the amount of space between homes, type of wall construction, etc., since such things can be argued to be "public safety" issues. I'm sure most such attempts to deny such a permit will be struck by the courts, but a few of them will probably get through.


Indeed, the approach of requiring a permit for every possible time, place, and manner of keeping and bearing a firearm is one of the major methods I expect the government to use to quash our RKBA in practice. The courts are going to be examining the permits individually, not as a whole, and while each individual permit may be considered to represent an "acceptable" burden, the sum of them will represent an overwhelming burden.

I expect that's something our side has anticipated, and it'll be interesting to see what bits of the strategy account for it.

scarville
02-01-2011, 11:20 AM
How would the gun have been any good against an intruder if it is stored outside of his home?
I isn't any good but that is the point. He is being trained in the duties of a good citizen. A good citizen calls 911 and waits for the police to arrive. If the socially disadvantged, freelance socialist mortally injure him then he must be creative -- writes the name of the poor victim of society with blood or something like that before dying.

Do not defend yourself. Be a good witness. Remember: Only the police are professional enough to use firearms.

GOEX FFF
02-01-2011, 11:21 AM
A while back I found a few 15 round packs of 8mm under my car seat when I was cleaning my car out.

They make it seem like 460 rounds is an insane amount of ammo.

The anti's believe that that's 460 people that would be killed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I bet in their eyes too if there were a million rounds one would be a potential threat for committing genocide. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pdq_wizzard
02-01-2011, 11:33 AM
Sorry, but there is a lot of FAIL on his part and in this thread (He broke the law) we all have bullet buttons on our nonregistered AWS right? (its dumb but we follow it)

First he had a gun in school owned housing (I don’t like it any more than the rest of you) but that is the law, don’t like it change it.

Second his dumb *** (more than likely) showed it to someone (how else would then know?? --- This is the BIG FAIL ---

SickofSoCal
02-01-2011, 11:37 AM
Quote:Follow up investigation by the FSUPD has not revealed any motivations by Zimmermann for possession of the weapons.

Talk about yellow journalism. Look at what that implies: "If you want to own guns, you must have an evil intent of one kind or another in your heart"

krucam
02-01-2011, 11:47 AM
Since this is a public school, couldn't the rule be deemed unconstitutional?

San Francisco's ban on guns in public housing didn't last.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12060

This one strikes right at the heart of Heller.

N6ATF
02-01-2011, 11:50 AM
Sorry, but there is a lot of FAIL on his part and in this thread (He broke the law) we all have bullet buttons on our nonregistered AWS right? (its dumb but we follow it)

First he had a gun in school owned housing (I don’t like it any more than the rest of you) but that is the law, don’t like it change it.

Second his dumb *** (more than likely) showed it to someone (how else would then know?? --- This is the BIG FAIL ---

The university violated the supreme law of the land (COTUS) by disarming victims and protecting violent criminals under color of authority (gun-free zones=free kill zones).

He was probably seen to have guns as one of his interests on Facebook and that was the "anonymous tip". We're all subject to civil rights violations for daring to exercise the First.

Blaming the victim of rape is never acceptable. It is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's @#$%ing disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Take your rationalizations, your justifications, and your bull@#$% and shove it all up your ***.

sholling
02-01-2011, 11:58 AM
Two problems with this. First, he was living on school property. He knew going in that no firearms were allowed. Right or wrong, he agreed to that when he agreed to live there. Second, he consented to a search. You never, never, never consent to a search. If they have probably cause, they don't need your permission. If they don't, then they don't need to search.
How is that different form living in projects? Since the government cannot keep you from having a gun in your government owned project housing, how can they keep your from having a gun in your government owned school housing? We aren't talking common areas here. INAL but I think he has a winning case here - one that should be backed by the right people.

pdq_wizzard
02-01-2011, 12:00 PM
The university violated the supreme law of the land (COTUS) by disarming victims and protecting violent criminals under color of authority (gun-free zones=free kill zones).


I agree, but fighting it from Jail is not where I would want to be fighting it, I guess I would if I had to use the gun for self def.

I'm just saying change the law don't break it because you don't like it (unless you are willing to go to jail)

He was probably seen to have guns as one of his interests on Facebook and that was the "anonymous tip". We're all subject to civil rights violations for daring to exercise the First.

I still bet he showed it to someone ....

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 12:15 PM
How is that different form living in projects? Since the government cannot keep you from having a gun in your government owned project housing, how can they keep your from having a gun in your government owned school housing? We aren't talking common areas here. INAL but I think he has a winning case here - one that should be backed by the right people.

I won't be surprised if the government attempts to argue that school housing is a "sensitive place" because it is part of a school. And since SCOTUS did explicitly call out schools as an example of a "sensitive place" and said, essentially, that "sensitive places" are exempt from 2A, I can easily see the government winning that one.

753X0
02-01-2011, 12:24 PM
I'm just saying change the law don't break it because you don't like it (unless you are willing to go to jail)


Like Rosa Parks?

N6ATF
02-01-2011, 12:25 PM
A school is a place where classes are held. If there were no classes held in his home, it's not a school.

stix213
02-01-2011, 12:29 PM
This really sucks, but I don't think we want an AK-47 case being the one that decides how far a school grounds/zone restriction goes. If he had something that doesn't seem so evil, like a .38 special revolver for self defense, then I'd say I hope this goes all the way.

I'd like to say I hope he takes this all the way to the supreme court, but I think this is the wrong case.

gun toting monkeyboy
02-01-2011, 12:36 PM
PROBABLE

I only see one question:
Is there a right to possess ANY firearm in ANY home, or not?

Fixed it, thanks. I am, after all, a monkey. It says so in my screen name. Sometimes the tail hits the wrong key when I am excited and typing fast.

As for ANY home, I think most states have laws prohibiting the posession of firearms on college and k-12 campuses. Since bringing a gun on campus is verboten, how could you legally have one in your on-campus housing? Also, most schools have policies stating that you can't have them in their school-owned dorms or apartments. It is in the paperwork that you sign when you agree to live on campus. Some allow you to store them with the campus police, some don't. If you don't like it, don't live on campus. I always just figured it was easier to live off-campus because I HATE people poking around in my business. Until the laws change, and we win some court battles, there isn't much that can be done about it.

N6ATF
02-01-2011, 12:39 PM
You have to remember the media's guide to firearms identification. It probably wasn't an AK-47. At best, it was a .22 ATI GSG AK47, and the "high-powered rifle", a Ruger 10/22.

12voltguy
02-01-2011, 12:42 PM
Quote:

"and after receiving consent to search the premises, officers discovered an AK-47 assault rifle and a high-powered rifle with a scope in addition to approximately 460 rounds of ammunition.

Zimmerman was subsequently arrested and transported to the Leon County Jail, where he was booked on a felony charge of possession of a firearm on school property. Follow up investigation by the FSUPD has not revealed any motivations by Zimmermann for possession of the weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He should have refused a search. All the police had was a tip (letter).

No PC for a search...

Then again, the man should have kept his guns off campus to begin with.

Talk about yellow journalism. Look at what that implies: "If you want to own guns, you must have an evil intent of one kind or another in your heart"

why do we own a sports car? or an off road 4x4?
this clown thinks we need a motive.....:rolleyes:

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 12:44 PM
You have to remember the media's guide to firearms identification. It probably wasn't an AK-47. At best, it was a .22 ATI GSG AK47, and the "high-powered rifle", a Ruger 10/22.

Are you sure?

Maybe it was a Glock. I mean, it's black and everything! :p

SgtDinosaur
02-01-2011, 12:49 PM
I would be embarrassed if they only found 460 rounds in my house.

nick
02-01-2011, 1:55 PM
I won't be surprised if the government attempts to argue that school housing is a "sensitive place" because it is part of a school. And since SCOTUS did explicitly call out schools as an example of a "sensitive place" and said, essentially, that "sensitive places" are exempt from 2A, I can easily see the government winning that one.

On the other hand, wouldn't the government have to come up with a proper justification as to why it's a sensitive place and why it warrants the restrictions in question?

Merc1138
02-01-2011, 2:04 PM
Are you sure?

Maybe it was a Glock. I mean, it's black and everything! :p

Nahh, if it was a glock they would have called it an ak-47

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5014681447_fb9c582cdb_z.jpg

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 2:05 PM
On the other hand, wouldn't the government have to come up with a proper justification as to why it's a sensitive place and why it warrants the restrictions in question?

Why would they? The Supreme Court already explicitly included schools in the list of "sensitive places" by explicitly calling them out as examples of same, so no further justification on the government's side would be required.

Instead, our side would have to somehow successfully argue that at least some schools are not "sensitive places".

You can see how that's going to go. Any court other than SCOTUS is going to take SCOTUS at its word and assume that if SCOTUS said "schools", it meant all schools. That means we're going to have to kick the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, and since SCOTUS is so big on stare decisis that it let Slaughterhouse stand uncontested, it's highly unlikely that they'd reverse their own opinion so quickly.


Nope, I fully expect that if the school can successfully argue that school housing counts as part of the school itself, then these cases will lose even in front of the Supreme Court.

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 2:11 PM
Nahh, if it was a glock they would have called it an ak-47

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5014681447_fb9c582cdb_z.jpg


But they did call it an AK-47! :laugh:

Dark Paladin
02-01-2011, 2:15 PM
Why would they? The Supreme Court already explicitly included schools in the list of "sensitive places" by explicitly calling them out as examples of same, so no further justification on the government's side would be required.

Instead, our side would have to somehow successfully argue that at least some schools are not "sensitive places".

You can see how that's going to go. Any court other than SCOTUS is going to take SCOTUS at its word and assume that if SCOTUS said "schools", it meant all schools. That means we're going to have to kick the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, and since SCOTUS is so big on stare decisis that it let Slaughterhouse stand uncontested, it's highly unlikely that they'd reverse their own opinion so quickly.


Nope, I fully expect that if the school can successfully argue that school housing counts as part of the school itself, then these cases will lose even in front of the Supreme Court.

I get what you're saying here. On the flip side, wouldn't it be safe to assume that when the SCOTUS thought of "schools", they were thinking of classrooms and rooms full of desks, NOT one's home that happens to be on school property? By following that train of thought, there would be no reversing their opinion, as Heller affirming RKBA in home trumps .gov's attempt expand the definition of "schools".

santacruzstefan
02-01-2011, 2:23 PM
I get what you're saying here. On the flip side, wouldn't it be safe to assume that when the SCOTUS thought of "schools", they were thinking of classrooms and rooms full of desks, NOT one's home that happens to be on school property? By following that train of thought, there would be no reversing their opinion, as Heller affirming RKBA in home trumps .gov's attempt expand the definition of "schools".

It might not even be on school property. What I mean is, while the housing could technically be said to be school property, since it is owned by the school, it could be quite a distance from the actual campus. With the suspect in this case being a graduate student, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here.

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 2:25 PM
I get what you're saying here. On the flip side, wouldn't it be safe to assume that when the SCOTUS thought of "schools", they were thinking of classrooms and rooms full of desks, NOT one's home that happens to be on school property?


You would think that, of course, and it's possible they'll clarify their opinion that way. But without any guidance from the opinion whatsoever as to what exactly "sensitive place" means, it's utterly impossible to really say.



By following that train of thought, there would be no reversing their opinion, as Heller affirming RKBA in home trumps .gov's attempt expand the definition of "schools".One would hope that's how it'll wind up going, and frankly I think it's more likely than not to go that way, most likely by declaring that the residences are not part of the "school", or that the residences are not part of the "sensitive zone" of the school (and in that event, they probably won't bother to clarify what specifically causes an area to qualify as part of the "sensitive zone").

But you can bet your bottom dollar that the lower courts aren't going to touch it. They'll side with the .gov because they aren't going to want to attempt to "guess" the Supreme Court's intent, so they'll take the language of the SCOTUS decisions at face value.

Bottom line is that this question is most certainly going to have to be kicked all the way to the top floor, and the chance of it going against us once there is not entirely inconsiderable.

nick
02-01-2011, 2:31 PM
Why would they? The Supreme Court already explicitly included schools in the list of "sensitive places" by explicitly calling them out as examples of same, so no further justification on the government's side would be required.

Instead, our side would have to somehow successfully argue that at least some schools are not "sensitive places".

You can see how that's going to go. Any court other than SCOTUS is going to take SCOTUS at its word and assume that if SCOTUS said "schools", it meant all schools. That means we're going to have to kick the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, and since SCOTUS is so big on stare decisis that it let Slaughterhouse stand uncontested, it's highly unlikely that they'd reverse their own opinion so quickly.


Nope, I fully expect that if the school can successfully argue that school housing counts as part of the school itself, then these cases will lose even in front of the Supreme Court.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your argument. What I'm saying is that such restrictions may or may not withstand strict scrutiny standard, and thus might be re-evaluated in the future. That is, provided we even get strict scrutiny. In case of something like 2nd Amendment, I expect there to be a lot of dancing around it though.

SCOTUS most likely mentioned schools because for decades it's been a commonly accepted misconception that schools are somehow more sensitive places that would benefit from laws prohibiting firearms there. However, there's no factual basis for this assumption, and so at some point it might be re-evaluated.

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 2:41 PM
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your argument. What I'm saying is that such restrictions may or may not withstand strict scrutiny standard, and thus might be re-evaluated in the future. That is, provided we even get strict scrutiny. In case of something like 2nd Amendment, I expect there to be a lot of dancing around it though.

There is nothing in the opinions suggesting that the "sensitive place" exemption has to pass strict scrutiny (or any scrutiny at all, for that matter). One may be able to infer that, but it most certainly wasn't said explicitly.

Another possible (though, I think, perhaps somewhat less likely) interpretation is that the "sensitive place" exemption requires no level of scrutiny whatsoever. That is, if the courts declare a given place to be "sensitive" then it it exempt, regardless of the reasons the courts issued such a decree. The implication is that such decrees would be challenged, perhaps all the way up to SCOTUS itself, and SCOTUS would then rule (or not) on the issue. That would give the judiciary a way to exert arbitrary and complete control over RKBA without needing to go through some sort of analysis. And the more I think about this possibility, the greater weight I give to it. Why else would SCOTUS bother to mention something like "sensitive places" as a big, gaping exemption to RKBA without explaining what it meant?

kcbrown
02-01-2011, 3:18 PM
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your argument. What I'm saying is that such restrictions may or may not withstand strict scrutiny standard, and thus might be re-evaluated in the future. That is, provided we even get strict scrutiny. In case of something like 2nd Amendment, I expect there to be a lot of dancing around it though.

SCOTUS most likely mentioned schools because for decades it's been a commonly accepted misconception that schools are somehow more sensitive places that would benefit from laws prohibiting firearms there. However, there's no factual basis for this assumption, and so at some point it might be re-evaluated.

Now that the notion of a school being exempt from RKBA provisions has been explicitly included in SCOTUS jurisprudence, there's no way it's going to be re-evaluated in the next 100 years. If SCOTUS won't revisit the steaming pile of dung heap that is Slaughterhouse, there's no way it would revisit something that is so much less controversial.

Which is to say, if there was ever a chance that the "sensitive" nature of schools would be re-evaluated as regards RKBA, SCOTUS managed to completely destroy it in one stroke. I hope they're happy. :mad:

krucam
02-01-2011, 4:10 PM
Heller sayeth:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

AK-47's...how many are in the country? Wouldn't that be considered "in common use"? The same argument goes for 10rd mag limits when a handgun holds 15-17, but thats another argument.

Also from Heller
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.
and
The prohibition (DC handgun ban) extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

They didn't say in schools, they were referencing existing laws regarding schools. Don't "cast doubt" doesn't imply "not subject to further analysis". The core of the 2A right certainly applies to arms "of common use" in the home...period.

This person had an "arm of common use" in his Home. Period. He is protected by the 2A and Heller.

Parse Heller at will, but this one has "Fail" written all over it. Facially, it is wrong at all levels. IANAL.

Funtimes
02-01-2011, 5:48 PM
Brady is going to hate if one of these "arsenal confiscations" lead to a circuit or SCOTUS decision reaffirming Heller's right to keep in the home, even when it's govt or campus housing.

Amen to this. I am tired of the military telling me I can't have operable firearms in my home.

Pyrodyne
02-01-2011, 7:17 PM
Sorry, but there is a lot of FAIL on his part and in this thread (He broke the law) we all have bullet buttons on our nonregistered AWS right? (its dumb but we follow it)

First he had a gun in school owned housing (I donít like it any more than the rest of you) but that is the law, donít like it change it.

Second his dumb *** (more than likely) showed it to someone (how else would then know?? --- This is the BIG FAIL ---

The only problem with your assertion is that IIRC, Florida does not have AW laws.

Icypu
02-01-2011, 8:16 PM
FSU was my alma mater. If it is where I remember it, the Alumni village was right across the street from where I worked on campus. That means it was FSU school housing and walking distance (separated by a road) from campus. If I remember correctly, Alumni village is where all the MBA and graduate students could live. It's sad that this kind of gungrabbing could happen in my own hometown. I have parents who live there now.

Patrick-2
02-02-2011, 6:46 AM
Here's a clue to anyone wondering if School/Government housing applies as a "home" under Heller: "Do the cops need a warrant or consent to search?"

If the answer is "yes", then fundamental rights exist. All of them.

Wherryj
02-02-2011, 11:53 AM
You have to remember the media's guide to firearms identification. It probably wasn't an AK-47. At best, it was a .22 ATI GSG AK47, and the "high-powered rifle", a Ruger 10/22.

The Wall Street Journal had an article in today's paper about the military looking for a replacement for the M4 carbine. It actually commented about how many in the military question its "lethality".

It was strange to read in the mainstream media as they usually call anything with a pistol grip "high powered". I know, the AR isn't as much of a WMD as an AK-47, but it still looks pretty scary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html

kcbrown
02-02-2011, 12:52 PM
Here's a clue to anyone wondering if School/Government housing applies as a "home" under Heller: "Do the cops need a warrant or consent to search?"

If the answer is "yes", then fundamental rights exist. All of them.

Which other fundamental rights besides 2A are subject to a "sensitive places" test?

Your presumption here is that the "warrant to search" test overrides the "sensitive places" test. That's not clear at all, because the "sensitive places" thing is completely new (as far as I know). Therefore, the relative strength of each of those will need to be specified by the courts.

That makes this whole thing an open question in my mind.

Vladimir
02-02-2011, 12:55 PM
Nahh, if it was a glock they would have called it an ak-47

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5014681447_fb9c582cdb_z.jpg

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!! :p thats hilarious! im saving that!

Patrick-2
02-02-2011, 3:18 PM
Which other fundamental rights besides 2A are subject to a "sensitive places" test?

Your presumption here is that the "warrant to search" test overrides the "sensitive places" test. That's not clear at all, because the "sensitive places" thing is completely new (as far as I know). Therefore, the relative strength of each of those will need to be specified by the courts.

That makes this whole thing an open question in my mind.

Sensitive places is an implementation of time/place/manner restrictions that apply to other fundamental rights. It was manufactured by Scalia in Heller, but they are a presumably legit place restriction, much like place restrictions for organized protests in DC can limit where they are held.

The key is 'as long as it does not restrict the core right'. Which leads to a question we haven't talked about: how do place restrictions in Heller not impact the core right in Heller?

My theory: we have to look at the real right behind the Second Amendment, which is to be safe. So the only way the government can restrict your ability to keep yourself safe in a certain place is if they take responsibility for it themselves. We all know the current role of the government there: they cannot be held liable for failing to respond.

I think the Sensitive Places dicta is a double-edged sword when it comes to governments looking to define them. Sure, they can declare some place 'sensitive', but suddenly they make themselves liable for things that happen there. So if our student is in campus housing that Florida declares sensitive, Florida is now responsible for the student's welfare. If he is attacked and they fail to protect him, it is their fault.

Anyway, it's slightly off topic.

kcbrown
02-02-2011, 3:49 PM
Sensitive places is an implementation of time/place/manner restrictions that apply to other fundamental rights. It was manufactured by Scalia in Heller, but they are a presumably legit place restriction, much like place restrictions for organized protests in DC can limit where they are held.


Well, my argument is that because it is a newly invented thing, we have no idea exactly where it fits. It may be a standard time/place/manner restriction, or it may be a complete exemption to 2A rights that comes with its own test of fitness. What guidance is there to suggest which it is? I see none.



The key is 'as long as it does not restrict the core right'. Which leads to a question we haven't talked about: how do place restrictions in Heller not impact the core right in Heller?

My theory: we have to look at the real right behind the Second Amendment, which is to be safe. So the only way the government can restrict your ability to keep yourself safe in a certain place is if they take responsibility for it themselves. We all know the current role of the government there: they cannot be held liable for failing to respond.
And yet, schools were called out explicitly in Heller as an example of a "sensitive place". But they are not an example of a place where the government takes responsibility for the safety of the people therein. So right there, your theory goes out the window. SCOTUS would not have mentioned schools as an example of a "sensitive place" if they'd intended such places to be protected by the government. That lends weight to my belief that the "sensitive place" designation provides a neat end-run around 2A.



I think the Sensitive Places dicta is a double-edged sword when it comes to governments looking to define them. Sure, they can declare some place 'sensitive', but suddenly they make themselves liable for things that happen there. So if our student is in campus housing that Florida declares sensitive, Florida is now responsible for the student's welfare. If he is attacked and they fail to protect him, it is their fault.
We would both like that to be the case, but I fully expect that it won't work out that way at all. Government is very good at shirking responsibility at all levels.



Anyway, it's slightly off topic.But fun. :D

Patrick-2
02-02-2011, 4:13 PM
The other option we have is that Scalia had to add the sensitive places dicta to satisfy Kennedy and maybe Roberts.

You can make an argument that some schools are more sensitive than others. The elementary school is responsible for the safety of underage children, by law. They only need to be responsible under the likely scenarios. Keeping locked doors and preventing random people from entering resolves much concern. They don't need to be able to hold off an armed attack. And it's not like the 5th graders are going to be armed anyway.

Keeping armed adults from the school grounds makes sense. The children are ostensibly secured and you are not allowed without invite, anyway.

I know this all has holes. The entire dicta surrounding this has holes all over the place.

We will have to see how it plays out. But they are going to have to reconcile the fact that the dicta looks to blow a hole in the right to self preservation. And government cannot condition access to government on relinquishment of a fundamental right. Right now the only argument I see (as contorted as you rightfully point out it appears to be) is one where responsibility shifts from you to them. Otherwise it just doesn't comport.

Maybe there is another way to explain these sensitive places. Maybe SCOTUS is not even sure yet. This could all be the result of a grand compromise among the justices with a promise to sort it all out later.

kcbrown
02-02-2011, 6:08 PM
The other option we have is that Scalia had to add the sensitive places dicta to satisfy Kennedy and maybe Roberts.

You can make an argument that some schools are more sensitive than others. The elementary school is responsible for the safety of underage children, by law. They only need to be responsible under the likely scenarios. Keeping locked doors and preventing random people from entering resolves much concern. They don't need to be able to hold off an armed attack. And it's not like the 5th graders are going to be armed anyway.


Um, what? Defending against an armed attack is precisely the main defensive purpose for a firearm! That goes to the core of 2A more than anything else. One cannot argue that elementary school teachers have less need of a firearm under those circumstances than does the average individual. Indeed, the fact that teachers and other school personnel are at least implicitly charged with the safety of the kids lends even greater weight to their need for access to meaningful defense capabilities than for most people.



Keeping armed adults from the school grounds makes sense. The children are ostensibly secured and you are not allowed without invite, anyway.
But you can't keep armed adults from the school unless the government takes full responsibility for the defense of the school. That means metal detectors, armed guards, etc. Simply stating that it's illegal for adults to carry firearms onto school grounds won't do at all. Someone intent on harm that way will ignore such laws, as they're intent on violating much more serious laws anyway.

No doubt these are the holes you speak of.



I know this all has holes. The entire dicta surrounding this has holes all over the place.
That's putting it mildly. :(



We will have to see how it plays out. But they are going to have to reconcile the fact that the dicta looks to blow a hole in the right to self preservation. And government cannot condition access to government on relinquishment of a fundamental right. Right now the only argument I see (as contorted as you rightfully point out it appears to be) is one where responsibility shifts from you to them. Otherwise it just doesn't comport.

Maybe there is another way to explain these sensitive places. Maybe SCOTUS is not even sure yet. This could all be the result of a grand compromise among the justices with a promise to sort it all out later.Well, the problem is that there's no way at all SCOTUS is going to back out of the "sensitive places" doctrine. They just won't. If they won't abandon something as vile as Slaughterhouse after 135 years of opportunity to do so, there's no way they'll reverse themselves on something for which their ink is still wet.

And since they called out schools as "sensitive places" and said, in essence, that 2A is not in effect in such places, that means that whatever traits schools have, other "sensitive places" can also have, and those places will also be places that 2A essentially doesn't apply. Since those traits include lack of government protection when schools are the places in question, then that's how it'll be in many others as well. Schools will be one of the models upon which other places are designated "sensitive places".


No, the Supreme Court has painted themselves into a corner with that one. There is no reconciliation to be had. Whether it's merely an ill-considered move to appease some of the justices or something more carefully calculated is essentially irrelevant. SCOTUS will not throw egg on their own faces by reversing it or neutering it. Not when they have let much larger travesties remain unchallenged. Also bear in mind that if indeed it's there to appease some of the justices, then moves to reverse or neuter it will not sit well with the justices to whom that particular bone was thrown, and that's likely to cause the swing votes to go to the other side. No, this stuff is now etched in stone for at least as long as the balance on the Court remains as it is. Once it's been around for a couple of decades, then the case law damage it's wreaked will be sufficient that, as with Slaughterhouse, the Court will refuse to overturn itself just because of how much change to the landscape it would cause.

Anyway, all that makes "sensitive places" a total end-run around 2A for governments, to the degree the courts will allow it. And allow it they will. The nature of the "sensitive places" specifically called out in the decision is such that many places will qualify, and for the reasons stated above, SCOTUS will not contradict that.


And that means that if a home also happens to be on or within a "sensitive place", it's entirely possible that 2A will not apply there despite the fact that it's a home we're speaking of.



We're going to be litigating this stuff for decades. :mad:

GMG
02-02-2011, 6:59 PM
Two problems with this. First, he was living on school property. He knew going in that no firearms were allowed. Right or wrong, he agreed to that when he agreed to live there. Second, he consented to a search. You never, never, never consent to a search. If they have probable cause, they don't need your permission. If they don't, then they don't need to search.

How true..........

Patrick-2
02-03-2011, 3:50 AM
No doubt these are the holes you speak of.



Yup.


Well, the problem is that there's no way at all SCOTUS is going to back out of the "sensitive places" doctrine. They just won't. If they won't abandon something as vile as Slaughterhouse after 135 years of opportunity to do so, there's no way they'll reverse themselves on something for which their ink is still wet.


Yup.



And since they called out schools as "sensitive places" and said, in essence, that 2A is not in effect in such places, that means that whatever traits schools have, other "sensitive places" can also have, and those places will also be places that 2A essentially doesn't apply. Since those traits include lack of government protection when schools are the places in question, then that's how it'll be in many others as well. Schools will be one of the models upon which other places are designated "sensitive places".


So what I was trying to do in my above posts was carve out the "traits" that might exist. Even though schools (extending my example above) might not allow me to carry a gun on the grounds, nothing says a teacher could not. And even if they cannot, there is the veil of security applied to the school.

Again...they didn't explain that one well. There is some characteristic of a "school" that presumptively permits a restriction of a fundamental right. What is the compelling interest? What is the standard applied? How do we get to that standard without allowing it to be applied anywhere a legislature wishes?


No, the Supreme Court has painted themselves into a corner with that one. There is no reconciliation to be had. Whether it's merely an ill-considered move to appease some of the justices or something more carefully calculated is essentially irrelevant.

...



Well, the paint is not dry and they did create an opt-out by saying "presumptively lawful". That was there to let them wiggle and it smells an awful lot like a compromise in the background (with Roberts?) and an agreement to kick the can down the road a ways. What we can now "presume", they can later rule.

In the end, they can simply say that whatever ruling they make in the future does not contradict Heller simply because Heller did not ask that question and they did not analyze it fully. So they added some language about presumptively lawful regulations fully expecting each issue would come back to the court for individual analysis, as appropriate.


Anyway, all that makes "sensitive places" a total end-run around 2A for governments, to the degree the courts will allow it. And allow it they will. The nature of the "sensitive places" specifically called out in the decision is such that many places will qualify, and for the reasons stated above, SCOTUS will not contradict that.

And that means that if a home also happens to be on or within a "sensitive place", it's entirely possible that 2A will not apply there despite the fact that it's a home we're speaking of.



Well, it looks like the sensitive places dicta creates a rational-basis carve-out in the Second Amendment. But rational basis is not allowed, per Heller, because 'any fundamental right subject to rational basis would allow the legislature to enact regulation rendering the right meaningless', or something like that.

So there appears to be a two-tier approach: you need a strict analysis to qualify a 'sensitive place'; but once it qualifies you have a much lower standard for rules within it.

In that case, the home would not meet the standards of either strict analysis or even a categorical analysis. But a courtroom - where all entrants are scanned for weapons and guards keep security - could suffice (in my theory).

Schools just do not fit with any theory I have yet heard. As you note, there is some characteristic trait - some compelling interest that can only be met by removing the right - within a school that makes it a rights-free zone. Identifying those traits are going to be the subject of much debate.


We're going to be litigating this stuff for decades. :mad:

Damn right. No beer for Gura. ;)

ALSystems
02-03-2011, 7:41 AM
A school is a place where classes are held. If there were no classes held in his home, it's not a school.
I went to a university that is 5300 acres in size. Most of that was farmland and open land. All the classes were located in a relatively small area in one corner.

Is the entire 5300 acres a sensitive area? Or should some distinctions be made. :confused:

yellowfin
02-03-2011, 8:34 AM
As long as people on our side continue to indulge the illusion that this is about safety rather than about segregation we will get nowhere.

Write Winger
02-03-2011, 9:48 AM
Let them fight it anyway. All laws and decisions need clarification. Did they mean schools as in classrooms only, or do they mean residences, or dorms? Just let them fight it and stay tuned.

kcbrown
02-03-2011, 9:54 AM
So what I was trying to do in my above posts was carve out the "traits" that might exist. Even though schools (extending my example above) might not allow me to carry a gun on the grounds, nothing says a teacher could not. And even if they cannot, there is the veil of security applied to the school.


The problem is that there is no "veil of security" applied to a school, at least anymore than there is anywhere else that isn't completely open and accessible. Which is to say, what "veil of security" exists at a school also exists at most places. So not only does that not render a school unique, it does nothing at all to distinguish a school from just about any other place. Even if it is a necessary prerequisite to a place being "sensitive", it really does nothing at all to narrow the field of such places.



Again...they didn't explain that one well. There is some characteristic of a "school" that presumptively permits a restriction of a fundamental right. What is the compelling interest? What is the standard applied? How do we get to that standard without allowing it to be applied anywhere a legislature wishes?
Well, we can analyze that.

What are the characteristics of a "school" that distinguish it from other places?


A high concentration of young people.
A mission to instruct those people.
A high concentration of people whose purpose is to carry out that mission.

And that's it! Nothing else about a school distinguishes it from any other place.



Well, the paint is not dry and they did create an opt-out by saying "presumptively lawful". That was there to let them wiggle and it smells an awful lot like a compromise in the background (with Roberts?) and an agreement to kick the can down the road a ways. What we can now "presume", they can later rule.
But doesn't "presumptively lawful" have a specific meaning in the law? Something like: the burden is on those contesting the law to show that it does not apply?



In the end, they can simply say that whatever ruling they make in the future does not contradict Heller simply because Heller did not ask that question and they did not analyze it fully. So they added some language about presumptively lawful regulations fully expecting each issue would come back to the court for individual analysis, as appropriate.
I suppose that's possible.



Well, it looks like the sensitive places dicta creates a rational-basis carve-out in the Second Amendment. But rational basis is not allowed, per Heller, because 'any fundamental right subject to rational basis would allow the legislature to enact regulation rendering the right meaningless', or something like that.

So there appears to be a two-tier approach: you need a strict analysis to qualify a 'sensitive place'; but once it qualifies you have a much lower standard for rules within it.
No, this doesn't work, because if it did then schools couldn't qualify as "sensitive places".

Alternatively, every place that has characteristics similar to schools would qualify on the same basis that schools do, and you get the effect I described previously.




In that case, the home would not meet the standards of either strict analysis or even a categorical analysis. But a courtroom - where all entrants are scanned for weapons and guards keep security - could suffice (in my theory).
But again, schools already blow that theory out of the water.

Had SCOTUS limited their statement to "government buildings" then you'd have an argument, but the fact that they included schools changes everything, as you seem to recognize.



Damn right. No beer for Gura. ;)LOL!

Patrick-2
02-03-2011, 12:39 PM
I absolutely recognize your points, and to be clear, I am not in disagreement. The schools dicta is a huge mess. I am just trying to figure out how they could get there without destroying all else. So I'm tossing theories on the wall to see what sticks.

I think the kids angle is what they are thinking, tied to some veil/sense of security. Right now it's all I got. Maybe the smart kids can think of others.

CHS
02-03-2011, 12:59 PM
Sorry, but there is a lot of FAIL on his part and in this thread (He broke the law) we all have bullet buttons on our nonregistered AWS right? (its dumb but we follow it)


There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon in Florida where this happened. They don't even know what bullet buttons are there.


First he had a gun in school owned housing (I donít like it any more than the rest of you) but that is the law, donít like it change it.


Heller said that you have a FUNDAMENTAL right to possess a usable firearm in the home. Period.

big red
02-03-2011, 5:12 PM
It sounds like the only hope the guy has of winning this one is to find a good lawyer who can find some contradiction in the lease agreement and school policy on weapons. I know campus's where the school leases off site housing outside the actual school property and if this is the case he has a much better chance. Also there is a significant difference between living in college droms and in college owned apartments where the attempt is made to make the apartment residence more like living off campus and thus the intent could be challenged. But any way it is looked at it is goign to be an uphill battle no matter what for this guy.

Patrick-2
02-04-2011, 4:35 AM
There are a lot of old laws in Florida that have not caught up with their more tolerant view of guns in recent history.

For instance, I am buying a shack house on a Gulf key and am studying zoning and code stuff. In the "Emergency Powers" section of the law for the city and county there is a restriction on the transport or sale of firearms and ammunition during a declared emergency. My hackles raised.

BUT...three paragraphs later they inserted an exception that said none of the above restrictions count if you are performing the acts "for personal self defense."

It was an obvious patch to an old law. Yeah, I can see where the sales ban could raise an issue with some, but this is on an island with an average height of 5 ft and near everything in the city is ~200 yards or less from the shore. In a hurricane emergency, they shouldn't be selling anything - whether it be guns or blankets. Everyone needs to get the eff out, ASAP.


So maybe this is case where the student was caught up in "old law". Courts might be sympathetic. He has a better chance in Florida than California, for sure.