university president liable

[raeken45]

Since a university president is the only person that can grant or deny permission for a ccl holder to carry on campus, if they personally deny a students request could they be held liable should something happen. I mean if a student was killed or injured and that could have been prevented if allowed to carry. The sda says the university president specifically and not the school make the decision I believe.

 

[SoonerP226]

Not likely; the president of a university would be making that decision in his capacity as the head of the institution, not as an individual, and would thus be protected by the institution (as long as the decision itself is lawful). You might try to sue him individually, but I doubt you'd get anywhere, and the university's legal counsel would almost certainly still defend him.

 

[loudshirt]

It would also be very hard to prove that is was the presidents actions that led to the injury or death. Unless the person requested permission for a very specific threat and that exact threat is what killed or injured the student. I dont me oh the thugs will kick my butt while i walk back from the convenience store. More like this exact person who has communicated these exact threats injured or killed a student exactly has described in the request to carry on campus.

 

[henschman]

No, it wouldn't go anywhere trying to make a negligence or wrongful death claim (I don't know what other claim you might make). You would have real trouble showing that the President owed you a duty, as the law is clear that the President has complete discretion in this matter. Also, these things are routinely denied by University Presidents everywhere. Causation would be a problem, too. Even direct causation isn't a slam dunk, as it is kind of hard to prove a negative (that you wouldn't have gotten your butt kicked even if you'd had a gun), and proximate causation would be a real problem, as the President is so far removed from whatever POS actually committed the crime. The suit would almost surely be kicked out on a motion to dismiss. Still, it could create good publicity for the issue. The Brady Campaign is the master of this -- filing frivolous lawsuits against folks in the gun industry that they know will be dismissed or are barred by statute, just to create publicity -- like when they sued Armslist a couple years ago.

 

[nuclearabe]

I've discussed this issue with my wife. My work does not allow me to defend myself with a firearm. It's their property and i respect that. If they fail to provide protection required to 100% ensure my safety, they should be held responsible, since they denied me my ability to defend myself. The only way we could make this so is through legislation. Most employers would oppose it.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[tRidiot]

I've discussed this issue with my wife. My work does not allow me to defend myself with a firearm. It's their property and i respect that. If they fail to provide protection required to 100% ensure my safety, they should be held responsible, since they denied me my ability to defend myself. The only way we could make this so is through legislation. Most employers would oppose it.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

No one forces you to work at a job where you don't feel safe. That will be their defense. I don't believe the current political climate in this country today would support your assertion.

 

[twoguns?]

Ive been looking around today, and it looks like people are more into learning to defend themselves...(who else is going to?)
Even some Sheriffs and local LEO's are saying ....defend you and yours.....
anyone else see this, or am I being hopeful....

 

[nuclearabe]

I'm seeing it too. Liberal friends of mine who used to be anti-second amendment are asking where to take classes and how to defend themselves. All of a sudden the NRA isn't the bogeyman.

I just renewed my NRA membership for five years and am thinking about upping to lifetime. Now is the time to propose extra protections and remove stupid restrictions.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[Dale00]

Here is a talking point to share so as to raise awareness of the need for more concealed carry: Social media is reporting that a check of the San Bernardino male terrorist's cell phone reveals many photos of the exterior and grounds of a public high school in nearby Rialto. He was a restaurant inspector and visited many school kitchens. There are worse things than the massacre that did take place.

 

[rhart]

Here is a talking point to share so as to raise awareness of the need for more concealed carry: Social media is reporting that a check of the San Bernardino male terrorist's cell phone reveals many photos of the exterior and grounds of a public high school in nearby Rialto. He was a restaurant inspector and visited many school kitchens. There are worse things than the massacre that did take place.

Of course Obama would/will spin that as being an even better reason to ban all guns all the while ignoring the fact that Mexico has practically already banned all guns yet probably has more murders and more mass shootings than the US. Of course he will revert to the lie that 99% of all guns in Mexico come from the US (even though fast and furious was supposedly stopped a while back).