PA Bill Number: HB800
Title: In hunting and furtaking, further providing for interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited.
Description: In hunting and furtaking, further providing for interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited. ...
Last Action:
Last Action Date: Feb 28, 2025
Anti-gun Academics Presume to be Above Law, Not Liable for Consequences :: 09/26/2015
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “It doesn’t matter if state law allows people to openly carry guns on the University of Michigan’s campus, the university argued in a recent court filing, because only U-M’s board can set U-M policy,” the Detroit Free Press reported Tuesday. That’s because, in U-M’s view, the Michigan Constitution exempts U-M from having to pay attention to a state law banning local governmental units from making weapons laws.
Criminals For Gun Free Schools: Evidently, “progressive” academics would rather see adult students, employees and visitors killed than armed. — Campus Carry
Well heck, if they’re “progressive educators” (but I contradict myself), they must be exempted from the supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights as well.
And leave it to the hive insects in Austin to come up with a more surgical approach — classroom exemptions, as a report from KXAN-TV explains. They even give us a statement that’s revealing of mindset. No, I’m not talking about the idiot claiming a right to be free from self-inflicted paranoia, I’m talking about the Pauline Kael-like incredulity (“hermetic liberal provincialism”– I like that) of “Joan Neuberger from the History Department”:
I have to say most of us didn’t think this law would pass because it seems very wrong to us…
You don’t get out much, do you, Joan? It figures that someone who has not learned from the past presumes to teach others about it, what with the truism that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
The most telling thing about all this is no one who wants to prohibit the tools of self-defense is willing to acknowledge a special contractual relationship with a duty to protect all who submit to their demands, and to assume an attendant liability should they fail in that obligation. Why wouldn’t they – unless they know they have no way of guaranteeing it?
Why not present everyone demanding you disarm on their premises with one of these, and watch them come up with all kinds of disingenuous excuses for not signing it?
MANDATED DISARMAMENT PROTECTION CONTRACT
___________________________ agrees that a
legally-binding special relationship exists with
____________________________
while on our premises. Because we have required him/her
to be unarmed, we hereby agree to assume responsibility
for his/her personal safety and protection, and admit
and accept liability should we fail in this duty.
_____________________________
Signature/Title/Date
Also see: Opposition to Campus Carry Relies on Defenselessness & Offensive Stereotypes.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
