Guns On Campus: Northern Illinois U: Rule #1: Sue Everybody.

Alright, you know the facts. Now answer the question: What are the tort liabilities?

By John Longenecker

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 students body, not really, 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, were disciplined, and sued the college? With all the activity about concealed carry on campus, you can't say they weren't on notice.

At this time, FOX News and others (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.

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 adjust his or her plan to avoid them. Undercover cops won't change much, since they don't attend classes. This is at the heart of the Liberty Movement: over-reliance on assets to the exclusion of the citizen, in this case, 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 and hasty is not only insulting, but it betrays a neurotic notion in the minds of administrators against all liberty in America.

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 right next to him.

The genius of concealed carry is that you just don't know who is armed and who isn't, and that alone is the step in the right direction. 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, with 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.

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.

Administrartions have ignored (and punished) how CITIZEN AUTHORITY plays an important 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 cannot discourage under threat of punishment, counseling or expulsion. This is where litigation comes in for demonstrable interference and demonstrable damages. Law Department, call your office.

The best way to handle the campus or workplace, airport, public buildings or anywhere violence is not to arm the faculty, but to lift all gun bans from students, employees, parents and visitors. Citizen authority trumps stubborn interference policy by trustees. They don't want you to know your own authority.

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.

John Longenecker is President and CEO of Good For The Country Foundation, a patriotic non-profit organization.