The Second Amendment does not apply to schools.
Director Of Government Relations at Boise State University
February 28, 2014
Testimony before Idaho House State Affairs Committee
[That’s odd. My copy of the Bill of Rights doesn’t have an exclusion for schools. If Mr. Newcomb’s does then that must mean he shouldn’t have a problem with him being convicted without a trial as long as it is done on school property.
H/T to Mike for the email.—Joe]
I believe that the second should not apply to politicians and bureaucratic functionaries, along with the rest of the Bill of rights.
It certianly explains the views a lot of universities have with regard to Free Speech.
Well, the First Amendment definitely did not apply to Georgia Tech, despite being a public institution – we had designated “free speech zones”. I guess this is just being consistent with all amendments.
Of course it doesn’t apply to schools. It’s an individual right, and schools are usually designated as a collection of buildings, and building have not rights, only their owners. So, though he is technically correct, it’s irrelevant.
But that also highlights what part of another problem is. Category error. A school is where people learn, regardless of location or other designation. It’s not a specific set of buildings and functionaries employed there. But that’s another topic.
The Second Amendment applies to governments. They shall not infringe…
Boise State University is a government entity. The Second Amendment applies to them.
Ah. The other (more proper) way of looking at it. So he’s either right (by the “statement of individual rights” perspective) because schools are not people and building don’t have rights (meaning his statement is “true, but idiotic”), or he’s wrong, it applies specifically to government sponsored orgs, and he’s demanding a prohibited infringement.
More precisely, it applies to all actions of any government official, employee, or agent.
Rolf — yes and no.
As Neil Smith has explained at length in a number of places, the Bill of Rights is actually mislabeled. It isn’t a document that establishes rights. Instead, it is a document that forbids the government interfering with your pre-existing rights.
Yes, it certainly protects individual rights, but indirectly. The direct statements are all of the form “Congress shall make no law” or “shall not be infringed”. So they are prohibitions, aimed at government agents.
In other words, none of the statements in the Bill of Rights are (directly) aimed at you or me. They don’t limit what we can do in any way. But they ARE directly and expressly aimed at the idiot Joe quoted, and at everyone who collects a paycheck from any branch of government anywhere in the country, or anyone who claims to act by authority of some law or regulation.
So Mr. Newcomb is flat out wrong, and it is trivially obvious to anyone capable of reading ordinary English language that he is wrong. And furthermore, since he is a government employee, he was required to make an oath to obey the Constitution as a condition of his employment, which means that he is also a felon (guilty of perjury).
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure” — Thomas Jefferson
Florida Carry has received 6 digit checks from schools who’ve believed that.
Free Speech Zones.
I recall great gnashing of teeth about free speech zones at the Republican Convention. I believe it was because the erstwhile demonstrators were dismayed that they would not get good tv of them shouting and spitting at the delegates .
I think — and correct me if I’m wrong, but Free Speech Zones became a necessity at the conventions because of the ugliness and threats of violence of demonstrators demonstrating against conservatives.
Ahh, the good old 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago, where free speech met (Democrat) Mayor Daley’s police, tear gas, batons and paddy wagons. Good times, good times.
If Boise State can’t find a way to rid themselves of twits like Newcomb, or to put a muzzle on him and relegate him to Janitorial Services, they should be de-funded at the earliest opportunity. We could debate the question of whether there is any place in the good State of Idaho for such insanity, hatred of humans rights, and blatant stupidity, but we certainly shouldn’t be funding it with our tax dollars– that’s an embarrassment at the very least, if not a crime.