Dr. Grier is a former professor of mine. I took Philosophy 101 from him as a freshman. I never imagined he would be my political adversary attempting to make my daughter defenseless when she was at school:
At the University of Idaho, Dr. Nicholas Grier has distributed a legal opinion by attorney Benjamin Onosko to faculty that explains how the university may just choose to not enforce the dangerous law, or challenge it in court.
The University of Idaho holds a special place in Idaho law as compared to every other university in the state,” wrote Onosko. The university, he explains, was founded through the state constitution while other public colleges and universities were established through the state legislature. “By choosing to include the University of Idaho in its constitution, Idaho gave the university inherent powers that most other universities do not enjoy,” he wrote. He added that, “while I have not had time to conduct a full investigation of relevant case law from surrounding jurisdictions, I believe that the University of Idaho has a strong argument that this new law is unconstitutional as applied to it, and that it cannot be enforced against the University of Idaho.”
Grier is a proponent of Gandhi and non-violence. I get that. But perhaps he was selective when he studied Gandhi’s work. These quotes in particular would seem to be something he overlooked or ignored:
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have used his physical force which could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.
The people at the University of Idaho think they are special? Do they think they are so special they can override Article 1, Sections 1 and 11 of the Idaho State Constitution?
SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.
SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
And if they think they can override that there is still the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which is supposed to keep people like this in check.