They think they are special

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.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

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.

People like this who openly acknowledge they are “Seeking Ways to Circumvent Laws” should be prosecuted for conspiracy to infringe the rights of others.


7 thoughts on “They think they are special

  1. Gier distributed the article below in the Idaho Federation of Teachers newsletter yesterday. This was apparently distributed to union members and others at Idaho colleges. A relative who works at Idaho State University forwarded it to me.

    These people are clearly delusional.

    “In an article in the Lewiston Morning Tribune (June 29), UI biology professor Jack Sullivan expressed strong opinions against Senate Bill 1254, which allows guns in Idaho’s college and university classrooms. Steve Boss, a University of Arkansas professor and a founding member of Arkansans Against Guns On Campus has responded to Sullivan’s comments. Before the UA faculty won a waiver to a similar law in their state, Boss was prepared to file the following complaint against the legislation.
    1) The “guns on campus” law constitutes a very large social experiment involving human subjects.
    2) The subjects are employees and students of state higher education institutions.
    3) The subjects have not willingly agreed to be participants in this experiment. Instead, it has been forced on them by legislative fiat.
    4) The subjects have not given informed consent to be participants.
    5) There is no reasonable means for the subjects (employees and enrolled students) to opt out of the experiment.
    6) The safety and well-being of the experimental subjects cannot be guaranteed.
    7) The experimental protocol has not be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board.
    8) Given the experimental design outlined above, the IRB approval would never be granted for this experiment.
    9) Implementation of the law thus constitutes an illegal experiment with human subjects and represents institutionalized research misconduct, which is a felony.
    10) Implementation of the law at every institution statewide represents conspiracy to commit research misconduct and an illegal experiment using human subjects.”

    • Isn’t it more accurate to say the disarmament is an experiment already in progress, that has shown itself a failure AND which is in contravention of the fundamental rights of the subjects?

      I would be curious as to whether he’d consider free speech a new, dangerous experiment for the campus as well.

  2. “Inherent powers” that other don’t have. Wow. They’re of the order of wizards! That and they want to be their own country within a country, like the Vatican? But even the Vatican has it’s own army. The Swiss Guard I believe it is called.

    I hung out with many U of I students, and professors alike, for many years. Yes; depending on the department, socialist thinking is more or less rampant. Virulent even. It comes from being rather shockingly sequestered from the real world for so long, with gigantic sums of money pouring in, for all they know, from Heaven and because of their stature, or inherent state of worthiness and entitlement. They can’t help it. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the structure. Some would call it a feature.

  3. The University of Colorado tried this. (Similar Constitutional status.) They lost in court.

Comments are closed.