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.

And:

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.

The American Psychiatric Association has an interesting Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services. It contains this:

Because privacy in mental health treatment is
essential to encourage persons in need of
treatment to seek care, laws mandating psychiatrists
and other mental health professionals to
report to law enforcement officials everyone who
appears to be a danger to themselves or others are
likely to be counterproductive and should not be
adopted.

Basically they throw the ball back into the gun control court with this:

Many deaths and injuries from gun violence can be
prevented through national and state legislative and
regulatory action. These actions should include:
a. Limiting access to guns by persons who are
identified as dangerous, whether or not they have
been diagnosed with a mental disorder;
b. Requiring more extensive background checks and
waiting periods on all gun sales or transactions;
c. Requiring safe storage of all firearms in the home,
office or other places of daily assembly; and
d. Limiting access to semi-automatic firearms, high
capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition
to reduce risk of critical injuries and death from
firearms;

I wonder what they mean by “Limiting access”. Probably a complete ban or NFA type paperwork and taxes. “High velocity ammunition?” I think that is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I wonder what their threshold is such that they would consider a bullet “high velocity”.

I would like to suggest the APA confine itself to psychiatric issues and leave the gun restriction suggestions to criminologists.

The Seafair Foundation is putting on a 4^th of July celebration at Gasworks Park this Friday.

It takes place at a public park yet they say:

Prohibited Items
-Personal Barbecues
-Marijuana
-Alcohol
-Fireworks, explosives or incendiary materials or devices
-Pets, other than service animals
-Weapons and Firearms
-Glass bottles
-Illegal drugs

Firearm regulation is preempted by the state legislature. The city of Seattle cannot ban firearms in the park (they tried and were slapped down by the courts) but can a 501(c)(3) organization do it? And do they have anything greater than the threat of trespass prosecution if you were to violate their prohibition of the exercise of a specific enumerated right on public property?