Posted on 3/4/2009, 9:43:35 PM by Zakeet
A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professor’s actions are what really need to be investigated.
Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.
That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.
“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly non-threatening matter,” Wahlberg told The Recorder, the CCSU student newspaper that first reported the story. “Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat.”
Wahlberg declined to comment further to FOXNews.com, saying he did not want more media attention.
According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“If police cannot articulate probable cause, they should limit the scope of their inquiries.”
Coffee. Out. Nose.
My phraseology was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but my point was serious. If police cannot articulate probable cause to believe that an individual has information about some particular crime that has likely been committed, they have no legitimate reason to "request" much of anything.
/understatement
No state permit is required for the purchase of rifles or shotguns. No sale or delivery of a rifle or shotgun can be made until the expiration of two weeks from the date of application for purchase. The waiting period does not apply to law enforcement officers, active duty military personnel, holders of a valid state permit to carry a handgun, holders of a valid hunting license or antique firearms. A permit to carry a handgun, a permit to sell handguns, or a handgun eligibility certificate is required to purchase a pistol or revolver. Any person, firm or corporation who sells or otherwise transfers a handgun must contact the Connecticut State Police to verify the validity of the permit to carry handguns or the handgun eligibility certificate. All firearms sellers are required to retain records of firearms sales for a minimum of five years.
So it looks like the are maintaining those "eligibility verifications"
They also have a "ban" of "Assault weapons", which is kinda funny considering that Colt makes the M4 there, and Stag Arms is also located there (New Britain). I just bought a stripped lower by Stag, and I just verified that by looking at the box, which is setting next to my computer, awaiting the kit for the rest of the weapon.
Get some rope and a big tree. (Just kidding), jail and a cellmate named Bubba will do.
Oops, make that cellmate Rachel Maddow.
You’re not a female........................I hope................
True dat. Very true.
How do you think they got to talk to him? They ‘stopped’ him in some fashion. You’re down to arguing technicalities.
But don’t worry, if you haven’t done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
So, drawing ARMOR in class was treated as a “gun” violation by the university?
What would have happened if he had been playing D&D in the dorm or cafeteria?
If he had actually “drawn” a sword or halliard?
Would a hammer have been OK? No sharp edges, right?
I am not trying to argue technicalities. I am saying that there are times when the police want to talk to someone and it turns out that the someone is willing to cooperate, so information is exchanged and the someone thinks it’s finished and the police think it’s finished, and nobody’s rights were violated. That’s all.
That can and does happen, and it is not a bad thing, in and of itself.
Or try this tack - police get a call. Suspicious persons roaming a bedroom community where most of the people are off to work. They cruise over and see you moving stuff out of your garage. They engage you in converstaion to establish who you are and what you’re doing. Sounds good to me. I want the police to do that.
But wait. It’s your house. Where’s the probable cause? They don’t know you committed a crime so why are they talking to you? It’s intimidation! It a violation of your rights! The right answer to give the cops is “None of your damn business is what I’m doing.” Sure it is.
Back to our case. Just from what I read - and not reading in any Orwellian undertones not in evidence - the guy was not arrested, not detained, not threatened. He doesn’t think he was. From reading the actual article, I get the feeling the cops and the guy ageed that the prof over-reacted. Which is what I think. But I don’t think the cops over-reacted. They just did a routine follow-up. Based on a call. And we don’t know exactly what the prof said. For that matter, we don’t know exactly how the guy was acting in class. Maybe he was acting weird. I doubt it, but I don’t know.
So again, can the police NEVER try to talk to anyone? Do they need to to have an airtight case BEFORE they investigate? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Or should they pre-judge the situation, decide the prof is a loon, or worst yet, a liberal, or worst of all, a woman who is plain unfomfortable with guns, and therefore this means the guy she is calling about is definitely not a threat to anyone.
Or should they just talk to the guy and see?
So pay in cash & don’t tell the bozo’s your name.End of that little problem.
By John R. Lott Jr. & Maxim C. Lott
I believe Max is John's son. IIRC, John is the author of The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime.
Thanks neverdem.
/bingo
Well, I wouldn’t blame the Cops - at this point.
The real blame goes to a nutty professor trying to stifle free speech by using the police to intimidate a student.
But the tapes of her call to the police and the conversation with them should be reviewed.
If she said she had a student who was behaving irrationally about guns and that was that, the cops were justified.
If they had an involved discussion and it was very clear that the individual involved was merely expressing a personsal opinion in her class, and cops decided to act anyway, THEY are as culpable as she is.
This is a clear case of someone trying to intimidate free speech and violate a constitutional right.
The question is were two parties culpable or just one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.