MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Community College Bans Pro-Second-Amendment Banner with Picture of Rifles

A clear violation of the First Amendment -- and not even justified under the College's own stated reasons.

Townhall (Beth Baumann) reports that the Orange Coast College chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom was barred from displaying this banner at a campus student recruitment fair. The careful reader will doubtless say, "Ah, it must be because the college is deeply committed to historical precision, and officials insist that the Amendment has only existed as an Amendment, rather than just as a proposed Amendment, since 1791 rather than 1789." Well, no: According to the Townhall report, the College objected to the banner's depicting the sillouettes of two rifles—which, college officials said, were forbidden by a college policy that bars not just firearms but any "facsimile of a firearm."

But such a decision violates the First Amendment. Once a university opens up a space where students may display banners, it then may not restrict such displays unless the restriction is viewpoint-neutral and reasonable. It's hard to see a viewpoint-neutral rationale for banning even sillhouette displays of guns, which no-one would confuse for real guns.

But even if the rationale is viewpoint-neutral, it's not reasonable: To be reasonable, a restriction on speech within a government-created forum must be "consistent with the [government's] legitimate interest in 'preserv[ing] the property ... for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.'" Nothing about the display of rifle sillhouettes interferes with the government's legitimate interest in preserving campus property for its normal uses, except insofar as such a display conveys a pro-gun viewpoint to which some people object.

Indeed, Burnham v. Ianni (8th Cir. 1997) (en banc), rejected an attempt to exclude pictures of guns from a government-created forum (there, a display of professors' research interests), because such an exclusion was both unreasonable and viewpoint-based. The Eighth Circuit en banc majority reasoned,

The display case was designated for precisely the type of activity for which the Kohns and Professors Burnham and Marchese were using it. It was intended to inform students, faculty and community members of events in and interests of the history department. The University was not obligated to create the display case, nor did it have to open the case for use by history department faculty and students. However, once it chose to open the case, it was prevented from unreasonably distinguishing among the types of speech it would allow within the forum. Since the purpose of the case was the dissemination of information about the history department, the suppression of exactly that type of information was simply not reasonable.

The same reasoning would apply here: The recruitment fair was designated for precisely the type of activity for which YAF was using it. It was intended to inform students of events put on by and interests of student groups. The University was not obligated to create the fair, nor did it have to open it for student groups. However, once it chose to open the fair, it was prevented from unreasonably distinguishing among the types of speech it would allow within the forum. Since the purpose of the fair was the dissemination of information about student groups, the suppression of exactly that type of information was simply not reasonable.

But beyond this, it doesn't even make sense to read the college policy as banning the banner. The policy, titled "WEAPONS PROHIBITED ON DISTRICT PROPERTY," says,

Firearms, knives, explosives or other dangerous objects, including, but not limited to any facsimile of a firearm, knife, or explosive, are prohibited on District property, at the colleges, or any college satellite location.

A sillhouette of a rifle isn't a "facsimile of a firearm" as that term is normally used, in legal contexts or others. A facsimile would be something that, in the words of one state statute (from Wisconsin), "means any replica, toy, starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm."

Facsimiles are potentially dangerous (whether or not you think they should be banned) because they might be mistaken for real guns, and thus be perceived as threats, whether deliberately (for instance, if someone uses a facsimile gun to rob someone) or accidentally (for instance, if police officers think a facsimile gun that someone is playing with is a real gun). An image on a banner lacks those qualities; it can't "reasonably ... be perceived to be an actual firearm," and it doesn't bear a resemblance to a gun in the sense of looking like a gun (rather than like a picture of a gun). And that's especially clear because the policy bans "dangerous objects, including ... any facsimile of a firearm"; that is most recently read as barring facsimiles that are actually dangerous (i.e., ones that can be mistaken for a gun) rather than pictures that are not at all dangerous.

So I think the policy itself doesn't violate the First Amendment, precisely because it is properly read as not extending to pictures such as this. But if the policy is read as covering such pictures on banners, then it does violate the First Amendment. And in any event, the college's actions violate the First Amendment.

Townhall reports that "Orange Coast College did not immediately respond to Townhall's request for comment"; I likewise reached out to the College media relations after-hours phone number and e-mail address this (Saturday) morning, and haven't yet heard back from them. If I do hear back, I will of course update the post accordingly. [UPDATE: I heard back from an OCC representative, and it appears that the facts as reported in Townhall are accurate; I've therefore revised the post to remove some uses of "reportedly" and similar qualifiers.]

For cases that uphold even K-12 students' right to display images of firearms (there, on T-shirts), see Schoenecker v. Koopman (E.D. Wis. 2018) and Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albemarle County School Board (4th Cir. 2003).

UPDATE: I just noticed that the Orange Coast College sports teams are the Pirates, and their logo includes what, under the College's theory, is a prohibited "facsimile of a ... knife."

Arrr.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Army folks can chime in since I don't know the exact term but their uniforms contain crossed rifles on insignia.

    The USMC has crossed rifles on their rank patches for Lance-Corporal to Master Sergeant. The USMC uses crossed rifles in their Expert Riflemen badge.

    Various military units use crossed rifles as part of their unit design.

  • MaverickNH||

    Orange Coast College list ROTC in their catalog, although classes are at other schools' campuses.

  • Flight-ER-Doc||

    The crossed rifles are flintlocks, and are the insignia of the Infantry branch

  • RoyMo||

    Well not as scary as the artillery

  • Jeff_Kleppe||

    The Navy has a ton of devices that incorporate firearms in them, as well. Off the top of my head, the SEAL and SWCC insignia both have flintlock pistols, the Expeditionary Warfare insignia has an M16A1, the Seabee badge has a Springfield M1903, the Fleet Marine Force badge has two crossed rifles (which I believe are M1 Garands, but I may be wrong). Additionally (and unsurprisingly), the rating insignia of Gunner's Mates, Special Warfare Operators, and Special Warfare Boat Operators all have firearms in them.

  • ||

    I am considering buying a Troy Industries pump-action modern sporting rifle in .243 with the standard 10 rd mags because this gun looks almost exactly like an AR-15 assault rifle but isn't. The 10 rd mag limit is to be in compliance with a new WA state law (?) because I would like to keep the legal issues unmuddled.

    Along that line, I was tickled at a pro-gun video snippet on the net that shows a genuine AR-15 in .223 blasting a concrete block with three rapid semi-auto shots and leaving it wounded but standing. Then the shooter plugs another block once with a slug from a Marlin 1895 lever gun in 45/70 and the concrete disintegrates. Could do the same demonstration with any 3" magnum shotgun slug or buckshot.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    I like that tifle from Troy too. But the AR 15 is not an assault rifle.

  • Junkie||

    the original ones are

    the common ones aren't

  • Flight-ER-Doc||

    Are historical books, movies and videos of (say) the Vietnam war also prohibited, because they would have even more accurate representations of such 'evil' firearms?

  • The original jack burton||

    Or the Massachusetts quarter which has a flintlock on the back of the coin.

  • tpaine||

    Nice catch Eugene

  • Hans Bader||

    The violation of the First Amendment is so clear, under Ninth Circuit precedent, which binds Orange Coast College, that college officials should be denied qualified immunity in any lawsuit.

    It's not just depictions of guns that is protected; even favorable depictions of violence are protected under Ninth Circuit precedent.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Bauer v. Sampson, 261 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2001), said that a professor had a First Amendment right to express in a campus newspaper a yearning for violence against the college president (imagining the dropping of a block of granite on his head). Isn't that much worse than just depicting a gun, from an anti-violence perspective? Yet it was protected.

    Depicting a gun at OCC is merely historical, not a celebration of violence.

  • Flight-ER-Doc||

    OCC is also the campus that expelled a student, for recording a professor threatening the President of the US. And then offered the professor an award.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sounds like they should be criminally investigated. That school is run by pinkos.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    So what's the remedy?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Um fire the OCC administration and take their pensions?

  • Flight-ER-Doc||

    The administrators, the College district, burn the buildings, salt the earth....

    Give the students the web address for Khan Academy, and Indeed.com

  • Chem_Geek||

    What is with this fetish on the right for taking people's pensions? They already earned that; it's deferred compensation. You're calling for theft.

  • Longtobefree||

    Fine.
    As in fine them an amount equal to their pension, each year.

  • Chem_Geek||

    You're still a thief. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Mike45||

    That should cover the cost of their incarceration.

  • bernard11||

    Sturdy champions of the Bill of Rights here at the VC.

  • James Pollock||

    Which is why you're being criticized for your lack of respect for the BOR.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Progressives have no souls.

  • JesseAz||

    Some would argue the six figure pensions California does out is theft in and of itself.

  • OldCurmudgeon||

    > They already earned that;

    Typically, the vested amount isn't all that much... Pension formulas tend to follow an exponential curve. Thus, if you loose one or two of the 'gold years' at the end, it's a big hit.

  • darkknight9||

    I come for the analysis, but stay for the Arrr. :D

  • Tall Paul||

    Does a two-dimensional drawing of a three-dimensional object even come within the definition of a "facsimile"? If a facsimile is an exact reproduction of something, it would seem that a mere drawing or photo of a three-dimensional object wouldn't qualify.

  • James Pollock||

    "Does a two-dimensional drawing of a three-dimensional object even come within the definition of a "facsimile"?"

    Fax machines send two-dimensional images.

  • jph12||

    Not of three-dimensional objects.

  • James Pollock||

    Yeah. Of three dimensional objects.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, fax machines send facsimiles of two dimensional images. The two dimensional images may be of 3 dimensional objects sometimes, but the fax machines is still generating a facsimile of something 2 dimensional.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, fax machines send facsimiles of two dimensional images."

    Yes, fax machines send facsimiles of two dimensional images. In addition, they can take an image of a three-dimensional object, and send a 2D representational image of that 3D object.

    " the fax machines is still generating a facsimile of something 2 dimensional."

    Except for when it's generating a facsimile of something three dimensional.

  • jph12||

    Which isn't what you described. But I know that you will continue insisting otherwise, all logic and reason to the contrary, so I will let you pretend that you are correct.

  • James Pollock||

    "Which isn't what you described"

    Fax machines are fax machines. What were YOU describing?

    "so I will let you pretend that you are correct."

    How very generous of you. May I also continue to pretend that water is wet?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I swear this guy used to be marginally rational at one time. But I am 60, maybe it's just early dementia making me think that.

  • James Pollock||

    Maybe you should look into that dementia theory.

    If you can remember to.

  • Naaman Brown||

    facsimile

    1. "a copy or reproduction"
    cite:1964, Arthur Danto, "The Artworld" : To paraphrase the critic of the Times, if one may make the facsimile of a human being out of bronze, why not the facsimile of a Brillo carton out of plywood?

    2. a fax, a machine for making and sending copies of printed material and images via radio or telephone network

    3. the image sent by the [fax] machine itself

    My replica Sten gun, built on a solid aluminum receiver tube from a WWII Sten MkII parts set, is a facsimile (def. 1). It could be mistaken for a live gun at a distance, which is why they were made: for movie extras in the background. As a WWII history buff, I hang it on a wall rack in my computer room, with a BP tennis ball cannon and a Norinco air rifle. If I walked about on the street with it, I could be reported for "going armed to the terror of the community" even though it is a fake gun.

    If I scanned a photo of it, transmitted it by a fax/facsimile machine, the received image would be a facsimile (def. 3). Just a picture of a gun, not a gun. (If the fax data were lost in transmission, would a reasonable person accuse me of creating a ghost gun?)

    The image on the banner is not a facsimile (def 1) because no one would mistake it for an actual gun, like facsimile like my movie prop .

    I seriously doubt the image on the banner was printed by a fax machine so it is not a facsimile def. 3.

    To be pedantic about it, the image of the gun on the banner is not a facsimile.

  • Naaman Brown||

    WEAPONS PROHIBITED ON DISTRICT PROPERTY
    Firearms, knives, explosives or other dangerous objects, including, but not limited to any facsimile of a firearm, knife, or explosive, are prohibited on District property, at the colleges, or any college satellite location.

    I think it is reasonable to ban dangerous objects and fake dangerous object facsimiles that might be used to intimidate or frighten people from a campus. (Although some people --rapists, robbers, thugs-- might be deterred by display of a fake weapon, such as the Euro "alarm gun" 8mm blank/tear gas pistol popular in parts of Europe, and deserve to be intimidated or frightened.)

    I don't think it is reasonable to ban a banner with the image of a gun. Nor do I think it was the original intent of the authors of the regulation.

    There are a few foreign countries born of revolution whose national flags incorporate images of firearms including AK47s. Would they be banned from display on campus?

  • James Pollock||

    "I don't think it is reasonable to ban a banner with the image of a gun."

    I can think of a few ways to make a banner, with the image of a gun, that actually SHOULD be banned.

    But I don't think a banner should be banned just because it has an image of a gun.

    A possibility that I expected to see explored here, but haven't seen (yet), is the theory that the administration had some other reason to dislike this particular batch of (presumably) dudes, and they used the gun+banner=discipline as an excuse, because "is there a banner with a picture of a gun on it, on campus?" is an easy question to answer.

  • Frank Thorn||

    GDS: Gun Derangement Syndrome

  • Flight-ER-Doc||

    PWH...Panty Wetting Hysteria

  • Rеv. Arthur I. Kirkland||

    Why did the students comply with the unconstitutional demand? This nonsense stops when the students tell these out of control lunatics "No" and when they exercise lawful self defense if said lunatics employ violence to try to accomplish their demands.

    Part of the problem is the immediate compliance with the threat of a lawsuit later. A Later lawsuit isn't good enough. It's time to stop complying to the immediate demand.

  • James Pollock||

    Get your banner and get down there instead of complaining about what someone else did.

  • santamonica811||

    Why? Because (1) 99% of students are not lawyers and are not conversant with all their legal rights. And (2) Because most students are risk-adverse in this way. If you want something, but it's not the world's most important thing to do; it seems rational to ask yourself, "Is it worth risking being suspended, or having some notation on my transcript, if I continue pushing for this thing that I think is legal but the school is telling me it can prohibit?"

    Cases like this really bring home the point that we are very lucky to have advocacy groups like the ACLU, FIRE, IJ, etc, who ARE populated by lawyers and who are *not* filled with people who are worried about getting on the wrong side of a university's administrators. Civil rights are important, and there are situations where the affected people simply don't have the knowledge and/or the will (or the resources!) to fight the good fight.

  • The original jack burton||

    That's why I was glad I was 25 and a six year veteran of the Navy when I started college. After knocking heads with bosuns and Captains going eyeball to eyeball with a college administrator didn't have any fears for me.

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    The ACLU has gone pretty soft on free speech in the last 5+ years now. I remember a few years ago that internal memo stating policy held some beliefs were held higher than the first amendment was circulated by some dissident board members. Just a quick look on their website shows very few non-liberal current free speech cases. They have taken a similar stance on the Second Amendment.

    FIRE has also gone weird in the last few years. Not a peep on their website about this case. A far cry from the hard-nosed activist organization they used to be. My email box would have a press release about a case like this before it even hit the local media. Now it seems they are at least days if not weeks behind public comment and then those comments are pretty milquetoast is quality.

  • SykesFive||

    That might follow if this were a jazz dance group or Lutheran Bible Study that was told it couldn't use a common room. "Oh, sorry, didn't mean to make trouble."

    But this is the campus Second Amendment Group with freaking ARs and "Don't Tread on Me" on their banner, so in fact it seems like a safer assumption that the members (i) do have some idea of what their rights are (and have made contact with sympathetic lawyers); and (ii) are not docile rule-followers and crowd-pleasers. If the group's memberships really think the administration could well be right and are worried about getting in some kind of trouble, then that flag certainly does give the wrong impression.

    It would be kind of like is some kid with long hair, black jeans, and an AC/DC t-shirt came on stage and played Kumbaya on an acoustic guitar.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Because you've gone in debt to get a degree, and if you piss the administration off they can see to it that sunk cost gets you nothing. Students are really very vulnerable to retaliation, so they have to pick their fights carefully.

  • OldCurmudgeon||

    Not to mention, it lets the administration claim they expelled the students (only) because they failed to comply with an order.

    The Admin will probably still loose, but it will require some discovery first... which deeply indebted college students probably can't afford.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bigoted right-wing Mini-Me turns out to be a shoot-'em-up right-wingers as well as an insular Republican?

    No wonder Prof. Volokh likes this guy.

  • DRM||

    If you call him "Mini-Me", then doesn't that make you Rev. Evil?

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    Just ignore Arty Cuckland. He is an automated troll.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Guys like you, Jimmy, do not get to ignore guys like me.

    Instead, you get to obey our preferences, because we won the culture war and turned guys like you into disaffected, irrelevant right-wing losers.

    So complain all you want, but don't stop toeing the line established by your betters.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    Obey what preferences Cuckland? Have you been drinking again?

    And by "won" the cultural wars, what metrics are you using? Gay marriage? Pot legalization?

    Gay marriage. Yeah the left "won" that just in the manner an opposing team wins by forfeit because the other team just doesn't show up. I think the "win" is mostly because after the left spent a generation raping the definition of marriage, most heterosexual people just stopped caring. There was no more sanctity of marriage so the normals just said "whatever let the gays be as miserable as we have been" and now the normals just don't get married. It is sort of like being back in high school when you buy the "cool shirt" only to find out the reason that it was on such a great sale is because it wasn't "cool" anymore.

    And if you are resting your laurels on legal weed, that was supported a good deal by right leaning libertarian types. Yeah a lot of politicians wouldn't outright say it, but neither would left wingers about gay marriage until that became "cool". Hardly evidence that you left wingers are "winning".

    Also, you conveniently seem to forget that the left has lost pretty hard on some other issues that aren't even close calls - guns, affirmative action, tax and spend, abortion - just to name a few. So who is the "clinger" again?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You missed the liberal-libertarian alliance's vanquishment of right-wingers during the most recent 60 or 70 years of American progress?

    Women now constitute roughly half of many graduate school classes. Blacks and gays are no longer treated like dirt. Right-wing bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public. They hide behind terms such as 'colorblind' and 'traditional values,' revealing their diffuse intolerance solely in safe spaces such as gatherings in private homes, militia gatherings, and Republican committee meetings.

    America's electorate becomes less rural, less white, less religious, less backward and less bigoted each day, as elderly Republicans take their stale thinking to the grave and are replaced by younger, better Americans. Republican states are can't-keep-up backwaters -- economic, cultural, political, and moral losers.

    Stale indoctrination preferred by conservatives -- creationism and prayer, for example -- has been removed from public schools. Conservative-controlled schools are mostly fourth-tier (or unranked), censorship-ridden, nonsense-teaching, science-disdaining goober factories, while America's strongest schools are are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream. Right-wing professors whine ineffectually about how strong schools decline to emulate weak schools by hiring more movement conservatives for faculties.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Abortion and contraception are legal. Drug warriors are in rapid retreat. Most Americans oppose gun nuttery; backlash against gun absolutism seems predictable. (I hope that snapback doesn't overrun a right to possess a reasonable self-defense firearm in the home.) Right-wingers nip at the ankles of environmentalism but are mostly playing defense.

    Americans who prefer reason, education, tolerance, science, progress, and modern, successful communities have won the American culture war, and seem destined to continue to prevail against those who favor superstition, ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, dogma, insularity and shambling backwaters. America has changed greatly for the better during my lifetime, largely in line with my preferences, and the prospect that right-wingers who pine for illusory good old days are going to change the trajectory of American progress seems remote.

    You guys get to mutter bitterly all you want, though.

  • James Pollock||

    "Except that we're wiilling to die"

    Feel free to do so at your first convenience.

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    Cuckland must be good and soused right now. I hope he calls one of those 800 numbers and gets help.

    He seems to have hit the delusional side of alcohol/drug usage in thinking it is 1959 and not 2019. Because he appears to be stuck in that age with his take on society.

  • Chem_Geek||

    Us superior and advanced conservatives most certainly do get to ignore you, as we are your betters, just like we can ignore a pit Yorkie yapping away.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Breaking news: "bigoted right wing mini-Artie" turns out to be Artie all along. Number of people surprised? 0.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "Why did the students comply with the unconstitutional demand? "

    I know, right? Just like when a cop pulls over a black driver, and the driver knows damn well that the only reason he's getting pulled over is that he's black, he should assert his rights and just keep going. What could go wrong?

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    I don't doubt that "driving while black" at least goes into the calculus when a police officer decides to say pull over a black driver as opposed to white driver that was in the same lane of traffic going the same illegal speed. But a lot of the "(crime)...while black" accusations are actually just black people outright ignoring the law. The whole Starbucks thing comes to mind. Or Ferguson where that cuddly teddy bear guy just happened to commit strong armed robbery before almost killing a cop that had to shoot him to protect his own life. All those were supposed "...while black" offenses.

  • Chem_Geek||

    Exactly correct. The latest outrage is a "rapper" being shot by police for "sleeping while black," however what most of the outragedly outraged media reports fail to mention is that said "rapper" was passed out in the drive-thru of a restaurant and had a gun in his lap, which he grabbed for when the police woke him up.

  • Bill Poser||

    I don't know which is worse: that college administrators blatantly violate the 1st Amendment or that they don't know the meaning of the word "facsimile".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland always finds the Volokh Conspiracy's criticisms of censorship fascinating -- especially those that fault a censor for hypocrisy.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Seamus||

    It's quite amusing how the Rev. can't come up with any good arguments *for* censorship, but simply mocks those who are against censorship. (Or, judging from his mention of hypocrisy, who favor censorship in other contexts but oppose it here. Though he fails to identify either those people or those contexts.)

    As the commenters on Reason's other blog, Hit and Run, would say, Eff off, slaver.

  • Seamus||

    That, by the way, was a "facsimile" of a four-letter vulgarity.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I oppose this censorship. Gun nuts, like bigots, have right, too.

    I also oppose censorship effected by the Volokh Conspiracy's Censorship Board, though. That's where I part company with Prof. Volokh and his movement conservative, faux libertarian sycophants.

    Carry on, clinger.

  • Jeff_Kleppe||

    Rev, I've been waiting for you to "part company" for years. Don't piss on my boots.

  • Naaman Brown||

    It is getting hard to tell the fake Rev. Arthur I. Kirkland from the surreal Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland.

    L is bitter over the 2016 loss of a third term for Clinton Administration and needs some grief counseling. He has become a parody of his former self.

  • Longtobefree||

    Told ya so - - - - - -

  • MaverickNH||

    Probably High-5s in administration and 'who's turn next to stick it to the gun nuts?' being asked at the collage. Will the collage use student tuition payments to employ their lawyer to defend against students who fund their own legal case? And at worst pay the students' legal fees from their own tuition payments? If there's no personal cost to such shenanigans then they will continue.

    The collage club handbook lists target shooting, snow boarding and rock climbing among the 'hazardous' and 'high-risk' activities that require a Presidential Approval form. I'd suggest the club propose a weekend excursion to a climbing area, a ski area and a shooting range and fill out the form for approval by the President.

  • James Pollock||

    When you criticize a college, you might want to make sure you're spelling the words correctly, starting with "college". Especially when it's spelled correctly for you in the headline and article you're responding to.

  • Krayt||

    It's the "collage club" handbook -- for clubs that do a mishmash of multiple interests in one club, hence his proposed club to do all of "target shooting, snow boarding and rock climbing".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Standard English is for virtue-signaling, elist, social justice warriors.

    Real conservatives -- sovereign citizen patriots, straight white males, right-thinking Christian Republicans -- write like sixth-graders.

  • Jimmy the Dane||

    Cuckland definitely has been drinking today. He is in full troll form.

    Heaven forbid that someone mistype something in an online forum that doesn't permit edits after one clicks "submit".

    Also, Cuckland, for what is is worth, you used two dashes " - -" above. So he who lives in a glass house should refrain at throwing rocks.

  • MaverickNH||

    I'll take a pass on replying to the trolls... it would just be casting pearls before swine with dictionaries.

  • James Pollock||

    Nobody says you HAVE to take helpful advice. You're free to ignore it all you like.

  • James Pollock||

    "Heaven forbid that someone mistype"

    Once is a typo. Three separate misspellings, and none correct, is poor spelling. Which you want to avoid if you're complaining about an (alleged) institution of learning.

  • Longtobefree||

    How else to let you understand?

  • VinniUSMC||

    "Standard English is for virtue-signaling, elist, social justice warriors."

    Ahem, I believe you meant to write "elitist". You fucking moron.

    Something about glass houses and throwing stones.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Do you really want the Spelling Police to BOLO or APB for James Pollock in this age of autocorrect devices deciding to fix your spelling for you before enter?

    I'd rather have the Grammar Nazis on my case than the Spelling Police.

  • James Pollock||

    "Do you really want the Spelling Police to BOLO or APB for James Pollock in this age of autocorrect devices deciding to fix your spelling for you before enter?"

    Like I give a shit.

    Seriously, look at the advice. If you're going to complain that a school doesn't educate people, to be persuasive, you want to appear more educated. That's got approximately nothing to do with "Spelling Police", whoever the fuck they might be.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    The hat in that pirate logo has to go too, it is a facsimile of a bottle of poison and bottles of poison are "dangerous objects".

  • Krayt||

    Also, pirates had wenches, and that cannot be sending a good signal today.

  • James Pollock||

    Most of the pirates didn't have wenches, so that's mostly a problem for closeted, self-hating gay people... but not to straight, well-adjusted persons confident in their own masculinity.

  • captcrisis||

    A "pro Second Amendment banner"? Why then does it say "don't tread on me" and have weapons that are not used in defense of the home?

    It's a pro-armed revolution banner. Given the age group, I assume these boys have . . . issues.

  • Absaroka||

    "...weapons that are not used in defense of the home?"

    Clayton Cramer's list of modern rifle self defense cases.

  • captcrisis||

    Um . . . the banner doesn't show just ordinary "rifles".

    And the interesting thing about Cramer's list is that he can only find about one per year, judging by the frequency of the posts. In that space of time, how many innocent people/children have been killed by guns that look like the ones on that banner?

  • Absaroka||

    "Um . . . the banner doesn't show just ordinary "rifles"."

    It shows the most popular rifle in the country.

    "he can only find about one per year, "

    People don't use rifles all that often in self defense; the lawful defender doesn't get to pick the time of the attack, so it's a lucky defender who can have a rifle available.

    "guns that look like the ones on that banner?"

    The number of people murdered by rifles of all kinds is a few hundred a year. Less than are murdered by hands/feet, less than blunt instruments, and less than by knives. Way less than handguns.

  • Naaman Brown||

    FBI Uniform Crime Report Table of Homicides by Weapon used.

    In a typical year of the last decade 350 - 400 homicides by assailants with rifles of all types (with AR-15 a subset of rifles).

    In a typical year of the last decade 600 - 800 homicides by assailants with personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc).

    More innocent people/children are killed by unarmed assalants than are killed by assailants armed with AR-15s.

    You would make the focus of law enforcement banning guns.

    I would make the focus
    (a) identifying bad actors who have expressed evil motive and bad intent
    (b) denying bad actors identified or unindentfied an opportunity to act (home, business, school security measures)

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, firearms use by offenders inmate surveys: 88% of gun using offenders acquire weapons from gray or black markets sources beyond regulation.

    Attacking means with malum prohibitum laws affect those who don't abuse the means but really does not affect people intent on acts malum in se. Prohibitions on guns, alcohol, pot, abortion create black markets, dont't stop abuse, and criminalize users.

  • James Pollock||

    "firearms use by offenders inmate surveys: 88% of gun using offenders acquire weapons from gray or black markets sources beyond regulation."

    Firearms start their existence in factories, most of which ARE subject to regulation. If the weapons they produced remained under regulation, then 88% of gun-using offenders would find themselves without guns. This would fit under your objective b above.

    Now, you can only reach that point if the people who think people should have firearms (unless there's a really good reason to believe that they shouldn't) agree not to participate in those gray and black markets. There's no sign they intend to do so, collectively.

  • Longtobefree||

    What you use in defense of your home is an armament covered by the second amendment. Please remember that the amendment says nothing about firearms; it specifically and inclusively states "arms".
    My personal preference is a baseball bat. In close quarters it is very effective, does not run out of ammunition,and will not go through the walls and injure your family members in another room.

  • James Pollock||

    The "in defense of the home" is a canard.

    The purpose of the second amendment is to have an armed militia to defend the country, so that the federal government doesn't need to maintain a standing army. In 1791, nearly all of our armed enemies were on the other side of an ocean, which provided a significant layer of defense.

  • Naaman Brown||

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    . . . .
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    . . . .

    Traditionally lawful purposes recognized by the courts, legislature, and attorney general opinions on my home state's constitution RKBA include: self defense, defense of others, defense of livestock from predators, hunting game for food, collection as curio or ornament, military marksmanship training (which would include preparation for volunteer service).

    Gun banners have transitioned from "only in militia service" to "only self-defense in the home". Nope. It's all traditional lawful purposes including militia and self-defense in the home, but not limited to either.

  • James Pollock||

    "Gun banners have transitioned from 'only in militia service' to 'only self-defense in the home'."

    Who gives a shit? It's a canard.

    Permissible uses of a firearm include "because you want one", although you don't get a free choice from all available options.

  • Naaman Brown||

    If they meant firearms-only they would have wrote "firearms". My home state's constitution and laws treat "arms" as covering anything designed for use as a weapon of offense or defense and anything actually used as a weapon of offense or defense.

  • James Pollock||

    "A "pro Second Amendment banner"?"

    The biggest argument against this being a "pro-Second Amendment banner" is the one raised in the article text... real fans of the second amendment would be expected to know that there wasn't a second amendment in 1789.

  • captcrisis||

    Quite true.

    Also true is that the first half of it only lasted from 1791 to 2008.

  • Probably_a_bot||

    The second half of the 2A was pretty much ignored until 2008.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Actual it formed the core of the RKBA provision in my home state's constitution in 1870 "... the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms ..." And several other states' RKBA provisions protect the right of citizens, individuals, people (not collective people or militia only).

    Ignore the Democrat National Party gun control obsession dominated by New Yorkers with their heads stuck up Tim Sullivan's derriere. Considering that after authoring the Sullivan Act of 1911, Tim died of syphilitic dementia (escaping his nurses and napping on a railroad track in 1913), that's not a good place to have one's head.

    The gun control movement of the last century is based on a false axiom, a tower of fallacy, a deliberate misread of the 2A.

  • bernard11||

    Eugene's carefully selective defense of the First Amendment continues apace.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    What exactly are you saying?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    I suspect he's carrying Artie's jock and referring to Liberty Univ, and Hiilsdale.

  • OldCurmudgeon||

    >It's hard to see a viewpoint-neutral rationale for banning even sillhouette displays of guns, which no-one would confuse for real guns.

    To be fair, you're not really engaging their actual argument. Typically, it's that college has a compelling interest in providing a safe environment, and the silhouette makes certain students "feel unsafe" (presumably something like PTSD). They probably can produce affidavits of the later, plus evidence of measurable health effects, peer-reviewed articles showing how that stress effects academic performance, etc.

  • ReaderY||

    Every now and then, people in positions of authority manage to do such a good job at self-satire they don't need any outside help.

    This would seem to be one of those times.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online