Dartmouth College student not allowed to protect herself from stalker

[Bonesinium]

NH concealed carry permit IS 21 years old.

No it's not.

I thought that NH didn't have a minimum age for their license, a remember lots of noise when a 14 yo applied. Did they change their law to add a minimum? If so, I doubt that it is 21, more likely 16 or 18 (I haven't looked at the RSA) but would appreciate a knowledgeable answer from someone in NH?

You are correct. No age is mentioned. It hasn't changed.

There isn't formally a waiver but I know there is a wallhack to getting an NH P/R license if you're under 21. I can't find the guy's post right now but there was a kid here who posted something about how he worked the system over to get an NH P/R license.

-Mike

There is no waiver/wall hack. No age is listed, and those over 18 in practice are generally issued one if they apply. Because there is a federal law in regards to minors (under 18) possessing handguns, they may not be issued one if they apply, citing that federal law to deem them unsuitable. Or so I would imagine. It is really at that point whatever the issuing authority does, however there is no state law that would prevent them from issuing to a minor.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Depends on the person who takes the class. No class format is best for everybody - some people will do best in online classes, some in other formats. Know thyself, etc.

right, which is why they aren't the same "quality". Quality has a very subjective part to it, which is why I don't think Rob's comparison necessarily works.....it is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Palladin]

http://www.unionleader.com/

Halfway the middle of the page

Should Dartmouth let a female student pursued by a stalker caught with 'rape kit' carry a handgun?
Yes
82%
No
18%
Total Votes: 1481

 

[Kaldone]

Nope:

No student may possess or use a firearm, archery equipment, hunting knife or weapons of any type, and corresponding supplies, in Hanover or its environs without a registration receipt for weapon storage, issued by the College Proctor, Department of Safety and Security. Firearms, including rifles, shotguns, air guns, and gas-powered guns, and all ammunition or hand-loading equipment and supplies for same, must be stored in the gun room at the Department of Safety and Security. This applies to students living on or off-campus. Weapons of any type, and corresponding supplies, are not allowed in any College building or in any student residence in Hanover.

How is that even legal. If you do not live on campus, how can they tell you what you can possess off school grounds in the town.

Edit: Missed post where this was spoken to.

 

[Quiet]

http://www.unionleader.com/

Halfway the middle of the page

• Should Dartmouth let a female student pursued by a stalker caught with 'rape kit' carry a handgun?
• Yes
• 82%
• No
• 18%
• Total Votes: 1529

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How is that even legal. If you do not live on campus, how can they tell you what you can possess off school grounds in the town.

Edit: Missed post where this was spoken to.

If she wanted to make an effective stink over this issue, rather than a complaint that is not going anywhere, she would make the issue Dartmouth's attempt to compromise the student's safety when off campus and in her own home.

 

[dcmdon]

Is there a law in NH prohibiting firearms on college campuses?

Can anyone answer that?

There is in MA.

There isn't in CT. CT only prohibits from K-12

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm

I ask because when I was in college in New Haven in the late 80s/early 90s, I occasionally carried. It was legal, and there wasn't anything in any school publications prohibiting it.

Remember that our system of laws is based on English Common Law. If something is not explicitly prohibited, then it is allowed.

Don

 

[Bonesinium]

Is there a law in NH prohibiting firearms on college campuses?

Can anyone answer that?

That has been answered already. Yes I can answer that. No there isn't.

I ask because when I was in college in New Haven in the late 80s/early 90s, I occasionally carried. It was legal, and there wasn't anything in any school publications prohibiting it.

Remember that our system of laws is based on English Common Law. If something is not explicitly prohibited, then it is allowed.

Don

The issue isn't that NH state law is preventing her, it is that Dartmouth school policy prohibits her. The consequence is expulsion not prison.

 

[dcmdon]

Yup. You've distilled it down to its most basic element.

If she had kept her mouth shut, she could have risked expulsion and carried discreetly. If the bad guy came calling and she had to defend herself, getting expelled is better than dying while still a student in good standing.

People need to just STFU and research things themselves, or engage a professional for advice. If she had done that, she'd be carrying by now.

 

[Bonesinium]

People need to just STFU and research things themselves, or engage a professional for advice. If she had done that, she'd be carrying by now.

That really depends on your perspective. Many people think following laws, rules, regulations, and policies is doing the right thing, and that those in charge of enforcing those will themselves do the right thing. In this case, I'm sure she thought that because she had a legitimate and specific purpose, she would be vindicated, and an exception would be made.

Not everybody has the same perspective as me or you (I assume), knowing that sort of thing isn't likely to happen. Instead, the sort of "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission" thing. If I was in her situation, I wouldn't have said a thing, and would be carrying. Heck, I wouldn't even need to be in that situation to carry anyways.

If she had engaged a professional for advice I doubt she would be carrying however. I'm not sure of too many professionals (in this regard) who recommended violating policies, though hopefully I'm wrong when it is such a terrible policy like this case.

 

[Mr.E]

That really depends on your perspective. Many people think following laws, rules, regulations, and policies is doing the right thing, and that those in charge of enforcing those will themselves do the right thing. In this case, I'm sure she thought that because she had a legitimate and specific purpose, she would be vindicated, and an exception would be made.

Not everybody has the same perspective as me or you (I assume), knowing that sort of thing isn't likely to happen. Instead, the sort of "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission" thing. If I was in her situation, I wouldn't have said a thing, and would be carrying. Heck, I wouldn't even need to be in that situation to carry anyways.

If she had engaged a professional for advice I doubt she would be carrying however. I'm not sure of too many professionals (in this regard) who recommended violating policies, though hopefully I'm wrong when it is such a terrible policy like this case.

She's young and still in has not learned that the people you generally have to ask permission for for such a thing are not your friends and do not have your best interests in mind.

 

[dcmdon]

That really depends on your perspective. Many people think following laws, rules, regulations, and policies is doing the right thing, and that those in charge of enforcing those will themselves do the right thing. In this case, I'm sure she thought that because she had a legitimate and specific purpose, she would be vindicated, and an exception would be made.

Not everybody has the same perspective as me or you (I assume), knowing that sort of thing isn't likely to happen. Instead, the sort of "it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission" thing. If I was in her situation, I wouldn't have said a thing, and would be carrying. Heck, I wouldn't even need to be in that situation to carry anyways.

If she had engaged a professional for advice I doubt she would be carrying however. I'm not sure of too many professionals (in this regard) who recommended violating policies, though hopefully I'm wrong when it is such a terrible policy like this case.

Most people are not deep thinkers. Especially young people. I never thought about the ethics of self defense and the law until I was well into my thirties.

As you probably agree. You have a moral obligation to ignore laws that strip you of your natural right right to self defense. I'm not saying we all should do this. I'm just saying that its a risk/benefit analysis that is unique to each of us. When I went to college in New Haven during a period when Crack ruled the street, I chose to carry to college because it was perfectly legal. It still is in CT.

Ironically, it made me a far more responsible person. When I was carrying, I avoided alcohol and bars like the plague. When I wasn't carrying, I behaved no better than any other college student with respect to alcohol.

My carry piece of choice was a S&W 6906 with a Ramline 15 round mag in a DeSantis fannypack. Ha. Those were the days.
I remember the first time I saw a Glock. An old roommate of mine had joined the New Haven PD. I met him and a detective for lunch. He had a 17 and the detective had a 19. The detective took it out and showed it to me. I couldn't believe how ugly it was. Ugh. Plastic.

 

[drgrant]

Most people are not deep thinkers. Especially young people. I never thought about the ethics of self defense and the law until I was well into my thirties.

I don't think it's so much about ethics as being naive when it comes to authority figures, whether its government or institution. They think that because protecting yourself is logical and makes sense, that someone else would understand and asking for permission is the best course of action. If we think about it for 10 seconds, its pretty ****ed up, when you as a customer of a school, that you're paying a 5 digit sum of money to, has to engage in subterfuge- to play a ****ing game- just to exercise a civil right. It makes no sense and its an alien concept. That is why she ****ed up- she assumed that the school would be reasonable in accommodating her needs.

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

I think you are saying mostly the same thing just in a different way.

 

[Jason Flare]

Maybe there are scores of students carrying who never asked permission.

Maybe there are some at Dartmouth.

 

[ARV]

It's worse for Ms Woolrich than just not being able to carry on school property. Dartmouth College policy prohibits students from having any gun in the town of Hanover where the school is located unless it is stored in the security office.

If she carried, she'd be better armed than Dartmouth's security officers who do not.

Is that policy just for students living on campus?

Wonder how that would work if she rented her own apartment. Then its private property. I remember when the dean of my college tied to inspect an off campus apartment because of some school rule violation. I think he even asked the police to go with him. The students asked for a warrant, then told them all to screw.

 

[dcmdon]

I lived off campus when I carried to college in the early 90s. I'd never have attempted it in a dorm. But then again, I only lived in a dorm my freshman year.

I lived over a place called Cohen's Key Shop on Whaley Ave. They were a bunch of awesome rabid mad dog jewish locksmiths. I remember asking one of them who open carried a Glock why they would ever wear an Austrian gun, considering Austria's part in the Holocaust. He answered, because its the best. And my responsibility is to prevent another Holocaust.

Picture a guy with a black satin Yamaka, wearing blue mechanics pants and shirt and a glock in an old school leather thumb break holster with a G17 in it.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Allegedly Taylor Woolrich now claims Lott pressured her into submitting an article he wrote.
http://www.donotlink.com/geck (Media Matters; dummified link for the fearful)

Taylor Woolrich, who made national headlines in 2014 over her efforts to carry a gun on her college campus after being stalked, revealed that John Lott, a discredited gun researcher, was the actual author of an op-ed published at FoxNews.com under her name that portrayed her as an unconditional supporter of campus carry laws and was picked up by dozens of media outlets.

Woolich was interviewed for an August 13 Buzzfeed article that recounted how she was stalked for years by an older man - beginning when she was a teenager and continuing after she went to college 3,000 miles away - and how her story went viral after it became enmeshed with the gun lobby's efforts to allow students to carry firearms on college campuses.

In her interview with Buzzfeed, Woolich criticized Lott, alleging that he pressured her into allowing him to submit an op-ed he wrote -- "Dear Dartmouth, I am one of your students, I am being stalked, please let me carry a gun to protect myself" -- to FoxNews.com under her name.

Looks like the confluence of three unreliable sources.

 

[dcmdon]

Since when has John Lott been discredited?

Since Moms Demand Everytown Action decided they were discredited?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Since when has John Lott been discredited?

Since Moms Demand Everytown Action decided they were discredited?

He was discredited in my book when the Mary Rosh thing came out. Although his conclusions seems valid, I find it hard to take him seriously since I think about Mary every time I read one of his position papers. Note I did not use the term "research" - I would not apply the term "research" to any papers the other side presented from their so-call "objective" author either.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Since when has John Lott been discredited?

I don't always find all of Lott's conclusions solid and wouldn't hang my hat on them, but the rag's links claiming Lott has been discredited are all either to their own stories or those of Mother Jones--both discredited.

Since Moms Demand Everytown Action decided they were discredited?

MDA has no credibility, but I still find them a serious threat to RKBA because their arguments from emotion play well among the disarmament enthusiast ignoranti.

 

[dcmdon]

I agree with you both about the Mary Rosh incident.

But that doesn't change the fact that much of his work has been peer reviewed and contains necessary footnotes to be considered a "scholarly" paper. i.e. its all out there for people to challenge, friends and foes alike.

 

[MachineHead]

I just find it impressive how MDA had 328k followers and all of a sudden is up to 370k followers in 3 weeks. I'm willing to say that MDA has either stock in ghost profiles or the profiles are from outside the U.S. to make it seem like there's a huge following.

With those numbers, I'm surprised how a couple months ago they only yielded 120 people "outside" the national NRA meeting.

 

[StevieP]

Exactly. If you remove suicides and shootings in the act of committing a felony, there is no statistical differences as far a being more likely to be shot with your own gun. Most of the data is suicides and drug deals gone bad.

Relative to suicides - I don't think that people commit suicide b/c they have a gun, they do it b/c they want to die. If they didn't have a gun, they would use a kitchen knife or jump off the Tobin. Japan has far less guns and gun owners, but their suicide rate is about the same as ours in the US.

Try TWICE our suicide rate. (19.4/100K there, vs 10.1/100k here).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

Guns are NOT the cause of suicide. They're just really efficient tools. Suicide attempts by other means have a higher likelihood of failure (survival). Attempts with a gun are usually much more effective.

FYI Korea has the highest suicide rate among developed nations (> 28/100k). There are almost no guns in either Japan or Korea. In Korea, poisoning is the most common method. In Japan, the most-common methods include hanging, jumping in front of trains, jumping from tall buildings, suffocation, stabbing, and drowning.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I just find it impressive how MDA had 328k followers and all of a sudden is up to 370k followers in 3 weeks. I'm willing to say that MDA has either stock in ghost profiles or the profiles are from outside the U.S. to make it seem like there's a huge following.

With those numbers, I'm surprised how a couple months ago they only yielded 120 people "outside" the national NRA meeting.

Their numbers are irrelevant. What matters are a) Bloomberg funding b) Shannon Watts, a former PR person who hobnobs with members of the ruling class, and c) the organization's entire MO being about hiding behind children. Those three things are effective, and on the whole that does not bode well for us.

 

[Da_lucche]

It was kinda tongue in cheek... I'm guessing the young lady posts too much personally identifying information on FaceBook and did the stalker's work for them.

The article states that the girl was working at a cafe that the stalker frequented and that's where the stalking started. I am assuming he followed her after leaving her shifts and it went on from there.

 

[Prepper]

The article states that the girl was working at a cafe that the stalker frequented and that's where the stalking started. I am assuming he followed her after leaving her shifts and it went on from there.

So, what would be enjoyable to see happen here is as follows. As she is being followed, she should travel to a planned route in an isolated area. Perhaps some conservation land with walking paths. Lead the stalker into this isolated area, making sure no unexpected people are around. Once the stalker reaches a specific point in the trail, some big strong guys (friends of hers) should jump out from behind him and do with him as he deserves.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. I would just enjoy reading about such a story should it actually happen. Don't actually do this. That would be wrong.

Sent from my LG-H810 using Tapatalk

 

[Horrible]

Since when has John Lott been discredited?

Since Moms Demand Everytown Action decided they were discredited?

Pretty much. The Moms make up new $hit stats all the time.