Can an off duty LEO carry a firearm on school property?

[finity]

Please at least have some understanding and knowledge of the subject before commenting....otherwise you end up looking like the above poster.
Uninformed....and a few other things.

Please, do tell...

Which un-named "above poster" are you referring to?

It would also be interesting to know what "other things" that poster is guilty of.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Please, do tell...

Which un-named "above poster" are you referring to?

It would also be interesting to know what "other things" that poster is guilty of.

Could you not see the quotes? Might check your browers settings if you cant.

Id say instead of a popcorn emoticon, you need more of a pot stirring one....

 

[Denny347]

Could you not see the quotes? Might check your browers settings if you cant.

Id say instead of a popcorn emoticon, you need more of a pot stirring one....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Every cop in Indiana is REQUIRED to have 8 hours of firearms training and qualify with their duty weapon every year.
Of course you didnt know that, but spouted off anyway.

I know that the statue refers to LEOs, not cops.

Not all LEOs shoot their weapons; not all LEOs are REQUIRED to have any amount of firearms training. Not all LEOs have any level of training.

My point being is that just because one is a LEO does not confer special abilities or knowledge, yet the statue assumes that they do have such abilities. It is time to abolish this statute.

My definition of LEO is like another poster said, of the gun totin' variety.

The definition of LEO is broader than the gun totin' variety.

IC 35-41-1-17
"Law enforcement officer" and "federal enforcement officer"
Sec. 17. (a) "Law enforcement officer" means:
(1) a police officer (including a correctional police officer), sheriff, constable, marshal, prosecuting attorney, special prosecuting attorney, special deputy prosecuting attorney, the securities commissioner, or the inspector general;
(2) a deputy of any of those persons;
(3) an investigator for a prosecuting attorney or for the inspector general;
(4) a conservation officer;
(5) an enforcement officer of the alcohol and tobacco commission; or
(6) an enforcement officer of the securities division of the office of the secretary of state.

None that Im aware of, its the POTENTIAL that Im talking about.

At least you concede the the parade of horribles that the police raise is a red herring.

This is the same chaff that Purdue cops threw up during the debate over allowing Purdue students to carry on campus. It was nonsense then and now.

Do you really want to wait for it to happen before someone mentions the possibility?

If the police response to allowing non-badges to carry in governmental slaughter zones is "oh, we may shoot the wrong people" then the onus is on the police to show us where this has happened in an active shooter situation and how a school zone in any different than the rest of the city.

the potential is worse in an active shooter, since people are advocating going in and taking care of it before cops get there

I believe that people are advocating that the people inside a governmental slaughter pen be allowed to defend themselves. We saw what happened at Columbine. We saw what happened at Viriginia Tech.

The police weren't there. No doubt that the police ranks are filled with good men (to paraphrase Grossman, men yearning for a righteous fight), men wanting to defend the innocent and do so in an honorable manner. The problem is that, 1) the police cannot be everywhere, 2) as a matter of tactics police rushing off to "save" people can be less than optimal and against agency policy and teaching.

I understand this. I want to have a chance to defend myself and carry a gun in a school zone as carrying a police officer in impractical.

I'm am happy you take carrying a firearm very seriously, officer, and applaud you for your progressive attitude toward the RKBA.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I don't know enough about the passage of LEOSA to speak to that Bill but I do recall Liberty Sanders, who certainly knows more about it than anyone I know, saying something along those lines.



I don't know how exactly you would propose to accomplish anything like this; LEOSA was a federal statute and there was no congress was going to make it contingent on something like you suggest. Additionally, LEOSA has significant constitutional problems, specifically how it purports to be a regulation of interstate commerce, and so was opposed by quite a few in the firearms community.

I can see the argument against the exemption of one "class" so that both continue to fight for each others' rights. LEOSA should have contained a similar provision for the rest of us or coming from a different angle, should have contained a "sunset provision" if the other wasn't passed within X time.



So the solution is to make sure that "right" is denied to all? I'm having a really hard time seeing how folks can claim that something is an "inalienable right", but then advocate for further restricting it without a serious breach of integrity.

Remember, it isn't LEO's who have denied law abiding citizens the ability to carry everywhere; it is the folks those same citizens have elected that have done so.

The end doesn't justify the means and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Best,

Joe

I posted this on here back in 2009, I'll post it again as it may be informative:

Let me give a little history of LEOSA...

The idea originated with the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a pro-gun cop group of which I was the founding vice-president (the original name of the group was Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment).

At the very first meeting which we convened after our incorporation we decided that our first priority should be to work to extend concealed carry rights to all citizens everywhere, in every state, with complete reciprocity between states.

All the founding officers and board members of LEAA were experienced political operatives and we knew that introducing legislation to this effect would be utterly futile. Bear in mind that this was some twenty years ago and the concealed carry snowball had not yet started rolling. We needed a strategy.

It was then that we conceived the idea for national concealed carry for cops.

The strategy was that we needed to establish a track record demonstrating that having a qualified, armed person on hand when a violent crime occurs is good public policy, and that the more such people there are available in the population, the safer everyone is.

Just about everyone, even rabidly anti-gun people, accept the necessity of LEO's needing to carry concealed firearms, on or off-duty. It's a very small step to extend that to interstate carry. Even so, it took years to get the first version of LEOSA passed.

Since that time, state after state has passed concealed carry reform, and nothing but good has resulted. We now have two SCOTUS decisions affirming gun ownership. Concealed carry is rapidly becoming the norm in American life, rather than the exception, as it was at that first LEAA meeting.

We knew when we worked for the introduction of that first LEOSA bill that some people would accuse us of elitism and working for concealed carry rights ONLY for cops. That wasn't true then and it isn't now, but some people choose to believe it.

National concealed carry reciprocity for EVERYONE is now within reach, just as LEAA proposed twenty years ago. I'm no political scientist or sociologist but I like that to think that LEAA's strategy from that first meeting helped to grease the skids

 

[finity]

LS,

I don't doubt your intentions then and I don't doubt you intentions now. I applaud your efforts. Thank you.

The problem is that LEOSA & all of the associated/similar legislation that places LEO's in a special privileged class above everyone else is a glaring example of the systemic support for the current elitism that permeates the LEO culture.

Unfortunately, I have seen very little movement toward changing that. Especially when many LEO groups lobby to NOT change things for more liberal carry laws for the regular folks. In almost every case where there is a debate on less restrictions it seems that "the police" typically come out against those measures.

 

[finity]

Could you not see the quotes? Might check your browers settings if you cant.

Oh, Ok, so the "above poster" you were referring to was Kirk in a post that you quoted Kirk speaking to Kirk about the danger of looking like Kirk?

Id say instead of a popcorn emoticon, you need more of a pot stirring one....

Nah. Just clarifying what you were talking about.

But I'm also not above needing one occasionally.

Where would be the fun if you can't stir it once in a while.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Where would be the fun if you can't stir it once in a while.

It wouldnt be any fun at all....lol!



My only issue with the whole thing is, a lot of people seem to be blaming the cops or mad at them for it. They didnt make the rules....blame the right people, thats all I ask, lots of cops are on your side.

Personally, I think a LOT of things could be avoided if more people carried, including teachers...but that kind of talk doesnt go over well with certain crowds.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They didnt make the rules

Unfortunately the cops do make the rules.

The police had a big role in the school property statute.

And continue to do so today. For example, PUPD lead the effort against allowing Purdue students from carrying on campus.

Push To Permit Guns On Purdue Campus Rejected « CBS Chicago

"Just putting firearms in the mix with alcohol and young men and women can only lead to more of those random acts of violence," John Cox, the Purdue University Police Chief, said.

Student wants to carry guns at Purdue

Understand that when people express disappointment/resentment at the police for not protecting their rights, there is some justification. Knowing where both sides are coming from is helpful to abolish this statute.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

The only people I was responding to are those who are advocating for denying them rights. If you are not, then what I posted wasn't directed at you.



Yes, I have advocated loosening up the courthouse restrictions here but until we get a new set of commissioners, it ain't gonna happen and even then I don't know that the judges will allow it in the courtroom. Doesn't mean I haven't taken a stab at it. But here is the funny thing; I'm the only one I know of who has. No one among those who cannot carry in the courthouse has ever tried to the best of my knowledge which makes mine a pretty lonely voice.

In that event, I thank you for trying. Of note, that no one who is forbidden to carry there has jumped in to help you is not surprising. (wrong, IMHO, but not surprising) It's the people who CAN carry there that primarily need to be supporting this, otherwise, it comes off as the child who wants to stay up an extra half hour after his bedtime, as opposed to the other parent who speaks up for him. (yes, I know the child/adult analogy is not fully appropriate as children don't elect their parents, but parents have authority to make rules and children follow them or get punished.)

I have lobbied for the loosening of restrictions on carry in quite a few places I can currently carry. I've done it on here, and I've done it more than once before one of the Superior Court Judges who sits on the legislative recommendations committee and to every local legislator I have been able to get with.

I get nothing out of it at present, it doesn't expand my ability to carry. I do it because it is the right thing to do. I do it because first and foremost I am a citizen, whatever other qualifications I have are ancilliary to that.



If its not about taking away from them, then why did finity and other advocate for just that?

I can't speak to his thoughts, only to my own. I was talking about not granting extra "privileges" (gee, the 2A calls them "rights".... hmmm...) to someone solely because his paycheck comes from a governmental body.

There is only one way to get a government like you suggest; you have to change the hearts and minds of the people who create that government. It is always a bottom up proposition.



Accusing me of throwing you in with the Bradys is disingenuous at best. I never once said that you were.

You didn't? I must have misread when you quoted me and added this comment:

...

It's about getting the bad laws, "You're not a police officer so you can't be trusted to defend your own life here or there" repealed.

Just how do you propose to get the same ruling body to take away Cop's ability to carry but conversely grant it to the general public? Jumping in bed with the Bradys thinking that it will lead to more freedom for citizens is mind-boggling to me....

That sure looks like an accusation to me, especially since the quoted comment said nothing about taking anyone's RTC away, it was about repealing laws that did so.

I said that those who restrict the rights of innocents to defend themselves have blood on their hands. I used the Bradys as an example. I then said, that I would not be participating in any such push to restrict rights.

You have not advocated for such, but others here have. Finity admitted he supports the Brady position on LEOSA, but tries to distinguish it by saying HIS reasons are PURE:



I say, I don't give a damn about your reasons, willifully disarming innocents for your own political gain or really most any reason is WRONG.

Joe

Again, the LE higher-ups made promises and welched on them. They have proven that they, the ones who did so, are untrustworthy. That's a pretty bad thing to say about someone who is granted the public trust... And yet, these are the people who theoretically SHOULD be allowed to carry around our children and political leaders? (I can excuse the latter; "birds of a feather" and all that, but the former seems to be saying that parents are only entrusted with the raising of their children because gov't hasn't found a way to justify taking them away to be raised full time in gov't facilities. Yet.) Yes, even to me, that sounds pretty tinfoil-y, but if a parent can't be trusted to carry around children, including his own, but gov't employees can, who is supposedly more trustworthy?

Please note that I'm not painting all LEOs with that brush, the above comments about untrustworthy cops was specific to those who made promises and broke them.

Had LEOSA not been passed when it was, without any recognition of the RTC for the rest of us good people, what would have been the result? Cops would be lobbying hard for its passage, even if it begrudgingly had to recognize a right for everyone else as being equal to or (God forbid) superior to their authority and expectation to carry. It's not something we will see from the cops here, as this is a gun board, but many reportedly carry a sidearm the same way that a plumber carries a wrench or a carpenter a hammer. It's a tool they have to have because someone decided they had to have it and that they carry off-duty for the same reason: Because someone told them they had to. We carry by choice and because we feel the responsibility and recognize it and embrace it as our birthright. So again, why is their job requirement more important than our rights? Could it be (at least in part) because the elected depend on them for protection when Bad Things come their way? As it stands now, a ReCSA (Responsible Citizen Safety Act) such as HR 822 is being proposed and it has stalled and is almost certain to wither on the vine in the Senate, thanks to Harry Reid and Barry Hussein, who undoubtedly would veto it. Groups like IACP (and the FOP?) stand strongly against it and even some INGO LEOs seem to believe it fallacious, basing their opinions on the lack of an unConstitutional "training requirement".

I say not that LEOSA should be repealed, but rather that it should never have passed in its proposed form. Citizen gun-rights groups should never have thrown support to it without it recognizing everyone. 20/20 hindsight.

To be crystal clear, I'm not advocating taking anything from anyone. I'm talking only about the error of the past. Hopefully, if we talk about it, no one will make it or a similar error in the future.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

I can't speak to his thoughts, only to my own. I was talking about not granting extra "privileges" (gee, the 2A calls them "rights".... hmmm...) to someone solely because his paycheck comes from a governmental body.

Yes you can. I think you pretty much nailed it.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

LS,

I don't doubt your intentions then and I don't doubt you intentions now. I applaud your efforts. Thank you.

The problem is that LEOSA & all of the associated/similar legislation that places LEO's in a special privileged class above everyone else is a glaring example of the systemic support for the current elitism that permeates the LEO culture.

Unfortunately, I have seen very little movement toward changing that. Especially when many LEO groups lobby to NOT change things for more liberal carry laws for the regular folks. In almost every case where there is a debate on less restrictions it seems that "the police" typically come out against those measures.

I know the type...I had one of my academy classmates tell me that he had no reason to fight gun control because he'd always be able to have gun. He always was an ahole.

And keep in mind that "the police" who do the talking on gun control are the brass who long ago stopped being cops and hocked their badges to become politicians.

I guess my point is that those of us who originated this idea did have pure intentions.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Citizen gun-rights groups should never have thrown support to it without it recognizing everyone. 20/20 hindsight.

Perhaps, but there is one thing the law loves and that is to plagarize, er, I mean, it loves a template.

218 and its cousins are close to passage. November 2012 could make it a reality in January of 2013.

 

[Denny347]

I know the type...I had one of my academy classmates tell me that he had no reason to fight gun control because he'd always be able to have gun. He always was an ahole.

And keep in mind that "the police" who do the talking on gun control are the brass who long ago stopped being cops and hocked their badges to become politicians.

I guess my point is that those of us who originated this idea did have pure intentions.

Cannot overstate this. The talking heads for the PDs are NOT cops. They are 100% politicians who happen to have a badge. They have long since forgotten what it was like to get your hands dirty.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Please expound, why? I'm not trying to start an argument. I've been through almost every school in my city a couple dozen times. I have maps of the schools on my computer. I know almost all of the hiding spots. I've been through almost each one in the dark and light. I would think that if something happens you would want someone there. Not trying to start an argument.

As a principal, I'd welcome you carrying as an off duty LEO. I have friends and parents who are LEOs and come in all the time. I'm always glad to see them.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

As a principal, I'd welcome you carrying as an off duty LEO. I have friends and parents who are LEOs and come in all the time. I'm always glad to see them.

And what about a normal citizen who isn't a cop but wants to protect himself and his family with a gun just like a cop? Would you welcome them with open arms?

 

[LPMan59]

As a principal, I'd welcome you carrying as an off duty LEO. I have friends and parents who are LEOs and come in all the time. I'm always glad to see them.

And what about a normal citizen who isn't a cop but wants to protect himself and his family with a gun just like a cop? Would you welcome them with open arms?

i wonder how many parents he has given written permission to carry?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

i wonder how many parents he has given written permission to carry?

My guess is zero and he would balk at the thought of a "normal citizen" carrying something as dangerous as a GUN in school with the CHILDREN.

 

[Bill of Rights]

My guess is zero and he would balk at the thought of a "normal citizen" carrying something as dangerous as a GUN in school with the CHILDREN.

I'm interested in the answer too

HOWEVER,

I've also read enough of his posts not to discredit him solely on the basis of being a principal. Remember as well that principal is not the ultimate authority, and if he disregards district/corporation policy, not only will all of those permission slips be null and void, he'll be out of work, too, and that helps no one, especially when a real lib gets his old job. As it stands, he can shape the focus of the school and use his position to teach things we support, such as personal responsibility.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Oh believe me Bill I hope I am wrong and I look forward to being proven a negative nelly here.

Have we decided or found out who in fact we would need "permission" from to carry at school? Principal, superintendent or school board?

Principal Skinr acted like it was HIS say whether or not people carried in his school and my assumption has been that a principal's permission would suffice.