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

[Bunnykid68]

Ok same situation however I just got off work and I stopped. Do I take off my gun and uniform?

No, we do not want to see you at a school in your underwear assuming you did not go cammando

 

[Fargo]

That part of the question has been answered on here before. As long as you stay in the vehicle, when picking up your son, it is legal. Leave the vehicle, for any reason, and it becomes illegal. Talking about on scool property here.

You are confusing state and federal law here. LEO's are explicitly exempted from Indiana's ban on carry at schools. Since lrahm is a cop, Indiana allows him to carry.

This thread is about the federal Gun Free School Zones Act which makes no such exception for "not getting out of your car" if you do not fall within an excepted group such as LTCH holders or LEO's acting in their official capacity.

Best,

Joe

 

[lrahm]

No, we do not want to see you at a school in your underwear assuming you did not go cammando

Oh crap!, I put my foot in my mouth again.

 

[lrahm]

No, we do not want to see you at a school in your underwear assuming you did not go cammando

We would be a pair. At least we could show off our tatoos.

 

[thindman]

We have a lady at work, I work in a school, who teaches a law enforcement class. She is an actual officer but while she's teaching and at school not as a LEO she is not supposed to carry.
I wish there'd be a class or something that would give teachers a special license to carry on school property because we have no security in our building and help is minutes away. Sorry got off topic and on a tangent.

 

[Fargo]

We have a lady at work, I work in a school, who teaches a law enforcement class. She is an actual officer but while she's teaching and at school not as a LEO she is not supposed to carry.
I wish there'd be a class or something that would give teachers a special license to carry on school property because we have no security in our building and help is minutes away. Sorry got off topic and on a tangent.

Is she a merit officer or some sort of special deputy or reserve? Is it school policy that she doesn't carry, or is there some law cited prohibiting it?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[finity]

Ok same situation however I just got off work and I stopped. Do I take off my gun and uniform?

Of course not. However, you shouldn't be able to get out of your vehicle though since that is the rule that the rest of us have to follow.

All we are saying is that the rules should apply to everyone equally.

 

[Fargo]

Of course not. However, you shouldn't be able to get out of your vehicle though since that is the rule that the rest of us have to follow.

All we are saying is that the rules should apply to everyone equally.

Why shouldn't he be able to get out of his vehicle? Isn't that what you think should be the right of every law abiding citizen?

At present, the legislature WE THE PEOPLE elected have decided to distinguish between cops and law abiding citizens.

IMO, that doesn't mean that cops should be limited in their ability to carry a gun. It means that WE THE PEOPLE should elect legislators that grant that ability to law abiding citizens.

It seems to me that your thinking is a little bassackwards on this. Why the hell wouldn't you want cops able to carry in a school? Saying it is only because the public cannot seems pretty petty to me.

Best,

Joe

 

[finity]

Why shouldn't he be able to get out of his vehicle? Isn't that what you think should be the right of every law abiding citizen?

At present, the legislature WE THE PEOPLE elected have decided to distinguish between cops and law abiding citizens.

IMO, that doesn't mean that cops should be limited in their ability to carry a gun. It means that WE THE PEOPLE should elect legislators that grant that ability to law abiding citizens.

It seems to me that your thinking is a little bassackwards on this. Why the hell wouldn't you want cops able to carry in a school? Saying it is only because the public cannot seems pretty petty to me.

Best,

Joe

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that seems petty then so be it. I honestly don't care.

Until the people who make the laws (or the ones who are their hired enforcers) are subject to them the same as anyone else then they have no incentive to change them.

I agree that we should all be able to carry into a school just like they can. But I don't see that happening. I really don't think that ANY legislature that WE THE PEOPLE could elect will have the cajones to change that. I could be wrong & I hope I am.

But even at that "us vs. them" has been getting worse by a slow drift through many decades. Even when there are pretty well written laws, you'll find departments & individual cops who try to say that those laws don't pertain to them. And then the legal apparatus backs that belief up by not making them accountable & giving them ready made excuses when they act on that belief. See the recent fight over the right to resist bill. Who are the ones backing it & who are the one's fighting it? In my understanding it has already been weakened from the original bill due to the police organizations lobbying efforts.

If they (the huge majority of police) were out there arguing on our side that the laws that place them above us weren't right & should be changed I would be more than willing to accept the fact that the CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW allows them priveleges we don't get. That's not the way it is. They, in fact, are arguing on the exact OPPOSITE side that WE THE PEOPLE are on. They are trying to maintain the status quo. They are trying to maintain the fact that they have priveleges that we don't. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

UNTIL THEY HAVE A REASON TO CHANGE THE LAWS THEY WON'T.

Call it petty if you want. I call it putting things into perspective for them.

 

[Denny347]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that seems petty then so be it. I honestly don't care.

Until the people who make the laws (or the ones who are their hired enforcers) are subject to them the same as anyone else then they have no incentive to change them.

I agree that we should all be able to carry into a school just like they can. But I don't see that happening. I really don't think that ANY legislature that WE THE PEOPLE could elect will have the cajones to change that. I could be wrong & I hope I am.

But even at that "us vs. them" has been getting worse by a slow drift through many decades. Even when there are pretty well written laws, you'll find departments & individual cops who try to say that those laws don't pertain to them. And then the legal apparatus backs that belief up by not making them accountable & giving them ready made excuses when they act on that belief. See the recent fight over the right to resist bill. Who are the ones backing it & who are the one's fighting it? In my understanding it has already been weakened from the original bill due to the police organizations lobbying efforts.

If they (the huge majority of police) were out there arguing on our side that the laws that place them above us weren't right & should be changed I would be more than willing to accept the fact that the CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW allows them priveleges we don't get. That's not the way it is. They, in fact, are arguing on the exact OPPOSITE side that WE THE PEOPLE are on. They are trying to maintain the status quo. They are trying to maintain the fact that they have priveleges that we don't. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

UNTIL THEY HAVE A REASON TO CHANGE THE LAWS THEY WON'T.

Call it petty if you want. I call it putting things into perspective for them.

 

[Hemingway]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that seems petty then so be it. I honestly don't care.

Until the people who make the laws (or the ones who are their hired enforcers) are subject to them the same as anyone else then they have no incentive to change them.

I agree 100%!! We should all be allowed to walk into the jails, get the keys and take some prisoners to court. We should also all be allowed to have emergency equipment in all of our vehicles and pull over people. And make undercover drug buys. And work security at the Colts games.

Oh yeah, and get free food! We all need to all be allowed to get the police discounts around town. I'm tired of not being able to enforce the law--I've got my very own Glock, for goodness sake, I'm prepared!!!



Seriously, I'm not sure how a rational person can say that there is no difference between a LEO and a non-LEO. Heck, you guys complain about law enforcement as it is, even with the training and background checks that go on now, I can only imagine how bad you'd gripe if every untrained Tom, Dick and Harry had the same authorizations as LEOs.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I agree 100%!! We should all be allowed to walk into the jails, get the keys and take some prisoners to court. We should also all be allowed to have emergency equipment in all of our vehicles and pull over people. And make undercover drug buys. And work security at the Colts games.

Oh yeah, and get free food! We all need to all be allowed to get the police discounts around town. I'm tired of not being able to enforce the law--I've got my very own Glock, for goodness sake, I'm prepared!!!



Seriously, I'm not sure how a rational person can say that there is no difference between a LEO and a non-LEO. Heck, you guys complain about law enforcement as it is, even with the training and background checks that go on now, I can only imagine how bad you'd gripe if every untrained Tom, Dick and Harry had the same authorizations as LEOs.

That's not even close to the point he was trying to make. The point is, laws DO in fact apply to LEOs yet far too often it seems like they just skirt on by and no one is none the wiser. Case in point- it seems as if according to the laws as they are written there are times that an Indiana LEO would be restricted from carrying a weapon while at a School, yet I doubt any would actually disarm, or if they didn't and broke the law as written would they face the repercussions for it.

THAT is the equality finity was talking about IMO. That EVERYONE be subject to the laws as they are written, and if they suck- start over and write them better. (They do suck)

 

[ATM]

...Oh yeah, and get free food! We all need to all be allowed to get the police discounts around town...

If you open carry with short hair and a 'stache, it's amazing the little perks businesses will offer you.

 

[lrahm]

If you open carry with short hair and a 'stache, it's amazing the little perks businesses will offer you.

You described me pretty good but I have a little gray in the short hair. I guess that at my age I am happy to have hair. Don't take the discounts though.

 

[thindman]

Is she a merit officer or some sort of special deputy or reserve? Is it school policy that she doesn't carry, or is there some law cited prohibiting it?

Thanks,

Joe

She used to be a deputy, but now I believe she is a reserve. As far as I understand it without getting to far into someone else's business, it is school policy. She OC when she first started but then was told shortly after starting she couldn't carry anymore. This might have come down from higher up cause I know part of our building admin is pro gun. The other part has family who are LEO.

 

[Fargo]

That's not even close to the point he was trying to make. The point is, laws DO in fact apply to LEOs yet far too often it seems like they just skirt on by and no one is none the wiser. Case in point- it seems as if according to the laws as they are written there are times that an Indiana LEO would be restricted from carrying a weapon while at a School, yet I doubt any would actually disarm, or if they didn't and broke the law as written would they face the repercussions for it.

THAT is the equality finity was talking about IMO. That EVERYONE be subject to the laws as they are written, and if they suck- start over and write them better. (They do suck)

No, the point is that finity would rather have nobody be able to carry in school rather than cops but not LTCH holders be able to which is asinine in my opinion. There is no argument here about Cops not being held to the law, this is solely about what the law is.

A reasonable argument is that if cops can carry, LTCH should be able to as well.

An unreasonable argument is that because LTCH cannot carry on schools, cops shouldn't be able to either.

The 1st is a pro-freedom/2nd amendment response.

The 2nd is a Brady Bunch wet dream. Unfortunately finity, who I usually agree with, has for some reason joined with the Bradys.

Joe

 

[Bunnykid68]

No, the point is that finity would rather have nobody be able to carry in school rather than cops but not LTCH holders be able to which is asinine in my opinion. There is no argument here about Cops not being held to the law, this is solely about what the law is.

A reasonable argument is that if cops can carry, LTCH should be able to as well.

An unreasonable argument is that because LTCH cannot carry on schools, cops shouldn't be able to either.

The 1st is a pro-freedom/2nd amendment response.

The 2nd is a Brady Bunch wet dream. Unfortunately finity, who I usually agree with, has for some reason joined with the Bradys.

Joe

Yep, unfortunately you are correct. The law the way it is written allows officers to carry in a school. TFrost brought up the LAW and the LAW allows for this, the law is wrong.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think I skimmed a little too much to catch up before I posted...

I would like to see EVERY legal citizen allowed to carry regardless of where the are. The end result of whatever I posted earlier should be this.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think I skimmed a little too much to catch up before I posted...

I would like to see EVERY legal citizen allowed to carry regardless of where the are. The end result of whatever I posted earlier should be this.

Wait a second, legal means they have the pink slip

Don´t you just hate me?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Wait a second, legal means they have the pink slip

Don´t you just hate me?

I didn't say a damn thing about a pink permission slip. You're a legal citizen aren't you? There, done deal!