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

[Fargo]

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.

And I agree with you.

Best,

Joe

 

[Bunnykid68]

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

Like I said, you hate me

 

[Bill of Rights]

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

So you're disregarding the DoI, where it talks about all men being created equal and being endowed with rights by virtue of being born? (<==this is implied sarcasm, btw, though only partially so) Those rights don't belong only to American citizens. All people should have the right of self defense and the tools that facilitate that right.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

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.

I couldn't agree more. & I think you know that was my whole point.

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

Barring the above (fat chance) I don't think it's unreasonable AT ALL to want to require the cops (& "elected officials" - see the Hammond thread)to have to live with the same restrictions placed on the rest of us.

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

I'm all for it.

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

Really??? Oh, come now. I didn't think I'd see you ever be reduced to that kind of empty rhetoric.

Actually it's the Brady's who would love to keep the status quo as it is now.

They don't think anyone but LE are responsible & competent enough to carry a gun ANYWHERE let alone the schools. I don't remember reading that the Brady Campaign has advocated disarming the police. If so I'd like to see your source.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So you're disregarding the DoI, where it talks about all men being created equal and being endowed with rights by virtue of being born? (<==this is implied sarcasm, btw, though only partially so) Those rights don't belong only to American citizens. All people should have the right of self defense and the tools that facilitate that right.

Blessings,
Bill

I can't win for losing... Anyone in this country legally! And all men might have been CREATED equal that doesn't mean they stay that way.

 

[ATM]

I can't win for losing... Anyone in this country legally! And all men might have been CREATED equal that doesn't mean they stay that way.

So you're saying that some are more equal than others?

 

[finity]

Cute kid.



You can post up any cutesy little picture you want but until YOU disarm before going into a school to show solidarity with us peon's then YOU are just as much a part of the problem as those who write & enforce the laws and promote the "us vs. them" elitism so prevalent in your profession.

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

I've said it before & I'll say it again - There is no rational reason that we should see the level of resentment of the police that we do on sites like these from normal law-abiding people outside of a valid impression that you guys (generic "you") aren't REALLY on our side. WE should LOVE the police. Every time we see them we should shower them with adulation. But we don't. The great majority of people (especially OC'ers) have a little pucker happen when we see a cop close by even though we have done nothing illegal. It's gotten to the point that it's not even a conscious response anymore. It's been ingrained into our psyche. It's not just a simple reaction to authority, either. I don't get that way when I see my boss at work. I don't get that way when I see the mayor at city hall. But if I see a cop behind me in traffic I instantly feel uncomfortable. If I ever OC & I see a cop looking at me I immediately think "oh crap, here goes!" (for the recond I don't OC anymore & that is the biggest reason - yes, I'm a chicken ).

Also, for the record, I'm not against the police INDIVIDUALLY. I'm against stupid laws (like the one we are discussing) & court decisions & department policies that promote the "I'm better than you" mentality seen in a lot of cops these days.

Just so you guys know, it doesn't do anything to dissuade that impression by pouring salt into the wound when we are talking about REGULAR citizen carry issues & you or your compatriots come on here to brag "Well, I don't know about you guys but I just carry however & wherever I want. HAHAHA! "....

Obviously you see no problem with the law as it is based on your response above. Discounting the law that the vast majority of non-LEO's here agree is COMPLETELY wrong, give me a valid reason why YOU should be afforded the privelege to carry into a school when the rest of us can't.

 

[finity]

I can't win for losing... Anyone in this country legally!

No, not just those in this country legally. ALL men (& women ). For Rights to mean anything at all they must apply to EVERYONE not just the ones we agree with or those we happen to like at the moment.

And all men might have been CREATED equal that doesn't mean they stay that way.

Bill left out a word that is very important & negates that argument: INALIENABLE.

They can't be inalienable Rights if they can be taken away on a whim & don't apply to everyone across the board equally.

I'm sure you knew that but there are many who don't based on some of the threads I've seen on here over the years. This post was meant for them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can't win for losing... Anyone in this country legally! And all men might have been CREATED equal that doesn't mean they stay that way.

Sorry, man. Even those not here legally have the right of self defense... Right up until they are incarcerated pending deportation.

FWIW, I know your stand on the 2A and my mention of the DoI was more to get to the point of the right being universal than to show any discrepancy in your position.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble but every one of us DOES inherently have that authority. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "of the people, by the people & for the people." Yep, that's exactly what that means.

The only reason that we don't have that authorization at this moment in time is because we have agreed to a social compact to temporarily give up that authorization to those we deem trustworthy of that power to increase the efficient use of our resources. We can terminate that compact at any moment as we see fit as long as enough people agree to it. The police have no inherent authority to do ANYTHING unless WE give it to them.

Imagine, if you will, that all of the police were sucked up by some unknown alien race for experiments on the effects of long term doughnut use in humans.

Just because there were no longer any "police" it doesn't mean that all of those things you mention above would cease to happen. Those powers would revert to their ultimate source - THE PEOPLE (that's US, BTW).

So, no there is ABSOLUTELY no difference between the police & non-police aside from the things that we ALLOW. They aren't superhuman. They aren't special. They aren't some kind of nobility who deserve our fealty no matter what. They are just someone else (a different one of US - those non-police) who agreed to do a job that we had available in our society.

Why shouldn't we be able to work security at a Colts game? Are you saying that ONLY cops are capable of performing that task? Really?

And I hate to break it to you but there already ARE people (normal people) who have emergency equipment in their vehicles. Where's the problem there?

 

[finity]

Sorry, man. Even those not here legally have the right of self defense

And don't forget the Rights of free speech, freedom of religion, due process, a speedy & fair trial, to be free from cruel & unusual punishment, not to be a slave, equal protection under the law, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Even once they have been determined to be here illegally, those Rights are still intact. Prisoners lose very few actual Rights when they are sent to prison. Illegal immigrants who are deported don't lose any of those Rights, either. That's the funny thing about inalienable Rights. It doesn't matter where you are at any exact moment in time. You still have those Rights that EVERY PERSON is born with as a human. In many cases the locations where those people are don't recognize those Rights but that doesn't mean they don't exist just the same.

If we insist that Rights are only for Americans then that puts a huge burden on our supposed "values" that we claim gives us the moral high ground in the world.

We either live by those supposed values that "make us great" or we don't & just accept that we suck just like everywhere else.

 

[Fargo]

Actually it's the Brady's who would love to keep the status quo as it is now.

They don't think anyone but LE are responsible & competent enough to carry a gun ANYWHERE let alone the schools. I don't remember reading that the Brady Campaign has advocated disarming the police. If so I'd like to see your source.

Really? Read the Brady ramrodded GFSZA which does not support the notion that LE are automatically qualified to carry on school grounds.

The Brady Bunch also explicitly came out against LEOSA and against LE carry across state lines.

You want a source? Click below:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=253933

http://www.officer.com/article/10232653/the-confusion-with-concealed-carry?page=3

If you think the Brady-ites are cool with the average non-bloomberg-mayor-controlled local LEO carrying, you are sadly mistaken.

Joe

 

[finity]

Really? Read the Brady ramrodded GFSZA which does not support the notion that LE are automatically qualified to carry on school grounds.

The Brady Bunch also explicitly came out against LEOSA and against LE carry across state lines.

You want a source? Click below:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=253933

The confusion with concealed carry - Officer.com - Page 3

If you think the Brady-ites are cool with the average non-bloomberg-mayor-controlled local LEO carrying, you are sadly mistaken.

Joe

Well, you learn something new every day. I guess I have to concede that point.

That said, I do have to agree with the Brady bunch on this but for OBVIOUSLY different reasons as I stated above. There is nothing about LEO's that should allow them to have special privileges over & above other citizens. Seeing as they have no jurisdiction in those other states the excuse that they have to carry there to perform their jobs is . The name of the act states its purpose. It's for their safety. If their safety is at stake then so is ours. If we can't carry there for our safety without a license from there then neither should they. It's not anti-2A. It's anti-elitism. It's the principle.

And I guess I now also have to admit that you caught me. I am a Brady spy planted here to disrupt the smooth functioning of this website & to foil the efforts of IN gun owners to extend our gun rights. I actually hate guns. I sure had you guys fooled for the last 4 years, huh? ...

...or not.

 

[Fargo]

If their safety is at stake then so is ours. If we can't carry there for our safety without a license from there then neither should they. It's not anti-2A. It's anti-elitism. It's the principle.

So am I correct that you believe in restricting the "inalienable rights" of LEO's because the legislature has restricted yours? How are you any different from the lawmakers you profess to loathe?

Your "principled" stand is irrational, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Its like claiming that white people shouldn't have voted back when blacks were disenfranchised because on "principle" it wasn't fair.

You must have a really strange definition of "inalienable rights" since you are going on and on about how you think they should be restricted.

Joe

 

[jeremy]

So am I correct that you believe in restricting the "inalienable rights" of LEO's because the legislature has restricted yours? How are you any different from the lawmakers you profess to loathe?

Your "principled" stand is irrational, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Its like claiming that white people shouldn't have voted back when blacks were disenfranchised because on "principle" it wasn't fair.

You must have a really strange definition of "inalienable rights" since you are going on and on about how you think they should be restricted.

Joe

LEOs are Civilians why should they have exemptions from the Law that the rest of the Society has to follow?!

 

[Fargo]

LEOs are Civilians why should they have exemptions from the Law that the rest of the Society has to follow?!

I'm not arguing that LEO's should be the only ones who can carry in schools etc. In fact, I'm flatly opposed to restricting where the law abiding get to carry the tools necessary to protect themselves and theirs.

However, I don't understand the argument that instead of expanding those exemptions to the law abiding rest of society, we should instead curtail them so that everyone can feel warm and fuzzy about being disarmed...

I also don't know what the "civilians" thing has to do with it. Do you consider all the exemptions in the law for soldiers to be invalid as well?


Best,

Joe

 

[jeremy]

I'm not arguing that they should in regard to where you can carry. However, I don't understand the argument that instead of expanding those exemptions to the law abiding rest of society, we should instead curtail them so that everyone can feel warm and fuzzy about being disarmed...


Best,

Joe

I think finity's point is that If you are going to put limits out there, then they should apply to everyone, or not have those Restrictions....

Personally I think that there should be absolutely no special exemptions, maybe then you would not have the LEA/LEO Lobbyists pushing for my Restrictions and Inventing Demons for the budget expansions...

But I also feel that there should be absolutely NO restrictions on Weapons for Americans and Hoosiers...

 

[Fargo]

I think finity's point is that If you are going to put limits out there, then they should apply to everyone, or not have those Restrictions....

Why should restrictions that are wrong apply to everyone?

Is it purely that misery loves company?

If those restrictions are wrong, I don't see how you can in good conscience argue for expanding them.

I believe the only legitimate thing to do in such a circumstance, is to work to abolish those restrictions.

I just cannot fathom why someone who believes that carrying a weapon is an inalienable right, then wants to curtail that right just because they have not yet attained it themself.

Personally I think that there should be absolutely no special exemptions, maybe then you would not have the LEA/LEO Lobbyists pushing for my Restrictions and Inventing Demons for the budget expansions...

So the hundreds of times that the phrase "Does not apply to members of the U.S. Military in the course of their duties" should be stricken from the federal code? I'm not arguing that LEO's are the only ones who get open carry privileges. However, I think you are on a bit of a slippery slope here.

But I also feel that there should be absolutely NO restrictions on Weapons for Americans and Hoosiers...

I personally go with the stated meaning of the 2nd Amendment at the time it was ratified; namely that the citizenry are absolutely entitled to possess weapons of the type proper to an individual soldier of their time.

Best,

Joe

 

[jeremy]

Why should restrictions that are wrong apply to everyone?

Is it purely that misery loves company?

If those restrictions are wrong, I don't see how you can in good conscience argue for expanding them.

I believe the only legitimate thing to do in such a circumstance, is to work to abolish those restrictions.

I just cannot fathom why someone who believes that carrying a weapon is an inalienable right, then wants to curtail that right just because they have not yet attained it themself.

I think it would be the fastest way to have them stricken down...

So the hundreds of times that the phrase "Does not apply to members of the U.S. Military in the course of their duties" should be stricken from the federal code? I'm not arguing that LEO's are the only ones who get open carry privileges. However, I think you are on a bit of a slippery slope here.

The difference is that LEOs are Civilians...
I know I am picking Flyscat out of Pepper...

I personally go with the stated meaning of the 2nd Amendment at the time it was ratified; namely that the citizenry are absolutely entitled to possess weapons of the type proper to an individual soldier of their time.

See we do agree on something on this subject...

 

[Fargo]

I think it would be the fastest way to have them stricken down...

Nope, it would be far quicker if we applied all state and federal firearms restrictions to the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and SecDef have a helluva lot more political clout than the FOP. But then again, we wouldn't want that now would we?

The difference is that LEOs are Civilians...
I know I am picking Flyscat out of Pepper...

So the only super-class who should get special exemptions is the military? As I recall, the founders of this country were far more concerned about tyranny via standing army than they were about tyranny via LEO.

Its kinda of amusing considering that both .mil and .le are the two groups employed by the government, who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution, and who get trained and issued a gun by the government.

How do you figure that one is entitled to special exemptions but it is horrible if the other gets them?

Best

Joe