PDA

View Full Version : 74 year old arrested for open carry in SJ


Pages : [1] 2

kurac
12-17-2009, 7:04 PM
He didn't know it was against the law to open carry on or near a school. Last time I checked, not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14020859?source=rss

professorhard
12-17-2009, 7:15 PM
That school zone BS is unconstitutional anyways I'm not suprised he didn't think it was illegal.

pullnshoot25
12-17-2009, 7:15 PM
Son of a *****!

cc4usmc
12-17-2009, 7:27 PM
Last time I checked, not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it.

Actually, in certain situations, not knowing the law can be used as a defense. Unfortunately for him, I don't think his situation applies because it's practically common sense that you can't do that. In order for him to be able to use "I didn't know", in his defense, 1) the law must not have been published or reasonably made known or 2) he relied on an official statement that of the law that was erroneous.

But I'm not law expert..just a student.

bodger
12-17-2009, 7:29 PM
Too bad. Just a gunny trying to exercise his RTKB.

If the cops did tell him it was okay without warning him about the GFSZ law, they did this man a great disservice.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this demonstrates how stupid some of these gun laws truly are.

pullnshoot25
12-17-2009, 7:29 PM
Actually, in certain situations, not knowing the law can be used as a defense. Unfortunately for him, I don't think his situation applies because it's practically common sense that you can't do that. In order for him to be able to use "I didn't know", in his defense, 1) the law must not have been published or reasonably made known or 2) he relied on an official statement that of the law that was erroneous.

But I'm not law expert..just a student.

He is, unfortunately, boned.

demnogis
12-17-2009, 7:30 PM
My post on OCDO about this thread:
Arrests for violating arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional laws in this state is why we have strongly advocated not to Solo OC and "stand down". Above all we have always advised to know your surroundings, be aware of schools, school zones and prohibited areas.

I'm not looking to throw this person under the bus, but he should have educated himself about his surroundings, the laws applying to handgun possession and the risks before strapping up. This is why we tell people who are interested in OC to read, read and read a whole lot more before carrying. :banghead:

The state is looking to make examples of people for exercising their rights in this state and will use everything in their power to do it. I doubt any organization will come to this man's aid. If he somehow does not lose on trial, he should definitely file for appeal after we get the 2nd incorporated.

Remember: There is no RKBA in CA. That is how 626.9 remains standing to this day.

Soldier415
12-17-2009, 7:36 PM
This is a glimpse of what CGF/Gene/Bill have been saying with regards to UOC at this time

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 7:36 PM
Another sad commentary on the UOC movement.

Merle
12-17-2009, 7:38 PM
There is no RKBA in CA

Oh there is a right all right, it's just forgotten and laws have been passed making it illegal.

Exercising a right may be illegal, but the right still exists.

CHS
12-17-2009, 7:40 PM
I hate to say it, but this is why the open-carry movement in CA is such a bad idea.

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 7:41 PM
Oh there is a right all right, it's just forgotten and laws have been passed making it illegal.

Exercising a right may be illegal, but the right still exists.

Eh, methinks you may want to read up on incorporation and California's constitution.

bodger
12-17-2009, 7:42 PM
I hate to say it, but this is why the open-carry movement in CA is such a bad idea.


I know the debate has been done to death, but I always considered it a lousy way to carry for self defense anyway.

Much rather be loaded and concealed. Condition One.

chickenfried
12-17-2009, 7:43 PM
How come come cops get to use the excuse, there are too many laws on the books for them to know every law, when they make a mistake? :p

Last time I checked, not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it

Merle
12-17-2009, 7:50 PM
Eh, methinks you may want to read up on incorporation and California's constitution.

Why? Do you believe the BoR and the CA constitution grants rights?

I don't.

Rights existed prior to the BoR. The right to self-defense is clearly an inherent right of every and all. Neither the BoR nor any piece of paper grants the right nor the ability to exercise such a right.

Josh3239
12-17-2009, 7:52 PM
Actually, in certain situations, not knowing the law can be used as a defense. Unfortunately for him, I don't think his situation applies because it's practically common sense that you can't do that. In order for him to be able to use "I didn't know", in his defense, 1) the law must not have been published or reasonably made known or 2) he relied on an official statement that of the law that was erroneous.

But I'm not law expert..just a student.

I have been sitting on the Grand Jury in LA for a little over a month now that plus intro to criminal justice makes me want to say that some crimes do require the the government prove that the suspect intentionally committed a crime, this is called Mens Rea.

Hopi
12-17-2009, 7:52 PM
Ouch.


Let's hope he can defer trial/judgment until we actually enjoy the right outlined in the BOR....

Hopi
12-17-2009, 7:54 PM
Why? Do you believe the BoR and the CA constitution grants rights?

I don't.

Rights existed prior to the BoR. The right to self-defense is clearly an inherent right of every and all. Neither the BoR nor any piece of paper grants the right nor the ability to exercise such a right.

Between you and your god, yes. Between you and the police....not so much.

davescz
12-17-2009, 7:55 PM
might this case be a good one to test the legality of this school zone law? Frankly this school zone law is not well known. the police cant write a parking ticket with out signs indicating the violation, and teh signs must meet standard for size, wording and placemnt to make the violation enforcable.


can we help fight this arrest??? we need to end this school zone crap once and for all.

Telperion
12-17-2009, 8:05 PM
Between you and your god, yes. Between you and the police....not so much.

Point taken, but from the standpoint of political philosophy it is a subtle but important distinction.

If you believe rights are granted by a Court or piece of paper, a gift from the government, then you have no moral standing to challenge them if those rights are taken away. What is offered can be withdrawn. The people who founded this country believed otherwise; that rights existed before and independent of government, whose purpose was to protect those rights.

If rights are in fact granted by the Constitution, consider if the fifth amendment were repealed, or never incorporated. Would police then be within their power to execute speeders by the side of the road?

devilinblack
12-17-2009, 8:13 PM
Not exactly related, but I just tried posting a link to this story on facebook, only to be told something about it had been reported as offensive. Anyone else run into this when posting gun related links?

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs091.snc3/15849_1241647675660_1063351599_30718404_3962335_n. jpg

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 8:17 PM
Your argument fails the test of practical reality as currently exists here in California. If the right to self-defense were clear and inalienable, would this poor old gentleman have been arrested?

I'm afraid that your perception and understanding of the law might one day lead to your own run in with the legal system.

Why? Do you believe the BoR and the CA constitution grants rights?

I don't.

Rights existed prior to the BoR. The right to self-defense is clearly an inherent right of every and all. Neither the BoR nor any piece of paper grants the right nor the ability to exercise such a right.

icormba
12-17-2009, 8:18 PM
"...shortcut through a field at Allen at Steinbeck School"

#1. SJPD hangs out in droves in this area (Starbucks & Armadillo Willy's)

#2. While I don't like that stupid 1000ft rule, he was on actual school grounds on a Monday - Allen @ Steinbeck has a day-care school that operates up until 7 or 8pm I think... I have a nephew that attends.

#3. There is a rather large sign in the school parking lot that gives note of several items not permissible on school grounds... one of which is firearms I believe.

#4. On that same sign it is stated "No Dogs", yet anytime you pass by that school you will see several Dog Owners running their dogs off-leash. I wonder how many people are cited for that.

professorhard
12-17-2009, 8:24 PM
How come come cops get to use the excuse, there are too many laws on the books for them to know every law, when they make a mistake? :p

+1000000 double standard? It's weird that their job is to kno the law and yet in some cases they don't....and nothing happens. But if a regular peasant/lowly serf citizen doesn't kno the law...they get prosecuted

deldgeetar
12-17-2009, 9:10 PM
"Obama-supporting Republican.":D

This is exactly the kind of brain surgeon we need open carrying!:rolleyes:

LiberalGunner
12-17-2009, 9:21 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Hopi
12-17-2009, 9:24 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Classic rationalized defense of victim-disarmament zones. Sad that people think the way that you do, as that has resulted in 100's of senseless deaths.


Judging by your first 5 posts here, you're in for a bit of a rough time...Good Luck.

LiberalGunner
12-17-2009, 9:32 PM
So Hopi, is there anything that is not a "victim disarmament zone"? I am one of the majority of americans that own guns. I'm also in the majority that don't want to see more intrusive gun laws. But do you honestly believe that americans feel open carry in school zones is a good idea? I think if you answer honestly, you'd have to answer that most people do think the way I do. So please don't tell me I'm rationalizing when you know who's in the fringe.

guayuque
12-17-2009, 9:32 PM
I hate to say it, but this is why the open-carry movement in CA is such a bad idea.

I agree. If you are going to UOC you had better know the law cold, not just asking a couple of cops. Unfortunately, most people won't educate themselves and we end up with this kind of bad publicity.

KylaGWolf
12-17-2009, 9:36 PM
Actually, in certain situations, not knowing the law can be used as a defense. Unfortunately for him, I don't think his situation applies because it's practically common sense that you can't do that. In order for him to be able to use "I didn't know", in his defense, 1) the law must not have been published or reasonably made known or 2) he relied on an official statement that of the law that was erroneous.

But I'm not law expert..just a student.

He could use it as a defense BUT more than likely he will get screwed. Since the law also states that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is a big reason it is stressed that before anyone ever considers open carrying a gun they make sure they understand the laws. The school free school zones is published. Secondly the police don't have to tell you may break a law if you do this or this That is up to the officer if they want to give that information or not. Some departments don't allow the officer to even give that type of information out. .

KylaGWolf
12-17-2009, 9:38 PM
Another sad commentary on the UOC movement.

I agree. And the sad part being is the person didn't take the time to know the laws before they just jump in with both feet. Even more sad it is cases like this that do more damage as well.

Wildhawk66
12-17-2009, 9:40 PM
We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools.

Laws are only keeping guns owned by law abiding gun owners away from schools, not all guns... :rolleyes: Believing anything else is a fantasy.

Hopi
12-17-2009, 9:41 PM
So Hopi, is there anything that is not a "victim disarmament zone"? I am one of the majority of americans that own guns. I'm also in the majority that don't want to see more intrusive gun laws. But do you honestly believe that americans feel open carry in school zones is a good idea? I think if you answer honestly, you'd have to answer that most people do think the way I do. So please don't tell me I'm rationalizing when you know who's in the fringe.


I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but again, judging by your aggressive gun-grabber posts over the last hour or so....I think a more appropriate response to your posts includes nothing more than a certain smiley.

I'll hold back on that smiley and give you some more time....

I'm glad you're a gun owner, now get with the program.

KylaGWolf
12-17-2009, 9:46 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Do me a favor GROW UP. All the amendments are important. Second of all I don't mind if either a liquor store or adult book store are near schools since children cannot go in to an adult book store. As for a liquor store the owner can ban them during certain hours too. I quite frankly get sick of the ones that go not in my back yard or GEE if my kid sees this they will be scared for life. These are usually the same parents that think nothing of letting their kid play some video game till their brain rots out.

I never hid weapons in my house from my child. I also let my daughter watch things such as Cops and Forensic Files from a young age. Then again I was in the field of criminal justice at the time and figured better for her to see reality of what can happen if you screw up than the fairy tale that some parents seem to think their kids need.

Turo
12-17-2009, 9:52 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children?

Obvious troll is obvious?

Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun.

Guns don't scare people unless they've been taught to fear them. Most kids think guns are cool unless their parents are kooks that tell them how scary those evil guns are.

I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too?
What's wrong with that? We have age limits on stuff like that anyway.


1st amendment is just as important as 2nd?
Of course it is. Without the second, however, the first can be taken away by anyone that wants to make the law.

We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools.

Laws don't keep guns away from anything... If someone wants to take a gun into a school, the only thing that keeps that from happening is the fear of breaking the law. I'm pretty sure most criminals aren't afraid of breaking the law anyway.

pullnshoot25
12-17-2009, 9:54 PM
I know the debate has been done to death, but I always considered it a lousy way to carry for self defense anyway.

Much rather be loaded and concealed. Condition One.

Yes bodger, WE ALL FREAKING KNOW!

The 70s called, they want their broken record back.

Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

LiberalGunner, are you honestly for real or did you have a tomahawk lobotomy about 2 minutes prior to typing your asinine and amazingly mentally painful commentary? Personally, I would like to take your mindless dull blather of a response piece by piece and (proverbially) cram it through some sphincters (either end of the digestive system will suffice) but to tell you the truth, I honestly don't know where to begin. I will say though that you are AT A MINIMUM a lost cause if you voluntarily post this brand of malodorous spew for all to see ON A GUN BOARD.

Don't defend the unintelligent? DONE!

Vinz
12-17-2009, 9:54 PM
might this case be a good one to test the legality of this school zone law? Frankly this school zone law is not well known. the police cant write a parking ticket with out signs indicating the violation, and teh signs must meet standard for size, wording and placemnt to make the violation enforcable.


can we help fight this arrest??? we need to end this school zone crap once and for all.
nope he's done. He would have had a better chance if he had not known about the location of the school than not knowing it was illegal to carry near a school.

another black check next to the movement. Hopfully he didn't carry cause he saw the news report about it.
vinz

Vinz
12-17-2009, 9:56 PM
Yes bodger, WE ALL FREAKING KNOW!

The 70s called, they want their broken record back.



LiberalGunner, are you honestly for real or did you have a tomahawk lobotomy about 2 minutes prior to typing your asinine and amazingly mentally painful commentary? Personally, I would like to take your mindless dull blather of a response piece by piece and (proverbially) cram it through some sphincters (either end of the digestive system will suffice) but to tell you the truth, I honestly don't know where to begin. I will say though that you are AT A MINIMUM a lost cause if you voluntarily post this brand of malodorous spew for all to see ON A GUN BOARD.

Don't defend the unintelligent? DONE! go easy now...LOL


vinz

Fate
12-17-2009, 9:57 PM
I recently learned that this whole "school zone" baloney is actually based on the .gov's favorite magic genie: THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE!

18 U.S.C. 922 : US Code - Section 922: Unlawful acts

(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that -
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a
pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate
movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce
and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools,
as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the
Judiciary (!3) the House of Representatives and the Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its
component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which
they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary
citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through
certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime
and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children
to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has
resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse
impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the
United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost
impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves - even
States, localities, and school systems that have made strong
efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find
their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability
of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce
clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact
measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's
schools by enactment of this subsection.
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

I cannot wait for the day that the Supreme Court slaps down the overbroad usage of the "interstate commerce clause." That day can't come soon enough.

trashman
12-17-2009, 9:59 PM
Well, he can probably kiss a nice chunk of his retirement fund good-bye.

He made a bad decision.

--Neill

lorax3
12-17-2009, 10:03 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens when he appears in court on the 28th. I wonder how much the publicity, even a minute amount, would affect the DA's Office decision to prosecute.

Although unfortunate, perhaps this article will stop people from open carrying until further notice.

ZirconJohn
12-17-2009, 10:06 PM
This is a glimpse of what CGF/Gene/Bill have been saying with regards to UOC at this time

I hate to say it, but this is why the open-carry movement in CA is such a bad idea.

I concur ^ X's 2...!

Plain and simple; to the point, and makes perfect sense.

KylaGWolf
12-17-2009, 10:17 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens when he appears in court on the 28th. I wonder how much the publicity, even a minute amount, would affect the DA's Office decision to prosecute.

Although unfortunate, perhaps this article will stop people from open carrying until further notice.

Oh I am pretty sure they will prosecute this case. And make a media circus of it at the same time. While I believe we should be able to UOC heck LOC or CCW as long as we are law abiding citizens the law makers seem to think otherwise at this time. As to if this case will stop others from UOCing I don't think it will. There are way too many people with that won't happen to me syndrome. I just wish this guy would have done some research before he went and UOC. This is why I still say there should be some kind of public education in what is and is not legal when it comes to open carry.

GuyW
12-17-2009, 10:17 PM
"...Obama-supporting Republican..."

Poor sap suffers from a serious mental disorder, and now he's gone and gotten arrested, too...

.

CalNRA
12-17-2009, 10:24 PM
so the SJPD is out tackling hardened criminals I see. I'm sure San Jose is safer because of this arrest and prosecution of a 74 year old guy who wasn't hurting anybody.

CCWFacts
12-17-2009, 10:37 PM
I support the right to open carry, but I think it's foolish to advocate people actually do it in California at this stage. This poor guy should be spending his 70s relaxing, not in a high-stress legal conflict that is likely to cost him a good chunk of his net worth and which he may well lose and which could be harmful to the RKBA movement here. It's lose-lose-win: he loses, the RKBA movement loses, and some cops and prosecutors get the joy of wrecking his life.

Roadrunner
12-17-2009, 10:41 PM
Let's not throw this guy completely under the bus, the government has some responsibility for this as well. They make these ignorant laws, and when someone does this with no intention of hurting anyone, they are quick to use them as an example. There has to be some common sense mixed with enforcement of the laws. In this case, I see none.

I might add that this is not an example of fighting crime.

guayuque
12-17-2009, 10:50 PM
Well, like it or not the state does have a compelling interest in disallowing any guns in a school zone. I happen to agree with the concept, though we can debate distance. I really don't want anyone near a school with a gun, personally. I just don't see the utility.

Roadrunner
12-17-2009, 10:58 PM
Well, like it or not the state does have a compelling interest in disallowing any guns in a school zone. I happen to agree with the concept, though we can debate distance. I really don't want anyone near a school with a gun, personally. I just don't see the utility.

Okay, explain two things. Why would you prohibit a law abiding citizen from having a firearm near a school, and how are you going to stop someone who intends to do harm from taking a gun to a school?

NeuTag
12-17-2009, 10:59 PM
We in San Jose can make a difference and use this case. Remember the kid that got caught coming from a closed Metcalf Road range and was busted for a look-a-like gun black gun. His father called him in to the police thinking they would do the right thing....the father paid for the lawyer fees and learned the police don't do the right thing, only that that gives notes on the old resume.....But this older man is me.....god bless him..and I don't own a pistol....You can't butt stoke with a pistol....and I won't shoot.

NorCalMama
12-17-2009, 11:03 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Do you know what you are doing, not only are you utilizing your Right to free speech, but you are completely wrong. What's more, because you have this Right, I will do nothing to try to silence you.

You want to use the word "logic" in your response, why don't we use logic right now? If you read the Bill of Rights and begin at the First Amendment, read through the Second, Third, all the way to the Tenth or beyond, do you notice something that ties all of them together? They are ALL part of the Bill of RIGHTS. None are privileges, they are Rights, and this includes the Second JUST as much as it does the Right to a jury trial, the Right to not speak to the police if they want to talk to you, the Right to freely speak and freely worship. ALL of our Rights are equal and very distinct. Each serves a VERY vital purpose. If you can't understand this, you need to do some extensive reading and familiarize yourself with our laws. I suggest you read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children?

The man had an UNLOADED firearm on his person. How should the parents and children feel seeing a cop with a LOADED gun?
XnCnqOQSQ8E

And the infamous "only one" clip
p1_EoRZOVes&feature=related

guayuque
12-17-2009, 11:06 PM
Okay, explain two things. Why would you prohibit a law abiding citizen from having a firearm near a school, and how are you going to stop someone who intends to do harm from taking a gun to a school?

Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.

As to the other, you cannot. But that does not justify putting kids on a schoolyard within a zone of danger from errant bullets.

NorCalMama
12-17-2009, 11:11 PM
Okay, explain two things. Why would you prohibit a law abiding citizen from having a firearm near a school, and how are you going to stop someone who intends to do harm from taking a gun to a school?

BEST set of questions posed on this thread... :clap:

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 11:12 PM
Guay, can you support your argument with data from states where permitted carry on campus is allowed showing a substantive increase in the volume of errant bullets and harm to students?

chrisw
12-17-2009, 11:15 PM
"It's just not wise to carry a weapon around," Lopez said. "It could lead to a tragic outcome."
Last time I checked the San Jose Police carried loaded weapons around. They are the "only ones" after all.

Roadrunner
12-17-2009, 11:16 PM
Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.

As to the other, you cannot. But that does not justify putting kids on a schoolyard within a zone of danger from errant bullets.

yeah, the two examples of so called experts supposedly "well trained" as examples in the post above yours may appear to support your claim, however, you should probably back your generalized statement up with fact. Two so called experts screwing up by the numbers does not mean that it happens a lot.

As for keeping criminals from attacking students, you are completely wrong about that. Having school officials armed and ready to protect those kids would be a huge deterrent to some maggot that wants to get his name in tomorrows headlines.

chrisw
12-17-2009, 11:22 PM
Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.

As to the other, you cannot. But that does not justify putting kids on a schoolyard within a zone of danger from errant bullets.

Where were the errant bullets? Can you cite in the article where this old man fired rounds at the school?

aileron
12-17-2009, 11:27 PM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun.

Guns never scared me as a child. In fact when I was a kid, as a 4th grader, in this very state, in Santa Ana, on Halloween, on campus, during school hours, a women faculty member dressed up as a cow girl and had two single action sixes on her with real bullets in her leather belt, and not a one of us in that whole campus was scared.

She did it all day that day. No one even thought to complain and that was in the 70's. TV is brainwashing people to think... ooh looky gun, scary, bad people carry guns, who are scary, so guns bad.

Liberty1
12-17-2009, 11:37 PM
I support the right to open carry, but I think it's foolish to advocate people actually do it in California at this stage. This poor guy should be spending his 70s relaxing, not in a high-stress legal conflict that is likely to cost him a good chunk of his net worth and which he may well lose and which could be harmful to the RKBA movement here. It's lose-lose-win: he loses, the RKBA movement loses, and some cops and prosecutors get the joy of wrecking his life.

The individual who was featured in the Sunnyvale Bay area News story, which helped to inspire the above arrestee, agreed shortly after the interview to stand down and wait for a better legal situation for OC. Kinda ironic...

Californians deserve a RKBA and we're literally starving for it. Dinner time is sooo close, and the smells are wafting in from the kitchen, that it is painful to wait just a little bit longer.

There are many at OCDO, including all the CA "pioneers", who are standing down on UOC. There are a few others who can't see the forest for all the trees. We'll keep working to convince them to hold off also. Post McDonald all bets are off for some however...

But the arrest of a peaceful 74 year old man walking with a holstered UNloaded revolver with his girlfriend spells out the absurdity of this law in spades. Hopefully some good can be salvaged from his coming ordeal. No charges yet is a very good thing.

Dustin C.
12-17-2009, 11:38 PM
"...Obama-supporting Republican..."

Poor sap suffers from a serious mental disorder, and now he's gone and gotten arrested, too...

.

so the SJPD is out tackling hardened criminals I see. I'm sure San Jose is safer because of this arrest and prosecution of a 74 year old guy who wasn't hurting anybody.

LOL, times 2, back-to-back! And both are so true.

Now, to the serious topics at hand. Yes, guns can be scary for people, especially small children. But that's only because our society has made guns so scary. Sometime between the start of our great country and today, the thought of leaving you house with your firearm(s) in hand(s) became horribly and unreasonably demonized. It is up to such things as the OC project to undo these demonizations, although CA law needs to be loosened by other means before OC can take place here.

And as for gun safety, it's simple: ANYBODY can f***-up if they aren't being responsible enough. It's up to those who seek to be gun owners and users (us, police, etc.) to be experienced enough and mature enough to handle such a deadly and powerful thing as a firearm.

The king idea here to remember is that any and all firearm laws haven't and won't ever make our country safer. In fact, they will probably make owning firearms that much more dangerous because they make it tougher for people to use guns and become experienced with them prior to ownership/carrying. But I guess that's just my opinion.

gotgunz
12-17-2009, 11:39 PM
This is a glimpse of what CGF/Gene/Bill have been saying with regards to UOC at this time

Another sad commentary on the UOC movement.

I hate to say it, but this is why the open-carry movement in CA is such a bad idea.

I know the debate has been done to death, but I always considered it a lousy way to carry for self defense anyway.

Yep, yep, yep & YEAH!

"Obama-supporting Republican.":D

This is exactly the kind of brain surgeon we need open carrying!:rolleyes:

AKA: "RINO"?

Laws are only keeping guns owned by law abiding gun owners away from schools, not all guns... :rolleyes: Believing anything else is a fantasy.

Not true; ccw holders are law abiding and exempt for the GFSZ laws.

Yes bodger, WE ALL FREAKING KNOW!

The 70s called, they want their broken record back.

The 70's weren't that bad to be honest. Too bad you missed it.



Personally, I would like to take your mindless dull blather of a response piece by piece and (proverbially) cram it through some sphincters (either end of the digestive system will suffice)

And you carry a gun? :rolleyes: Good thing it is unloaded.

Well, like it or not the state does have a compelling interest in disallowing any guns in a school zone. I happen to agree with the concept, though we can debate distance. I really don't want anyone near a school with a gun, personally. I just don't see the utility.

Does that include police officers?, CCW holders? And if not, why?

Theseus
12-17-2009, 11:39 PM
He didn't know it was against the law to open carry on or near a school. Last time I checked, not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14020859?source=rss

Actually mistake of law is a defense for specific intent crimes. I argue that 626.9 is a specific intent law, but there is evidence I am wrong.

Actually, in certain situations, not knowing the law can be used as a defense. Unfortunately for him, I don't think his situation applies because it's practically common sense that you can't do that. In order for him to be able to use "I didn't know", in his defense, 1) the law must not have been published or reasonably made known or 2) he relied on an official statement that of the law that was erroneous.

But I'm not law expert..just a student.

Actually it is common sense that possession on school grounds is illegal, but most people would be surprised to know there was a "zone".

I haven't read the case, but from what I can gather here he might not have much a defense. . . right now. . .

ADD: Yeah. . . not much he can do but hope that he isn't charged. We should petition the DA here. . .

demnogis
12-17-2009, 11:41 PM
Nobody can be certain. Who is to say this man does not have a sizable amount of money for his legal defense?

Not all of the facts of this incident have been brought to light. Save the anti-OC rhetoric for one of the prior threads, keep this one relevant to the discussion of 626.9...

hoffmang
12-17-2009, 11:44 PM
I'm also in the majority that don't want to see more intrusive gun laws. But do you honestly believe that americans feel open carry in school zones is a good idea?

Let's move aside from the open/concealed argument and face a fact. Prohibiting firearms some place where there is not real security (magnometers and armed guards) means that only the Patrick Purdys of the world will have a firearm when bad things happen. A school shooting has been cut short by a civilian. To my knowledge no school shooting has been cut short by law enforcement.

-Gene

Liberty1
12-17-2009, 11:48 PM
On second read, I suspect the news paper or whoever tipped them off on the story is trying to back the DA in to a corner and force prosecution. The "slant" in the article and the photo caption is that the arrestee was an "open carry" activist who made the choice to push his 2nd A. Rights. It simply appears to me that he just wanted to carry the only way he knew was legal while taking a walk. He doesn't appear to have contacted any OCers prior or done much if any research other then asking the police for legal advice.

Liberty1
12-17-2009, 11:55 PM
Let's move aside from the open/concealed argument and face a fact. Prohibiting firearms some place where there is not real security (magnometers and armed guards) means that only the Patrick Purdys of the world will have a firearm when bad things happen. A school shooting has been cut short by a civilian. To my knowledge no school shooting has been cut short by law enforcement.

-Gene

Very true. The two campus shootings I've responded to I got there in time to secure the scene for Homicide Detectives so they could later write a very detailed report with pictures (and this occurred with school police already on campus).

I refer to myself as a 2nd responder. The potential victim or bystanders are the only ones with the real chance to be true 1st Responders and stop the crime.

technique
12-17-2009, 11:58 PM
Thats sucks. Poor old dude. (no offense to any old dudes)

technique
12-18-2009, 12:08 AM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Hello, and welcome... :rolleyes:

Classic rationalized defense of victim-disarmament zones. Sad that people think the way that you do, as that has resulted in 100's of senseless deaths.


Judging by your first 5 posts here, you're in for a bit of a rough time...Good Luck.

Agreed Hopi...

GearHead
12-18-2009, 12:26 AM
OH GOD NO MY CHILDREN MIGHT SEE BEER CRAP BETTER BAN FUN BEFORE THEY GET CORRUPT

In all seriousness, you arguments make as much sense as my outburst.

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 12:45 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

Theseus
12-18-2009, 12:54 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

I will say it. Seeing the complete lack of security at my daughters school there is nothing to prevent her from being taken from the school grounds. . . no armed officers, no armed teachers. . . if someone was to come and take her with force there would be little to stop them. At least when I am there I would be able to stop it, if armed.

And in my experience as an open carrier, most parents understand why I carry and have expressed comfort at the idea. Many would do the same if it weren't such a risky proposition. Don't be so quick to judge the thoughts and desires of the many based on the reactions of a select few.

NeuTag
12-18-2009, 1:07 AM
I am just going to throw it out there and say that you are an incomparable fool. Why are you advocating for victim disarmament zones on a gun board?

Personally, I would trust any citizen with a firearm before I would trust most police officers, regardless of location.

I say any person that that says ppls shouln't be cabable of protecting themselves....should be disarmed....as they are a danger to themselves and to the community......also british armies should be disarmed.
As the gov the has killed too many since 1896,,,,remember the british death camps in south africa during the boar wars.

NiteQwill
12-18-2009, 1:10 AM
Kyla, I won't judge you, but I've got to ask you to admit that you are very much out of the mainstream. As much as you may want to flame me, you all know it's true. You put a ban on porn shops, liquor stores, exceeding 25mph and guns in school zones on any ballot and it will pass with 80% of the vote. I hope this site doesn't represent such a fringe that this will be lost on you.

You put a ban on anything within the first 10 amendments and you'd be surprised at the idiots who vote for the ban.

As one who was personally affected/involved by the recent Ft. Hood shooting, not one person I know didn't wish they had a gun when the shooter went postal. And military bases are the largest gun-free zones in the nation. Victim disarmament zones are very effective to those who don't follow the law.

pullnshoot25
12-18-2009, 1:13 AM
LOL, times 2, back-to-back! And both are so true.

Now, to the serious topics at hand. Yes, guns can be scary for people, especially small children. But that's only because our society has made guns so scary. Sometime between the start of our great country and today, the thought of leaving you house with your firearm(s) in hand(s) became horribly and unreasonably demonized. It is up to such things as the OC project to undo these demonizations, although CA law needs to be loosened by other means before OC can take place here.

And as for gun safety, it's simple: ANYBODY can f***-up if they aren't being responsible enough. It's up to those who seek to be gun owners and users (us, police, etc.) to be experienced enough and mature enough to handle such a deadly and powerful thing as a firearm.

The king idea here to remember is that any and all firearm laws haven't and won't ever make our country safer. In fact, they will probably make owning firearms that much more dangerous because they make it tougher for people to use guns and become experienced with them prior to ownership/carrying. But I guess that's just my opinion.

Tell that to all the kids that have seen me OCing and see what they say. 1/2 the time they think I am a cop and the other 1/2 the time they don't think anything at all.

Afraid my ***. Kids are the original anti-hoplophobes.

pullnshoot25
12-18-2009, 1:15 AM
I say any person that that says ppls shouln't be cabable of protecting themselves....should be disarmed....as they are a danger to themselves and to the community......also british armies should be disarmed.
As the gov the has killed too many since 1896,,,,remember the british death camps in south africa during the boar wars.

True that. 170,000,000 people have been MURDERED in the last century by GOVERNMENT AGENTS committing heinous acts of GENOCIDE.

Wait, let's just highlight that number again... 170,000,000. That should be big enough for LiberalGunner to see.

NeuTag
12-18-2009, 1:28 AM
True that. 170,000,000 people have been MURDERED in the last century by GOVERNMENT AGENTS committing heinous acts of GENOCIDE.

Wait, let's just highlight that number again... 170,000,000. That should be big enough for LiberalGunner to see.
We are in a difficult time..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2IaFaJrmno

I learned that song in 1964 at the 'SouthBay San Jose, Cal Deutscher Schulverein.....tell me about you're culture.

The night I was going to fly out to Denver Colo. to bury my mutter in 2001.....A german on Napster decided to give me hell. His claim to fame was he was a loader of the coke machines. I enyoyed talking to him. So what are you about? I'm still mistified....Carrying a huck of metal and a video recording device are too different things.....

Strings.......allegreo....Brandenburg concerto... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrLX7FXba4

oaklander
12-18-2009, 6:04 AM
Perhaps you are too young to remember when marksmanship clubs were common in schools?

Also, your previous assertion that children are *afraid* of guns is simply not correct. Children are actually *fascinated* by guns, and that is why it is important to teach young children to NEVER touch a gun without parental supervision. Maybe you have heard of Eddy Eagle?

Again, based on what you are posting here, what you are posting in other threads, and your choice of certain words and phrases - you appear to be a woman who works for an anti-gun organization.

Why don't you come clean and tell us who you are and why you are here?

ETA: after all IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

GM4spd
12-18-2009, 6:17 AM
Unbelievable,another guy pushing the envelope. This stuff must be contagiuos. UOC has to be the perfect law for the anti's to use against
legitimate firearms possession. Whoever came up with this one (UOC)
had to be a genius. Who is going to be next? Pete

AJAX22
12-18-2009, 6:31 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

I, as well as most Americans (you know.. the ones in the flyover states) would prefer that citizens be able to protect their children regardless of artificially created 'victim dismemberment zones'

you see.... shooting innocent people (particularly childeren) is generally considered to be illegal, and as such law abiding people don't do it.... it tends to be the dominion of the criminally inclined.... so law abiding people will not cross the fairy circle you draw in pixi dust around the 'school zone' but that won't stop anyone who actually intends harm.

I would be very very happy to have my grandfather bring the pistols he captured from nazi collaborators into class for show and tell...

If someone is determined to do harm, they can do more with a heavy ball peen hammer than a small handgun.... and they won't run out of bullets.


Maby we should ban hammers from school grounds? or pencils... those can be sharp....

johnny_22
12-18-2009, 6:35 AM
It's on the front page of the Mercury News this Morning. Column 1!

GrizzlyGuy
12-18-2009, 7:23 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

I'll say it. I grew up in a small town in the 70's, where kids typically learned to handle guns before they learned to ride a bike. We routinely brought our guns (mostly hunting rifles and shotguns) to school so that we could go hunting or shooting after school. We didn't hide them. Everyone, including the teachers, parents, school administrators, and law enforcement knew they were there. Teachers often had guns visible in their cars out in the parking lot, and that includes elementary school teachers. No one was in fear of anything bad happening.

This older gentleman grew up back in those times (actually earlier) so it is conceivable that he didn't know about the relatively recent school zone law, nor would the common sense of his formative days lead him to expect such a law. The times have changed, and common sense has gone by the wayside.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 7:49 AM
Anyone else run into this when posting gun related links?Yes. Facebook is IMHO anti civil rights, anti 2nd Amendment, and anti liberty. :(

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 7:59 AM
But do you honestly believe that americans feel open carry in school zones is a good idea?It is not a question of being a "good idea" or not. It is a question of being constitutional. Do you believe the constitution is the law of the land or not?I think if you answer honestly, you'd have to answer that most people do think the way I do.Why should that matter? People come and go, as do their opinions, but the constitution has stood the test of time for over 200 years. If you don't like the constitution, try to change it. Until you manage to chage it (over my dead body) it remains the supreme law of the land.

Soldier415
12-18-2009, 8:05 AM
Perhaps you are too young to remember when marksmanship clubs were common in schools?

Also, your previous assertion that children are *afraid* of guns is simply not correct. Children are actually *fascinated* by guns, and that is why it is important to teach young children to NEVER touch a gun without parental supervision. Maybe you have heard of Eddy Eagle?

Again, based on what you are posting here, what you are posting in other threads, and your choice of certain words and phrases - you appear to be a woman who works for an anti-gun organization.

Why don't you come clean and tell us who you are and why you are here?

ETA: after all IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!




Smell that?

It's the plot thickening...

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 8:06 AM
Well, like it or not the state does have a compelling interest in disallowing any guns in a school zone. I happen to agree with the concept, though we can debate distance. I really don't want anyone near a school with a gun, personally. I just don't see the utility.First, what is that compelling interest?

Second, how can it be enforced?

Such laws only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals (you know, the ones who actually do the harm) will not be detered in the least.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 8:08 AM
We will see if she responds to my PM. . .

:rolleyes:

Smell that?

It's the plot thickening...

Soldier415
12-18-2009, 8:12 AM
We will see if she responds to my PM. . .

:rolleyes:
Its probably that woman who runs the brady meet up group...

6172crew
12-18-2009, 8:14 AM
I had to delete a few posts here this morning.

Remember the rules:

Dont attack any of the members and if you cant argue your point without name calling then dont argue.

Some of you made your point without personal atacks, those are the replies I left.

:) Lets keep the thread alive.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 8:15 AM
Its probably that woman who runs the brady meet up group...

Nah - that woman speaks ESL as a second language. This one appears to be a native speaker. . .

oaklander
12-18-2009, 8:17 AM
+1 - I want to see how she replies. . .

I had to delete a few posts here this morning.

Remember the rules:

Dont attack any of the members and if you cant argue your point without name calling then dont argue.

Some of you made your point without personal atacks, those are the replies I left.

:) Lets keep the thread alive.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 8:17 AM
Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.Can you post some statistical studies to support your assertion? I have carried a gun for over 45 years and have NEVER had a gun discharge spontaneously, nor accidentally.
As to the other, you cannot. But that does not justify putting kids on a schoolyard within a zone of danger from errant bullets.Whose errant bullets? The gang bangers who ignore the law? Are gun free school zones really gun free or are the only guns restricted those of law abiding citizens who could defend the kids if, God forbid, it became necessary?

Californio
12-18-2009, 8:21 AM
1969 just forty years ago. My Father gave me a ride to my HS, I offloaded my backpack/sleeping bag and my Smith and Wesson K22, handed my baseball coach the ammo and climbed into a IH Carryall for a school sponsored Thursday-Sunday camping trip with other members of the baseball team.

The only requirement was that I tell my coach when I was shooting and get the ammo from him.

This school zone thing was created to stop drive-by gang shootings and now its used to entrap law abiding citizens that are no harm to society, its political and nothing more and a perfect example of how a law with good intentions gets morphed into a political spear against good citizens.

If these same lawmakers had squashed gangs in the first place honest people would not feel the need to carry.

I think radicals feed off the chaos to justify passing more and more draconian laws. Its all about power.

bodger
12-18-2009, 8:33 AM
Yes bodger, WE ALL FREAKING KNOW!

The 70s called, they want their broken record back.



You freaking know what? That it's a lousy way to carry for self defense, or that there are many who share the opinion that it's a lousy way to carry for self defense?

I realize you've never reiterated an opinion on on this board.
But here's one you haven't heard from me before:
That pose you're striking in your avatar reinforces my opinion that UOC is as much grandstanding as it is anything else.

No need to shout by the way. :D

FastFinger
12-18-2009, 8:37 AM
Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children.

Guns scare little people? Hmm.. I recall reading studies that show infants are inherently afraid of heights and snakes, nothing about guns though.

Now adults are a different thing. For example, my sister in law. She was determined to rasie her kids in a safe, clean, non violent environment. So no guns, no picture sof them, no TV shows with them, no toys. I can only imagine her dismay when my 3 yr old nephew built his own toy gun out of legos, and pretty much every other stick and chunk of wood he could imagine as a barrel and grip. No fear there - just natural gun lust.

I have no idea how old you are, but it wasn't that long ago that kids didn't beg Santa for an ipod, no, they pleaded for a set of six shooters just like Roy Rogers and Dale Evans had.

http://www.winecommonsewer.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/06/man_with_no_name.jpg

davescz
12-18-2009, 8:52 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

probelm is that 1000 foot school zone goes right up to my property i am surrounded by school zones, cant leave my land without being in one..

if a school wants guns check at the gate, that is there problem, but when they extend the school boundries out to surround all the other properties, i have a BIG probelm with that.

I bought my house well before they decided to make some supper 1000 foot school zone around my land.

we have been encircled by school zones, the anti gun zealots have used school zones to disarm citizen. really sick of them to use the "children' to get away with gun grabbing.

this is a back door gun grabbing plan, 1000 feet my ***. it has nothign to do with protecting children, but every thing to do with gun grabbing.

If guns are inherently so bad, lets see the cops disarm before entering a school zone, which would cover much of the city.

bad law, and an innocent man goes down to jail.

yeah gun free zones really stop school shootings.

as far as stray bullets hitting kids, well it is already illegal to discharge a fire arm in my city, so to get a stray bullet in the air to a school you are already breaking the law.

stupid laws, stupid people write them and support them.

davescz
12-18-2009, 9:09 AM
1969 just forty years ago. My Father gave me a ride to my HS, I offloaded my backpack/sleeping bag and my Smith and Wesson K22, handed my baseball coach the ammo and climbed into a IH Carryall for a school sponsored Thursday-Sunday camping trip with other members of the baseball team.

The only requirement was that I tell my coach when I was shooting and get the ammo from him.

This school zone thing was created to stop drive-by gang shootings and now its used to entrap law abiding citizens that are no harm to society, its political and nothing more and a perfect example of how a law with good intentions gets morphed into a political spear against good citizens.

If these same lawmakers had squashed gangs in the first place honest people would not feel the need to carry.

I think radicals feed off the chaos to justify passing more and more draconian laws. Its all about power.

the school zone law is not to stop drive by shootings. that is already illegal for a number of reasons.
illegal discharge of a gun in city limits, shooting from a vehilce is illegal, many of the criminals involved in drive by shootings arre already prohibited from having a gun (prior convictions in a gang, drug use etc...) having a loaded unlocked gun in a car is illegal anyway. murder is illegal, punished by death (except in san fransisco)

no this law was designed specifically to take vast areas of land, and declare it gun free to further the anit-gun cluture and laws in this once free nation.

yeah stopping drive by shootings like that was not illegal already.

conversation below is between Spike and Mad Dog, Both are gang members, felons, and registered democrats:

Mad Dog...Hey Spike, lets go shoot up a school today over on the other gangs turf, I got this nice little gun here I stole from my parole offiecers neighbor, we can use it to shot up the school.

Spike.... Oh no Mad Dog, Spike dont want to go to prison again, we better not do that shooting within 1000 feet of a school, hell we would be setting ourselves up for extra weapons chrages if we are caught, lets just ambush the kids 1001 feet away from the school, that way we wont be charge with the school zone law.

Mad Dog....Golly Spike that is a great idea, dont want to risk that school zone violation.

Spike...Yeah that law sucks, now we cant kill them on the play ground., however the bright side is that almost no one that is honest can carry a gun becuase they must pass thru multible confusing gun free zones just to exit their own front door. what we can do is be just outside a school zone, and we will have easy pickings as all the honest citizens are effectly disarmed by the school zone laws, even when outside of school zones. This law really is good for us gangsters afterall.

Mad Dog... Gosh Spike you really are the brains here., lets go killing now.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:12 AM
Guay, can you support your argument with data from states where permitted carry on campus is allowed showing a substantive increase in the volume of errant bullets and harm to students?

I am unaware of any such studies, but that study would be meaningless to parents who have lost a child (my best friend has endured that pain and it does not end, ever) due to an errant bullet, whether from a law abiding citizen's gun or not.

I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 9:14 AM
I agree with GrizzlyGuy. That being said, you can't fault the cops for making the arrest. The American population who's votes eventually led to guns being banned/prohibited/hated is primarily to blame. Liberalgunner may be correct that the majority of ignorant Americans would vote for "GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES" (especially if worded that way). But what would happen if the Majority of Americans believed that guns should be outlawed completely? Majority opinion should not trump the basic God-given right to self defense. Unfortunately, if you want to have a means for protection while close to a school, you have to break the current law.

- It does not make children safer to prohibit open carry on school grounds. They are in greater danger.

- Children are only scared of guns due to LIBERAL bias against guns, and being brought up inefficiently.

- Concealed carry should be legal for LAW ABIDING Americans EVERYWHERE (the right to basic self defense)

- Concealed carry SHOULD therefore be allowed on school grounds. Nobody would be creeped out, and there would be additional protection/prevention of violent crime.

Scenario: You normally carry a gun for protection. You happen to be attending a meeting at your childs's school when a crazy killer goes postal and begins a massacre. His gunshots make it easy to hone in on his position. You reach into your jacket for your XD-45 which you have spent countless hours training with for just such on occasion (and for fun...). The gun is not there because guns are not allowed on School grounds, and you obeyed the law. You run to your vehicle to retrieve your gun, but remember you had to leave it at home due to the proximity restriction to school grounds. On this point you obeyed the law also. You run to your child's classroom and ensure the door is locked, hoping the murderer is not capable of forcing entry. You listen helplessly as the murderer executed children and staff outside your door, hoping someone has called the police. You also hope the police happen to be close to the school when they get the call because they are under-staffed for the geographical area or population. The Murderer is done with the kids in the hallway, and the police are arriving with sirens sounding. He has one last magazine and empties it into the door you are hiding behind. Your child is struck and killed by one of the rounds. After 12 minutes he had killed 12 children including yours. The police arrive and arrest him because he is out of bullets and surrendered.

If I were present when a "gun free zone" mass murder occurred, and had not been armed due to liberal anti-gun hysteria (anti-gun laws), I would be upset to say the least. Whoever enacted such legislation should be held liable when these event happen. I would sue the poop out of them. Fort Hood is a prime example. I would feel homicidal toward the anti-gun liberals who contributed to my inability to defend myself or fellow brothers-in-arms on that day. I would also need psych counseling for my anger toward said liberals. Especially if I just returned from war and had not adjusted yet.....

Groups of people have been gunned down, helpless to defend themselves as they wait for someone to call a 911 dispatcher, the dispatcher to relay the information to officers who may be miles (and precious minutes) away, the officers respond in cars, get out of cars, figure out where exactly you are, figure out what is going on exactly, overcome their justified fear of being held liable for errors in judgement, then acting to DEFEND THE HELPLESS masses.

When such instances occur, people SHOULD realize that lives would have been saved had the good people been allowed to defend themselves. Instead they focus on what type of guns were used and ban/regulate them further.

If you believe that ordinary law-abiding citizens should be able to carry guns for self-defense, then there is no way to logically believe they should not be able to carry them in an area where their children are congregated and easily targeted by the evil. It is just silly.

If you believe that law abiding citizens should not be able to protect themselves, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe guns should be outlawed at school.

I do not know enough about the 74 year old man's arrest, and have not read the story. There are alot of factors which could contribute to an arrest of this nature including the exact conversation which took place between the police and the man. He may have been obviously aware of the law and refused to leave the school grounds for all I know. He also could have just been a jerk to the police and courteous cops upon being contacted. That is an easy and good reason to get arrested in my opinion, presuming you are breaking the law of course. (i.e. Cops say, "Sir, you put your hands in the air and turn around. Do not reach for your firearm." Suspect says, " @#$@# I have a @#%$#ing right to self defense btch#$#@." haha.)

I read a few of Liberalgunner's posts. I did not see his response to the following arguement which was posted by another Calgunner: Humans have rights which existed before they were granted to them by government. If they did not, then every right can be taken away by the government. To me this arguement easily could pertain to being able to defend yourself or children at a public school (which attendence is nearly mandated by the way... no real choice in the matter to send children to public school, and unless rich or very good/flexible job/no mistakes in life, it is not reasonable to homeschool.)

Thoughts? Interesting discussion. I am open minded....Some of you should be a little moreso (more so?), or at least lay off the personal jibes and name calling.

Long post will not happen again, sorry in advance. I hope it did not violate a forum rule!

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:14 AM
yeah, the two examples of so called experts supposedly "well trained" as examples in the post above yours may appear to support your claim, however, you should probably back your generalized statement up with fact. Two so called experts screwing up by the numbers does not mean that it happens a lot.

As for keeping criminals from attacking students, you are completely wrong about that. Having school officials armed and ready to protect those kids would be a huge deterrent to some maggot that wants to get his name in tomorrows headlines.

What does having duly authorized armed school officials have to do with having the general citizenry tote guns around within a thousand feet of a school?

davescz
12-18-2009, 9:15 AM
Well, like it or not the state does have a compelling interest in disallowing any guns in a school zone. I happen to agree with the concept, though we can debate distance. I really don't want anyone near a school with a gun, personally. I just don't see the utility.

probelm is my front door is withon a 1000 feet of a school. I dont want a gun free zone on my street. school property is one thing, I dont agree but it is there land, they have no right to ban guns in vast areas that dont belong to them.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:19 AM
Where were the errant bullets? Can you cite in the article where this old man fired rounds at the school?

It is difficult to discuss things fairly when you keep raising irrelevant facts.

No one said the old man had a loaded gun. The question, I thought, was the rationale for a buffer zone for schools. You cannot sit there with any credibility whatsoever and state that there is not a legitimate basis for having the buffer zone. You can argue that it sucks, then only criminals will carry near schools, blah, blah, blah. But, the fact remains that society does have an interest in having a buffer zone around schools and enhancing criminal sanctions for doing so if caught. I am all for this buffer zone, perhaps more so than I am for "improved shall issue" CCW and I support that as well.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:23 AM
Actually mistake of law is a defense for specific intent crimes. I argue that 626.9 is a specific intent law, but there is evidence I am wrong.


Yes, PC 626.9 is without question a general intent crime. In Californi specific intent crimes are pretty easy to spot - "with the intent to.." is a feature that is generally found in the statute if it is a specific intent crime.

The best defense this guy has is that he did not kno or should not have known he was in a a school zone. But, I doubt he does any jail time even if convicted.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:26 AM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones. I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition. Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

I agree, and would venture to say that anyone advocating general citizenry walking around near school grounds is simply not rational and does the RKBA supporters a disservice.

davescz
12-18-2009, 9:30 AM
I am unaware of any such studies, but that study would be meaningless to parents who have lost a child (my best friend has endured that pain and it does not end, ever) due to an errant bullet, whether from a law abiding citizen's gun or not.

I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

that gun free zone includes the front of my house, never mind that discharging a gun in teh city is illegal anyway. This law does lots of harm to folks that want to defend themselves. this 70 year old man is one example of the destruction this law causes.

has one school shootng or stray round been kept from happening becuase of this anticivil rights law???? answer is NO.

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 9:34 AM
What does having duly authorized armed school officials have to do with having the general citizenry tote guns around within a thousand feet of a school?

What does having the general LAW ABIDING citizenry toting guns around within 1000 feet of a school zone have to do with preventing crime?

Answer: prevent it.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:37 AM
It is not a question of being a "good idea" or not. It is a question of being constitutional. Do you believe the constitution is the law of the land or not?Why should that matter? People come and go, as do their opinions, but the constitution has stood the test of time for over 200 years. If you don't like the constitution, try to change it. Until you manage to chage it (over my dead body) it remains the supreme law of the land.

Ah, a cogent point among all the genocide and other stuff.

Of course that is the question, and it is unquestionably consitutional to have a buffer zone for schools. As I stated, like it or not, disagree with the thought process or not, the state does have a compelling interest in creating a gun free zone around schools. That is not say someone cannot carry around a school. All he needs is the permission of the school district, own property in the zone and he can carry on his property, or be otherwise authroized to carry. But, just having general citizenry carry around schools? That is asking for trouble.

For example, let's say Joe is picking up his six year old daughter is at aschool and carrying CCW. But, Joe spot a man he has never seen before OC. Joe's awareness is now way up. Let's say OC man sees something Joe doesn't and OC man draws and fires, and then Joe draws and incorrectly assess OC man as an assailant and fire on OC man and OC man returns fire mistaking Joe for an assailant. We now have two engaged in a firefight with kids all over the place. Do we really want that type of nonesense going on?

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:38 AM
First, what is that compelling interest?

Second, how can it be enforced?

Such laws only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals (you know, the ones who actually do the harm) will not be detered in the least.

That is simply not true. The enhancement for the crime is significant. It is enforced, just lie any other crime is, by conviction and punishment.

pullnshoot25
12-18-2009, 9:39 AM
Where do you people come from? Seriously.

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 9:40 AM
It is difficult to discuss things fairly when you keep raising irrelevant facts.

No one said the old man had a loaded gun. The question, I thought, was the rationale for a buffer zone for schools. You cannot sit there with any credibility whatsoever and state that there is not a legitimate basis for having the buffer zone. You can argue that it sucks, then only criminals will carry near schools, blah, blah, blah. But, the fact remains that society does have an interest in having a buffer zone around schools and enhancing criminal sanctions for doing so if caught. I am all for this buffer zone, perhaps more so than I am for "improved shall issue" CCW and I support that as well.

What is the legitimate basis for a "buffer zone" when said zone NEVER stops an individual intent on doing evil?

Why don't our lawmakers simply outlaw committing murder? Wouldn't that end murder? Since a "buffer zone" (ie, gun free zone) obviously has prevented horrible acts-look at Columbine, Virginia Tech, hell, even Fort Hood (disarmed soldiers being plucked off like sheep until a private sector cop shot the terrorist)... and many other examples. You may mock my saying this but you can't legitimately argue that a law prevents crime. Likewise, a "buffer zone" NEVER stops somebody intent on doing evil. ALL it does is strip LAW ABIDING citizens of their RIGHT. If you TRULY believe in civil liberties, this should OUTRAGE you!

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:43 AM
I had to delete a few posts here this morning.

Remember the rules:

Dont attack any of the members and if you cant argue your point without name calling then dont argue.

Some of you made your point without personal atacks, those are the replies I left.

:) Lets keep the thread alive.

Thank you for policing. One of the problems I think we face as gun owners is the inability of many of our ranks to discuss in a calm and rational fashion, trying to see other points of view and respecting those points of view though we may disagree with them. Until we reach that point we will have great difficulty in convicing the broader population to see our point of view, because those among us that resort to attack rather than discourse paint our entire population as irrational, unreasonable "gun nuts".

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:46 AM
Can you post some statistical studies to support your assertion? I have carried a gun for over 45 years and have NEVER had a gun discharge spontaneously, nor accidentally.Whose errant bullets? The gang bangers who ignore the law? Are gun free school zones really gun free or are the only guns restricted those of law abiding citizens who could defend the kids if, God forbid, it became necessary?

I never said accidental discharge. I was being a bit sacrastic to point out that the odds of a bullet being fired when a gun is present is much higher than when none is present, by human action of course. I was not talking about spontaneous discharge, but a human firing the weapon and hitting something they did not intent to hit, or choosing to discharge when that may have not been the best thing to do. Those things don;t happen when there is no gun at all present. In the final analysis, this is a risk v benefit analysis, and I am squarely on the side than finds a school buffer zone quite rational.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 9:46 AM
Thank you for policing. One of the problems I think we face as gun owners is the inability of many of our ranks to discuss in a calm and rational fashion, trying to see other points of view and respecting those points of view though we may disagree with them. Until we reach that point we will have great difficulty in convicing the broader population to see our point of view, because those among us that resort to attack rather than discourse paint our entire population as irrational, unreasonable "gun nuts".


I agree, and would venture to say that anyone advocating general citizenry walking around near school grounds is simply not rational .....

Nice.

GrizzlyGuy
12-18-2009, 9:48 AM
Of course that is the question, and it is unquestionably consitutional to have a buffer zone for schools. As I stated, like it or not, disagree with the thought process or not, the state does have a compelling interest in creating a gun free zone around schools.

In the U.S. Constitution, please cite the power enumerated to Congress that allows them to create gun-free buffer zones for schools. Note that having a "compelling interest" is not an enumerated power.

Or in the alternative, please cite a SCOTUS case that affirmed the constitutionality of gun free school zone laws.

CHS
12-18-2009, 9:49 AM
I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

I absolutely agree with this.

So, where will we move all the schools? The central valley?

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:49 AM
1969 just forty years ago. My Father gave me a ride to my HS, I offloaded my backpack/sleeping bag and my Smith and Wesson K22, handed my baseball coach the ammo and climbed into a IH Carryall for a school sponsored Thursday-Sunday camping trip with other members of the baseball team.

The only requirement was that I tell my coach when I was shooting and get the ammo from him.

This school zone thing was created to stop drive-by gang shootings and now its used to entrap law abiding citizens that are no harm to society, its political and nothing more and a perfect example of how a law with good intentions gets morphed into a political spear against good citizens.

If these same lawmakers had squashed gangs in the first place honest people would not feel the need to carry.

I think radicals feed off the chaos to justify passing more and more draconian laws. Its all about power.

I seriously doubt that PC 626.9 was drawn up in this fashion:

Assemblyman 1: Gee, let's grab more power.
Assemblyman 2: Yeah, and entrap otherwise law abiding citizens.
1: Cool, let's do it by making up a school buffer zone that has no other purpose but harassing citizens and showing them who is boss.
2: Great.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:53 AM
probelm is my front door is withon a 1000 feet of a school. I dont want a gun free zone on my street. school property is one thing, I dont agree but it is there land, they have no right to ban guns in vast areas that dont belong to them.

Then move. Pretty simple. Or, tell the principal or superintendent and get permission. Or, introduce a bill to change the law, and good luck with that because we are still a democracy and the vast amjority of people agree that there is a quite rational justification for this law.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:56 AM
that gun free zone includes the front of my house, never mind that discharging a gun in teh city is illegal anyway. This law does lots of harm to folks that want to defend themselves. this 70 year old man is one example of the destruction this law causes.

has one school shootng or stray round been kept from happening becuase of this anticivil rights law???? answer is NO.

I have to disagree. If you are to exercise your right to UOC, it is your responsibility to know the law cold before hand and not act like Pancho Pistolas and just strap them on for a stroll with no education at all.

And, this is a deterrent. Anyone who is inclined to UOC and is aware of this case may step back and go, "Gee, maybe I had better read up on the law, first." That is a good thing.

davescz
12-18-2009, 9:56 AM
I seriously doubt that PC 626.9 was drawn up in this fashion:

Assemblyman 1: Gee, let's grab more power.
Assemblyman 2: Yeah, and entrap otherwise law abiding citizens.
1: Cool, let's do it by making up a school buffer zone that has no other purpose but harassing citizens and showing them who is boss.
2: Great.

and you really think this law makers believe that this gun law would stop a gang banger from doing a drive by at a school, or near children near a school/ proof that the law makers are insane or anti-2nd. it has to be one of the two.


more kids are killed by cars, so lets set up a car free zone, teachers and students must walk the last 1000 feet to school (sorry bicycles can be dangerous also, so no riding .) no citizen can use the streets with a car. You may think this is an infringment of your rights, but you got to think about the children, can you imagine loosing one of your kids to a car??? oh the horror, by banning cars at school zones, we will create a safe a peaceful place for the children. they will also be tought that cars are dangerous, to help them learn to stay away from cars.

that will fix it, they law makers will save more lives.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 9:59 AM
What does having the general LAW ABIDING citizenry toting guns around within 1000 feet of a school zone have to do with preventing crime?

Answer: prevent it.

You sound like a vigilante anxious to walk around armed to prevent crime. That may not be your intent, but it is what it sounds like and that is the tenor we should not be putting out to the general public if we are to ever advance enhanced CCW options.

If you want to do this, go do it anywhere it is legal, just not around schools.

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 10:02 AM
and you really think this law makers believe that this gun law would stop a gang banger from doing a drive by at a school, or near children near a school/ proof that the law makers are insane or anti-2nd. it has to be one of the two.


more kids are killed by cars, so lets set up a car free zone, teachers and students must walk the last 1000 feet to school (sorry bicycles can be dangerous also, so no riding .) no citizen can use the streets with a car. You may think this is an infringment of your rights, but you got to think about the children, can you imagine loosing one of your kids to a car??? oh the horror, by banning cars at school zones, we will create a safe a peaceful place for the children. they will also be tought that cars are dangerous, to help them learn to stay away from cars.

that will fix it, they law makers will save more lives.

i2lG2nXyjMc&translated=1

Hell, vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms. But see, the problem is many an anti gunner enjoys their privilege or driving (driving is not a right) and don't want you to take away the thing they enjoy. However, something that is a right that they don't like, now that's fair game according to their illogic.

jdberger
12-18-2009, 10:03 AM
Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.

As to the other, you cannot. But that does not justify putting kids on a schoolyard within a zone of danger from errant bullets.

Sure. Just like you can't get a sunburn if you only go outside at night. But, we all know that guns don't "just go off". (http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/) And they don't fire by themselves when in a holster. Right?

Accidents do occur and have a higher likelyhood of occurring when handling the firearm, for instance, when removing a gun from a holster and unloading it so it can be securely stored before entering a GFSZ.

The requirement is simply counterproductive.

The assertion that it's a "good idea" to keep kids away from firearms is also ludicrous. Guns aren't nitroglycerine. They don't magically react when subjected to grape soda, pop-rocks and runny noses. Children are safely exposed to firearms every day - either by police, family or CCW carriers.

Honestly, there's no good reason for the GFSZ except to trip up the otherwise law abiding citizen. Criminals and those intent on doing harm don't heed "no guns" signs. It's not in their nature.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 10:03 AM
What is the legitimate basis for a "buffer zone" when said zone NEVER stops an individual intent on doing evil?

Why don't our lawmakers simply outlaw committing murder? Wouldn't that end murder? Since a "buffer zone" (ie, gun free zone) obviously has prevented horrible acts-look at Columbine, Virginia Tech, hell, even Fort Hood (disarmed soldiers being plucked off like sheep until a private sector cop shot the terrorist)... and many other examples. You may mock my saying this but you can't legitimately argue that a law prevents crime. Likewise, a "buffer zone" NEVER stops somebody intent on doing evil. ALL it does is strip LAW ABIDING citizens of their RIGHT. If you TRULY believe in civil liberties, this should OUTRAGE you!

You prove the point. No law itself prevents crime. BTW, murder is already illegal. but, laws are for punishment after crime is committed.

As far as Ft. Hood, Columbine, Ihave news for you. More arms would not have prevented the crime. When people were armed regularly was there no crime?

You are missing the point. There is a compelling state interest in having a buffer zone. Your choosing to unreasonably not admit that does not change that fact that there is. You would be much better off saying, I realize there is, but disagreeing with implementation. But, to state there is no interest gets you nowhere with people not in the RKBA crowd.

Telperion
12-18-2009, 10:05 AM
Then move.
You sound like Don Perata. He said people who want to train for Olympic shooting events and found their pistols banned as "assault weapons", should just move to Texas. Why should law-abiding people be forced to organize their lives around the arbitrary and capricious demands of an ill-informed legislature?

You have yet to justify school buffer zones except in your vague and unquantifiable quibblings about risk, made-up scenarios where upstanding citizens would suddenly draw on each other and fire, and base emotional appeals. You cannot justify a 1000 ft buffer, versus a 750 ft or 1500 ft buffer, because the number is arbitrary and has no relationship to safety. What compelling interest does the state have to prevent violence and errant gunfire around schools that it does not have everywhere? Your reasoning knows no bounds on what can be restricted, and where.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 10:05 AM
You sound like a vigilante anxious to walk around armed to prevent crime. That may not be your intent, but it is what it sounds like and that is the tenor we should not be putting out to the general public if we are to ever advance enhanced CCW options.

If you want to do this, go do it anywhere it is legal, just not around schools.


You sound like a gun-grabber anxious to contribute to the continued erosion of civil rights.

That is the tenor we should not be putting out to the general public if we're are to ever advance common sense and honest discussion.

If you want to do this, go do it somewhere that it is welcome.

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 10:06 AM
Guay, I noticed you elected to ignore my friend Mr. Hoffman's comments as to the nature of school zone restrictions (and other currently "sensitive places"); I'll repost in hopes you would address them:

Let's move aside from the open/concealed argument and face a fact. Prohibiting firearms some place where there is not real security (magnometers and armed guards) means that only the Patrick Purdys of the world will have a firearm when bad things happen. A school shooting has been cut short by a civilian. To my knowledge no school shooting has been cut short by law enforcement.

-Gene

Guay, I'm not sure I follow your argument: is it only when the general citizenry is within 1000ft of a school that they are incapable of peacefully exercising their right to keep and bear arms?

Do understand when I say that I'm finding it quite irrational.

I am unaware of any such studies, but that study would be meaningless to parents who have lost a child (my best friend has endured that pain and it does not end, ever) due to an errant bullet, whether from a law abiding citizen's gun or not.

Such instances are utterly tragic, but no more or less tragic than any other loss of a child. Please do seek out information on the many other causes of death which dwarf firearms and let me know when we'll be making it a crime to install a pool at a residence.

I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, what you're asking for goes beyond even current GFSZ regulations (1000ft). Not only is this impractical and unenforceable, but do note that the perpetrators of violence who might cause harm overwhelmingly ignore this sort of regulations and go on about their crimes. What is the outcome of these laws? An otherwise-peaceful 74 year old man was arrested for ignorantly practicing an exercise of the only method of carry (hint: *UNLOADED*) possible for him since Alameda County does not issues carry permits. Do you feel safer today? Are those children safer today?

All that said, I thank you for allowing us to debate you on this important topic and hope you'll join us often here at CGN.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 10:11 AM
You sound like Don Perata. He said people who want to train for Olympic shooting events and found their pistols banned as "assault weapons", should just move to Texas.

You have yet to justify school buffer zones except in your vague and unquantifiable quibblings about risk, made-up scenarios where upstanding citizens would suddenly draw on each other and fire, and base emotional appeals. You cannot justify a 1000 ft buffer, versus a 750 ft or 1500 ft buffer, because the number is arbitrary and has no relationship to safety. What compelling interest does the state have to prevent violence and errant gunfire around schools that it does not have everywhere? Your reasoning knows no bounds on what can be restricted, and where.

I did state we can debate the zone of safety, but let's get real. We enact all types of laws for heightened protection of children. Please tell me what is so awful about not being allowed to OC around schools when you can if 1) you are otherwise authorized (CCW for example), 2) you have permission from the school, district, etc. 3) you are in danger, 4) you did not know or should not have known you were in a school zone, 5) you are on your own land within the zone?

What is so horrific about that? Because it seems to me that all the argument posted can be distilled down to the slippery slope - "they are trying to get our guns!" That approach does not move the ball up the field for what I would like to see and I think we all would - more uniform CCW based on "improved good cause". (Shall issue goes a bit to far for me; guess I have just seen so many knuckleheads that own guns and are not that thoughful or inclined to educated themselves).

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 10:12 AM
Then move. Pretty simple. Or, tell the principal or superintendent and get permission. Or, introduce a bill to change the law, and good luck with that because we are still a democracy and the vast amjority of people agree that there is a quite rational justification for this law.

Let's say this a few other ways and look for any sign of "rational":

* "You're a gun owner within 1000ft of a school? Then move. Pretty simple."
* "You're black within 1000ft of a school? Then move. Pretty simple."
* "You're an openly-gay couple within 1000ft of a school? Then move. Pretty simple."
* "You're displaying religious artifacts within 1000ft of a school? Then move. Pretty simple."
* "You're not quartering troops within 1000ft of a school? Then move. Pretty simple."

I think you should look forward to the Supreme Court holding that your concept of sensitive places is unconstitutional. "Rational Basis" for 2A is out, my friend.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 10:12 AM
You sound like a gun-grabber anxious to contribute to the continued erosion of civil rights.

That is the tenor we should not be putting out to the general public if we're are to ever advance common sense and honest discussion.

If you want to do this, go do it somewhere that it is welcome.

My decision to post my opinion is not depending on your notion of whether I am welcome, thank you.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 10:14 AM
I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

What is your perception of the "killing range of a bullet"?

I'm sure glad that Calguns is assisting some individuals in rational thoughts and analysis regarding guns. Maybe you should hop on the train...

.

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 10:15 AM
You prove the point. No law itself prevents crime. BTW, murder is already illegal. but, laws are for punishment after crime is committed.

As far as Ft. Hood, Columbine, Ihave news for you. More arms would not have prevented the crime. When people were armed regularly was there no crime?

You are missing the point. There is a compelling state interest in having a buffer zone. Your choosing to unreasonably not admit that does not change that fact that there is. You would be much better off saying, I realize there is, but disagreeing with implementation. But, to state there is no interest gets you nowhere with people not in the RKBA crowd.

You have no statistics to back up your argument, only emotion. And my point in bringing up Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc is that those incidents were preventable-maybe not in totality, but to an extent could have EASILY been stopped much sooner than they were. Again, Fort Hood could have been stopped after the first two or three shots had even ONE soldier been armed.

And no, I will no concede to or agree with something that facts and logic can not prove, in this case, a gun free zone. Said zones have never stopped a single crime, and shouldn't that be the goal? Stopping the crime rather than leading to a prosecution of somebody who needlessy took innocent lives? Can you tell me of ONE, and I only want ONE, case where somebody saw they were in a "gun free zone" and that deterred them from committing their crime? Well, besides this of course-
S7pGt_O1uM8

It seems you and I don't differ in what we WANT, we simply have very different views on how to achieve those ends.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 10:16 AM
My decision to post my opinion is not depending on your notion of whether I am welcome, thank you.

You need to place your opinion in one of your 'gun free buffer zones'....it's getting shot to hell here.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 10:18 AM
I agree, and would venture to say that anyone advocating general citizenry walking around near school grounds is simply not rational and does the RKBA supporters a disservice.

How did 2 Bradyites sneak in here??

.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 10:18 AM
Guay, I noticed you elected to ignore my friend Mr. Hoffman's comments as to the nature of school zone restrictions (and other currently "sensitive places"); I'll repost in hopes you would address them:



Guay, I'm not sure I follow your argument: is it only when the general citizenry is within 1000ft of a school that they are incapable of peacefully exercising their right to keep and bear arms?

Do understand when I say that I'm finding it quite irrational.



Such instances are utterly tragic, but no more or less tragic than any other loss of a child. Please do seek out information on the many other causes of death which dwarf firearms and let me know when we'll be making it a crime to install a pool at a residence.

I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

Unfortunately, what you're asking for goes beyond even current GFSZ regulations (1000ft). Not only is this impractical and unenforceable, but do note that the perpetrators of violence who might cause harm overwhelmingly ignore this sort of regulations and go on about their crimes. What is the outcome of these laws? An otherwise-peaceful 74 year old man was arrested for ignorantly practicing an exercise of the only method of carry (hint: *UNLOADED*) possible for him since Alameda County does not issues carry permits. Do you feel safer today? Are those children safer today?

All that said, I thank you for allowing us to debate you on this important topic and hope you'll join us often here at CGN.[/QUOTE]

I did not elect, just missed it, so let me respond.

I agree that there should be an ability of designated and trained officials to be armed. In fact, most high schools now have armed personnel at least where budgets allow. I am all for detection devices, too. But, I think we are still missing the point. We are not talking about on campus issues. We are talking, or I thought we were, about carrying around schools when you do not have permission, no CCW, no danger, etc.

I have yet to see an argument other than the slippery slope that overrides the interest in keeping schools in a bullet effective killing exclusion zone. Nor, have I seen one person yet say, "Yes, there is a state interest, but I disagree with PC 626.9 because..."

Telperion
12-18-2009, 10:20 AM
I did state we can debate the zone of safety, but let's get real. We enact all types of laws for heightened protection of children. Please tell me what is so awful about not being allowed to OC around schools when you can if 1) you are otherwise authorized (CCW for example), 2) you have permission from the school, district, etc. 3) you are in danger, 4) you did not know or should not have known you were in a school zone, 5) you are on your own land within the zone?

What is so horrific about that? Because it seems to me that all the argument posted can be distilled down to the slippery slope - "they are trying to get our guns!" That approach does not move the ball up the field for what I would like to see and I think we all would - more uniform CCW based on "improved good cause". (Shall issue goes a bit to far for me; guess I have just seen so many knuckleheads that own guns and are not that thoughful or inclined to educated themselves).

I'm not interested in debating the "zone of safety" because it is meaningless, arbitrary, and has nothing to do with safety at all. It is absurd to think the words of a law are a force field and will actually keep guns out of a 1000 ft ring of protection around schools.

What is so horrific is your continued advancement of restrictions on civil liberties that are based not on specific compelling interest (again, what compelling interest does the state have to prevent violence and errant gunfire within 1000 ft of a school, that it does not have everywhere?) but by vague and unconnected non sequiturs, that if followed to their conclusion, would justify the exclusion of the right to keep and bear arms everywhere where the government can state its colorable "compelling interest".

GuyW
12-18-2009, 10:20 AM
Where do you people come from? Seriously.

Really - serious proof that out-space aliens walk among us, even though they look remarkably humanoid...
.

JDoe
12-18-2009, 10:26 AM
...In the final analysis, this is a risk v benefit analysis, and I am squarely on the side than finds a school buffer zone quite rational.

So present your analysis together with data and cite your sources. Until then your "analysis" is only your opinion. Convince us with a good study and good data.

MrClamperSir
12-18-2009, 10:27 AM
Tag for later.

YubaRiver
12-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Your perceptions are based on your experiences. You probably would
want a gunsmithing store zoned far away from schools too. As if
it is somehow inherently evil. Where people carry openly all the time,
there is no unrealistic fear of firearms.

I think back to high school were every other pickup in the school parking
lot had rifles in the gun rack. I don't see keeping guns from schools as
intuitive. Keeping guns safely sure.

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 10:30 AM
For example, let's say Joe is picking up his six year old daughter is at aschool and carrying CCW. But, Joe spot a man he has never seen before OC. Joe's awareness is now way up. Let's say OC man sees something Joe doesn't and OC man draws and fires, and then Joe draws and incorrectly assess OC man as an assailant and fire on OC man and OC man returns fire mistaking Joe for an assailant. We now have two engaged in a firefight with kids all over the place. Do we really want that type of nonesense going on?


I believe law abiding Americans able to carry guns prevents crime as is evidenced by state/city crime and gun law statistics. I also believe it is a basic human right to be able to defend oneself and the law should be written accordingly.

According to your hypothetical scenario as quoted above, you believe "Joe Gunner" to be ignorant, trigger happy, careless, paranoid. Armed citizens are more of a hypothetical danger to the children (any factual basis for believing this?) than a suicidal murderer who goes unchecked and unopposed during his killing spree (has happened numerous times.....hood, Vtech, etc...).

Believe me, I understand that most ACLU members would think me a fringe right wing nut for believing as I do. You are one.

Having a background in Law Enforcement, I do not advocate breaking the law whatsoever. I would more than likely arrest the old man who was carrying a gun on school grounds, and would be obligated to do so had the school staff insisted (Cit. arrest) or if I believed the man would continue to break the law.

I also understand the danger of "Gun Free Zones". It should read, "inevitable killing spree zone" or "defenseless zone".

Answer me this: Do you believe law abiding, informed citizens should be able to carry concealed weapons for self defense ? If so, why do you believe they should not be able to carry near or on School grounds? What is the difference? Responsible gun ownership either promotes safety and reduces crime, or it doesn't. This does not change just because the armed citizen walks near a school does it?

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 10:30 AM
I have yet to see an argument other than the slippery slope that overrides the interest in keeping schools in a bullet effective killing exclusion zone. Nor, have I seen one person yet say, "Yes, there is a state interest, but I disagree with PC 626.9 because..."

You've yet to state what a "bullet effective killing exclusion zone" might mean to you; currently, the GFSZ law only restricts certain modes of bear/transport to 1000ft. What you've proposed (as any knowledgeable gunnie could tell you) is the extension of GFSZs to more than a mile, since bullets are quite effective at that range.

Why not simply exercise eminent domain powers and annex the "bullet effective killing exclusion zone" (whatever area that might mean on a practical level, since we're talking about practical application and not some made-up numbers based on a politicians understanding of ballistics, right?)? If the people have such a compelling interest to maintain the area as secure, they should assume responsibility for maintaining it as such.

This entire discussion assumes that the criminal/terrorist refuses to visit other forms of mayhem upon the school- wouldn't it be rational to account for bombs/explosives and other devices, just as we do with airports and government installations? Aren't the children at least as valuable as the Congress?

gotgunz
12-18-2009, 10:37 AM
Where do you people come from? Seriously.

Many people have wondered the same thing.

Quser.619
12-18-2009, 10:37 AM
The gun zone laws are the product of sticking your head in sand mentality. Instead of addressing the issue, law makers simply wish to punt & pretend that schools, like anywhere else are now safe, because guns have been outlawed. Sure doesn't seem to have had an effect on those that wish to bring guns to schools & use them.

The gentleman in question broke the law & there's nothing more to say other than to continue on our path to elleminate or invalidate these moronic laws.

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 10:40 AM
What is the legitimate basis for a "buffer zone" when said zone NEVER stops an individual intent on doing evil?

Why don't our lawmakers simply outlaw committing murder? Wouldn't that end murder? Since a "buffer zone" (ie, gun free zone) obviously has prevented horrible acts-look at Columbine, Virginia Tech, hell, even Fort Hood (disarmed soldiers being plucked off like sheep until a private sector cop shot the terrorist)... and many other examples. You may mock my saying this but you can't legitimately argue that a law prevents crime. Likewise, a "buffer zone" NEVER stops somebody intent on doing evil. ALL it does is strip LAW ABIDING citizens of their RIGHT. If you TRULY believe in civil liberties, this should OUTRAGE you!

Norcalmama, It sucks that lots of people think of gunners as "extremists". Unfortunately, it's people like you that give them their ammunition. Guayuque was obviously stating that under certain conditions (permission from the district, home ownership in the area, etc), limited concealed carry is not only allowed, but appropriate. Unfortunately, as many like you seem to do, you ignored this. Maybe your worldview makes it impossible to hear the rational part of the "other side's" argument. I think a majority would agree that under certain conditions, certain qualified individuals could carry. But unfortunately for you, no 1st world democracy or republic would have a population so barbaric to want openly carried weapons where children are being educated.

I would love to have a police officer at my childrens school. I would be very happy to hear that the principal and vice principals had received training to carry concealed weapons to school with special emphasis on storage and proper use around young children and the psychological impact it might have on those children. But I would not want people like some of you, who are so oblivious to how some children might feel fear at the sight of an adult carrying a gun, and so out of step with the general concerns of parents, to ever be allowed to open carry around anybody's children.

Sorry, but the majority of caring parents would not put up with the views of somebody like you. Despite your displeasure with some of california's more restrictive gun laws, you stay and gripe from the armchair. Trust me, if you had your way and parents started seeing unknown adults carrying weapons around their children, they wouldn't be as complacent as you. They would take their children and leave. Every legislator knows this, making our discussion moot.

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 10:51 AM
Sorry, the irony here cannot be ignored.

Within one sentence of this:

...no 1st world democracy or republic would have a population so barbaric to want openly carried weapons where children are being educated.

we get this:

I would love to have a police officer at my childrens school.

.... :gene:

But I would not want people like some of you, who are so oblivious to how some children might feel fear at the sight of an adult carrying a gun, and so out of step with the general concerns of parents, to ever be allowed to open carry around anybody's children.

And I'd prefer if your right to exercise free speech were similarly limited, since misinformation about and virulent personal attacks toward a class of citizens are not the sort of behaviors I feel appropriate for any "1st world democracy or republic".

Sorry, but the majority of caring parents would not put up with the views of somebody like you. Despite your displeasure with some of california's more restrictive gun laws, you stay and gripe from the armchair.

Sorry, but they will have to "put up with" the Constitution and the protections it affords.

And by the way, if you think we're "armchair" quarterbacking this you haven't been paying attention.

They would take their children and leave. Every legislator knows this, making our discussion moot.

And they'll be free to do so, just as we'll be free to carry. Isn't liberty grand?

oaklander
12-18-2009, 10:52 AM
ROFL - SHE's definitely an anti-gunner!

"It's for the children."

You also need to respond to my PM, in which I asked which anti-gun organization you work for.

Norcalmama, It sucks that lots of people think of gunners as "extremists". Unfortunately, it's people like you that give them their ammunition. Guayuque was obviously stating that under certain conditions (permission from the district, home ownership in the area, etc), limited concealed carry is not only allowed, but appropriate. Unfortunately, as many like you seem to do, you ignored this. Maybe your worldview makes it impossible to hear the rational part of the "other side's" argument. I think a majority would agree that under certain conditions, certain qualified individuals could carry. But unfortunately for you, no 1st world democracy or republic would have a population so barbaric to want openly carried weapons where children are being educated.

I would love to have a police officer at my childrens school. I would be very happy to hear that the principal and vice principals had received training to carry concealed weapons to school with special emphasis on storage and proper use around young children and the psychological impact it might have on those children. But I would not want people like some of you, who are so oblivious to how some children might feel fear at the sight of an adult carrying a gun, and so out of step with the general concerns of parents, to ever be allowed to open carry around anybody's children.

Sorry, but the majority of caring parents would not put up with the views of somebody like you. Despite your displeasure with some of california's more restrictive gun laws, you stay and gripe from the armchair. Trust me, if you had your way and parents started seeing unknown adults carrying weapons around their children, they wouldn't be as complacent as you. They would take their children and leave. Every legislator knows this, making our discussion moot.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 10:52 AM
....and the psychological impact it might have on those children.

What I'm concerned about is the psychological impact on children who are exposed to adults with their heads up their @#$es...

.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 10:55 AM
I would love to have a police officer at my childrens school.

You need to move.

I hear that Siberia is beautiful at this time of year....
.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 10:55 AM
ROFL - definitely an anti-gunner!

"It's for the children."

You also need to respond to my PM, in which I asked which anti-gun organization you work for.

This one isn't even a talented troll, we sniffed her out after only 4 posts.....you'd think she could have at least pretended to understand the topic before initiating her campaign here....

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 10:57 AM
Norcalmama, It sucks that lots of people think of gunners as "extremists". Unfortunately, it's people like you that give them their ammunition. Guayuque was obviously stating that under certain conditions (permission from the district, home ownership in the area, etc), limited concealed carry is not only allowed, but appropriate. Unfortunately, as many like you seem to do, you ignored this. Maybe your worldview makes it impossible to hear the rational part of the "other side's" argument. I think a majority would agree that under certain conditions, certain qualified individuals could carry. But unfortunately for you, no 1st world democracy or republic would have a population so barbaric to want openly carried weapons where children are being educated.

I would love to have a police officer at my childrens school. I would be very happy to hear that the principal and vice principals had received training to carry concealed weapons to school with special emphasis on storage and proper use around young children and the psychological impact it might have on those children. But I would not want people like some of you, who are so oblivious to how some children might feel fear at the sight of an adult carrying a gun, and so out of step with the general concerns of parents, to ever be allowed to open carry around anybody's children.

Sorry, but the majority of caring parents would not put up with the views of somebody like you. Despite your displeasure with some of california's more restrictive gun laws, you stay and gripe from the armchair. Trust me, if you had your way and parents started seeing unknown adults carrying weapons around their children, they wouldn't be as complacent as you. They would take their children and leave. Every legislator knows this, making our discussion moot.

First, my children are not afraid of guns in the least, lol, even those evil, maniacal "assault weapons" *cue ominous music*... frankly, my children are quite comfortable around guns. If you want to address fear, put a spider in front of them, they'll run screaming, but that's a separate issue and I digress.
Furthermore, my not agreeing with an opposing side has nothing to do with my consideration of it. I comprehend the view of those who believe in "gun free zones" but disagree with it based on logic and facts. If somebody chooses to take what I say out of context and ignorantly assume people who believe in the Second Amendment are ___________ (insert negative) then so be it. I can't control another's misconception.

To sum up what I believe-I believe the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

CHS
12-18-2009, 11:00 AM
To sum up what I believe-I believe in the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

What about the whole "shall not be infringed part"?

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 11:01 AM
What about the whole "shall not be infringed part"?

Ahhh, yes, good call! Will go back and edit asap, thanks! :)

oaklander
12-18-2009, 11:04 AM
From her posts, she seems to:

1) believe in extreme "majoritarianism" - i.e. - the belief that something is right if most of the population agrees with it.

2) not like guns in the hands of civilians.

3) like law enforcement and authority.

4) not like individual rights.

Lest we forget the atrocities committed in the name of majoritarianism and authoritarianism, let's NOT forget the original Million Mom March.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/images/nazicamp.jpg

Flopper
12-18-2009, 11:09 AM
I seriously doubt that PC 626.9 was drawn up in this fashion:

Assemblyman 1: Gee, let's grab more power.
Assemblyman 2: Yeah, and entrap otherwise law abiding citizens.
1: Cool, let's do it by making up a school buffer zone that has no other purpose but harassing citizens and showing them who is boss.
2: Great.

This reminds me of this scene in Godfather II:

Kay Adams: Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 11:10 AM
I agree with GrizzlyGuy. That being said, you can't fault the cops for making the arrest. The American population who's votes eventually led to guns being banned/prohibited/hated is primarily to blame. Liberalgunner may be correct that the majority of ignorant Americans would vote for "GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES" (especially if worded that way). But what would happen if the Majority of Americans believed that guns should be outlawed completely? Majority opinion should not trump the basic God-given right to self defense. Unfortunately, if you want to have a means for protection while close to a school, you have to break the current law.

- It does not make children safer to prohibit open carry on school grounds. They are in greater danger.

- Children are only scared of guns due to LIBERAL bias against guns, and being brought up inefficiently.

- Concealed carry should be legal for LAW ABIDING Americans EVERYWHERE (the right to basic self defense)

- Concealed carry SHOULD therefore be allowed on school grounds. Nobody would be creeped out, and there would be additional protection/prevention of violent crime.



If you believe that ordinary law-abiding citizens should be able to carry guns for self-defense, then there is no way to logically believe they should not be able to carry them in an area where their children are congregated and easily targeted by the evil. It is just silly.

If you believe that law abiding citizens should not be able to protect themselves, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe guns should be outlawed at school.

I read a few of Liberalgunner's posts. I did not see his response to the following arguement which was posted by another Calgunner: Humans have rights which existed before they were granted to them by government. If they did not, then every right can be taken away by the government. To me this arguement easily could pertain to being able to defend yourself or children at a public school (which attendence is nearly mandated by the way... no real choice in the matter to send children to public school, and unless rich or very good/flexible job/no mistakes in life, it is not reasonable to homeschool.)

Thoughts? Interesting discussion. I am open minded....Some of you should be a little moreso (more so?), or at least lay off the personal jibes and name calling.

Long post will not happen again, sorry in advance. I hope it did not violate a forum rule!

Fegves - first of all, I'm not talking about gun bans. I'm talking about those guns being well regulated as discussed in our constitution. It is not ignorance that leads americans to not want weapons carried openly amongst their children. It is a natural impulse and extends to natural law. If I went to one of the worlds primative cultures and brought a club or spear to the area where their children were learning their tribal dances and the elders had no idea who I was, I think the response would be similar to today's "ignorant americans".

And lots of you like to site columbine type anomalies. Just like anti-gunners like to site "gun violence" on their side. Unfortunately the vast majority of instances stem from domestic violence....the crazy ex-husband coming to kill his teacher ex-wife, or the parent who lost his parental authority coming to kidnap his own children, with a gun to make sure no one stops him. I don't want some joe having a smoke outside on the street running in with his glock, starting a firefight. I would prefer 1) an armed officer on the campus, 2) trained and certified principal & vice principals with concealed weapons who know how to act defensively and 3) a good lockdown procedure with a police department capable of near immediate response.

Finally, I took my daughter to a BLM area when she was 5. We had friends doing some shooting, and we brought ear protection for her. Guess what - she was scared. Not by liberal propaganda. Not by the biasing effects of the news media...but by the loud bangs. Some of you think every child will find it cool to blow things up. I don't think you have actually raised children - or maybe only rambunctious boys. Not all children are like this. Wake up people, and see the world around you for what it really is.

Decoligny
12-18-2009, 11:12 AM
Simple the risk of firearms being discharged do tend to rise when firearms are present, law abiding or not, so keeping them a safe distance from kids is a good idea.[/QOUTE]

[QUOTE=Old Timer;3514064]Can you post some statistical studies to support your assertion? I have carried a gun for over 45 years and have NEVER had a gun discharge spontaneously, nor accidentally.Whose errant bullets? The gang bangers who ignore the law? Are gun free school zones really gun free or are the only guns restricted those of law abiding citizens who could defend the kids if, God forbid, it became necessary?

Based on the exact wording of quayque's post, I can say that it is an absolute fact that there has never been a single case of a gun discharging when there was not a gun present.:D

So, yes the propability of a gun discharging when there is a gun present is definitely higher than the probability of a gun discharging when there is not a gun present.

The part about keeping them a safe distance from children being a good idea is a fallacy though.

There is a higher probability of a child being run over when there is a car present, legally or illegally, so keeping them a safe distance from children is a good idea.

There is a higher probability of a child being blown up in a furnace explosion if there is actually a furnace present in the school, so bundling the kids up in coats and sweaters and sending them to a cold school is a good idea.

There are so many things that are somewhat dangerous, but whose advantages far outweigh the dangers, that we accept them as a matter of course.

Firearms carried by law abiding citizens, anywhere and everywhere, will result in a drastic decrease in the crime rate. Less crime = less violence = safer environment.

If having law abiding citizens having the ability to carry when and where they want results in an additions 10 deaths per year nationwide due to "negligent discharge", while at the same time resulting in 100 less deaths per year due to violent criminal activity, then the benefits far outweigh the costs.

davescz
12-18-2009, 11:14 AM
First, my children are not afraid of guns in the least, lol, even those evil, maniacal "assault weapons" *cue ominous music*... frankly, my children are quite comfortable around guns. If you want to address fear, put a spider in front of them, they'll run screaming, but that's a separate issue and I digress.
Furthermore, my not agreeing with an opposing side has nothing to do with my consideration of it. I comprehend the view of those who believe in "gun free zones" but disagree with it based on logic and facts. If somebody chooses to take what I say out of context and ignorantly assume people who believe in the Second Amendment are ___________ (insert negative) then so be it. I can't control another's misconception.

To sum up what I believe-I believe the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.



I want to take back my street and get it out of the oppresive anti-civil rights zone.

I cant help it if your raising a bunch of Fradycats. Teach the kids to not fear guns would be the smart thing to do. That would blow a hole in your irrational fear arguments of children seeing and fearing adults with guns.

some kids are afraid of dogs (maybe they have been bit before), should we have a dog free zone? oh, and your voice dont count unless you have had a child bitten by a dog before, you just dont understand it is for the scared children, scared because Mommy, Daddy and teachers made them fearful.

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 11:20 AM
I want to take back my street and get it out of the oppresive anti-civil rights zone.

I cant help it if your raising a bunch of Fradycats. Teach the kids to not fear guns would be the smart thing to do. That would blow a hole in your irrational fear arguments of children seeing and fearing adults with guns.

some kids are afraid of dogs (maybe they have been bit before), should we have a dog free zone? oh, and your voice dont count unless you have had a child bitten by a dog before, you just dont understand it is for the scared children, scared because Mommy, Daddy and teachers made them fearful.

Ummm, who were you directing this to??? Cause you quoted my post and then said the above. I'm quite confused... because if that was directed at me, I suggest you read my post again, carefully. ;)

Hopi
12-18-2009, 11:21 AM
Wake up people, and see the world around you for what it really is.


How are you getting around the CGN nonsense filter?

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 11:23 AM
How are you getting around the CGN nonsense filter?

I'm almost hoping this thread gets locked because the flame war will never end... and like you I too wonder how this stuff is getting through! :eek:

oaklander
12-18-2009, 11:25 AM
LOL - they don't have that filter in Tampa, Florida. . .

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kearny-nj/TUOONNAR73INTCLK6/p2

Folks - she's a troll and it appears that she got tired of commenting on news stories - so she's here now. . .

How are you getting around the CGN nonsense filter?

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 11:26 AM
LOL - they don't have that filter in Tampa, Florida. . .

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kearny-nj/TUOONNAR73INTCLK6/p2

Folks - she's a troll and it appears that she got tired of commenting on news stories - so she's here now. . .

When it absolutely, positively must be found out - there's Oaklander. :chris:

Hopi
12-18-2009, 11:31 AM
ahhh, but I liked the mystery.....don't post a picture, that will ruin it for me.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Fegves - first of all, I'm not talking about gun bans. I'm talking about those guns being well regulated as discussed in our constitution.

Your ignorance knows no bounds....

I suggest you READ the Heller case and supporting Briefs and learn what "well-regulated" actually means...as in - "see the world around you for what it really is".....


.

GrizzlyGuy
12-18-2009, 11:35 AM
Unfortunately the vast majority of instances stem from domestic violence....the crazy ex-husband coming to kill his teacher ex-wife, or the parent who lost his parental authority coming to kidnap his own children, with a gun to make sure no one stops him.

You and guayuque seem fond of making assertions such as that one, without providing facts or data to back up your assertion. Fortunately, the U.S. Secret Service collaborated with the U.S. Department of Education to study this problem and issued their Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools (http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_ssi_report.pdf) some time ago. Their report shows that you are wrong:

There is no accurate or useful profile of "the school shooter"

-- Attacker ages ranged from 11 to 21

-- They came from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds

-- They came from a range of family situations, from intact families with numerous ties to the community to foster homes with histories of neglect

-- Their behavioral histories varied, from having no observed behavioral problems to multiple behaviors warranting reprimand and/or discipline


I don't want some joe having a smoke outside on the street running in with his glock, starting a firefight. I would prefer 1) an armed officer on the campus, 2) trained and certified principal & vice principals with concealed weapons who know how to act defensively and 3) a good lockdown procedure with a police department capable of near immediate response.

See above, since you clearly do not understand the problem, how can you feel any confidence in recommending a solution?

MasterYong
12-18-2009, 11:36 AM
You freaking know what? That it's a lousy way to carry for self defense, or that there are many who share the opinion that it's a lousy way to carry for self defense?

I realize you've never reiterated an opinion on on this board.
But here's one you haven't heard from me before:
That pose you're striking in your avatar reinforces my opinion that UOC is as much grandstanding as it is anything else.

No need to shout by the way. :D

Um, the US Military would like to disagree with you. Soldiers carry sidearms for self-defense, and rifles for assault (generally). The pistols are backups, basically (again generally) in case the rifle doesn't work, runs out of ammo, is lost, is too long, etc.

If it were really better to CCW, don't you think the military's sidearms would be concealed?

The reality is that you can draw WAY FASTER form OC than concealed, and OC is also a crime deterrent.

Your argument holds no water.

MasterYong
12-18-2009, 11:37 AM
Where do you people come from? Seriously.

I was thinking the same thing myself, reading over this thread. Is it me or does it seem that CG has been recently flooded with anti-gunners masquerading as pro-2A???

GuyW
12-18-2009, 11:38 AM
LOL - they don't have that filter in Tampa, Florida. . .

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/kearny-nj/TUOONNAR73INTCLK6/p2

Folks - she's a troll and it appears that she got tired of commenting on news stories - so she's here now. . .

Mmmm - there's LOTS of guns on the streets around schools in Tampa, FL...so why's the loon bothering us??

.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 11:39 AM
Of course that is the question, and it is unquestionably constitutional to have a buffer zone for schools.I disagree. If the state wants school property to be "gun free" they are certainly free to pass such a law and it will, IMHO pass constitutional muster. However, they CANNOT pass a law that disallows me use of public streets, sidewalks, and other throughways paid for by my tax dollars. By so doing their disallow the quiet enjoyment of my right of free passage to and from the places of my choice.As I stated, like it or not, disagree with the thought process or not, the state does have a compelling interest in creating a gun free zone around schools.No, they don't. The compelling interest is my right of passage.But, just having general citizenry carry around schools? That is asking for trouble.Why? It is understood that politicians think that way, but why do you?
Do we really want that type of nonesense going on?I agree. Your scenario is nonsense. :)

oaklander
12-18-2009, 11:40 AM
Ran out of medication?

:p

Mmmm - there's LOTS of guns on the streets around schools in Tampa, FL...so why's the loon bothering us??

.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 11:40 AM
That is simply not true. The enhancement for the crime is significant. It is enforced, just lie any other crime is, by conviction and punishment.Nonsense! If there are guns there, it is not a "gun free school zone." And, if there are guns there, the only ones there are illegal! The law does NOTHING to stop illegal guns. It only stops LEGAL guns.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 11:41 AM
Where do you people come from? Seriously.Well, I come from Altadena, originally, but have been a San Diegan for several decades. :D:D

Oh, Hi Nate! :)

MasterYong
12-18-2009, 11:45 AM
What is your perception of the "killing range of a bullet"?

.

I was wondering the same thing. I have rifles that can reach out to 1000 yards in the right hands. I don't' see how a magic 1000' barrier around a school would stop a criminal for using a similar rifle to wreak havoc. In fact, were said criminal well trained, they could probably drive form state to state taking shots at long ranges from concealment without anyone determining where the shot came from before the criminal escaped.

Oh wait, that already HAPPENED.

Some of these new members are terrifying. Seriously. (Not you Guy I was agreeing with you. Just wanted to point that out, after reading my post I realized you might think I misunderstood you and was arguing.)

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 11:45 AM
Or, tell the principal or superintendent and get permission.What other constitutional rights should I have to ask permission to exercise?

YubaRiver
12-18-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't think the fear of firearms is widespread as is asserted.

My junior high history teacher used to come to class dressed as a mountain
man and show us how traps worked, how to start a fire, and we each got
a chance to shoot his home made muzzle loader in the side yard of the
school. No parents or students worried about that at all.

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Fegves - first of all, I'm not talking about gun bans. I'm talking about those guns being well regulated as discussed in our constitution. It is not ignorance that leads americans to not want weapons carried openly amongst their children. It is a natural impulse and extends to natural law. If I went to one of the worlds primative cultures and brought a club or spear to the area where their children were learning their tribal dances and the elders had no idea who I was, I think the response would be similar to today's "ignorant americans".

And lots of you like to site columbine type anomalies. Just like anti-gunners like to site "gun violence" on their side. Unfortunately the vast majority of instances stem from domestic violence....the crazy ex-husband coming to kill his teacher ex-wife, or the parent who lost his parental authority coming to kidnap his own children, with a gun to make sure no one stops him. I don't want some joe having a smoke outside on the street running in with his glock, starting a firefight. I would prefer 1) an armed officer on the campus, 2) trained and certified principal & vice principals with concealed weapons who know how to act defensively and 3) a good lockdown procedure with a police department capable of near immediate response.

Finally, I took my daughter to a BLM area when she was 5. We had friends doing some shooting, and we brought ear protection for her. Guess what - she was scared. Not by liberal propaganda. Not by the biasing effects of the news media...but by the loud bangs. Some of you think every child will find it cool to blow things up. I don't think you have actually raised children - or maybe only rambunctious boys. Not all children are like this. Wake up people, and see the world around you for what it really is.


You do not like "anomalies" such as Columbine, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, or Luby's in Killeen Texas ( http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=337&discuss=1 - for a summarized story). How about you cite a few examples of the regulary occurring law abiding citizens who carry their guns openly and have caused harm.

It seems your main qualm is with ordinary law abiding citizens carrying guns as you believe they will act foolishly and cause a child to be needlessly endangered. Secondly, that female or non-rambunctious boys naturally have a fear of firearms which should be respected and accommadated by policy.

Many of us believe differently, mainly based on concrete examples, some of which I have cited above. Law abiding Americans with guns prevent crime, and have a fundamental right to protect themselves and their children. And yes, at present time, most adults and children would probably be alarmed at the sight of an open carry, at least in California. This is only because it is not commonplace at this time, and they have been conditioned by paranoid parenting and liberal educators.

My asian friend's young daughter began crying when my 300 LB African American friend visited. She did so because she is unfamiliar and scared of the unknown. Once properly introduced, and with some time passing, she did not want him to leave. The same applies to the fear of guns perhaps. But these types of fears should not exist if parent is efficient. (Excluding the occasional ultra-feminine, weak minded, unteachable, or phobic child perhaps.)

Oh, and you believe the constitution calls for our arms to be well regulated... anybody care to expound on the difference between the militia provision and the PEOPLE'S rights? Here is a laymans explaination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

GuyW
12-18-2009, 11:49 AM
What other constitutional rights should I have to ask permission to exercise?

Well, you see, because she needs permission from her court-appointed shrink to post on the internet, she naturally thinks you need permissions to exercise your rights, too....

.

MasterYong
12-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Your perceptions are based on your experiences. You probably would
want a gunsmithing store zoned far away from schools too. As if
it is somehow inherently evil. Where people carry openly all the time,
there is no unrealistic fear of firearms.

I think back to high school were every other pickup in the school parking
lot had rifles in the gun rack. I don't see keeping guns from schools as
intuitive. Keeping guns safely sure.

Word.

I'm currently in AZ, in the Phoenix area.

The first day I went out shooting in the desert here I was carrying a G19 on my hip. When we left I forgot that it was there, since it's so light. I walked in and out of several stores and a McDonald's before my buddy asked me if I had intended to carry the G19 the whole time.

There was an LEO in the McDonalds. He never said a word. No one in any of the other establishments treated me with any suspicion either. It's amazing to see so many people that don't live in constant fear of firearms like our friends in this thread Liberty and Guay.

ETA: I just realized the most ridiculous part regarding the anti's in this thread is that they would automatically trust an LEO but not the parent of a child their kid goes to school with. LEOs = automatically trustworthy? I think not. They've got jsut as many good and bad nuts as the rest of society...

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 12:22 PM
They've got jsut as many good and bad nuts as the rest of society... (Quote)

As far as going postal and shooting kids and the like? It is one thing to limit your trust of the government and of the Police, and another to believe that law enforcment officer's character/responsibility/rational thinking etc... proportionately mimics the general population. That's not true.

I know there are Jerks who are in the profession, and very rarely serious corruption. Just remember they are required to have a much less rate of crimes committed, questionable experiences, questionable associates, etc...(background checks, etc...) . Also, they are required to be able to think critically, rationally, and pass mental health tests. To my mind, that means Police are to be trusted with firearms possibly at a higher level than joe schmo. I have noticed quite a few quotes on CGN which tend to be inaccurate, though probably not meant to be so.

With that being written; If you can't tell from previous posts, I am all for Joe the Plumber being allowed to carry a gun, make Citizen's Arrests, and intervene to prevent crime when it is needed.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 12:26 PM
Ibtc

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 12:48 PM
I did a bunch of reading on this site before finally deciding to sign up. One thing I noticed was that the members of the board were overwhelmingly AGAINST open carry. There was very little support for the guy who brought an AR to the Obama rally, and even less for people wanting to organize open carry events. I guess when backed into a corner, there are more than a few calgunners who will back away from common sense and cling to a ridiculous argument.

This thread is about open carry in school zones. Ok, maybe you feel you should be able to have a gun rack in the back of a pickup. Maybe you feel you should be allowed to park that pickup on the elementary school playground. Maybe you're against gun lock laws as well. Maybe you feel you should be able to leave a round in the chamber. Any restriction on any of these "rights" is a violation of your constitution and "unamerican".

I happen to be happy to be living in this USA. The one with reasonable regulation of firearms. The one that reads the emails of suspected terrorists, tracks the cell phones of gun dealers, requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.

GuyW
12-18-2009, 12:56 PM
The one with reasonable regulation of firearms. The one that....requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.

Yeah - those work exactly as well as your beloved "reasonable regulation of firearms".

Go away to your happy place and leave us alone, you unAmerican hater of the Constitution...

.

YubaRiver
12-18-2009, 1:07 PM
This thread is about open carry in school zones. Ok, maybe you feel you should be able to have a gun rack in the back of a pickup. Maybe you feel you should be allowed to park that pickup on the elementary school playground. Maybe you're against gun lock laws as well. Maybe you feel you should be able to leave a round in the chamber. Any restriction on any of these "rights" is a violation of your constitution and "unamerican".


I happen to be happy to be living in this USA. The one with reasonable regulation of firearms. The one that reads the emails of suspected terrorists, tracks the cell phones of gun dealers, requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.

Never any problems when kids did keep their guns in their cars at school.
Quite a few managed to feed their families with venison and birds on their way to school and back. Still do, tho now they park off campus.

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 1:12 PM
I have not seen one plausible reason why you believe what you believe. To the many pro-gun freedom members who have stated specific points, there have been no decernable replies directly refuting those points (that I can recall anyways). There cannot be a debate if you cannot address questions which were specifically asked of you.

On the "gun-nut" side I see a pattern of specific factual examples to substantiate their crazy beliefs. I see specific responses to questions asked of them.

On the "anti-gun" side, I see a pattern of vague statements with no factual examples to substantiate them. When presented with logical questions, I see vague and evasive responses. When unable to answer a question or refute the logic of a specific point, they generally revert to the vague proclaimation that in a civilized country there just shouldn't be guns carried near children.

Guys, if you are unable to refute a specific point or are at a loss for words in one area, just say so and move on to the next one. That does not mean you are wrong, it just means you cannot effectively ar ague your belief system.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 1:19 PM
Even people who are generally against open carry are still (sometimes grudgingly) supportive of others who do so. Here, the issue is that the school-zone prohibition, like most gun control, does nothing to deter crime, since criminals (by definition) do not obey the law. The issue is NOT open carry. Get that through your head.

Now, connect the dots


Nobody here is arguing that there should not be laws. . .

What we are arguing is that some of the laws simply don't make any sense. . .

Just because I think that the school zone law is stupid, does not mean that I think that driver's licenses are also stupid.


You are using a kind of reverse "reductio ad absurdum" argument. In this thread, and the other thread, you say that because we don't like SOME laws, we must not like ALL laws.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it for you.

Read. Think. And then come back.

I did a bunch of reading on this site before finally deciding to sign up. One thing I noticed was that the members of the board were overwhelmingly AGAINST open carry. There was very little support for the guy who brought an AR to the Obama rally, and even less for people wanting to organize open carry events. I guess when backed into a corner, there are more than a few calgunners who will back away from common sense and cling to a ridiculous argument.

This thread is about open carry in school zones. Ok, maybe you feel you should be able to have a gun rack in the back of a pickup. Maybe you feel you should be allowed to park that pickup on the elementary school playground. Maybe you're against gun lock laws as well. Maybe you feel you should be able to leave a round in the chamber. Any restriction on any of these "rights" is a violation of your constitution and "unamerican".

I happen to be happy to be living in this USA. The one with reasonable regulation of firearms. The one that reads the emails of suspected terrorists, tracks the cell phones of gun dealers, requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.

NorCalMama
12-18-2009, 1:31 PM
I'm wondering how many of those posting here with 20-80 posts are the same person?
Fegves2id and LiberalGunner both signed up December of 2009...

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 1:31 PM
Liberal, would you address those deficiencies in your argument I pointed out in my earlier posts?

oaklander
12-18-2009, 1:35 PM
The bottom line is that anti-gunners cannot argue their own case. The main reason for this is that they are simply wrong. Common sense dictates that criminals do not follow the law, hence most gun laws only punish law-abiding citizens.

There is no arguing with them, or debating them. Once you confront them with facts, they simply revert to emotional "arguments."

I have not seen one plausible reason why you believe what you believe. To the many pro-gun freedom members who have stated specific points, there have been no decernable replies directly refuting those points (that I can recall anyways). There cannot be a debate if you cannot address questions which were specifically asked of you.

On the "gun-nut" side I see a pattern of specific factual examples to substantiate their crazy beliefs. I see specific responses to questions asked of them.

On the "anti-gun" side, I see a pattern of vague statements with no factual examples to substantiate them. When presented with logical questions, I see vague and evasive responses. When unable to answer a question or refute the logic of a specific point, they generally revert to the vague proclaimation that in a civilized country there just shouldn't be guns carried near children.

Guys, if you are unable to refute a specific point or are at a loss for words in one area, just say so and move on to the next one. That does not mean you are wrong, it just means you cannot effectively ar ague your belief system.

oaklander
12-18-2009, 1:36 PM
She can't. There is no substance to her argument.

Liberal, would you address those deficiencies in your argument I pointed out in my earlier posts?

fegves2id
12-18-2009, 1:41 PM
I'm wondering how many of those posting here with 20-80 posts are the same person?
Fegves2id and LiberalGunner both signed up December of 2009...


If we were one and the same, we would have to be schitzo. Have you read all the posts?

SIGarette
12-18-2009, 1:46 PM
I agree that the school zone laws are BS... just another way for the DA to make something stick in the case that the screw up the real criminal charge. The same applies to selling drugs near a school zone. I am no friend of drug dealers, but if a guy is selling drugs, isn't that enough of a crime to send him to jail? Why do you need to add the near a school charge? As far as I am concerned, "hate crime" laws fall into the same category.

As much as I think this guy is getting hit with a BS technicality law intended for something else, why on earth was he walking around with an empty gun sticking out of his belt? That's plain stupid. An empty gun is useless and displaying a gun is just asking for all kinds of trouble. I just can't figure out what this guy was trying to prove.

MasterYong
12-18-2009, 1:54 PM
I'm wondering how many of those posting here with 20-80 posts are the same person?
Fegves2id and LiberalGunner both signed up December of 2009...

That, or the increasing press CalGuns has garnered of late is causing more and more "think of the children" drones to setup accounts in attempts to "save" all of us "maniacs".

ironpants
12-18-2009, 2:03 PM
It's telling that the few who voice support for GFSZ law have articulated no reason beyond 'guns are scary' - which is an entirely subjective emotional response to the presence of arms. We can extrapolate that they are willing to accept arbitrary restrictions for arbitrary reasons. For example, why not enact a 1000ft radius Dog Free School Zone law? After all, some children might feel fear in the presence of dogs. If you don't agree that DFSZ law is a good idea, your position is untenable. If you do agree, you're a danger to ALL of the societal freedoms we enjoy - not just peaceful, well-intentioned dog walking.

Fate
12-18-2009, 2:13 PM
How are you getting around the CGN nonsense filter?

Sig-worthy post of the day. :King:

Mitch
12-18-2009, 2:29 PM
But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

Funny you should mention an M1 Garand, when my father was in school, he was actually issued one of those from the on-campus armory as part of his ROTC duties. It was the standard US infantry rifle at the time. They were kept on campus except on Friday nights when the ROTC team was to march in away football game halftime shows, and the rifles were handed out to the kids to take home.

As far as he can recollect, the sky didn't fall when this occurred.

More recently, some of my personal acquaintances who grew up here in Costa Mesa in the 1950s and 1960s actually brought their own rifles to school, so they could take them directly to Newport's Back Back to shoot at birds afterward. No one cared. If the cops stopped them it was to ask whether they bagged anything.

So to answer your question, I will happily stand up and say it is no big deal to me if people open carry around schools, since it is within living memory that the children themselves were doing it and it was no big deal. The only reason it could possibly be considered a big deal today is because of urban and suburban attitudes about guns. It has nothing whatever to do with safety of children or anyone else. It's all about attitudes, and preserving the all-important illusion of security in an occasionally insecure world.

Since I don't give a rat's *** about maintaining other people's illusions (especially at the cost of the free exercise of fundamental civil liberties), allowing people to go about armed near school zones bothers me not at all.

And I haven't even gotten to the question of, what is it exactly you are trying to protect the children from by prohibiting open carry near schools?

Theseus
12-18-2009, 2:52 PM
You know, if 626.9 were merely an enhancement for those already committing a crime I would be more in agreement with it. . . I was doing my laundry at a laundry mat that was over 500 feet from the school. . . . what danger does that pose to school children?

None.

I am now a "criminal" because I was doing something that would have been legal anywhere else. It is illogical. The school children are no safer now than they were when I was there doing my laundry.

Here is also a nice little note. . . the legislative intent was to "protect school children from crime". But guess what. . . 626.9 doesn't protect them from crime, it in fact increases crime in school zones because it creates a new crime. This feeds the statistics they use to argue that "the children are still not safe because crime is rising". Chew on that one.

AJAX22
12-18-2009, 3:13 PM
Fegves - first of all, I'm not talking about gun bans. I'm talking about those guns being well regulated as discussed in our constitution. It is not ignorance that leads americans to not want weapons carried openly amongst their children. It is a natural impulse and extends to natural law. If I went to one of the worlds primative cultures and brought a club or spear to the area where their children were learning their tribal dances and the elders had no idea who I was, I think the response would be similar to today's "ignorant americans".


The regulation of firearms is not 'regulation' as you think of it. the word useage has changed over time.... when it was written 'regulated' was equivilent to 'equipped' or 'provisioned'

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED still has the same meaning thankfully, as many seem to lack the education to understand etymological evolution.

It is not a natural impulse, it is in fact an artificial hoplophobic impulse which is created by people who do not trust themselves with firearms, and extend their own fears and insecurities to those surrounding them.... As for the whole tribal thing... I've watched national geographic.... somehow I seem to recall a BUNCH of spears, blowguns, arrows, knives etc... seeing as how the were simply tools and had NO menacing implications in the simple bearing of them.

And lots of you like to site columbine type anomalies. Just like anti-gunners like to site "gun violence" on their side. Unfortunately the vast majority of instances stem from domestic violence....the crazy ex-husband coming to kill his teacher ex-wife, or the parent who lost his parental authority coming to kidnap his own children, with a gun to make sure no one stops him. I don't want some joe having a smoke outside on the street running in with his glock, starting a firefight. I would prefer 1) an armed officer on the campus, 2) trained and certified principal & vice principals with concealed weapons who know how to act defensively and 3) a good lockdown procedure with a police department capable of near immediate response.

Ok...... so guns scare children and make parents uncomfortable but its a good thing when a cop has one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for a principal to have one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for a teacher to have one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for the janitor to have one because he's an agent of the state... And its ok for the school mascot to have one because he's an agent of the state...

What happened to the whole argument that guns being present increases the chance that someone will get shot? I thought that by completely eliminating firearms were were ensuring that the instances of tragedy were completely removed.... at least that's what you've argued elsewhere.


Finally, I took my daughter to a BLM area when she was 5. We had friends doing some shooting, and we brought ear protection for her. Guess what - she was scared. Not by liberal propaganda. Not by the biasing effects of the news media...but by the loud bangs. Some of you think every child will find it cool to blow things up. I don't think you have actually raised children - or maybe only rambunctious boys. Not all children are like this. Wake up people, and see the world around you for what it really is.

#1 I don't believe you, you don't seem like a gun owner/shooter.... Was it YOUR gun, or someone else's... what was the make/model of the firearm, the magazine capacity... what was the stock configuration and what modifications did it have beyond stock..... what caliber was it, what type of ammunition were you shooting.
#2 If what you say IS true, it is likely that she picked up on your own fear and insecurities which come from demonizing inanimate objects... Kind of like how your dog will bark at people you don't like...
#3 There are more children in this world than what spring from your loins... I've met some calguns members children, and I must say that those I have met were respectful, courteous, and well mannered....

#4 The subjective reality which you submerge your existence does not permeate beyond your little bubble of ignorance, the fact that you and one other statist anti are radically outnumbered in your views would seem to imply that you may possibly be potentially just a little bit dead wrong.

Gotta love Lib's..... Majority rules determine a 'righteous' course of action at all times..... except when they are outnumbered by the 'misguided'

eta34
12-18-2009, 3:19 PM
Stupid law in my opinion. However, if you want to UOC, learn the law. Ignorance is no excuse. You expect the police to know the laws; you should know them too.

mofugly13
12-18-2009, 3:24 PM
[QUOTE=LiberalGunner;3514915]I'm talking about those guns being well regulated as discussed in our constitution. QUOTE]

1. The Constitution is not a discussion.

2. Nowhere does the 2A mention guns being well regulated.

You obviously have a gross misunderstanding of the Second Ammendment. Go back and read it again. Maybe diagram it, you'll get it.

Old Timer
12-18-2009, 3:44 PM
This thread is about open carry in school zones. Ok, maybe you feel you should be able to have a gun rack in the back of a pickup. Maybe you feel you should be allowed to park that pickup on the elementary school playground.Why are you having so much trouble being honest? Nobody has said anything about having guns ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. Our argument is against the 1000' zone around the school that infringes on our rights of free passage. Maybe you feel you should be able to leave a round in the chamber. Any restriction on any of these "rights" is a violation of your constitution and "unamerican".Uh, what good is an unloaded gun?

And, yes, violating the constitution is the very definition of "unamerican."

I happen to be happy to be living in this USA. The one with reasonable regulation of firearms.I have no problem with the REASONABLE regulation of firearms. It is the UNREASONABLE STUPIDITY like the "gun free school zone" that I find reprehensible. The one that reads the emails of suspected terrorists, tracks the cell phones of gun dealers, requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.You seem to have failed to notice that none of the above are constitutionally protected. The right to keep and bear arms is.

I can't help but notice you did not answer my earlier question regarding what other constitutional right I should have to ask permission to exercise.

Should I have to ask permission to buy and read a newspaper?

Should I have to register and report all television news programs I watch?

Should I have to ask permission to go to church, and would only be allowed to attend a church approved and established by the government?

Should I have to ask permission to avoid self-incrimination?

What about unreasonable search and seizure? Should I have to ask permission to be secure in my person and papers?

You seem to think you have all the answers so I am sure you will have no problem answering these questions.

bodger
12-18-2009, 4:04 PM
Um, the US Military would like to disagree with you. Soldiers carry sidearms for self-defense, and rifles for assault (generally). The pistols are backups, basically (again generally) in case the rifle doesn't work, runs out of ammo, is lost, is too long, etc.

If it were really better to CCW, don't you think the military's sidearms would be concealed?

The reality is that you can draw WAY FASTER form OC than concealed, and OC is also a crime deterrent.

Your argument holds no water.


Sounds like you disagree, not the military. I don't think your argument holds water either, so we amicably disagree with each other.

I was in the U.S. military and anytime my outfit and I were in a place where we needed firearms, you can bet they were never unloaded. And who da hell would conceal in a combat zone?

Care to share your combat experiences? I'm always interested in the history of a fellow veteran.

In any case, the Right People have determined that UOC does more harm than good to our 2A rights at this point, so what good is it to be the poster boy for an activity that is a detriment to the cause?

REH
12-18-2009, 4:08 PM
I did a bunch of reading on this site before finally deciding to sign up. One thing I noticed was that the members of the board were overwhelmingly AGAINST open carry. There was very little support for the guy who brought an AR to the Obama rally, and even less for people wanting to organize open carry events. I guess when backed into a corner, there are more than a few calgunners who will back away from common sense and cling to a ridiculous argument.

This thread is about open carry in school zones. Ok, maybe you feel you should be able to have a gun rack in the back of a pickup. Maybe you feel you should be allowed to park that pickup on the elementary school playground. Maybe you're against gun lock laws as well. Maybe you feel you should be able to leave a round in the chamber. Any restriction on any of these "rights" is a violation of your constitution and "unamerican".

I happen to be happy to be living in this USA. The one with reasonable regulation of firearms. The one that reads the emails of suspected terrorists, tracks the cell phones of gun dealers, requires you to be 21 to drink alchohol, requires a drivers license to get behind the wheel.

"Tracks the cell phones of gun dealers" So that is what that clicking sound on my cell phone is. OH NO Mr Bill..........

Quick question. How does this law apply to someone who lives within 1000 feet of a school? Saturday morning, taking guns out to the truck for hunting or the range.

Sgt Raven
12-18-2009, 4:16 PM
I am unaware of any such studies, but that study would be meaningless to parents who have lost a child (my best friend has endured that pain and it does not end, ever) due to an errant bullet, whether from a law abiding citizen's gun or not.

I just do not see the harm in a regulation keeping schools outside of the killing range of a bullet, whether in the gun of a law abiding citizen or not.

And just what is the killing range of a bullet. Fired at the right angle bullets can travel miles, so I guess I should come take all your firearms and their bullets too.

Sgt Raven
12-18-2009, 4:31 PM
Then move. Pretty simple. Or, tell the principal or superintendent and get permission. Or, introduce a bill to change the law, and good luck with that because we are still a democracy and the vast amjority of people agree that there is a quite rational justification for this law.


We never were a Democracy, and according to Ben we won't be a Republic much longer with Brainiacs like you. I'm within a GFSZ, if you think I should move then step up with your tax dollars and buy me out. :mad:

Californio
12-18-2009, 7:48 PM
I seriously doubt that PC 626.9 was drawn up in this fashion:

Assemblyman 1: Gee, let's grab more power.
Assemblyman 2: Yeah, and entrap otherwise law abiding citizens.
1: Cool, let's do it by making up a school buffer zone that has no other purpose but harassing citizens and showing them who is boss.
2: Great.

"no crisis should go to waste", seems very political to me.

1. Black Panthers in Sacramento, outlaw loaded open carry.

(note I was LOCing when I was 12 and did not even know it but no kid in his right mind rode a horse in the hills without one, local Police did not enforce the 1967 law because it made no sense in my town)

2. Stockton 1989 beginning of the AW ban. Another tragic event capitalized on by the people that believe guns should only be in the hands of the gubmint.

3. AB962 2008, keep gangs from getting ammunition. Let me see if gangs can move drugs interstate, it seems logical that they can also move guns and ammo. Who does AB962 really target.

There is a gang crisis because those august members of the the US legislatures and courts allow it, because the chaos allows them to create more and more laws to mold society into their ideal, with them in charge of course. You certainly need to catch up on your Progressive Liberal reading.

Using the law for social engineering is affront to the Constitution.

Target the bad elements of Society but leave the good people alone to go about their business.

Note, I am not a supporter of UOC in an urban setting but I understand it. We should have shall issue CCW for anyone that wants one and can pass the fair requirements, that should include school zones. I would rather society license individuals in the urban environment for CCW but I sure understand those sick and tired of being targets.

Theseus
12-18-2009, 8:27 PM
3. AB962 2008, keep gangs from getting ammunition. Let me see if gangs can move drugs interstate, it seems logical that they can also move guns and ammo. Who does AB962 really target.

I believe that AB962 is to keep people like me, a person prohibited from possession of a firearm and ammunition, from obtaining ammunition when I am not supposed to possess guns.

The problem? The toll. There will be far more inconvenience to the millions in California that are not prohibited persons so that they might catch just 1 prohibited person buying ammunition. . . Like I can't just go and buy out of state where I am legal to do so.

REH
12-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Lets see........you make a law saying you can't have a firearm 1000 feet from a school. Purpose? To protect the children. With this kind of thinking you are counting on someone to obey a law, no firearm 1000 feet from a school, who wants to commit a crime on the school grounds with a firearm. Someone help me here to explain this??????

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 11:23 PM
Lets see........you make a law saying you can't have a firearm 1000 feet from a school. Purpose? To protect the children. With this kind of thinking you are counting on someone to obey a law, no firearm 1000 feet from a school, who wants to commit a crime on the school grounds with a firearm. Someone help me here to explain this??????

So according to your logic, we really shouldn't have any laws, since they would be useless against the "good" citizens, and the bad ones would just break those laws anyway?

LiberalGunner
12-18-2009, 11:28 PM
Why are you having so much trouble being honest? Nobody has said anything about having guns ON SCHOOL PROPERTY. Our argument is against the 1000' zone around the school that infringes on our rights of free passage. Uh, what good is an unloaded gun?

And, yes, violating the constitution is the very definition of "unamerican."
I have no problem with the REASONABLE regulation of firearms. It is the UNREASONABLE STUPIDITY like the "gun free school zone" that I find reprehensible.You seem to have failed to notice that none of the above are constitutionally protected. The right to keep and bear arms is.

I can't help but notice you did not answer my earlier question regarding what other constitutional right I should have to ask permission to exercise.

Should I have to ask permission to buy and read a newspaper?

Should I have to register and report all television news programs I watch?

Should I have to ask permission to go to church, and would only be allowed to attend a church approved and established by the government?

Should I have to ask permission to avoid self-incrimination?

What about unreasonable search and seizure? Should I have to ask permission to be secure in my person and papers?

You seem to think you have all the answers so I am sure you will have no problem answering these questions.

OK Old - So your problem is with the 1000', and your supportive of the "on school property" bans. I'm glad to hear it. What would be a more acceptable distance to "allow fair passage"? 500'? There may very well be a few schools where law abiding gun owners find it difficult to pass without violating the 1000' rule. That's an understandable isolated problem with a very reasonable gun regulation. Maybe you should address it that way... logically. Instead of throwing in with the camp that wants 50 cals in the faculty parking lot.

CCWFacts
12-18-2009, 11:29 PM
I'd like to hear someone come out and say that he/she as well as most Americans would prefer that citizens be able to open carry firearms in elementary school zones.

Yes, but I would expand it to include non-citizens as well. Gun rights do not depend on citizenship status.

I don't think anyone here will, because I think in your heart of hearts, you all think it's a ridiculous proposition.

Not in my heart of hearts, I promise you. I've seen many adult civilians open-carrying in schools and everywhere else, in Israel, and I didn't have a melt-down. I felt very happy to see them doing that, because I knew that if they didn't, some Israeli children would likely be killed, and that thought pains me.

Now I'm not saying that under certain circumstances, school teachers/administrators shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry with the proper training. But I am saying that no young mother waiting to pick up her 6 year old is going to breathe a sigh of relief when she sees grandpa walking across the playground with his M1 Garand

So long as grandpa isn't brandishing it (ie, it's slung and he is not handling it) and grandpa is a young enough grandparent that he still has a full deck of cards, I would be fine with it. Especially so if it were not a rare thing.

The only thing about it that's shocking is the fact that it's so rare that if it does happen it will be strange. But that's a consequence of the current rareness, not of the act itself.

Hopi
12-18-2009, 11:30 PM
So according to your logic, we really shouldn't have any laws, since they would be useless against the "good" citizens, and the bad ones would just break those laws anyway?

Logic is not your friend.

wildhawker
12-18-2009, 11:44 PM
Liberal, are you unwilling or incapable of addressing the flaws in your argument I commented upon earlier?

pullnshoot25
12-18-2009, 11:58 PM
Liberal, are you unwilling or incapable of addressing the flaws in your argument I commented upon earlier?

Both?

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 12:07 AM
The regulation of firearms is not 'regulation' as you think of it. the word useage has changed over time.... when it was written 'regulated' was equivilent to 'equipped' or 'provisioned'

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED still has the same meaning thankfully, as many seem to lack the education to understand etymological evolution.

It is not a natural impulse, it is in fact an artificial hoplophobic impulse which is created by people who do not trust themselves with firearms, and extend their own fears and insecurities to those surrounding them.... As for the whole tribal thing... I've watched national geographic.... somehow I seem to recall a BUNCH of spears, blowguns, arrows, knives etc... seeing as how the were simply tools and had NO menacing implications in the simple bearing of them.



Ok...... so guns scare children and make parents uncomfortable but its a good thing when a cop has one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for a principal to have one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for a teacher to have one because he's an agent of the state... and its ok for the janitor to have one because he's an agent of the state... And its ok for the school mascot to have one because he's an agent of the state...

What happened to the whole argument that guns being present increases the chance that someone will get shot? I thought that by completely eliminating firearms were were ensuring that the instances of tragedy were completely removed.... at least that's what you've argued elsewhere.




#1 I don't believe you, you don't seem like a gun owner/shooter.... Was it YOUR gun, or someone else's... what was the make/model of the firearm, the magazine capacity... what was the stock configuration and what modifications did it have beyond stock..... what caliber was it, what type of ammunition were you shooting.
#2 If what you say IS true, it is likely that she picked up on your own fear and insecurities which come from demonizing inanimate objects... Kind of like how your dog will bark at people you don't like...
#3 There are more children in this world than what spring from your loins... I've met some calguns members children, and I must say that those I have met were respectful, courteous, and well mannered....

#4 The subjective reality which you submerge your existence does not permeate beyond your little bubble of ignorance, the fact that you and one other statist anti are radically outnumbered in your views would seem to imply that you may possibly be potentially just a little bit dead wrong.

Gotta love Lib's..... Majority rules determine a 'righteous' course of action at all times..... except when they are outnumbered by the 'misguided'

Hi Ajax - hope I can tone down the hate just a little. I have a remington model 8 22 long rifle that my father gave me. He used to shoot gophers in the back yard with it...and that was probably illegal. I bought myself a springfield xd 9mm for home defense. It's got the bump on top so I know when a round is chambered. I keep the pistol in a small safe in the closet and the rifle padlocked in its case in the garage. I currently own both weapons.

My daughter who is now 8, enjoys shooting the 22 when we go with family out to the SoCal desert, but she has no interest in the 9mm or anything with a larger bang/recoil.

It's funny you believe you're in the majority in your "guns in school zones" view. I decided to call my two legislative representatives and ask if they would be in favor of allowing open carry of firearms within 1000' of a school. Assemblyman Joel Anderson and Senator Dennis Hollingsworth were both unavailable, but at one office I spoke to a low level staffer, and at the other, I got a legislative aide. Both firmly said no, my assemblyman/senator would not be in favor of guns within 1000' of a school. Both lawmakers are Republican. Both aides told me their bosses have A ratings from the NRA.

So maybe you mean just a majority on this forum. But I wouldn't be so sure, even about that.

pullnshoot25
12-19-2009, 12:11 AM
Hi Ajax - hope I can tone down the hate just a little. I have a remington model 8 22 long rifle that my father gave me. He used to shoot gophers in the back yard with it...and that was probably illegal. I bought myself a springfield xd 9mm for home defense. It's got the bump on top so I know when a round is chambered. I keep the pistol in a small safe in the closet and the rifle padlocked in its case in the garage. I currently own both weapons.

My daughter who is now 8, enjoys shooting the 22 when we go with family out to the SoCal desert, but she has no interest in the 9mm or anything with a larger bang/recoil.

It's funny you believe you're in the majority in your "guns in school zones" view. I decided to call my two legislative representatives and ask if they would be in favor of allowing open carry of firearms within 1000' of a school. Assemblyman Joel Anderson and Senator Dennis Hollingsworth were both unavailable, but at one office I spoke to a low level staffer, and at the other, I got a legislative aide. Both firmly said no, my assemblyman/senator would not be in favor of guns within 1000' of a school. Both lawmakers are Republican. Both aides told me their bosses have A ratings from the NRA.

So maybe you mean just a majority on this forum. But I wouldn't be so sure, even about that.

Yeah, its really good to get your info from "representatives," especially when they hardly represent the common man anyways.

Legislative aides are worse.

wildhawker
12-19-2009, 12:14 AM
Liberal, you are proving that you're as politically nave as you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Hopi
12-19-2009, 12:15 AM
IP trace?


Just for curiosity's sake? :)

ponderosa
12-19-2009, 12:16 AM
I would love it if every law-abiding citizen of the U.S. would carry everywhere, concealed or open. Schools included. We might just see a change in statistics in the favor of humanity - that is less criminal activity.

I do not believe anyone should be afraid of; a firearm, a knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a sling shot (etc etc). Nunchucks are illegal in CA. Say what? Two pieces of wood attached by a chain. Um. Lookout everyone! But people have a right to be afraid of whatever they want to be, doesn't make it right to force others to give up their rights because of that fear.

Anyway, I'm amazed to read a lot of posts by folks who don't seem to understand that rights are not something to mess with. There have been a lot of good posts that have gone unanswered by these folks that have no 'need' for certain rights or feel that rights should be 'regulated' (as in restrictions for law-abiding citizens only).

Look at the history of the world, see who is being victimized.

GFSZ that extend outside of school property should be deemed illegal. Not 1000', not 500', not 100', not 50', not 5'. And if it is a public school, I would like to see GFSZ illegal there as well.

I think it has been said numerous times in this thread, that the law-abiding citizen is the one not carrying in school zones and property...so who does that leave with the gun(s) within schools/zones? Um, the people we really DON'T want carrying...

Anyway, probably a waste of time/energy to post this for the benefit of those posters set in their anti-rights, pro-infringement ways (as is obvious by the continual anti-right postings), but I wanted to put my 2 cents in support of the U.S. of A. and our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and expressively our Right to Bear and Keep Arms.

I also want to thank Calguns for their leadership and relentless work in securing our rights!

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 12:21 AM
You've yet to state what a "bullet effective killing exclusion zone" might mean to you; currently, the GFSZ law only restricts certain modes of bear/transport to 1000ft. What you've proposed (as any knowledgeable gunnie could tell you) is the extension of GFSZs to more than a mile, since bullets are quite effective at that range.

Why not simply exercise eminent domain powers and annex the "bullet effective killing exclusion zone" (whatever area that might mean on a practical level, since we're talking about practical application and not some made-up numbers based on a politicians understanding of ballistics, right?)? If the people have such a compelling interest to maintain the area as secure, they should assume responsibility for maintaining it as such.

This entire discussion assumes that the criminal/terrorist refuses to visit other forms of mayhem upon the school- wouldn't it be rational to account for bombs/explosives and other devices, just as we do with airports and government installations? Aren't the children at least as valuable as the Congress?

Hi Wildhawker - sorry so long to respond to your post. The thread has become quite active, and I lost track of it in all the pages. I, like most voters am unaware of effective killing exclusion zones, and didn't weigh this when voicing my support for not allowing open carry firearms in school zones.

Interesting you brought up airports & government buildings like courthouses. You could argue the other way and ask why bother to ban guns from these areas...a sniper could use a rifle from clear across town. But I think in that, just like in the guns near schools issue, not many level headed voter would support you, not to mention the pilots, passengers, judges, juries, and administrators working in all these facilities.

But yes, I am also in favor of banning bombs from schools. Hope that doesn't put me too far to the left in your book. If someone open carried a grenade or IED anywhere near my daughter's school, I'm such a liberal crybaby that I'd have a problem with it. I might even support some rights infringing law to prevent it.

Please, don't attribute extreme views on me, i.e. taking land via eminent domain to prevent guns at elementary schools. I'm not the extreme one here. I'm looking for a rational and reasonable gun regulation. Believe it or not, I don't want to take your rights away from you. Most liberals don't. I realize that someone who's a reasonably good shot could kill my child with a gun from the length of several football fields.

I can't stop a sniper from killing my daughter if that's what they really want to do, but I can push for sensible laws not allowing open carry around schools. Just like I can support 25mph zones around schools, no porn shops and liquor stores around schools. Etc. I think those are the kind of communities most sensible americans want to live in, and unfortunately for you, they probably always will be.

steadyrock
12-19-2009, 12:24 AM
IP trace?


Just for curiosity's sake? :)

Im relatively sure that was already done. :43:

Hopi
12-19-2009, 12:25 AM
I was hoping for the results to hit the streets....

CSACANNONEER
12-19-2009, 12:33 AM
But yes, I am also in favor of banning bombs from schools.

So, you supported the decission to expell and convict the kids who made a dry ice and soda bottle bomb at school? What about the welding tanks in shop, the sodium in chem lab or the various cleaing supplies in the janitor's closet? You seem like the only one here who can think logically so, please tell me where all these bans should stop.

BT, real bombs are already illegal unless you have a DD permit so, what difference does a school ban have?

NiteQwill
12-19-2009, 12:35 AM
I can't believe you folks are still reading the garbage. Stop fueling the fire and hit the ignore button.

How many times have we stated on this forum that arguing with a wall is.... well... arguing with a wall.

Theseus
12-19-2009, 12:38 AM
Interesting you brought up airports & government buildings like courthouses. You could argue the other way and ask why bother to ban guns from these areas...a sniper could use a rifle from clear across town. But I think in that, just like in the guns near schools issue, not many level headed voter would support you, not to mention the pilots, passengers, judges, juries, and administrators working in all these facilities.

The difference between a school "zone" and a courthouse or other government building is that they only prohibit possession IN those places. I can keep a gun in my car in the parking lot of the courthouse. . . I just can't take it inside with me. That is somewhat reasonable. I would rather be able to take it in with me and store in the courthouse so that I can be armed while going to the courthouse and back to my car.

The "zone" is the most unconstitutional part about the GFSZ.

There is no reason why someone like myself should not be able to possess my gun on me when doing laundry just because I am located in proximity to a school. My family and I deserve to be safe from crime just as much as any schoolchild.

oaklander
12-19-2009, 12:38 AM
It's like picking your nose. You know it's wrong, but once in a while, you pull out a nice one.

I can't believe you folks are still reading the garbage. Stop fueling the fire and hit the ignore button.

How many times have we stated on this forum that arguing with a wall is.... well... arguing with a wall.

technique
12-19-2009, 12:44 AM
Liberal California is depressing.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 12:46 AM
So, you supported the decission to expell and convict the kids who made a dry ice and soda bottle bomb at school? What about the welding tanks in shop, the sodium in chem lab or the various cleaing supplies in the janitor's closet? You seem like the only one here who can think logically so, please tell me where all these bans should stop.

BT, real bombs are already illegal unless you have a DD permit so, what difference does a school ban have?

Again, sticking to topic, this was about open carry firearms near an elementary school. I was asked why I cared about guns but not terrorists who might use bombs. My response was to indicate that I was equally opposed to bombs... nothing more.

I don't know what a soda bottle bomb is, so I think I'll leave that one in the hands of a competent judge. And I'm not sure what types of tanks you're referring to our kids welding, or what they're planning to do with the stuff in the janitor's closet. I must have donated my copy of the anarchist's cook book to the library book sale fundraiser. It sounds like you feel we need guns near schools not to protect the children, but to protect ourselves from the children.

So again back to the topic at hand, allowing openly carried guns near elementary schools - I'm firmly opposed - along with probably your neighbors on both sides of your house. All the other stuff - when I hear about the law banning Windex, I'll have to look at that strictly on its merits.

wildhawker
12-19-2009, 12:47 AM
Liberal, your remarks are amusing. If you'd care to address the substance of my post with something other than sarcasm and your intolerance and contempt for an alternative view it would be appreciated.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 12:49 AM
Liberal California is depressing.

Oh come on, you love it here...admit it.

oaklander
12-19-2009, 12:51 AM
Your reading comprehension is poor. He's posting from Idaho.

Oh come on, you love it here...admit it.

Hopi
12-19-2009, 12:51 AM
Oh come on, you love it here...admit it.

*here* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 12:56 AM
Liberal, your remarks are amusing. If you'd care to address the substance of my post with something other than sarcasm and your intolerance and contempt for an alternative view it would be appreciated.

I understand where you're coming from. You ask the very logical question "where does it all stop?". I understand that. I also understand how any restriction on gun rights is scary in that it could be the fore bearer to more restrictions.

I think were liberals stand is with the belief that 'no regulation' is untenable in our society. Our constitution is our founding and guiding document, but we also make new laws. Many of us feel these new laws don't trample on the old ones, but work in conjunction with them, making us a safer and more civilized society.

So I'm against taking land by eminent domain to protect the children. I feel that would be incompatible with property rights. I'm also against taking all guns, or allowing no one to carry a gun into a school zone. I think that would violate the 2nd amendment.

I do feel that there are legal, constitutional and respectful limits to be placed on the usage of firearms that make us all safer. Hope that was non-sarcastic enough for you. You seem so intelligent and your arguments were well thought out. I hope you can respect my side of it.

CSACANNONEER
12-19-2009, 1:01 AM
I'm not saying that we need guns near schools to protect anyone. I will say that I believe that guns should be allowed near schools because, there is no reason not to allow them. Kids have been hunting on the way to and from school for generations without any problems. Yea, kids used to stck their rifles up in the corner of the classroom. I know several people who remember doing this in LA CITY so, it hasn't been to teribly long since guns became a no-no at school let alone 1000' from one. Of course, I don't agree with most feel good laws which don't stop crime instead they create crime where there had been none before.

So liberal, what's your take on Global Warming and Clinton's pledge?

technique
12-19-2009, 1:04 AM
Your reading comprehension is poor. He's posting from Idaho.

*here* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Where CCW is issued like candy. Where open carry is A-OK. Where AW's don't exist. Where guns are still displayed in gun racks in the back of trucks.
Where anti gun legislation isn't passed. Heck it isn't even proposed.


And what do you know...there is no where near as much crime.

How could this be?


Take a look at the rest (nearly) of America. They don't think like you.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 1:13 AM
I'm not saying that we need guns near schools to protect anyone. I will say that I believe that guns should be allowed near schools because, there is no reason not to allow them. Kids have been hunting on the way to and from school for generations without any problems. Yea, kids used to stck their rifles up in the corner of the classroom. I know several people who remember doing this in LA CITY so, it hasn't been to teribly long since guns became a no-no at school let alone 1000' from one. Of course, I don't agree with most feel good laws which don't stop crime instead they create crime where there had been none before.

So liberal, what's your take on Global Warming and Clinton's pledge?

Interesting to look at it historically. A lot of my liberal older friends say they don't recollect this but maybe one sees (remembers) what he wants to.

Regarding Hil, I've posted on that elsewhere...but I'm a supporter. America led in WW2 against Nazi-ism and in the cold war against communism - at great expense and in the face of great skepticism. We're leading now in the fight against "global terror" which, much like global warming, is something many say is a fight we can never win.

America is the world's moral leader. For Mrs. Clinton to throw down the gauntlet, challenging the other nations of the world to join us is a heroic, and increasingly politically costly move. And she didn't offer a $100 billion/year giveaway as many will charge. She said America would surely contribute to that fund if the rest of the world also steps up. I'm proud that our role as a moral world leader isn't only in saturation bombing and toppling regimes.

wash
12-19-2009, 2:06 AM
Instead of throwing in with the camp that wants 50 cals in the faculty parking lot.

I like that camp. If gang bangers knew they ran a big risk of being shot if they started shooting at a school, they probably would fight elsewhere. Once you take away all the places where they can victimize others, I bet those gangs would shrink quite a bit.

How does a GFSZ law shrink gangs?

I don't really like UOC because it causes legal and PR problems when something like this happens.

The good thing is that I haven't seen
anything too negative about the guy that got
caught. If only he was actually in the zone
instead of school grounds, he might have a
chance of not being charged.

If he had waited until we had incorporation
and wasn't on school grounds, his case might
be good enough to get CGF support and get
the GFSZ law thrown out. I guess we'll have
to wait for that.

I think it's funny seeing you post here. I wonder what brought you out of the woodwork?

It was real funny reading "I'm also against taking all guns", I guess you think it's OK for big brother to take away some of our guns, probably those evil .50 cal's you mentioned and guns with the shoulder-thing that goes up, you know, a barrel shroud.

Liberty1
12-19-2009, 3:30 AM
2) you have permission from the school, district, etc.

So what are the magic properties of a "superintendent's permission slip" which makes a gun carried within 1000' of a K-12 school not as dangerous as gun carried without a "permission slip"?

And how is an UNloaded gun carried by a non prohibited person ever a danger to "the children" within 1000' of a K-12 school especially since Ca makes it explicitly lawful (PC 626.95) to carry an unloaded openly carried handgun or long gun without a permissin slip at a playground or within a youth community center which is not within 1000' of a school?

Are not those same children at those locations too? Are they not also in danger from UNloaded guns? :eek:

And how is it that in a super majority of states (many not requiring any "official" permission) the carrying of loaded open and or concealed firearms within 1000' of K-12 schools doesn't appear to have the same detrimental effects you envision existing in CA?

Oh, and be sure to duck in June of '10 otherwise a dose of reality might smack you up side the head.

Liberty1
12-19-2009, 3:47 AM
So according to your logic, we really shouldn't have any laws, since they would be useless against the "good" citizens, and the bad ones would just break those laws anyway?

Laws generally in my experience do not stop violent crimes or property crimes. They do however allow us the moral framework to lock up those who ARE actuall threats to others after a victim of violent crime has been created (if the courts and Huckabee would only keep them there for their FULL sentences).

So would a 6 year state prison term with the loss of constitutional voting and gun rights for life be the kind of sentence you want imposed on a 74 year old man non-felon non-prohibited person carrying an unloaded gun on a walk with his girlfriend who had no criminal intent to harm anyone?

And I carry loaded openly near several schools every day and my sidearm has not jumped out of the holster yet spraying bullets into school children. Oh thats right my gun is good because it has "a permission slip" (wish you could see some of my partners at the range - a truly scarry sight - and they carry near those schools too):rolleyes:.:p

Liberty1
12-19-2009, 3:57 AM
He's posting from Idaho.

Where 13 to 17 year olds open carry loaded rifles (http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/news01.txt)with their older brothers carrying holstered glocks all within 1000' of a school? :D

The brothers said they intend to continue to openly carry guns in public on a regular basis for self defense -- both as a crime deterrent and to educate others that it's the public's right.

"I certainly don't anticipate that I'll need to use it, but I'd rather have it and not need it than to not have it and need it," Zach said. "There's no reason for me to hide a weapon."

The brothers have been to the library, grocery stores, parks and other places with the guns. They're not allowed to openly carry on school property, in courthouses or jails.

The brothers sometimes walk the perimeter of Prairie View Elementary and Post Falls High on their way from home to Post Falls Presbyterian Church


Oh the humanity!!!!

Liberty1
12-19-2009, 4:18 AM
I bought myself a springfield xd 9mm for home defense.

So you believe in the possible need to defend your daughter's life in your home. Good!

What about 999' as the crow flies from a K-12 school (colleges, pre-schools, play grounds, and youth centers don't appear to need this "magic" protection zone)? Is your daughter's life less valuable then? Is your skill and ability or your love for her diminished within that zone? Should you loose your Right to protect you home with a firearm because you carried 999' from a K-12 school?

The one school cop two streets away in the school with no line of sight to you won't be able to help sadly should the need arise.

I respond to serious crimes in "school zones" all year long from simple strong arm or armed robberies to homicides. The only thing a 1000' "gun free zone" does is insure the criminals safety. There is plenty of crime and no safety in that zone your best "reasonable" well wishes notwithstanding.

nicki
12-19-2009, 4:21 AM
The school zone issue makes UOC a risky behavior and until we have incorporation and we do something to place limits on so called sensitive zones, it is a bad idea.

Nicki

Liberty1
12-19-2009, 4:42 AM
I can't believe you folks are still reading the garbage. Stop fueling the fire and hit the ignore button.

How many times have we stated on this forum that arguing with a wall is.... well... arguing with a wall.

Sorry got off work and was looking for some fun....:chris:

kcbrown
12-19-2009, 7:30 AM
My personal opinion is this: my right to possess the means to defend myself, and to use it if it proves necessary, outweighs your right to have a warm fuzzy feeling of safety.

The first (my right to possess the means to defend myself and to use it if necessary) is rooted in the real world, and the need for it can be concretely demonstrated (one need only show that there is a nonzero probability of needing to defend oneself).

The second (your right to warm and fuzzy feelings of safety arising from things like a GFSZ) is ethereal: it exists only in your head. You and you alone are responsible for how you feel.

It is an affront to myself and others that laws which infringe upon rights rooted in demonstrable concrete needs can and are passed in order to satisfy the emotional insecurity of some group of people who would be better served by growing a spine. The GFSZ is one such law.

So, LiberalGunner and guayuque: prove that your position is based on something more substantial than merely a desire to feel warm, fuzzy, and safe. Cite the data and the logical arguments that show your position to bring demonstrable real-world benefits to society that somehow outweigh the rights and demonstrable need of ALL people to possess the means to defend themselves wherever they happen to be (note that you must not only show your position to bring the benefits in question, but you must also show that they outweigh the rights in question).

Or don't. But if you don't, then it will be clear to all that your position is baseless and without merit. I am willing to listen to your well-supported, logical argument but I am skeptical that you have one. I dare you to prove me wrong.

GrizzlyGuy
12-19-2009, 8:18 AM
I think were liberals stand is with the belief that 'no regulation' is untenable in our society. Our constitution is our founding and guiding document, but we also make new laws. Many of us feel these new laws don't trample on the old ones, but work in conjunction with them, making us a safer and more civilized society.

You have eloquently summarized the position of progressives, but not necessarily liberals.

Classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises and Jan Narveson reject that point of view as they believe in originalism, free markets and limited government. Progressives do not believe in originalism by definition. Progressives reject the idea that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties (a belief held by liberal icon Barack Obama (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html)), and instead believe that the Constitution is merely "our founding and guiding document" and they are free to ignore negative liberties so as to "make new laws", justifying this by believing that they "don't trample on the old ones, but work in conjunction with them, making us a safer and more civilized society". Classical liberalism is thus the antithesis of progressivism.

I suggest that you change your user name from "LiberalGunner" to "ProgressiveGunner". Not only would that more accurately reflect your views, but you would be less likely to be accused of trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29):

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold.

Keep in mind that during the 2008 CNN/YouTube debates (http://www.youtube.com/democraticdebate) Hillary Clinton rejected the "liberal" label and proudly proclaimed herself to be a "modern progressive". Now you have the opportunity to proudly follow in her footsteps.

Interesting to look at it historically. A lot of my liberal older friends say they don't recollect this but maybe one sees (remembers) what he wants to.

You have finally made a statement that I can 100% agree with: liberals (and more accurately progressives) do tend to have selective memories. This is convenient so that they can forget the principles our country was founded on, and forget the history of classical liberals (the true liberals) defending those principles. They can instead "live in the moment" without having to be burdened by Constitutions, negative liberties, or any other impediments to their doing what is "right" for the children and our society as a whole.

ETA: I just noticed that Oaklander has posted a new chart here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3518332&postcount=44) that also suggests ProgressiveGunner may be a better user name for LiberalGunner.

B Strong
12-19-2009, 8:48 AM
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This is why anybody that participates in OC should investigate everything thoroughly before starting out.

bodger
12-19-2009, 9:01 AM
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

This is why anybody that participates in OC should investigate everything thoroughly before starting out.


True.
And unfortunately, as reported anyway, prior to his UOC, this man that got arrested decided to ask the local police about the legality of UOC, and if the report is accurate, those cops told him it was legal and didn't mention GFSZ.

Obviously, the LEOs left out some important info that might have allowed this man to avoid arrest. It was still his responsibility to know the law, but it would be interesting to know exactly what those cops said to him.

B Strong
12-19-2009, 9:06 AM
Oh my god, what is the problem with simple enforcement of the law??? Can none of you really see any logic in parents and neighbors not wanting to see people carrying pistols around schools with children? First of all, open carry is stupid. What purpose does it serve? Second of all, guns scare people, especially little children. I do not want my daughter coming home from school telling me she saw an old man with a gun. I suppose you'd also like liquor stores and adult book stores in school zones too? 1st amendment is just as important as 2nd? Please don't make excuses for the 74 year old. We all know it's pretty intuitive to put 2 and 2 together to figure out that there are laws keeping guns away from schools. Now if he thought it was 750 feet away from a school instead of a thousand, I might listen, but lets not defend the unintelligent here.

Is being "scared" a legitimate basis for the enactment and enforcement of law?

It can be argued that some restrictions (instant check) may serve a legitimate purpose in preventing access to firearms by prohibited individuals, but the GFSZ law is a complete failure.

Californio
12-19-2009, 9:09 AM
GFSZ

True Story - September 2009, a Saturday morning - I wake-up to a loud helo, it's right on top of my roof, very low WTF.

My local Elementary School, both children attended, the house directly across the street from the school was raided. Drugs and get this - they were manufacturing Automatic Weapons. This was a going on for 2.5 years directly across from the Elementary School.

LE had an armored vehicle and local, county, state and fed leos for a Saturday raid, to protect the children. They staged and trained that night behind the doors of the local Firehouse.

Those arrested were on probation and prohibited persons but that did not stop them from the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons to other criminals. It took an inside plant to get the goods.

Those poor school children, their parents and the teaching staff were put at risk for 2.5 years while the gubmint made their case.

This took place, not in the inner city but the affluent North American Riviera that should be safe because the GFSZ should have made it so.

Another law that does nothing to stop the bad guys.

bodger
12-19-2009, 9:14 AM
Dang, lucky for the Gubmint no incidents that harmed the children took place whilst they built their case. That would have put a burr under a lot of people's saddles.

GFSZ

True Story - September 2009, a Saturday morning - I wake-up to a loud helo, it's right on top of my roof, very low WTF.

My local Elementary School, both children attended, the house directly across the street from the school was raided. Drugs and get this - they were manufacturing Automatic Weapons. This was a going on for 2.5 years directly across from the Elementary School.

LE had an armored vehicle and local, county, state and fed leos for a Saturday raid, to protect the children. They staged and trained that night behind the doors of the local Firehouse.

Those arrested were on probation and prohibited persons but that did not stop them from the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons to other criminals. It took an inside plant to get the goods.

Those poor school children, their parents and the teaching staff were put at risk for 2.5 years while the gubmint made their case.

This took place, not in the inner city but the affluent North American Riviera that should be safe because the GFSZ should have made it so.

Another law that does nothing to stop the bad guys.

GuyW
12-19-2009, 9:16 AM
It's funny you believe you're in the majority in your "guns in school zones" view. I decided to call my two legislative representatives and ask if they would be in favor of allowing open carry of firearms within 1000' of a school. Assemblyman Joel Anderson and Senator Dennis Hollingsworth were both unavailable, but at one office I spoke to a low level staffer, and at the other, I got a legislative aide. Both firmly said no, my assemblyman/senator would not be in favor of guns within 1000' of a school. Both lawmakers are Republican. Both aides told me their bosses have A ratings from the NRA.


They sometimes need the belt before they behave....

.

GuyW
12-19-2009, 9:20 AM
....I might even support some rights infringing law to prevent it.

I'm looking for a rational and reasonable gun regulation....

A Bradyite by self-admission....

.