In Washington state it is illegal to open carry on school property if you have a ccp you may carry in you vehicle but must not exit the vehicle with or with out the firearm. However you can petition the school board for special permission and if granted you may carry on school property but only those you have been permitted to do so at.
Parent Open Carries in School
- Thread starter ctharry
- Start date
Can you post a statute to back up your assertion? The way it works in WA state for those with a CPL: I ride with my daughter to high school, openly carrying my handgun in a holster. She drives up to the front of the school in the circle drive and she parks next to the school resource officer's car (police officer). She gets out of the car, right in front of the doors to the high school, and I get out the passenger side, openly carrying my handgun in a holster on my belt, on school property. I wave to the school resource officer and hug my daughter, openly carrying my handgun in a holster on my belt on school property. I get in the driver's side of the car and drive off. All that is required is for me to possess a CPL.
You might want to actually read Washington state law.
RCW 9.41.280:
When picking up or dropping off a student, there is no requirement to stay in the vehicle or lock the gun in the vehicle. The only restriction for a CPL holder while picking up or dropping off a student is that they cannot take the gun INSIDE the BUILDING:
golddigger14s
SFC At Fort Lewis, WA
Navy you must be confused, this is USA Carry where stuff is made up as you go and siting actual laws/rcws are highly discouraged.
Kensterfly
New member
I'm on the fence here. I understand that if your local or state law allows OC in schools, or wherever, then you are entitled to do so. Period. But when you KNOW that doing so is going to cause a disturbance, such as a school lock down, I can't understand why one would feel it necessary to do that. It disrupts too many lives just so the OC guy can prove a point? Stop to think about the fear instilled in those children when they go into lock down. They are aware of all the other school shootings. Why put them through that? Why put hundreds of parents through that panic?
So, you claim that you need to carry just in case a school massacre begins while you are in the building. With that logic you would plant yourself in the lobby and stay there all day long, every school day, because you can't possibly know when the BG is going to show up and start shooting. In fact, recruit a bunch of other 2A parents and make it the safest school in the world.
I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to wrap my head around the thought process. Help me understand without busting my balls for asking questions.
So, you claim that you need to carry just in case a school massacre begins while you are in the building. With that logic you would plant yourself in the lobby and stay there all day long, every school day, because you can't possibly know when the BG is going to show up and start shooting. In fact, recruit a bunch of other 2A parents and make it the safest school in the world.
I'm not trying to be critical, just trying to wrap my head around the thought process. Help me understand without busting my balls for asking questions.
It isn't the law abiding parents who are exercising their right and ability to protect their children when possible that are causing the school lockdowns and disturbances. That's the first problem. By your theory then black people should never have sat at the lunch counter in the diner or in the front of the bus. Women should never have protested not being able to vote. After all, think of the children....
E
ezkl2230
Guest
Not trying to bust anything, but you're missing a few points.
First, "you need to carry just in case a school massacre begins while you are in the building. With that logic you would plant yourself in the lobby and stay there all day long…" Most of us here are not carrying so that we can be some sort of security guard for the world, we're carrying to protect our families and ourselves. That simply means that we go about our business, hope and pray that nothing happens, but are ready to take action if the need arises. Frankly, it is the obligation of the school to take those steps that are necessary to insure that they are providing a safe environment for our kids; that's part of the reason we pay taxes. And by "measures," I refer to those provisions that are DEMONSTRATED to keep schools safe - that means providing for the presence of armed individuals, whether contracted as security for the school, welcoming the presence of those civilians who exercise their Constitutional right to carry, or both. Gun free zone signs have been proven not to work. Trying to barricade teachers and kids inside classrooms and waiting for the police to show up has been proven not to work. We understand that there is no 100% guarantee of preventing a shooting just because there are armed people present - Columbine proved that; there was a armed security guard present in the school. Unfortunately, there is also no indicator that he ever deployed his firearm. But the presence of individuals, armed and ready to use their firearms in lawful defense is proven to at least diminish the numbers of injuries and deaths that might occur, and in several instances has prevented shootings altogether.
Second, "...you KNOW that doing so is going to cause a disturbance… It disrupts too many lives just so the OC guy can prove a point…" We have this little thing here in the US called a presumption of innocence. The mere exercise of a protected right is not evidence that something criminal is happening. A parent carrying their clearly holstered firearm doesn't even meet the ridiculously low "reasonable suspicion" standard. Even THAT standard requires a "reasonable suspicion" (ie, observed behaviors, brandishing, etc.) that the person with the firearm has criminal intent. What is taking place right now, particularly here in Grand Rapids, MI, is that city and school leaders are going out of their way to criminalize the exercise of a protected right. It is that simple. As NavyLCDR already pointed out, it isn't the carriers who are disturbing things, it is people with an agenda who are using our kids and their education as a weapon to impose a de facto ban on carry.
Third, "Stop to think about the fear instilled in those children when they go into lock down." Again, who is causing the fear? The lawful carrier, or the anti-gun principal? The answer is clear - it is the principal, superintendent, etc., who is choosing to use the kids as pawns against their own parents. The sign posted in Clio, MI, public school after a legally armed parent came onto the property - which he had done numerous times without causing ANY panic among the children, makes the intent very clear:
Link Removed
The school superintendent tried to place blame on the parent by saying that, if they "had" to go into lockdown, then no education would take place during the lockdown, and that would be the fault of the carrier. The fact of the matter is that there has been no documented occurrence in Michigan in which a parent exercising their right to openly carry has incited panic among the students. In every last situation, it was ADULTS who pushed the panic button - not kids. The line given by school authorities is a lie; these parents cause no disruption to learning or activities, they do not induce panic in the students. It is school and other anti-gun public authorities who are working so hard to instill fear in our kids. The parent in Clio regularly OCd without causing panic. Last fall, an open carrier attended a football game while carrying his clearly-holstered firearm. NONE of the students raised an alarm, NONE of the parents sitting near the carrier raised the alarm, it was a COACH ON THE FIELD who noticed the parent was carrying, raised the alarm, and then had the game called early.
Finally, it boils down to this: the exercise of our Constitutionally-protected rights is not based on the comfort of those around us. Those who do not carry have made a conscious decision not to exercise that right. I am not going to limit the exercise of my right, and in doing so, hand gun grabbers a victory as they implement de facto gun carry bans simply by making it too difficult to exercise our right.
Because gun owners have been so oppreseed in this country? I find it disgusting that you would liken the "plight" of the open carrier to two people groups that were seen as property for a good portion of America's history
I'm sorry that the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC disgusts you so much.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
ETA: I OC because I can. I do not care whether it hurts your feelings or not.
If you don't like it, look away.
I am the Shepard. I am not one of the sheep...
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Yeah, I took the enlisted version of the same oath and I'm not impressed in the least.
Women and blacks have actually been oppressed in this country, gun owners have not. You have no right comparing your “plight” as an open carrier (a position you chose) to theirs.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I don't open carry by choice. I have to.
Do we have to wait till we get oppressed to the degree nearly all races have been before we "have the right to compare?"
Who's trying to impress you? Or do you care that little about the Constitution you think it's just to impress you?
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
B
Bikenut
Guest
Oppression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
op·pres·sion
noun \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Definition of OPPRESSION
1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
-snip-
There is no doubt that those who exercise the right to keep and bear arms have not been oppressed to the degree of cruelty nor the dept of unjustness that women and some ethnic groups Historically have (and still are in some cases) yet just looking at how the concealed carry permit system discriminates against those who do not have the financial resources to pay the fees involved shows the poor are being oppressed when it comes to "keep and bear".
I know folks are talking about oppression in reference to open carry yet a quick search of ... open carry ... on youtube brings some videos that are, at least to my mind, remarkable in their similarity to what police have done to other oppressed groups.
And, again to my mind, there isn't any difference in being oppressed for a person's gender, their color, their religion, or what they wear on their hip. Some folks might say people can't change their color or easily change their gender but folks could change their religion or just not carry a gun on their hip and they would easily avoid being oppressed. But... oppression is still oppression.
There is a difference in the degree of oppression though.
Edited to add:
Remember the purpose of oppression is for those in power to maintain that power by keeping the powerless "in their place".
op·pres·sion
noun \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Definition of OPPRESSION
1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
-snip-
There is no doubt that those who exercise the right to keep and bear arms have not been oppressed to the degree of cruelty nor the dept of unjustness that women and some ethnic groups Historically have (and still are in some cases) yet just looking at how the concealed carry permit system discriminates against those who do not have the financial resources to pay the fees involved shows the poor are being oppressed when it comes to "keep and bear".
I know folks are talking about oppression in reference to open carry yet a quick search of ... open carry ... on youtube brings some videos that are, at least to my mind, remarkable in their similarity to what police have done to other oppressed groups.
And, again to my mind, there isn't any difference in being oppressed for a person's gender, their color, their religion, or what they wear on their hip. Some folks might say people can't change their color or easily change their gender but folks could change their religion or just not carry a gun on their hip and they would easily avoid being oppressed. But... oppression is still oppression.
There is a difference in the degree of oppression though.
Edited to add:
Remember the purpose of oppression is for those in power to maintain that power by keeping the powerless "in their place".
What you can't understand is that this is not about my being able to open carry. This is about the neutering and eventual removal of the 2nd amendment one small infringement at a time.
You do understand that there is a socialist political party in power in Washington today whose main goal is to create the United Socialist States of America? All citizens' rights in this country are being methodically eaten away by the government and people like you are just blindly following along saying "Don't worry, comrade, your government will protect you. Now if you will just come along with us to this 'safe' place we have set up for you right here behind these no guns allowed signs..."
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Your fatuous and oblivious retorts are much too predictable.
For one thing, we all, NavyLCDR included, have the "right" to form and express any opinion we deem prudent and rational. In fact, we have the "right" to form and express imprudent and irrational opinions, so your declarative statement that Navy has no right to say anything he wishes is your first wrong assertion.
But the more oblivious and ignorant assertion you make is that oppression of rights is not comparable to oppression of people based on their race or gender (or whatever other identity types of characteristics you might be contemplating). It's especially ignorant when you say that oppression of gun rights is not comparable to oppression of black folk. The fact is that the main tool in oppressing black people over this nation's history has been oppressing their gun rights. Nothing that happened to black folk in this country that is counter to individual liberty could have happened if their masses were armed. To fight for gun rights is to fight against oppression for everyone. The very first line spoken in Part 1 of JPFO's "No Guns for Negroes" says that as clearly as anything I could come up with to say. And here's Part 2 just in case you're not as averse to actually learning the truth of the matter as you appear to be.
Your oath was obviously meaningless to you.
Quit being a gun-grabber appeasing tool.
Blues
Kensterfly
New member
Major non sequitur. Black students sitting at a lunch counter did not raise the terror brought about by an unknown person walking into a school with a gun. And there are no case of marching suffragettes suddenly turning and mowing down innocent bystanders with guns. We are not talking about making someone uncomfortable. We are looking at this issue in light of recent history. I can't imagine anything more terrifying to parents, and to students, that being at a school with a shooting. And it's a very sad thing if even the most staunch supporter of 2A can't understand that and empathize.
I'm on your side. I really am. But I don't necessarily believe that my rights supersede someone elses. My right to swing my fist ends just short of your nose. You speak of law abiding parents walking OC into schools. All well and good but do you expect the school staff to know and recognize everyone that comes into the building? Does the law say that only parents can walk into a school with a gun? Should they assume that the 22 year old druggie/punk wearing a hoody, a sidearm, and a backpack is a peace loving parent? Or the teenaged brother of a fourth grader who forgot his lunch money? Should there be no level of caution in schools, just so we can prance around in our fine leather holsters?
If you do not have a child in school right now, you cannot put yourself in the places of parents who live with the fear that another shooting will happen - in their school.
Suppose you had a little girl in the second grade and hear that some guy was roaming the halls with a .45 at his side. Would you be so complacent as to assume that he was merely exercising his 2A rights?
I KNOW that gun free zones are a joke. They don't work. But that doesn't mean that the school staff shouldn't challenge someone who walks into the school with a gun.
Perhaps an immediate lock down is an overreaction but consider that the reason for doing so is to protect the children, not to further the agenda of an anti-gun principal.
I used to teach high school. I have known many principals. Several were sportsmen, hunters, gun owners. But you wouldn't want to mistakenly believe that the safety of the children in their school is not more important than your right to carry with no regard for others.
Having said all of this... if the parent is known to the staff, it's probably a little ridiculous to go into lock down and doing so may truly be the principal wanting to make a statement. But it would be quite different if an armed stranger walks in.
Kensterfly
New member
Thank you, all of you, for presenting your thoughts and beliefs. I think I understand where you are all coming from. I've got some soul searching to do before I decide where I stand. Obviously, (well maybe not to some) it is not an absolute black or white issue. I firmly believe in the constitution. I also follow the law and with hopes that the law is following the constitution. But I also have regard for how my actions affect other people. I try to be considerate of other people. I don't chit-chat during worship services or at the movies just because I can. I don't drive 45 mph down the highway just because I can. I do not live my life with the attitude that I can live it how I want and to hell with everyone else. I'm a private person but interact with my community. I do not choose to live in isolation.
Being a good citizen is a complex thing.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Being a good citizen is a complex thing.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
B
Bikenut
Guest
I applaud your honesty Sir.
May I suggest considering that rights, any and all of the rights everyone of us has, are not dependent upon whether someone is scared or offended by people actually exercising them. Because if we start making the feelings of others more important than rights we end up being controlled by the feelings of whoever is in power at the moment.
May I also suggest considering the notion that a person who allows the feelings of others, a person who is afraid of offending others, to determine if they will .. or will not... exercise a right has handed their lives over to being controlled by other people's feelings.
Please understand... this is the U.S. of A. where you have the freedom to decide what you personally will ... or will not... do concerning the right to bear arms in a legal manner. But please also understand that everyone else also has that same freedom to make their own decisions. But neither they, nor you (nor a school board) has a right to make that decision for them.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
Another tree humping troll who thinks we should all leave our scary guns at home so as not to spook the herd...
Link Removed
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Two weeks ago my daughter's high school (and every other school in the area) was on lockdown because a gun was found in the possession of a former student (dropout) who had posted on facebook that he intended to kill another student. I left work early and rushed home to be by my wife's side as we waited helplessly for the outcome. I have been there and done that, which is EXACTLY the reason I will carry my gun by any legal means available to me on school property whenever I there and I will continue to do so until the school takes some real action to ensure the safety of my child other than posting a no guns sign.
https://www.google.com/#q=stanwood+school+lockdown
And lets think about this whole school lockdown thing - what does the school do when there is a threat? Oh - let's get all the students together into big groups and tell them they can't leave the location where the shooter is.
