Parent Open Carries in School


If you can’t refute the message attack the messenger. If that isn’t a rule for radicals it should be.

Without dignifying the comments regarding how seriously I took my oath of enlistment with a response let me state again that for a gun owner to state that not being allowed to open carry in a school somehow places him on par with Emmet Till or Medger Evers is ludicrous and that was my original point.

As for the open carry in school which isn’t the same as demanding the basic human dignity of being allowed to sit down and eat as an equal. Like it or not the school administration is fully within their rights to lock down the school when someone shows up with a gun and if you show up know a gun knowing that’s what’s going to happen just to make a point you are at fault
 

If you can’t refute the message attack the messenger. If that isn’t a rule for radicals it should be.

Without dignifying the comments regarding how seriously I took my oath of enlistment with a response let me state again that for a gun owner to state that not being allowed to open carry in a school somehow places him on par with Emmet Till or Medger Evers is ludicrous and that was my original point.

As for the open carry in school which isn’t the same as demanding the basic human dignity of being allowed to sit down and eat as an equal. Like it or not the school administration is fully within their rights to lock down the school when someone shows up with a gun and if you show up know a gun knowing that’s what’s going to happen just to make a point you are at fault
And if folks allow school officials to use the brazen tactic of unnecessarily locking down the school and all that entails because they don't like that someone is legally exercising their right to bear arms...

and folks allow the schools to get away with it...

then we all are at fault for allowing ourselves to be manipulated into voluntarily giving up our rights.

Besides.... the open carrier did no wrong in your scenario... the school officials either overreacted or are blatantly using the emotions of the parents to enforce their no guns opinions. And apparently it is working quite well since some folks, including you Eidolon, are quick to blame the open carrier and support the school officials.

One other small point....

If it really is the gun that is the point of contention then why aren't schools requiring everyone be searched before entering? After all... shouldn't the school go on lock down if someone were to sneak in a concealed gun?

Hint... just like all gun control...it isn't about the gun and never was/will be.
 
I firmly believe in the constitution.

I believe a very rational case can be made for the premise that you don't, unintended and well-meaning as you may be in your deviations from "firmly" believing in the Constitution.

I also follow the law and with hopes that the law is following the constitution.

Do you believe that the imposition of gun free zones on a free people protected by the God-given, unalienable right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed is consistent with the law(s) following the Constitution?

But I also have regard for how my actions affect other people. I try to be considerate of other people.

So do I. I have no idea what that has to do with me openly carrying the best portable tool available to defend myself should someone decide to attack me or the people around me, but I do definitely try to be considerate of other people. (That is somewhat tongue-in-cheek as I get the implication that you think it inconsiderate to OC at schools or churches or wherever you deem it so, but in reality, one has nothing to do with the other.)

I don't chit-chat during worship services or at the movies just because I can.

Neither do I. What little chit-chat I hear in those kinds of places comes from other people whispering amongst themselves about my openly carried weapon. They are, in fact, disturbing my peace and interfering with my ability to enjoy the movie and/or hear the Word of God from the pulpit. You have the aggrieved party exactly backwards in these examples.

I don't drive 45 mph down the highway just because I can.

I drive well under the speed limit for a couple of reasons. One, it saves gas and thus, money. Two, it reduces the eventuality of being stopped by a cop, and being a law-abiding citizen, I'm all about avoiding contact with the criminal entity known as "law enforcement" in this country.

I do not live my life with the attitude that I can live it how I want and to hell with everyone else.

I never wish Hell on anyone else, but besides that, the above sentence is what makes me question your "firm" belief in the Constitution. The only time anyone has a legal rationale to stifle any behavior I may engage in is if it harms them or infringes on their rights to lead their lives how they want without interference from anyone else.

I'm a private person but interact with my community. I do not choose to live in isolation.

The hidden innuendo here is staggering in its irrationality. Considering the context of the discussion where you say this, it seems clear to me that you think that anyone who OC's in or around a school (and maybe a movie theater and/or church) are somehow isolating themselves from society and/or proving by OC'ing that they are incapable of interacting with their community. And you say this at least partially in reply to a Lt. Commander in the US Navy who spends a good portion of his life deployed at sea on a ship with a community of thousands cramped altogether for months at a time. There are people here who either OC themselves, or fully support OC as an extension of their full support for the Constitution, who volunteer within their communities for all manner of civic duty. Disaster relief, Salvation Army food truck volunteers, people who went to NOLA and other affected areas after Katrina blew through, people who deliver food to, and transport seniors to doctor's appointments etc., and much, much more.

Your implication above is utterly ridiculous at best, and offensive at worst, but either way, it's just plain wrong.

Being a good citizen is a complex thing.

And so is this implication. The choice to OC is as much a representation of being a good citizen as any single act you can name. And it is decidedly not just so we "can prove a point." No one on this site who OC's has ever said it was just to prove a point. To a person who has expressed their rationale for doing it, we all OC as a way to deter crime. For sure it's to deter crime against us, but if it works to accomplish that goal (and we all believe it does), then it enures to the benefit of everyone in close proximity to us. What does your concealed weapon even have the potential to deter? Not a damned thing, so I guess we are better citizens than you, huh? I guess our ability to suss out complex equations is superior to yours, right?

I believe you are well-intentioned, but the road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. I don't relish feeling the necessity to come off as harsh, but I prefer straight talk over thoughtless and insulting innuendo. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish.

Blues
 
A general comment...

How does a liberal get their way?

They diminish the right to bear arms by talking about how no one needs to carry a gun in school, demean those who do bear arms by presenting the message that those who do carry a gun in school should know better and not cause people to feel scared, and demonize all gun carriers by taking drastic measures that are purposefully intended to raise the ire of parents against the legal gun carriers.

The disturbing thing is.... people are falling for it by blaming the legal open carriers instead of school officials who are using those nasty tactics to push their brainwashing agenda of gun control onto the kids... and by extension... onto the parents.
 
Link Removed

Another tree humping troll who thinks we should all leave our scary guns at home so as not to spook the herd...

Thank you for your extremely intelligent reply, Charles. It is very helpful. (not!) Fortunately, the others DO have something intelligent to add to the dialogue without trying to run off those who do not fall lockstep into their exact way of thinking.
I have not even stated an opinion. I am trying to form one. That is why I ask questions and seek the thoughts of others. I am trying to make an informed decision and not an emotional one. Not for one second did I advocate leaving our guns at home. I carry in my vehicle all the time and will CC when my CHL arrives sometime in the next six weeks or so. I currently own seven hand guns, two rifles and a shotgun.

I am not the enemy.
 
Like it or not the school administration is fully within their rights to lock down the school when someone shows up with a gun and if you show up know a gun knowing that’s what’s going to happen just to make a point you are at fault

I don't carry a gun to make a point. I carry a gun to protect myself and, more importantly, my family. What you are telling me is that I should not carry my gun for the protection of my family because of the emotional reaction that someone else might have to it, or because of the possibility of some politicians making it illegal. That simply is not going to happen. The lives of my family are more important to me than someone else's emotional reactions or potential government legislation.
 
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...

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.

Not only do I have kids in school, my wife is also a public school teacher. And while the officials in your district may not be using lockdowns as a weapon to force compliance with their own personal beliefs, several school officials from different districts here in W. MI are on the record as using lockdowns for PRECISELY that reason. They have made it clear that they don't care what state law says, they don't care if you are a known entity, they are going to force a de facto ban on the legal open carry of firearms and do it by holding the education of our children hostage while at the same time instilling a fear of anyone carrying a firearm who doesn't happen to be in some fort of uniform. The mayor of our piece of heaven recently used a city commission meeting to call all gun control nuts to call the police any time they see someone openly carrying a clearly holstered firearm:

“Guns make us less safe. I feel responsibility for the safety of people in Grand Rapids. I have a responsibility to speak up on this and influence public opinion.”

Since last we met as a City Commission – according to the online resource Wikipedia – there have been nine school shootings, and at least one movie theatre and one mall shooting in the United States. If that pace continues it will outstrip last year’s reported 31 school shootings. Since January 1, 2000, there have been a reported 119 school shootings in the (United States). How could we forget the
6-year-old boy in Flint who brought his uncle’s gun to school and killed his little 6-year-old classmate because, as he said, “I don’t like her.”

In Grand Rapids there have been 23 reports of gunshots and three shooting victims since January 1.

There have been uncounted numbers of suicides by gun in the country since last we met, but, if averages hold up, then 1,119 people have turned their guns on themselves and taken their lives in the last three weeks. Just over half of all suicides are by gun.

There is estimated to be 310 million guns in this country. That is one gun for every man, woman and child in the nation, save 9 million. Many of those guns are owned by unstable people or are owned by others in the homes of unstable people in which guns are readily available. The Congress of the United States has failed its responsibility to protect us from those dangerous and mentally unstable people. Every American citizen is at risk today because of our lax and irresponsible gun laws. We even had an illustration in our neighboring community of (Ionia) of two licensed gun carriers drawing on each other after a road rage incident. Both are dead.

I sit in our City Commission meeting week after week anxious and frightened because a civilian with a gun is in this chamber. I know that he can kill me, and probably others at this table or in these chambers, before the police officer in the rear of the room can react. Carrying a gun always, always represents the threat to use that gun to kill or maim another. That, after all, is why these people carry their guns.

Now the gun advocates want to “desensitize” the community to open carry. The more guns we see, they say, the less we will fear them or the people carrying them. Well, I will never be desensitized and God help us all if society accepts those bullying tactics as the norm.

I urge all citizens who feel as I do to take action. Arm yourselves with the righteousness of our position. If you see an armed person come into a store or restaurant, alert others and leave the establishment. If you see an armed person in a shopping mall or movie theatre, alert security and leave the building. If you see an armed person approaching a school, call the police. You see we can never know what that individual’s intention may be. We must always err on the side of public safety rather than regretting later, when people are dead, that we didn’t act," (emphasis added).​
[/QUOTE]
Like it or not, our Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not public sentiment or individual sensibilities. That law says that until I have a concrete reason to suspect someone of criminal intent, they are free to exercise their right FREE FROM ANY AND ALL INTERFERENCE - INCLUDING MINE.
 
Like it or not the school administration is fully within their rights to lock down the school when someone shows up with a gun and if you show up know a gun knowing that’s what’s going to happen just to make a point you are at fault
I don't carry a gun to make a point. I carry a gun to protect myself and, more importantly, my family. What you are telling me is that I should not carry my gun for the protection of my family because of the emotional reaction that someone else might have to it, or because of the possibility of some politicians making it illegal. That simply is not going to happen. The lives of my family are more important to me than someone else's emotional reactions or potential government legislation.

You are of course right in everything you say, but I think Eidolon is completely wrong on another point too, that the schools are "fully within their rights" to put a campus on lock-down when an OC'er is seen on or near the campus. The OP in this thread is about a school district in MI, and MI has a state preemption law that works fine everywhere else in the state except for that one general jurisdiction, at least as-reported by ezkl2230. Government entities don't have *rights*, they have authorities, and the semantic difference is not insignificant. They have neither the right or the authority to make up rules that the state has preempted them from making up.

Aside from that, the rest of that whiny post isn't worthy of reply. Po' po' baby feels attacked. What a mangina!

Blues
 
You are of course right in everything you say, but I think Eidolon is completely wrong on another point too, that the schools are "fully within their rights" to put a campus on lock-down when an OC'er is seen on or near the campus. The OP in this thread is about a school district in MI, and MI has a state preemption law that works fine everywhere else in the state except for that one general jurisdiction, at least as-reported by ezkl2230. Government entities don't have *rights*, they have authorities, and the semantic difference is not insignificant. They have neither the right or the authority to make up rules that the state has preempted them from making up.

Blues

You are exactly correct. Most people confuse authority and rights. This is a very clear case of school officials overstepping the bounds of their authority.
 
Here is the bottom line the way I see it. I am not responsible for other people's feelings. I am responsible with complying with state and federal law. How other people feel about me caring a gun quite frankly doesn't matter, it's their problem. So the school completely over reacting to an adult acting in a legal manner and exercising their rights is out of line, and they need to revist their policies.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
 
I fail to see why there is any concern on the part of the school officials in MI regarding the presence of a gun in the school. Only CPL holders are allowed to bring a firearm into the school in MI, right? Isn't the purpose of the CPL to ensure that the person who has the CPL is not a criminal? Isn't that why they enacted the CPL law? Then, since they only allow CPL holders to carry a firearm in the school, that means that only those people that the exact same government that runs the school has vetted as a "good guy" will be carrying the gun in the school. So why are they concerned at all about the guy with the gun in the school building? The guy with the gun must have a CPL, and to have a CPL, the guy with the gun must be a good guy and not a criminal. That's what the law says. So why is there any concern by the school officials?

Oh wait - you mean bad people still bring guns to school to shoot people? Oh, well, heck, we need to put a stop to that. We need to make it illegal for the CPL holders to bring a gun into a school.....
 
Twice this year our school district has instituted LockOUT: nobody bad in the school, but the possibility of a crazy depressed person with a gun in the area, or a probable murder ("shooting" is what we do at the range) in a nearby high school. Education continued, threat was dealt with, school went on as normal. The younger kids didn't even know anything had changed. I'd like to think if it ever became legal to carry in a school here, they'd be sensible about it. You have to be buzzed in to the school via one of those video doorbells, so if you don't know that armed person, figure it out before you let them in.
 
Public schools are like any other governing body - its authority flows from the PEOPLE. Too much of the tail wagging the dog - and too many people - even on this forum - believing that's the way it's supposed to be.
 
I fail to see why there is any concern on the part of the school officials in MI regarding the presence of a gun in the school. Only CPL holders are allowed to bring a firearm into the school in MI, right? Isn't the purpose of the CPL to ensure that the person who has the CPL is not a criminal? Isn't that why they enacted the CPL law? Then, since they only allow CPL holders to carry a firearm in the school, that means that only those people that the exact same government that runs the school has vetted as a "good guy" will be carrying the gun in the school. So why are they concerned at all about the guy with the gun in the school building? The guy with the gun must have a CPL, and to have a CPL, the guy with the gun must be a good guy and not a criminal. That's what the law says. So why is there any concern by the school officials?

Oh wait - you mean bad people still bring guns to school to shoot people? Oh, well, heck, we need to put a stop to that. We need to make it illegal for the CPL holders to bring a gun into a school.....
It is my estimation that the entire progressive agenda of brainwashing the kids to believe that guns are scary and only bad people who don't submit to authority carry them would fail if the parents of some of the kids (that the kids themselves know aren't bad guys) were able to bring guns to school with impunity. It would show how impotent the school officials actually are so the officials have hit upon the sneaky way of lock downs to prove to the kids how much power the school officials have. And the kids will interpret that as power over the kids AND the kid's parents. Imagine how a kid feels when he/she realizes that the teacher/school has the power and authority to control not only them but their parents too.

And I believe school officials are doing this lock down tactic as a way of showing legislatures that there is a dire need for new laws to ban guns in schools (that will only affect legal folks since those who shoot up schools don't care about laws... DUH!) since if guns were banned then they wouldn't be forced to put the school in lock down. The glaring fault with that is.... legal carrying of a gun isn't forcing them to lock down anything... they are just using lock downs as a tactic to gain new laws that enforce their authority.

It is a grievous, underhanded, and I believe intentional, misuse and abuse of authority.
 
I fail to see why there is any concern on the part of the school officials in MI regarding the presence of a gun in the school. Only CPL holders are allowed to bring a firearm into the school in MI, right? Isn't the purpose of the CPL to ensure that the person who has the CPL is not a criminal? Isn't that why they enacted the CPL law? Then, since they only allow CPL holders to carry a firearm in the school, that means that only those people that the exact same government that runs the school has vetted as a "good guy" will be carrying the gun in the school. So why are they concerned at all about the guy with the gun in the school building? The guy with the gun must have a CPL, and to have a CPL, the guy with the gun must be a good guy and not a criminal. That's what the law says. So why is there any concern by the school officials?

Oh wait - you mean bad people still bring guns to school to shoot people? Oh, well, heck, we need to put a stop to that. We need to make it illegal for the CPL holders to bring a gun into a school.....

We have a group of people in leadership positions who think every city should be able to make up its own policies. These people don't care about the law, they are intent on ridding us of firearms carry - period. Open carry is the natural place to begin. Once you have convinced people that the Constitution has no relevance today - and they see that exemplified by their president - then personal views take over. There is no more objective standard, and eveyone's individual standard has to be validated - unless, of course, you actually believe in the rule of law. They honestly believe what the mayor said in his speech:

Carrying a gun always, always represents the threat to use that gun to kill or maim another. That, after all, is why these people carry their guns.

We don't really care about self defense, at heart, we are all vigilantes just waiting for our chance to bust a cap in someone's backside.
 
Here is the bottom line the way I see it. I am not responsible for other people's feelings. I am responsible with complying with state and federal law. How other people feel about me caring a gun quite frankly doesn't matter, it's their problem. So the school completely over reacting to an adult acting in a legal manner and exercising their rights is out of line, and they need to revist their policies.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Sounds good in theory how did it work out with Starbucks and Open carry in California? Have you ever heard of the Mulford Act?
 
Sounds good in theory how did it work out with Starbucks and Open carry in California? Have you ever heard of the Mulford Act?

So, let's apply your theory to open carry in a school in MI. According to you, citizens in MI should not open carry in schools in MI, because if they do, it will become illegal and then once it becomes illegal they won't be able to open carry in the school that you say they should not be carrying in anyway. It's so clear to me now, I don't know how I didn't see the perfect logic in that before. And, on top of that...if they don't open carry in the schools in MI because it might be made illegal if they do then the infringement of the citizens' rights by the government cannot possibly come into question because they voluntarily chose not carry in the school - and that is such a better condition to be in; again, according to your theory - it is so much better to voluntarily refrain from doing something out of fear of government action than to actually have the government pass legislation against it (or a private business ban it on their property). After all, if the government makes it illegal or the business bans it on their property then that just ruins it for everyone, even though no one should have been doing the action in question anyway because of the possibility of the consequences.
 
So, let's apply your theory to open carry in a school in MI. According to you, citizens in MI should not open carry in schools in MI, because if they do, it will become illegal and then once it becomes illegal they won't be able to open carry in the school that you say they should not be carrying in anyway. It's so clear to me now, I don't know how I didn't see the perfect logic in that before. And, on top of that...if they don't open carry in the schools in MI because it might be made illegal if they do then the infringement of the citizens' rights by the government cannot possibly come into question because they voluntarily did not carry in the school - and that is such a better condition to be in; again, according to your theory - it is so much better to voluntarily refrain from doing something out of fear of government action than to actually have the government pass legislation against it (or a private business ban it on their property).

Like I said let's see how this plays out
 
Like I said let's see how this plays out
Well... this isn't a school yet here is the result of folks open carrying.. including one person openly carrying a slung shotgun... in a library and how that worked out in court.

Bear in mind the case was appealed to Michigan's Supreme Court but the court refused to hear the case. Which means the appeals court decision stands.

Entire decision can be read here:

Link Removed

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS

-snip-
With the exception of certain individuals, MCL 750.237a(4) prohibits the possession of a weapon in a weapon-free school zone, which is defined as “school property and a vehicle used by a school to transport students to or from school property.”
-snip-
bold added by me for emphasis

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(r4...g.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-237a

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.237a Individuals engaging in proscribed conduct; violation; penalties; definitions.
-snip-
(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), an individual who possesses a weapon in a weapon free school zone is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 1 or more of the following:
-snip-
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any of the following:
-snip-
(c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

-snip-
bold added by me for emphasis

Link Removed

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS

IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that state law preempts CADL’s weapon policy to the extent that it attempts to regulate firearms contrary to the restrictions set forth in MCL 123.1102. The library is a quasi-municipal corporation and, thus, a governmental agency subject to the principles of preemption when it attempts to regulate subject matter that is regulated by the Legislature. The Legislature, through MCL 123.1102, has expressly prohibited local government regulation of firearms and ammunition generally in cities, villages, townships, and counties, including in their libraries.
-snip-

Open carry did cause the library to seek even more restrictions on carrying both openly and concealed but those amongst the open carry community didn't blink... and they won.

But had folks not openly carried because they so afraid of offending people, of annoying the library authorities so much they would seek even more restrictions, the restrictions where going to happen anyway... not because the library had to do anything but because people were too afraid to stand up for their rights.

Who needs gun control laws when people are too afraid to carry a gun because doing so might cause... gun control laws?

Oh... and while it hasn't been tested yet in as much as the appeals court mentioned MCL 750.237a(4) a case could be made that the Appeals Court decision also applies to.... schools.
 
Sounds good in theory how did it work out with Starbucks and Open carry in California? Have you ever heard of the Mulford Act?

Hmm......Another(?) tool brought up OC in CA as though he knew what he was talking about when he clearly didn't too:

All you have to do is look at what open carry got them in California. A bunch of folks went around shoving open carry in people's faces and got their right to do so taken away.

Coincidentally, that tool's last post was on Dec. 31st and this tool's first post was on Jan. 1st, both in the same thread. Things that make you go hummm, hmmm?

Anyway, CA never had real OC. The "OC" they allowed had two insanely liberty-killing provisions - 1) OC'ed guns had to be unloaded and, 2) OC'ing that unloaded gun gave implied consent to be contacted by cops, have your weapon inspected (taken from you while the inspection is taking place), and questioned about what you're doing, where you're headed etc. Zero probable cause, zero articulable suspicion of a crime either being committed or about to be, and even that much "freedom" was too much for the tyrants in CA to tolerate. Real OC never existed in CA, only pretend OC did, and only sheep that acquiesced to being contacted and questioned for no reason ever even took "advantage" of the "liberty."

As to Starbuck's, as far as I'm concerned, it worked out fine. The CEO sent a letter asking people to voluntarily stop gathering at their locations for political demonstrations. He was more concerned with being connected to a movement that he or his company never agreed to be a part of than he was with stopping people from OC'ing in their stores where it is legal to do so. He did not instruct his managers to make OC'ers leave or cover up. He asked a movement of which he was not a part to find another place to have their political demonstrations. The worst that can be said about that is that he misunderstood the reasons for the gatherings - they were trying to say "Thank you" for not making house rules that go counter to the law in those areas where it would go counter to the law. It wasn't political, but that's how he perceived it, and he wrote a letter saying so, but no consequences of any kind came to OC'ers that I'm aware of.

The Mulford Act has nothing specifically to do with OC. It outlawed the carry of weapons on one's person or in one's vehicle in any manner in CA. That would be the *loaded* carry of weapons, which is what allowed that ridiculous, liberty-killing "OC" law to exist for the short period it did.

Three for three issues that Eidolon doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. As per usual.

Blues
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top