Firearms on School Property SB0319

[dbd870]

Let's hope it passes.

 

[danimal]

My wife is a teacher for Crown Point School Corp., and I am all in for both OC and CC in schools. A while back the schools were put on lockdown for some random gunman that was up in NWI-South Chicago burbs. (Septemberish timeframe). I personally would prefer that my wife be able to keep a piece locked up in her desk drawer in case of emergency (like a GVB500 that only her and the principal could access). If she wants to carry it on her, more power to her (she's so hawt handling a 1911). But also as a parent, I would prefer that the teachers and faculty of (or anybody visiting) the school wear their firearms concealed if they did chose to keep them with them. And I wouldn't be opposed to adding firearm safety and use as part of a teacher's crisis management training.

If the cops aren't there when the shooter steps foot through the front door, the cops are too late IMO. And that's not a dig on the police, they just can't occupy all space all the time. I, nor my wife, would have any hesitation or reservation about protecting those kids or anybody else in a school, so why do politicians think it's OK to leave all of them defenseless? Are the people at the local Wal-Mart more entitled to their right of self-preservation than my wife or her students, just because of the building she is occupying???

 

[jason867]

great first post!

 

[cositc]

This is the only part i dont like I'm a legal gun owner i have a ltch, but i must be dissarmed while i'm at school plus on the way to and from. I leave home at 6:30 am from a bad area drive through downtown and then go to Tech high school, at times i dont get home until after 9:00pm.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Im not sure if this had been addressed yet in earlier posts. I just read the law 35-47-9. Im pretty sure that it states that if I legally possess a firarm then i am excempt from this law and that it only applies to people who do not legally carry. Just wondering.

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.
<A name=IC35-47-9-2>IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.

 

[jedi]

Im not sure if this had been addressed yet in earlier posts. I just read the law 35-47-9. Im pretty sure that it states that if I legally possess a firarm then i am excempt from this law and that it only applies to people who do not legally carry. Just wondering.

IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.
<A name=IC35-47-9-2>IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.

Cpt Caveman the ONLY place you (an Indiana resident who has an LTCH) can go with a frearm *AND* school property is the parking lot of said school and ONLY while you

1) are the driver of a vehicle
2) are dropping off or pick up someone that is on school property


This means you can drive a vehicle unto school property to do a pick-up/drop off ONLY. YOU CANNOT GET OUT OF THE CAR. YOU MUST BE THE DRIVER NOT A PASSENGER AS WELL.

 

[dagibson1507]

Anyone know when this goes up for a vote?

 

[revance]

It doesn't. It was never even heard in committee.

We are past the deadline to be heard in the Senate... the bill is dead.

 

[Coaster]

I agree it is a step in the right direction. Class A misdemeanor is not good but better than a Class D Felony. As a teacher I cannot have a weapon locked in my vehicle while at work (school) even though I hold a valid LTCH. Who benefits from this situation?

 

[critter592]

Well if it's dead it's a moot point. Is it because the Dems have gone AWOL?

But it would benefit me when I pick up my son from school and the teacher says "can we talk to you inside for a minute?" What do you say? "Nah, I gotta go lock up my gun first at home and drive back." I thought it was a fair bill.

 

[SirRealism]

Well if it's dead it's a moot point. Is it because the Dems have gone AWOL?

But it would benefit me when I pick up my son from school and the teacher says "can we talk to you inside for a minute?" What do you say? "Nah, I gotta go lock up my gun first at home and drive back." I thought it was a fair bill.

Yep, the unfortunate side effect of such nonsensical laws is that you're forced into choosing between two very bad alternatives: leave the gun locked in the car and commit a crime; or find some way to postpone, and sound like an idiot. Antis love this, because it's designed to prevent you from being armed in your daily life

March in lock-step, comrade, or become a criminal.

"...when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well if it's dead it's a moot point. Is it because the Dems have gone AWOL?

But it would benefit me when I pick up my son from school and the teacher says "can we talk to you inside for a minute?" What do you say? "Nah, I gotta go lock up my gun first at home and drive back." I thought it was a fair bill.

No, it's dead because the Senate committee never heard it or voted on it. The Senate, at least in 2008, and I've not seen anything to indicate a change in this position, is strongly, ardently opposed to the idea of guns being present in schools. It matters not that the states that have passed this have had no problems. It matters not that crimes are committed where armed opposition is absent. It matters not that when police arrive, they will be bringing guns and using them (once the killer has had a few minutes to end as many lives as he can.)

What do we take from this? Their objection is not to force or violence, else the arrival of police would be avoided. Their objection is not to criminals; signs, rules, and laws do not stop them. Their objection is not to being first to enact such a law; others have done so with success.

If their objection cannot be defined by fact or logic, it must be composed of something else, and I submit that it is composed of either emotion and sentiment or of politics: None of them want to be on record as having voted to allow guns at schools if some nimrod nutbag decides to show up and start shooting. None of them want to be identified by an obviously hostile media and be prevented from doing anything else to benefit their districts (I'm being kind and presuming pure motives.)

The general public attitude including blame and litigation, not to mention a media bent on crucifying anyone slightly to the right of FDR is what needs to change. I've no clue how to begin that process.

Blessings,
Bill