Gun free zone and printing

[Old Dog]

And even the fact that an individual MAY be carrying a weapon does not, in fact, automatically mean they are a danger to children, mine or anybody else's.

Never meant to imply that is the case.

And yes, we do have to let our children go forth in what's become a more dangerous world.

As someone used to say, "Trust, but verify." I generally give blanket trust to citizens who I presume are lawfully carrying concealed weapons, but there are some situations in which I'd definitely at least greet a person and look him in the eye in an attempt to check his baseline ... One hopes that our citizens up here who've gone to the trouble of obtaining a CPL have at least read all applicable RCWs pertaining to lawful carry, and aren't just picking and choosing which particular ones they're going to flaunt. Is that too much to expect?

I get that most here believe "gun free zones" are in and of themselves an atrocity and an infringement of rights, but at some point, if one is deliberately ignoring some of the laws, what's the point of obeying all of the laws?

 

[jmorris]

...if one is deliberately ignoring some of the laws, what's the point of obeying all of the laws?

Can you name anyone that always follows all laws? I bet 90% of the worlds population breaks at least one law (knowingly or not) everyday before lunchtime.

There are lots of them that are not even enforced, what’s the point of them?

 

[Waveski]

I believe that we have reached the "round-and-around we go" stage of this discussion.
(That phrase is usually followed by "and where we stop nobody knows" , but in this case we know where we will stop. )

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

@jmorris beat me to it. Name a person who ALWAYS follows ALL the laws?

I can't. And even if I did know of a person who I KNEW didn't break ANY laws that I knew of, there are thousands upon thousands of laws that I DON'T know of that I'm sure that person would have a few violations of.

Another way of phrasing your question, @Old Dog, would be "What's the point of writing all those laws in the first place?"

I really don't want to initiate a thread drift, though. So I'll reiterate my point of view:

We ALL know of people who have conducted bad behavior, who may be suspicious, who may be an idiot, who may be in violation of certain rules, regulations, or statutes. By the same token, we ALL have not only encountered such people, but we've chosen in some instances NOT to do anything about it for whatever reason. We have not, in fact, reported every person we've seen who was speeding, who has run a red light, who has drifted across traffic lanes, who has not properly used turn signals, etc. Yet all these acts COULD result in a catastrophic, fatal accident.

Why, then, did we not report each and every one of them?

If I see someone "printing" in a school zone, there are OTHER things I would take into account in determining what course of action I would take. I would not automatically report someone just for "printing". It's as simple as that.

 

[coloradokevin]

My advice:

1) Follow your gut.

2) Mind your own business.

3) If you feel like it's a likely threat, naturally report it.

4) If you feel like it's an everyday parent picking up their kid, ignore it.

Also, unless you know the person you might have no idea if they're a LEO or someone else who is authorized to carry a firearm in such a location. I've legally carried on school grounds in plain clothes on quite a few occasions over the years.

 

[Old Dog]

@jmorris beat me to it. Name a person who ALWAYS follows ALL the laws?

I can't. And even if I did know of a person who I KNEW didn't break ANY laws that I knew of, there are thousands upon thousands of laws that I DON'T know of that I'm sure that person would have a few violations of.

Another way of phrasing your question, @Old Dog, would be "What's the point of writing all those laws in the first place?"

I really don't want to initiate a thread drift, though. So I'll reiterate my point of view:

We ALL know of people who have conducted bad behavior, who may be suspicious, who may be an idiot, who may be in violation of certain rules, regulations, or statutes. By the same token, we ALL have not only encountered such people, but we've chosen in some instances NOT to do anything about it for whatever reason. We have not, in fact, reported every person we've seen who was speeding, who has run a red light, who has drifted across traffic lanes, who has not properly used turn signals, etc. Yet all these acts COULD result in a catastrophic, fatal accident.

Why, then, did we not report each and every one of them?

If I see someone "printing" in a school zone, there are OTHER things I would take into account in determining what course of action I would take. I would not automatically report someone just for "printing". It's as simple as that.

Eh, not talking about reporting people. Simply suggesting that maybe, at some time, in some place, it might be good to pay attention and maybe help out someone who is unknowingly either giving up his tactical advantage with inadvertent exposure of his concealed weapon or violating a law that could cause him a problem. Simple as that.

And I'm not gonna fall into that debate about the point of writing all the laws in the first place.

We make such a huge deal about (most) gun-owners and gun-carriers as being law-abiding citizens. My point is, we can't knowingly pick and choose what laws to obey. Are we law-abiding or not? And please, this silly notion

I bet 90% of the worlds population breaks at least one law (knowingly or not) everyday before lunchtime.

is simply not a very good argument in support of ... anything.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

@Old Dog

Gotcha!

 

[Trunk Monkey]

If I am communicating with confidence, warmth, and discretion as a fellow gunny in the know, he should be able to pick up on those social cues.

I don’t usually respond to genuine, friendly concern with FO, MYOB

It's been my experience that people do not take kindly to being corrected, especially by strangers.

 

[jmorris]

is simply not a very good argument in support of ... anything

I didn’t say it was, just pointing out the fact that it is not uncommon at all for people to knowingly or not ignore laws on the books.

If you don’t see it every day yourself, your just not aware.

Heck, we have municipalities and even States that create laws that break Federal laws, intentionally.

So, even if you do follow the law, you are breaking the law...how’s that for supporting the lawfulness of the population?

 

[AK103K]

I didn’t say it was, just pointing out the fact that it is not uncommon at all for people to knowingly or not ignore laws on the books.

If you don’t see it every day yourself, your just not aware.

Heck, we have municipalities and even States that create laws that break Federal laws, intentionally.

So, even if you do follow the law, you are breaking the law...how’s that for supporting the lawfulness of the population?

I think a lot of people dont know the laws at all, and just follow "what they are constantly told" (just watch the news any night), even when doing so, is contrary to what the law really is or allows.

Personally, I think the last part in the quote above, is done very deliberately, and intentionally, so you never really know where you stand. Everything is meant to keep us in a constant state of confusion and uncertainty and is a simple, basic tactic in deception in warfare.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I think a lot of people dont know the laws at all, and just follow "what they are constantly told" (just watch the news any night), even when doing so, is contrary to what the law really is or allows.

This. So much this. I even started a thread on some of the stupid things people (including one moderator here) have told me are in Colorado Law

 

[BSA1]

We make such a huge deal about (most) gun-owners and gun-carriers as being law-abiding citizens. My point is, we can't knowingly pick and choose what laws to obey. Are we law-abiding or not? And please, this silly notion is simply not a very good argument in support of ... anything.

Hummm. After W.W. II some NAZI’s tried the argument that they were just following orders. It didn’t work out to well for them.

Civil disobedience has proven effective many times. Ghandi and Rosa Parks are two people that immediately come to mind.

THR rules prohibit discussions about intentionally breaking the law. Yet if a few young hotheads back in the 1770’s had not chose to break a few laws where would we be today?

How about this example of widespread massive, nationwide disobedience of U.S. law? 55 mph speed limit.

But this is probably straying to far off topic.

 

[Old Dog]

After W.W. II some NAZI’s tried the argument that they were just following orders. It didn’t work out to well for them.

Oh, freakin' Lord. Really?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Civil disobedience has proven effective many times. Ghandi and Rosa Parks are two people that immediately come to mind.

Both Ghandi and Rosa Parks went to jail

 

[RETG]

Believe the OP had previously noted his state as Washington.

.

Really, where? Admittedly I do post at 4AM my time so I can easily miss, but going back this morning at 4:AM I see nothing in regard to state.

Also to the OP's note of meeting him once or twice and he saying he is not in LE, means nothing,. My neighbors where I lived never knew and most likely do not know to this date that I was in LE. I never would tell, in fact, for many years I basically could not tell for my safety and my family.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yet if a few young hotheads back in the 1770’s had not chose to break a few laws where would we be today?

They did have to wage and win a war to avoid being hanged.

 

[Speedo66]

Yes, we all possibly break a law from time to time. However, is there really any correlation between going 10 mph over the limit and a possible active shooter?

Because we know someone to be a parent or neighbor does not preclude them from being there to do harm, we'd have to be a mind reader to know that. As we've seen, several instances of school violence have been by students themselves. Knowing them growing up and as possibly good kids obviously made no difference.

 

[bearcreek]

We make such a huge deal about (most) gun-owners and gun-carriers as being law-abiding citizens.

Yes, some do make a huge deal about that, to the point where one really has to wonder if they're kidding themselves and others about their "support of the 2A". You get statements like this,

My thinking was similar. I'm pro 2A, but when someone carries in the face of laws against, I gotta wonder why.

Maybe the reason why is that that person doesn't know any better, or maybe the reason why is that that person actually is pro 2A, even if there are invalid laws in place that violate the supreme law of the land.

My point is, we can't knowingly pick and choose what laws to obey. Are we law-abiding or not?

At what point will you no longer be "law abiding"? Everyone has a limit.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

It’s possible the guy just hadn’t had enough coffee yet and screwed up. That doesn’t make it ok and we all need to pay attention, but it may be that simple.

For all we know he beat himself up mentally afterward.

 

[bearcreek]

It’s possible the guy just hadn’t had enough coffee yet and screwed up. That doesn’t make it ok and we all need to pay attention, but it may be that simple.

For all we know he beat himself up mentally afterward.

Definitely a possibility. Or he just didn't know any better. The level of ignorance about firearms laws amongst "gun people" astounds me sometimes. Just look at the near constant barrage of the same questions we get here in the legal section over and over again.

 

[BSA1]

Both Ghandi and Rosa Parks went to jail

Which proves that Freedom isn’t free. However this is drifting away from the topic.

 

[BSA1]

They did have to wage and win a war to avoid being hanged.

Some well educated people are arguing that we are in a war now. The bullets have not started flying yet but it is a very real, well financed war on the 2A.

 

[shafter]

In some states there are a lot of part time deputies who never work the road. Some sheriffs hand out badges for political reasons.

 

[Casefull]

A whole lot of hypocrisy. It’s OK if I do it but no one else better break any laws. The rules on this very forum are a strong indicator that we are already neutered and afraid of controversy.
I do think open carry and obvious printing is foolish for the one doing it. Why scare people unnecessarily.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Or he just didn't know any better.

More likely he knew perfectly well and thought he could get away with it because he was "concealed," only he wasn't. The question then is whether he is actually a good guy or a bad guy.

Some well educated people are arguing that we are in a war now. The bullets have not started flying yet but it is a very real, well financed war on the 2A.

Discussions, negotiations, and political process is not a war. It is hyperbole to call it such. It gets called a "war" as a manipulative measure to get the masses more emotionally involved. BOTH sides are doing it.