Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 08:48:13 AM
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5500.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5500.pdf)
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on January 22, 2015, 09:29:33 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on January 22, 2015, 11:01:35 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2015, 11:02:58 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on January 22, 2015, 11:03:49 AM
Post by: Special T on January 22, 2015, 11:12:36 AM
Post by: bowbuild on January 22, 2015, 01:33:45 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on January 22, 2015, 01:35:53 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2015, 01:44:02 PM
Voted NO! They wearing a banner when entering school grounds?? :bash: :bash:If they won't allow teachers to carry, then ex-cops not easily identified should not be exempt.
So fewer guns is better then. :dunno: Your reasoning is questionable. Although I agree with you that teachers should be able to carry (as a matter of my personal opinion, I believe everyone should be able to carry in a school), just because they can't doesn't mean we should eliminate others who should be allowed. The more people who are allowed to carry firearms in our schools the greater the chance an active shooter event can be interrupted and/or stopped. I think that retired officers are being considered in this bill because of past experience and that they're the ones likely to get hired into a security position.
Post by: CP on January 22, 2015, 01:50:27 PM
How many people would this bill possibly effect?
Everyone that attends or works at a school.
Post by: bowbuild on January 22, 2015, 03:06:50 PM
Voted NO! They wearing a banner when entering school grounds?? :bash: :bash:If they won't allow teachers to carry, then ex-cops not easily identified should not be exempt.
So fewer guns is better then. :dunno: Your reasoning is questionable. Although I agree with you that teachers should be able to carry (as a matter of my personal opinion, I believe everyone should be able to carry in a school), just because they can't doesn't mean we should eliminate others who should be allowed. The more people who are allowed to carry firearms in our schools the greater the chance an active shooter event can be interrupted and/or stopped. I think that retired officers are being considered in this bill because of past experience and that they're the ones likely to get hired into a security position.
Really?? So some man/woman is seen carrying a gun on campus, the mere site of the gun sets the wheels in motion of "shooter" on campus and staff respond, with calls to police, and kids panic...so, what is unrealistic about that. We have seen numerous responses recently by police that have no ended well, because of perception.......If I were a officer, I would want easy to understand clear cut rules.....exceptions are problems waiting to happen.
I would go so far as to say ONLY UNIFORMED officers are to respond to calls at a school campus, easier to know a real shooter from someone that is not a threat. Would agree with uniformed security with weopons.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 22, 2015, 03:20:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2015, 03:57:52 PM
Voted NO! They wearing a banner when entering school grounds?? :bash: :bash:If they won't allow teachers to carry, then ex-cops not easily identified should not be exempt.
So fewer guns is better then. :dunno: Your reasoning is questionable. Although I agree with you that teachers should be able to carry (as a matter of my personal opinion, I believe everyone should be able to carry in a school), just because they can't doesn't mean we should eliminate others who should be allowed. The more people who are allowed to carry firearms in our schools the greater the chance an active shooter event can be interrupted and/or stopped. I think that retired officers are being considered in this bill because of past experience and that they're the ones likely to get hired into a security position.
Really?? So some man/woman is seen carrying a gun on campus, the mere site of the gun sets the wheels in motion of "shooter" on campus and staff respond, with calls to police, and kids panic...so, what is unrealistic about that. We have seen numerous responses recently by police that have no ended well, because of perception.......If I were a officer, I would want easy to understand clear cut rules.....exceptions are problems waiting to happen.
I would go so far as to say ONLY UNIFORMED officers are to respond to calls at a school campus, easier to know a real shooter from someone that is not a threat. Would agree with uniformed security with weopons.
Yes really. First of all, if the restrictions were dropped, people would know that someone carrying isn't necessarily a bad thing. And, even if they didn't and called it in, there's no harm, no foul. I'd rather have a false alarm called in than no ability at all to repel an active shooter. Presently, there's no ability unless an active duty cop is stationed at the school. Secondly, we're talking about most people still being in their cars or carrying concealed. It's ridiculous I can't have my firearm while I'm waiting in the parking lot to pick-up my daughter. It's ridiculous that teachers can't carry. Hundreds of thousands of people carry everyday around children all over the country and they aren't having accidents or shooting them. A school would be no different. It would certainly be a safer place than one where a madman knows he can kill unopposed.
Post by: NW-GSP on January 22, 2015, 05:21:17 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 06:02:10 PM
Retired LE has been trained for years, 20+ years. This is a step in the right direction to ending gun free zones in schools. I would add that I'd like to see them able to carry on school grounds provided they meet all the conditions of LEOSA, in fact it could just simply be tagged on to LEOSA nationally.
baby steps - last thing I want to see is a bunch of armed folks tramping around the school grounds like they did in the legislature recently.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 06:09:49 PM
Post by: Crunchy on January 22, 2015, 06:13:55 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
Its not an added right, its an added responsibility.
Post by: HUNTaHOLIC5 on January 22, 2015, 06:16:04 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.:yeah:
Post by: SCRUBS on January 22, 2015, 06:25:08 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 06:34:33 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: rtspring on January 22, 2015, 06:54:09 PM
Post by: timberfaller on January 22, 2015, 06:54:39 PM
Why?
Because some of them go off the deep end later on in life TOO!!
Post by: rtspring on January 22, 2015, 06:58:05 PM
I'm not in favor of the general public carrying on school grounds, the fiasco in the legislature chamber is a good example why. No training is required to carry concealed. I'm not in favor of teachers carrying concealed unless they have mandatory training.
Retired LE has been trained for years, 20+ years. This is a step in the right direction to ending gun free zones in schools. I would add that I'd like to see them able to carry on school grounds provided they meet all the conditions of LEOSA, in fact it could just simply be tagged on to LEOSA nationally.
baby steps - last thing I want to see is a bunch of armed folks tramping around the school grounds like they did in the legislature recently.
I highly doubt a young stupid kid would go shoot up a school knowing those armed folks trampling around..... So pick your poison, im gonna go with the armed folks trampling around. The only way to combat a guy with a gun is others having guns should an attack occur... You and millions of others dont get this FACT..
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 07:13:43 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Flying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on January 22, 2015, 07:29:37 PM
As far as professions go, retired LEO's are the best overall trained to mitigate felonious assaultive actively at school events. Second, only to active uniformed officers and non-uniformed officers (off duty/Detectives). :twocents:
I know several CCP holders I would want mingled with students at school events, but I also know a couple I would not.
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 07:37:25 PM
Certified LEOs can fly armed while off-dutyFlying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 07:48:21 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Flying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.
1) Forget on duty, I wasn't talking about on duty. Also for clarification, I don't have friends in jail, or courtrooms nor drink armed, heck I don't even go to bars but once in a blue moon. 2-3 times a year for a burger at most. It's a hypothetical so don't get all bent thinking I'm like that. I'm not.
2) Your point is valid, and I'm trying to explore your point, allowing civilian retired LE on school while barring all other concealed permit holders.
This is why I mentioned LEOSA. LEOSA does grant additional carry privileges to retired LE that's not available to other citizens, this is why I said it should be tagged to that. To make an RCW granting retired LE access to armed carry within schools might not be the correct avenue to take with this.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 22, 2015, 08:01:41 PM
assinine rule is applied.
ALL concealed carry holders shouldn't have thier 2 Amendment rights trampled on either.
Post by: Jingles on January 22, 2015, 08:03:44 PM
He she it is retired and or off duty therefore Nothing special, he77 they aren't anything special even when they are on duty as far as I'm concerned........
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 08:10:29 PM
My worry is a teacher is carrying armed and a student plays the knock out game, gets the gun then commences to shooting the place up.
Ya, concealed is concealed...but spend enough time concealed there's going to be a slip up eventually then word will get around the school so-and-so teacher is packin.
Post by: 10thmountainarcher on January 22, 2015, 08:13:00 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
This bill is only for retired, off duty Leos can already carry on school grounds.
Post by: 10thmountainarcher on January 22, 2015, 08:15:51 PM
No because they are retired and aren't any different that John Q Public and who ever thinks otherwise needs to pull their head out of their AZZ.
He she it is retired and or off duty therefore Nothing special, he77 they aren't anything special even when they are on duty as far as I'm concerned........
Federally they are recognized differently with LEOSA
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 22, 2015, 08:23:52 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on January 22, 2015, 08:34:09 PM
So if 2 folks were armed and converging on a perceived shooter and both who have never seen the other and they see a weapon what column would they put the person in " Good Guy" or " Bad Guy"
I kinda gotta think that if something is going down and 2 dudes pullup in response to said threat that a wink and a nod is probably all that's required.
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 08:34:58 PM
So if 2 folks were armed and converging on a perceived shooter and both who have never seen the other and they see a weapon what column would they put the person in " Good Guy" or " Bad Guy"
got a dozen armed civilians in school and some kids lights off a firecracker in the hallway
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 08:36:29 PM
So if 2 folks were armed and converging on a perceived shooter and both who have never seen the other and they see a weapon what column would they put the person in " Good Guy" or " Bad Guy"
I kinda gotta think that if something is going down and 2 dudes pullup in response to said threat that a wink and a nod is probably all that's required.
wink and a nod? :chuckle: serious?
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 22, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
So if 2 folks were armed and converging on a perceived shooter and both who have never seen the other and they see a weapon what column would they put the person in " Good Guy" or " Bad Guy"
got a dozen armed John Wayne wanna be's in school and some kids lights off a firecracker in the hallway
Ok field Edit
If they were LEO's they would both be giving direction to the other to comply and then both would have to let their guard down enough to verify the others credentials.
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 08:51:05 PM
So if 2 folks were armed and converging on a perceived shooter and both who have never seen the other and they see a weapon what column would they put the person in " Good Guy" or " Bad Guy"
got a dozen armed John Wayne Wanna be's in school and some kids lights off a firecracker in the hallway
Ok field Edit
If they were LEO's they would both be giving direction to the other to comply and then both would have to let their guard down enough to verify the others credentials.
"STOP POLICE!"
"I am police too!"
"Show your credentials then!"
"you first!"
"no, you first!"
"NO, YOU FIRST!!"
"NO YOU FIRST I INSIST!!!"
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 22, 2015, 09:32:53 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 10:55:51 PM
OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.
This bill is only for retired, off duty Leos can already carry on school grounds.
If I am correct, and I usually am, if this is true it is because of a particular states law and not a function of LEOSA. Despite its intent LESOA does not preempt all state laws.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 10:57:06 PM
How many people would this bill possibly effect?
If its a provision of LEOSA, which the conversation has steered towards, it would be any LEO or even a quasi-LEO who either retires or serves 10 years without gettin' canned.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 11:01:14 PM
It could be said that because of conjoining department and TSA regs that at this point the LEO isn't 100% off duty.Certified LEOs can fly armed while off-dutyFlying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 11:05:38 PM
licensed law abiding people haven't been allowed to brings guns to school thereby introducing a firearm where previously there were none.
My worry is a teacher is carrying armed and a student plays the knock out game, gets the gun then commences to shooting the place up.
Ya, concealed is concealed...but spend enough time concealed there's going to be a slip up eventually then word will get around the school so-and-so teacher is packin.
That's why John Lott wrote "more guns, less crime." the solution isn't less guns, its more.
For the record I think that concerned parents and even teachers would be a better asset than off duty or retired LEOs. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2015, 11:07:46 PM
When an LEO is flying to Disneyland with his family, he is considered off duty to me. And in this situation he is flying armed. You can call it what you want. But to me if someone is flying armed and isn't being paid, then he isn't "on duty."It could be said that because of conjoining department and TSA regs that at this point the LEO isn't 100% off duty.Certified LEOs can fly armed while off-dutyFlying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2015, 11:39:18 PM
I support it - but I would like to see anyone eligible able to carry concealed allowed to carry on school property. I believe it would be a net gain in school safety.
+1
Only thing that concerns me is those intent on going to a school and killing are going to regardless. I would prefer to have trained/permitted armed men/women at our schools but limiting to a small number of individuals like retired LEO's makes them the initial target.
Why give specifics to those whack jobs and make it easy for them? Why not allow all those with permits to carry and keep the perps guessing who might be armed, rather than painting targets on one or two people? :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 23, 2015, 09:47:16 AM
What is the purpose for him to carry on a flight? Just personal choice, and can decide to ignore threats? Or does he have a duty to protect?When an LEO is flying to Disneyland with his family, he is considered off duty to me. And in this situation he is flying armed. You can call it what you want. But to me if someone is flying armed and isn't being paid, then he isn't "on duty."It could be said that because of conjoining department and TSA regs that at this point the LEO isn't 100% off duty.Certified LEOs can fly armed while off-dutyFlying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: bigtex on January 23, 2015, 09:49:34 AM
Same reason people carry on the streets. Basically if he is carrying on a flight he is acting as an air marshal. No drinking, sleeping, etc.What is the purpose for him to carry on a flight? Just personal choice, and can decide to ignore threats? Or does he have a duty to protect?When an LEO is flying to Disneyland with his family, he is considered off duty to me. And in this situation he is flying armed. You can call it what you want. But to me if someone is flying armed and isn't being paid, then he isn't "on duty."It could be said that because of conjoining department and TSA regs that at this point the LEO isn't 100% off duty.Certified LEOs can fly armed while off-dutyFlying armed, sitting in front of the judge, visiting friends(?) in jail, are all on duty activities. Please carefully re-read my OP. As far as drinking alcohol I'm guessing pretty much every agency is going to prohibit drinking unless its Donnie Brasco, deep cover type work. I don't know of states that prohibit alcohol consumption while armed granting exemption to LE.OPPOSE. LEOs are not entitled to more rights than citizens when off duty or retired. Let EVERY CCW holder carry their gun to school. Passage of such a bill will not cause a single school shooting.By this logic I demand my second amendment right to carry concealed when I fly, go drinking, sit in front of the judge, visit friends in jail and watch the Seahawks play at home.
Post by: Crunchy on January 23, 2015, 09:57:31 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 23, 2015, 10:14:34 AM
I may be wrong on this but I believe only federal LEOs can fly armed while off duty. Its tricky enough to fly armed while on duty as an LEO. Requires some paperwork, and clearance from the airline ahead of time. You cannot just show up and flash a badge.
not so simple as flashing a badge and walking on a plane..
http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/law-enforcement-officers-flying-armed (http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/law-enforcement-officers-flying-armed)
Post by: lamrith on January 23, 2015, 10:25:51 AM
Yes you CAN have your gun on you if you have a concealed pistol license There is a specific provision in the law allowing carry on school GROUNDS by cpl holders when picking up and dropping off students. However you cannot enter any buildings.Voted NO! They wearing a banner when entering school grounds?? :bash: :bash:If they won't allow teachers to carry, then ex-cops not easily identified should not be exempt.
So fewer guns is better then. :dunno: Your reasoning is questionable. Although I agree with you that teachers should be able to carry (as a matter of my personal opinion, I believe everyone should be able to carry in a school), just because they can't doesn't mean we should eliminate others who should be allowed. The more people who are allowed to carry firearms in our schools the greater the chance an active shooter event can be interrupted and/or stopped. I think that retired officers are being considered in this bill because of past experience and that they're the ones likely to get hired into a security position.
Really?? So some man/woman is seen carrying a gun on campus, the mere site of the gun sets the wheels in motion of "shooter" on campus and staff respond, with calls to police, and kids panic...so, what is unrealistic about that. We have seen numerous responses recently by police that have no ended well, because of perception.......If I were a officer, I would want easy to understand clear cut rules.....exceptions are problems waiting to happen.
I would go so far as to say ONLY UNIFORMED officers are to respond to calls at a school campus, easier to know a real shooter from someone that is not a threat. Would agree with uniformed security with weopons.
Yes really. First of all, if the restrictions were dropped, people would know that someone carrying isn't necessarily a bad thing. And, even if they didn't and called it in, there's no harm, no foul. I'd rather have a false alarm called in than no ability at all to repel an active shooter. Presently, there's no ability unless an active duty cop is stationed at the school. Secondly, we're talking about most people still being in their cars or carrying concealed. It's ridiculous I can't have my firearm while I'm waiting in the parking lot to pick-up my daughter. It's ridiculous that teachers can't carry. Hundreds of thousands of people carry everyday around children all over the country and they aren't having accidents or shooting them. A school would be no different. It would certainly be a safer place than one where a madman knows he can kill unopposed.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2015, 12:13:24 PM
At the hearing there were two people that testified. The one is testified in favor was Senator Roach who stated: Retired law enforcement officers have been trained on how to use firearms and we need to take advantage of their expertise. These retired officers could have a very good chance to help people when emergencies happen on school grounds.
The one who spoke against stated: This would be an additional risk at schools because the retired officers' identification
is not checked when they enter school facilities. The school personnel will not know if the retired officer is now mentally ill.
Post by: floatinghat on February 02, 2015, 07:21:46 AM
Wasn't the cop (ex) who shot the guy for texting in FL retired? How often are retired officers going to schools that this is even something to talk about?