School Carry

armaborealis

Well-Known Fanatic
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
575
SECTION 16-23-420. Carrying or displaying firearms in public buildings or areas adjacent thereto.
(A) It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.

SECTION 16-23-430. Carrying weapons on school property; concealed weapons.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person, except state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers or personnel authorized by school officials, to carry on his person, while on any elementary or secondary school property, a knife, with a blade over two inches long, a blackjack, a metal pipe or pole, firearms, or any other type of weapon, device, or object which may be used to inflict bodily injury or death.

Have any parents or school employees tried writing to principals and asking for permission to carry?

Make them say no in writing. The worst they can say is no, and there's a chance they can say "yes," right?

So long as you have a SC permission slip (CWP) then the Federal Gun Free School Zone is not a factor.
 
Register to hide this ad
Looks like a legislator as trying to address this issue too:
http://www.wltx.com/news/article/213178 ... ng-Session
One bill filed by Representative Phillip Lowe, a Florence County Republican, would allow public school employees with authorization to carry concealed weapons to carry those firearms on the school campus where they are employed.

The bill requires approval from the local school board.

The employee would be required to keep the gun on their person at all times while on school grounds, and keep the weapon concealed when not in use.

The bill says only "frangible bullets" could be used in order to avoid ricochets. The bill explains that this type of bullet is designed to disintegrate into tiny particles, and minimize or limit the danger behind the intended target.

Those involved would have to notify the school's principal of their intention of carrying a firearm, regularly renew certification as a "precision marksman by SLED," and have no history of violence or documented anger manegement.

Another bill the "Save Our Children Gun Lock Act" would require someone to store a gun in a locked container or to utilize a trigger locking device on the gun when he or she knows or reasonable should know that child is likely to gain access to the gun without supervision.

The person could be found guilty of criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree if a child obtains a gun and causes death to themselves or someone else if the requirement was not followed.

I don't get the point. Under current law, you need the principal OR school board's permission and can School Carry on a regular CWP (and IANAL but maybe even without a CWP for employees with employer's permission...).

Under the proposed law, teachers and teachers only could apply for permission from the school board AND notify the principal for the privelege of going through an ass pain process to prove that to SLED that they can be on SEAL Team 6 as a "Precision Marksman," are required to use special ammunition, must go through an extra-strict background check, and are subject to special excess liability.

What's the point exactly?
 
The point appears to be just another case of more special groups with special permission to do special things.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... anges.html

Similarly in Michigan, they seek to have a special group of permission slip holders who get enhanced permission through enhanced training to carry in previously special gun free places.

How about we stop making special groups and get back to basic rights. We really need to start stripping laws off the books, not putting more on.

I'm getting sick of hearing about all of this training nonsense.
 
dont remember where but i heard that police were going to be hired to moonlight and be paid $30 an hour.

why not regular jobs for regular people? biggest hiring oportunity in a decade.
 
John Canuck said:
The point appears to be just another case of more special groups with special permission to do special things.

Eh, "enhanced" permits for "sensitive places" is likely the way things will go down in many states. Heller made it clear that the rules are different in some areas such as schools because they are "sensitive" for whatever reason. Circuit courts, even our big CCW win up in Chicago, affirm this logic. The legislatures also seem to operate under that logic for whatever reason. Utah is the only place I'm aware of that allows CC in a school on a permit, and Michigan is the only place I'm aware of that allows unlicensed open carry in schools. Enhanced permits also prove the concept that there will be no blood in the streets -- there needs to be some trials in a few states to demonstrate that there are zero problems.

My ideal system in the near to mid term? Constitutional Carry with an optional shall-issue permit for "sensitive places" and reciprocity purposes. I think that is actually achievable in places like Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, etc that already have Constitutional Carry.

Now, this SC scheme is just plain stupid. It makes "school carry" more restrictive than it already is, and it restricts the "privilege" to a select few based on employment/job. That's retarded.
 
Exactly, the representatives are not required to read the laws even once to qualify for their jobs. If they were required to read the laws they are charged with making and managing, I'll bet they would quickly clean them up.

Actually, that might be an interesting requirement to run for office. You have to show proof that you've read the laws at least once.

They use clerks and paralegals to do their research now.


Pops
;)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top