Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules

reply to post by BugOut


This is why I am glad forums like this exist. I have not heard of a school district doing that and all the research I have done has not turned those ideas up. Those are some excellent ideas that accomplishes the goal, protection of staff / students, identifiers for staff to outside personnel etc.

Do they actually have drills for staff so they can get used to what needs to be done under stressful conditions?

the other question I have -
Does your district have drills involving the students so they know what to expect?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


DHS really needs to step out and quit interfering with state agencies / law enforcement practices (unless you are referring to MO DPS).

As for possession of a firearm on school property MO law makes for the allowance of being able to leave that weapon in their car while on campus. A small consolation in the event of an active shooter scenario but at the very least the owner knows where a firearm is.

As for background and ability to carry a firearm. The one thing schools must look at is their liability if they openly allow their students to be armed. If the state allows it thru law, liability is shifted. As with any business if they take action on their own, they will get tagged with the responsibility of the persons actions.

I think these decisions are based more on liability than anything else. for every good person we have that is capable and trained with the use of a firearm, you will have 9 other people who are not. Those people may have the tendency to shoot first and identify targets after the fact. Instead of selective targeting they use the spray and pray theory.

The other issue involves law enforcement status and some of the shields in place for officer actions. I don't quite understand that part based solely on Mo law since MO does NOT require a person to retreat from those situations.

From the mistaken identity issue -
Some examples I have seen over the years of actual events.

An off duty officer is at the mall with his family. He hears loud shouting and what sounds like several gunshots. As the off duty officer move to the wall, he pulls his duty weapon while at the same time he sees a kid running towards him being chased by a guy with a gun.

The off duty officer engages the guy with the gun, killing him on the spot.

What he did not know was the kid running robbed the jewelry store, and squeezed of a few rounds, dropping his gun in the process. The guy chasing him was another off duty officer from a different agency who engaged the armed robber. A tragic situation but it goes into the mindset of why some things should be allowed and why some things should not be allowed.

In this case Law Enforcement got the call wrong in the end...

The other mindset is if a person is in a school / mall and has a firearm in their hand, then based on all logic and laws that person is the bad guy. The law is suppose to assist law enforcement in determining who the bad guy is by stating a civilian cant have a gun in a school / mall. The person holding the gun is most likely going to be the bad guy (not always but its suppose to reduce the possibilities).

The one thing that is not discussed is the fight / flight response.

A person will undergo physical change that can make the most articulate person and transform them into a quivering mass of stupid.

Audio exclusion
Visual exclusion
loss of fine motor control
tunnel vision

etc etc etc..

law Enforcement is trained to deal with those issues, and even then, we still go thru the same process.

The last thing you want is for 3 civilians who are armed to be shot and killed, providing the active shooter with more weapons / ammo.

mysterioustranger
Sure. But if you give everyone the right without controls to go out tonight and buy a couple guns of the street and start carrying them...how does law enforcement recognize the law-abiding citizens from law-breaking citizens? I had a background check for my license...and so...I have a license...and have training, thats all I meant.

How are you inferring from the article that the overturning of the concealed carry laws in California allows a perspective gun owner to bypass background checks?