Johnny Cash sang of a young cowboy named Billy Joe whose mother warned him not to take his guns to town. He went to town and got drunk at the bar when another patron started talking trash. Enraged and, perhaps, emboldened by booze and his firearms, Billy Joe drew on the trash talking cowpoke. But the other guy was faster and shot Billy Joe first. Had he followed his mother’s advice, he might well have walked away and lived.
Ignoring the wisdom of Johnny Cash at their peril (as do we all), the Indiana General Assembly has moved legislation forward that would facilitate the presence of guns at or near schools. SB 229, as recently amended, removes schools from the places exempt from the 2009 “Bring Your Gun to Work” legislation.
Generally speaking, the legislation would allow possession of a firearm in school parking lots if the firearm is in the locked trunk or glove compartment of a vehicle, and it would prevent property owners from adopting or enforcing rules to the contrary.
Are students of driving age allowed to bring guns to school?
I think it’s only if they are a member of a school sanctioned shooting club or the like. Otherwise, the school can pass a rule prohibiting them from having guns. (That’s after a quick read – if someone else is reading differently, I’d defer to them.)
I am a licensed gun owner. I carry my gun so I can protect myself, my family, or anyone else that might be in danger. The most dangerous walk I have to make is from my law school to my car where there are rapes and robberies at least monthly if not bi-weekly. Why did I even get a license if I’m not allowed to protect myself when I am most vulnerable? Nobody has ever said, “I was going to shoot up the school but they have a gun ban, so I changed my mind.”
I’m planning a business card for those places that allow people with guns. On encountering a person with a gun at his side, I’ll leave them with the message “We were interested in this place until we saw that you welcome people who are so afraid of strangers that they think they need to carry a weapon. You don’t need our business, and we can get what we need from someone else.”. Like they say, “It’s just business.”
Good luck spotting those people. I’ve carried a gun for 5 years and I have never shown it. It isn’t bothering you or anyone’s business anymore than my cell phone or car keys.
Good for you, Stuart. The voluntary market in action.
Why the hoplophobia? Are you more afraid of the gun, “hoplophobia,” fear of arms, or the man carrying the gun, “homophobia,” fear of man?
Weapons possession of any sort is patently incompatible with a free society. So why do gun-lovers hate freedom so much?
I’m pro-gun registration, anti-gun show sales, background screening on all sales or transfers, and limits on what types of firearms should be on the market. But the way you describe it, this bill seems pretty valid to me. If the gun is locked up in a car, out of sight, I don’t see the issue. Chances are this is happening dozens of times a day in our state as people forget they have their weapon on, pull in for a school meeting or to see Jr’s basketball game, and stick it in their glove compartment vs drive it all the way back home.
Seems pretty common sense to me. If you decide to take it out of the car and carry it around school then that’s a no-no.
Personally I think what we need to do is get RID of concealed carry. If you want to wear a firearm, wear it on your hip, in the open, where everyone can see it. If its supposed to be a crime deterrent, as many 2nd Amendment folks claim, then I think advertising “I will shoot your ass dead” on your hip is a lot more of a deterrent. At the same time, it would be up to public and private establishments to decide whether they want a gun on their premises, and they’d have the right to put up a sign saying “No Shoes / No Shirt / No Shooting / No Service.”
Maybe you can explain the appeal of concealed-carry or open-carry to me, because I don’t understand why a private citizen would carry a gun all the time, unless you were a repo man or something. Why would you want to advertise “I will shoot your ass dead” to everyone you see? What is it that makes you decide that you need to be ready for armed conflict at all times? And that if it happens, you unquestionably will be the hero who shoots down the bad guy, with no damage to others — including yourself. I guess I don’t get the idea that anymore an armed citizenry is the only thing keeping our government from turning against us, because the government has tanks and nuclear weapons, which we don’t get. Clearly, you know where I stand on this, but my question isn’t about what the Second Amendment says. It’s about a mindset that says I have to be ready to kill or die, all the time (or most of it).
“Maybe you can explain the appeal of concealed-carry or open-carry to me, because I don’t understand why a private citizen would carry a gun all the time”
Irrational fear, believing the wild west mythos or penis size issues.
“Being ready for armed conflict at all times” is a bit hyperbolic, but i’ll grant that there are crazies out there who think its necessary. The biggest example I can give is this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iraq-vet-indianapolis-lured-death-craiglist-ad-ipad-reports-article-1.1541427
I wouldn’t go to a craigslist deal, EVER, regardless of the location or item, without being armed (nor would I go alone). Then again, I don’t do many Craigslist deals, but having friends who do, I have tagged along on more than my share.
The problem with that example is that the vet was armed with a handgun at the time of the deal.
http://www.wthr.com/story/24154370/2013/12/06/brothers-arrested-for-west-indianapolis-craigslist-murder
As a practical matter, it seems like in a one-on-one matchup, the guy who pulls out the gun first wins. There’s no time for defense.
Why do you care, EH? It’s a man’s choice and a man’s decision how he wants to protect himself. Neither you nor I have any business intruding in that most foundational act of sovereignty.
Because I genuinely want to know. It’s no more intruding for me to ask than for someone else to ask, incredulously, why I DON’T carry a gun with me at all times.
Nobody’s going to answer you squarely, because the answer is obvious, and the people who carry don’t trust you. For example, it never crosses my mind to ask a guy why he’s carrying, any more than I’d ask a guy why he bought a fast car and likes to get on it.
Folks will be willing to discuss the various types of carry with you, once they know you’re one of them,
You not carrying a gun is what Economics refers to as the Free Rider problem, though carrying is a serious personal responsibility that very few gun owners would dare force on someone not comfortable with the obligations of the act.
“Nobody’s going to answer you squarely, because the answer is obvious, and the people who carry don’t trust you.”
Well, you’ve certainly answered my question squarely.
Reference to the Free Rider effect is incorrect. Those nonparanoid citizens that do not choose to carry deadly weapons in no way provides them an economic benefit. Especially when considering the mentally defective individuals that generally are so paranoid that the must carry a gun that cannot effectively use and will usually be taken from them and used against them when confronted with a dangerous situation.
Ex, I just thought you’d want to know that Illinois and Chicago now have CCW. You can walk around Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, or whatever libbed-up area you prefer, and the guy walking down the street can legally have a gun on him.
A gun locked in the car at the parking lot is that much closer for bending the rules a little to show it off, or escalate a conflict, as the Cash song brilliantly exemplifies. Not that the legislation really changes what’s possible to do, since a glove compartment rarely gets inspected. Rather, I see it as another ploy to market guns via advertising the idea that it’s normal, cool, and frankly encouraged to have them everywhere. It’s not really about the legislation, it’s about the publicity that surrounds it.
I wonder what is the correct balance between property owners and people who want to have a gun nearby. Here, the State is saying that the school (as property owner) can’t set a rule about what visitors can and can’t bring on the property.
An earlier general assembly already made this decision restricting the rights of employers to regulate their property but, probably because there were kids involved, exempted schools.
The school is not the property owner. The Public owns Carmel High School.
I wish The Public all the best when it tries to get a reverse mortgage on its property like Fred Thompson is always going on about.
So Carmel High School is private an can impose prayer before class?
Good to know.
That’s not only not right. It’s not even wrong.
Saying the public is the owner of a school is about as valid as telling a cop you pay his salary. In the abstract, it’s true… the school is a public building, but the public has little direct control over the going’s on. The school board and legislature set the policies that effect it. If you want to change things you cannot do so directly, by simply stating “From hitherforth all students shall carry a gun at all times”, though, you could (I suppose) get a majority of school board members elected that believe that, and then do the same at the state level with the legislature to make it happen.
Just like I can’t walk to an Army base and demand to drive a tank because “I paid for that.” Or just like I can’t walk into the Indiana Statehouse chambers without going through a metal detector even if I protest “why do I need to be searched to go into something I pay for”?
Poor millennial. Only recently did those obnoxious metal detectors go in, and how sad it is that the sheeple accepted them. Your generation will have no memory of freedom, so it will be easy to constrict your puny freedoms even further.
Oh, are you of the generation that left America a crippling national debt?
Thanks for that. Sure you’re proud of it.
You mean the Wilsonian Progressives, the “New Dealers” and the “Great Society” folks?
Sounds like a yes to me.
Millennial? I’m flattered! Thanks! It’s almost like someone thought I was too young to buy liquor!
To try and explain to you why many Hoosiers choose to go armed is futile. It would be like trying to explain why I vote. Every person will have a different reason and none of them would satisfy those of an opposing viewpoint.