• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

church carry denied

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Do you have state laws that say you can't carry in schools or something? The GFSZ law says that anyone who holds a permit to carry a weapon that was issued in the same state the school resides is allowed to carry on school grounds.
This is an erroneous statement, and it is critical that the readers understand that, and why.

It's a classic fallacy in logical thinking: If A, then B. Not A, therefore, not B.*

This logical statement is easily demonstrated to be false:

A: Dogs.
B: Four legs.

If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it's not a dog, then it doesn't have four legs. (False - a cow is not a dog, but it does have four legs.)

In this actual case we will use:

A: A NON-permit holder.
B: Illegal to carry in a school zone.

If you are not a permit holder, then it is illegal to carry in a school zone. (True)
If you are (not) a non-permit holder (which means you ARE a permit holder), it is NOT illegal (meaning legal) to carry in a school zone. (False)

In plain English, just because you might not be breaking the GFSZA, does not mean you are not breaking any of a number of other laws that might be on the books against carrying a gun in any or a part of the GFSZA's definition of a "school zone" (on the property or within 1,000 feet of any property line). I don't know the numbers, but I would suppose many, if not most states have their own laws against carrying a gun on school grounds. The point is, unless you do the research to ensure you are not breaking ANY law, you can't assume that compliance with the terms of one law (the GFSZA) clears the way.

TFred

* Just for completeness, the valid logical statement for this case is:

If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A.

Illustrated with dogs and legs again:

If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it doesn't have four legs, then it's not a dog. (Also true, discounting birth defects or horrible injuries to said dog...)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Excellent discussion of logic, making it plain to even those who have not studied the subject.

I did want to mention this about your qualification about birth defects or injuries: Your last example is called a contrapositive. It is not so much as the first statement being true means the second must be as it is that the truth value (true or false) of the first statement will also be the truth value of the second. So the caveat about birth defects would apply to both statements. They are logically equivalent. If it is a dog, then it has four legs, barring birth defects or some horrible injury.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Excellent discussion of logic, making it plain to even those who have not studied the subject.

I did want to mention this about your qualification about birth defects or injuries: Your last example is called a contrapositive. It is not so much as the first statement being true means the second must be as it is that the truth value (true or false) of the first statement will also be the truth value of the second. So the caveat about birth defects would apply to both statements. They are logically equivalent. If it is a dog, then it has four legs, barring birth defects or some horrible injury.
I think we've just effectively geeked out the place. :)

TFred
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
This is an erroneous statement, and it is critical that the readers understand that, and why.

It's a classic fallacy in logical thinking: If A, then B. Not A, therefore, not B.*

This logical statement is easily demonstrated to be false:

A: Dogs.
B: Four legs.

If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it's not a dog, then it doesn't have four legs. (False - a cow is not a dog, but it does have four legs.)

In this actual case we will use:

A: A NON-permit holder.
B: Illegal to carry in a school zone.

If you are not a permit holder, then it is illegal to carry in a school zone. (True)
If you are (not) a non-permit holder (which means you ARE a permit holder), it is NOT illegal (meaning legal) to carry in a school zone. (False)

In plain English, just because you might not be breaking the GFSZA, does not mean you are not breaking any of a number of other laws that might be on the books against carrying a gun in any or a part of the GFSZA's definition of a "school zone" (on the property or within 1,000 feet of any property line). I don't know the numbers, but I would suppose many, if not most states have their own laws against carrying a gun on school grounds. The point is, unless you do the research to ensure you are not breaking ANY law, you can't assume that compliance with the terms of one law (the GFSZA) clears the way.

TFred

* Just for completeness, the valid logical statement for this case is:

If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A.

Illustrated with dogs and legs again:

If it's a dog, then it has four legs. (True)
If it doesn't have four legs, then it's not a dog. (Also true, discounting birth defects or horrible injuries to said dog...)

WTF are you rambling about? This is what the GFSZ Act says, and is a way for one to legally carry onto school grounds provided you are in compliance with the rest of the section. Notice I also asked if he had State laws that restricted carry at schools further than the federal law. In Alabama there aren't any State laws that restrict carry on public school premises, so my level of compliance is within the GFSZ law. His might not be, which is why I asked. I didn't say anything illogical, nor did I say anything untrue. I asked a question, then stated a federal law.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
WTF are you rambling about? This is what the GFSZ Act says, and is a way for one to legally carry onto school grounds provided you are in compliance with the rest of the section. Notice I also asked if he had State laws that restricted carry at schools further than the federal law. In Alabama there aren't any State laws that restrict carry on public school premises, so my level of compliance is within the GFSZ law. His might not be, which is why I asked. I didn't say anything illogical, nor did I say anything untrue. I asked a question, then stated a federal law.
ADobbs1989 said:
The GFSZ law says that anyone who holds a permit to carry a weapon that was issued in the same state the school resides is allowed to carry on school grounds.
Well, what I am "rambling" about is the fact that yes, indeed, Virginia does have a state law against carrying a gun on school grounds, and the fact that your statement IS untrue, because as I said in my rambling, complying with one law does not guarantee that you are complying with ALL laws. Whether or not your sentence structure was on purpose, it presents a logically invalid conclusion, and someone who reads it, without understanding that fact and why, might find themselves in a heap of trouble some day.

I have an awful lot of posts on this forum, and I assure you, I do not nitpick just for the fun of it. It is essential that we correct wrong information, to safeguard the freedom and reputation of us all.

TFred
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Well, what I am "rambling" about is the fact that yes, indeed, Virginia does have a state law against carrying a gun on school grounds, and the fact that your statement IS untrue, because as I said in my rambling, complying with one law does not guarantee that you are complying with ALL laws. Whether or not your sentence structure was on purpose, it presents a logically invalid conclusion, and someone who reads it, without understanding that fact and why, might find themselves in a heap of trouble some day.

I have an awful lot of posts on this forum, and I assure you, I do not nitpick just for the fun of it. It is essential that we correct wrong information, to safeguard the freedom and reputation of us all.

TFred

My information was not wrong. When I asked if he had any state laws against carry that is a complete realization that federal law is not the only law that could be in play. Now if I would have simply stated that the GFSZ Act says if you have a permit you can carry, THEN you would have made a valid point, but considering I first inquired about his states laws you did not. If someone misunderstands my post then that is their failure of reading comprehension, not mine for giving false information, which I didn't do.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
My information was not wrong. When I asked if he had any state laws against carry that is a complete realization that federal law is not the only law that could be in play. Now if I would have simply stated that the GFSZ Act says if you have a permit you can carry, THEN you would have made a valid point, but considering I first inquired about his states laws you did not. If someone misunderstands my post then that is their failure of reading comprehension, not mine for giving false information, which I didn't do.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the first part.

Perhaps you can choose to see my post as clarifying your claim.

I don't want to leave any readers in the position of having to properly interpret an unclear post to keep themselves out of jail.

But I hope we are all still friends.

TFred
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Leave that church and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Tell the preacher why and walk away, no discussions. He don't give a rip about you, your immortal soul, or your family.

The building is not the "church" that Jesus speaks of.
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
WA state law leaves an exception, it would be interesting to check the VA law.


RCW 9.41.280
Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

(a) Any firearm;
If a church is using the school, it is no longer being "exclusively" used by the school.
mikeyb,

You are misreading the RCW and could get someone in trouble.

Let's parse this out: ({or} added for clarity)

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on,

public or private elementary or secondary school premises,

{or}

school-provided transportation,

or

areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

This is three separate places where carry and possession is unlawful. The 'areas of facilities' phrase is NOT a modifier of the other two.

An example of the 'facilities' would be if a school rented a bowling alley for a school function and has control over who is allowed entry, they would have exclusive use and firearms would be unlawful.

If the school was merely holding a party at the bowling alley, but the general public still has normal access, they would not have exclusive use, and this RCW would not apply.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That's one of the things I love about this site. We have folks here who have remarkable command of the language--more so than on almost any other site on which I have posted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
mikeyb,

You are misreading the RCW and could get someone in trouble.

Let's parse this out: ({or} added for clarity)



This is three separate places where carry and possession is unlawful. The 'areas of facilities' phrase is NOT a modifier of the other two.

An example of the 'facilities' would be if a school rented a bowling alley for a school function and has control over who is allowed entry, they would have exclusive use and firearms would be unlawful.

If the school was merely holding a party at the bowling alley, but the general public still has normal access, they would not have exclusive use, and this RCW would not apply.

Well dangnabit anyways! I stand corrected. This is gonna suck now, since I'd like to carry at softball tournaments this summer. Couple hundred kids and parents in an outdoor ball field. That's a pretty big target for crazy people.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
is that just plain old "bollocks" or is it "the dog's bollocks"? There is quite a difference

The British slang version.
"As well as its use as an exclamation, "bollocks" can be used as a noun to annunciate a lie, an incorrect statement, an unfair situation, misfortune or a hiding to nothing, i.e. "what a load of bollocks" or "bollocks, more like."
 
Top