• 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.

Some Schools will have armed officials in Yakima County

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Wait.... DONT task the employees with intervening?

So having workers armed to protect kids is BAD now?

Damn your all over the place.....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Where did I ever say to "task" anyone with intervening.

You really are grasping at straws or do you really lack that much comprehension?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
You're just a ray of sunshine this morning. I didn't demand anyone be "endorsed" I said should a school district officially endorse carrying a gun to protect children by saying "principal Victoria your job now includes stopping school shooters do you want a sig or a glock" then yes they should train that employee. You're literally making up stuff I never said.

If you task an employee with certain job functions, it's your responsibility to ensure they are competent for those tasks. My comment is purely within the funnel of school employees carrying guns. If you're not a school employee you shouldn't have to submit yourself to any additional screening to carry in schools....

Maybe I am just getting sick of statist arguments and rationalizations for state "endorsements". Especially from someone who is now making a habit of lying about what I said or support.

You can't seem to get over the fact we don't want any endorsement, and seem to be conflating that peoples own individual actions not specifically banned somehow creates an "endorsement" and responsibility. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Maybe I am just getting sick of statist arguments and rationalizations for state "endorsements". Especially from someone who is now making a habit of lying about what I said or support.

You can't seem to get over the fact we don't want any endorsement, and seem to be conflating that peoples own individual actions not specifically banned somehow creates an "endorsement" and responsibility. :rolleyes:

My original comment was directed at a different person because of a topic relevant to the thread.... You're still making stuff up and deflecting.

If you feel I have lied about what you said you may start a new thread or pm me at any time. I won't further address the drama on this unrelated thread.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
My original comment was directed at a different person because of a topic relevant to the thread.... You're still making stuff up and deflecting.

If you feel I have lied about what you said you may start a new thread or pm me at any time. I won't further address the drama on this unrelated thread.

I have deflected nothing and have made nothing up EriK and you know it.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I have deflected nothing and have made nothing up EriK and you know it.

Yeah you are. I made one comment involving school employees, and you came out saying you didn't need anyone's permission to protect your children and the the communities childrenwhich no one really has said needed it. Well the law as written says you do, but no one here has really agreed with that law.
 
Last edited:

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Section 76-10-501; and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.

Amended by Chapter 278, 2013 General Session

We need wordage such as this in Washington state's RCW 9.41.290
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Yeah you are. I made one comment involving school employees, and you came out saying you didn't need anyone's permission to protect your children and the the communities childrenwhich no one really has said needed it. Well the law as written says you do, but no one here has really agreed with that law.


You don't pay attention well. You do realize you were not the only one in the conversation right?

That line about not needing permission was a reply to Primus and don't be dishonest EriK you know that wasn't the one comment you made.

Let's break this down.

No laws should require people to be trained to be armed at schools if they volunteer to protect children.

Laws that allow teachers to be armed (government employees) and not other volunteers and parents, are bad laws making some pigs more special.

Teachers shouldn't be tasked with being armed, they are not hired to "protect" children they are hired to teach. They shouldn't be stopped from exercising a natural right of being armed though.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
If "the law" says one thing, and everyone else says something else, then which side is more likely to be just.

I suppose that would depend upon your philosophy. If you believe process makes just then any law is ok.

When it comes to criminal law I believe offenses should be malum in se, always. So I don't believe laws banning carry on schools are right..... But if you polled the majority of people not members of OCDO you'd probably get a different reaction,,,,
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Well I guess it's a good thing I was telling someone else that we agreed...

And its not public funds paid for a public space. Its public funds paid to teach kids. Its much different then a public park of public building, etc. It has a specific unique purpose.

Would you really be ok with any random person sitting next to your kid in class? Also, last I checked there is an enrollment and drop process in schools. So not even your kid has a "right" to be there.
If tax dollars went to its construction and tax dollars are used to maintain it, it is a public building/space and as such must be open to all citizens without any preconditions, without exception. The exclusion of armed citizens from certain public facilities is in direct violation of "...shall not be infringed." There can be no regulation of rights by the state.

A kid does not have a right to go to a public school? That right there is funny.

Truancy laws...
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
If tax dollars went to its construction and tax dollars are used to maintain it, it is a public building/space and as such must be open to all citizens without any preconditions, without exception. The exclusion of armed citizens from certain public facilities is in direct violation of "...shall not be infringed." There can be no regulation of rights by the state.

A kid does not have a right to go to a public school? That right there is funny.

Truancy laws...

Just not reality. School grounds are not open to any person who just feels like showing up. You can't just decide you feel like using the monkey bars and kick a kid off of them during recess because its "public".

My question about being ok some random guy sitting next to your kid in his class still goes unanswered.

The point is a school is a place for learning. Not a public park. So a 40 year old man or woman has place in a 3 grade class. Unless they are there to assist in teaching. If they are then they fall under the rules of employment/volunteer work.

Truancy laws make it a mandate.... Not a right. Big difference.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Just not reality. School grounds are not open to any person who just feels like showing up. You can't just decide you feel like using the monkey bars and kick a kid off of them during recess because its "public".

My question about being ok some random guy sitting next to your kid in his class still goes unanswered.

The point is a school is a place for learning. Not a public park. So a 40 year old man or woman has place in a 3 grade class. Unless they are there to assist in teaching. If they are then they fall under the rules of employment/volunteer work.

Truancy laws make it a mandate.... Not a right. Big difference.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The gov steals money from individuals who don't have kids, to pay for the education of individuals who do have kids.

Yeah, the theft victims deserve nothing in return, except higher taxes next year as the people who CANNOT AFFORD to educate their own children keep pumping out rug rats.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Truancy laws make it a mandate.... Not a right. Big difference.

So, if a CHILD who is in 1st grade ends up going to a private school when they reach 2nd grade... THAT child's funding follows the body, right?

THAT CHILD'S funding doesn't stay at the SCHOOL where the child DOES NOT GO. Right?
 
Top